A Simulation Model of An Autonomous Helicopter

M. G. Perhinschi
National Aerospace Research Institute,
Bucharest, Romania

J. V. R. Prasad
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA, USA

Abstract

This paper describes a simulation model that has been used for controller design and stability and
performance analysis of a micro X-CELL helicopter as central element of the Autonomous Scout Rotorcraft
Testbed (ASRT) developed at Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA. The general model, simple, yet
comprehensive and efficient for the task at hand, consists of the following elements: helicopter model, controller,
actuators, Global Positioning System (GPS) model and atmospheric turbulence model. Each module is described
with emphasis on major specific characteristics. Simulation results, both for hover and forward flight conditions,
are presented to illustrate the controller performance and aircraft response to specific commands.

Biography

M. G. Perhinschi. Mr. Perhinschi received his Dipl. Eng. degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the
Polytechnic Institute, Bucharest, Romania in 1984 and the M.S. degree in Aerospace Engineering from the
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia in 1994. He was with the Aircraft Enterprise in Bucharest,
Romania from 1984 to 1986 as a Design Engineer and with the Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Flight
Dynamics, Bucharest, Romania from 1986 to 1993 as an Aerospace Research Engineer. He is currently with the
National Aerospace Research Institute, Bucharest, Romania holding the position of Senior Researcher in the
Laboratory of Flight Dynamics and Control. His major interest area includes: modelling and simulation of
aerospace systems, handling qualities of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, applications of human pilot models,
autonomous vehicle control, artificial intelligence techniques applied to aerospace related problems.

J. V. R. Prasad. Dr. Prasad received his B.Tech and M.S. degrees in Aeronautical Engineering from the Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras, India, in 1974 and 1982, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in Aerospace
Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia in 1985. He was with the Helicopter
Design Bureau of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore, India, as an Aeronautical Engineer from 1975 to
1980 and as a Deputy Design Engineer from 1980 to 1982. He worked as a Research Associate in the School of
Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech from 1985 to 1987. Since then, he has been a faculty member in the
Flight Mechanics and Control area in the School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech and he currently
holds the rank of an Associate Professor. His research interests include flight vehicle modeling and simulation,
atmospheric turbulence modeling and simulation, and nonlinear and adaptive control with applications. He
served as the Chairman of the Technical Committee on Handling Qualities of the American Helicopter Society
during 1994-96. He is a Senior Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and a member
of the American Helicopter Society.
 Nomenclature
β flapping angle of the control rotor
a GPS error dynamics parameter
A system matrix of the general model βc longitudinal flapping angle of the control
rotor
A* system matrix of the intermediate
helicopter model βs lateral flapping angle of the control rotor
 , A int , A L auxiliary matrices γ Lock number

A1 θ pitch attitude angle

lateral cyclic of the control rotor
θb main rotor blade pitch angle
A1* pseudo lateral cyclic
θc main rotor collective
B control matrix of the general model
Bt control matrix of the general model with θ cmd pitch attitude command
turbulence effects θ ct tail rotor collective
B *
control matrix of the intermediate model ξ limited extension coefficient of the control
B̂ , B int , B L auxiliary matrices rotor blade
ϕ roll attitude angle
B1 longitudinal cyclic angle of the control
rotor
ϕ cmd roll attitude command

B1* pseudo longitudinal cyclic ψb blade azimuth angle

Ib blade moment of inertia with respect to the Ω magnitude of the shaft rotation
hinge
k GPS accuracy
1. Introduction
kc auxiliary row vector
ks auxiliary row vector Autonomous vehicle systems form a new,
growing, multidisciplinary area that promise to
k p , k ϕ , k dY , k pX controller gains in the lateral allow humans indirect access and activity in
channel remote, inaccessible and/or dangerous locations.
The need for sensing and commanding position in
k q , kθ , k dX , k pX controller gains in the
minimally controlled and inaccessible environments
longitudinal channel raises specific problems of modeling, simulation
k r , k Ψ , k Ψi controller gains in the yaw channel and controller design.
The Autonomous Scout Rotorcraft
k w , k Z , k Zi controller gains in the vertical Testbed (ASRT) is an autonomous unmanned
channel VTOL system [1] that can conduct surveillance and
MA aerodynamic moment of the blade about reconnaissance missions. It is based on a modified
the hinge axis 35 lb. X-CELL model helicopter of conventional
p, q, r components along body axes of the body configuration. A typical mission will require the
angular velocity vector vehicle to vertically take off and fly at an altitude
R control rotor radius below 50 ft above ground level to a surveillance
s Laplace variable area whose location is the input command of the
system. Once there the system must detect and
T1 integration step
follow a moving man-size target while maintaining
T2 GPS update rate stable aerial surveillance and a continuos flow of
u, v, w components along body axes of the body data to the ground station thus providing increased
center of gravity velocity vector situational awareness for the scouting team. At any
uc control vector of the general model moment the system must be able to receive and
execute redirect and return-to-base commands as
u g , v g , w g wind velocity vector components well as operational and emergency vertical landings
at prescribed and commanded locations. Such a
ut input vector in turbulence
complex task raises important technical challenges
* to the designing team. A tractable, simple, yet
u control vector of the intermediate model
x state vector of the general model accurate and reliable simulation model becomes, in
X longitudinal position this context, an indispensable tool.
This paper describes a simulation model
x* state vector of the intermediate helicopter [2] that has been used for controller design and
model aircraft stability and performance analysis. The
Y lateral position general model consists of the following elements:
Z vertical position helicopter model, controller, actuators, Global
Positioning System (GPS) model and atmospheric  + Ω 2 β = M / I − 2Ωq sin ψ − 2Ωp cos ψ
β A b b b
turbulence model. Simplifications and
approximations consistent with the task at hand (3)
have been considered in order to keep development Substituting expressions for the aerodynamic
and computational time and effort at low levels moment and neglecting higher frequency dynamics
while providing an adequate design and analysis [4], after some manipulations we obtain:
tool. Some numerical results are presented to
illustrate response of the controlled system to  γΩξ γΩξ 0.3 q
specific commands in various flight conditions. β s + 16 β s = − 16 (− γξΩR v + Ω − A 1 ) + p
 γΩξ γΩξ 0.3 p
β c + βc = ( u − − B1 ) − q
2. Helicopter model  16 16 γξΩR Ω
(4)
The aircraft is a 35 lb. X-CELL model In deriving these equations, principal axes for the
helicopter of conventional configuration: two- blade are considered. Also, the blade is assumed to
bladed, clockwise rotating main rotor and tail rotor. be slender and its center of mass is taken to lie on
It features a Hiller control rotor providing pitch and the axis along the blade that passes through the flap
roll rate lagged feedback as well as translational hinge. The flapping angle is assumed to be small.
velocity feedback. It has been assumed that the The aerodynamic blade moment about the hinge
longitudinal and lateral cyclic pitch of the main axis is positive as implied by positive flapping
rotor blade is commanded by the tip path plane tilt
angle (upwards). Note that A 1 and B1 are the
of the control rotor. Therefore the helicopter model
consists of the superposition of the helicopter lateral and longitudinal cyclic of the control rotor
intermediate model and the control rotor model. assumed to be equal to the tilt angles of the
The helicopter intermediate model swashplate. The main rotor blade pitch angle is:
describes the dynamics of the vehicle without the
control rotor as a system of eight linear differential θ b (ψ b + π / 2) = −β(ψ b ) (5)
equations of the form:
Then:
x * = A * x * + B* u *
x * = [u w q θ v p ϕ r ] T (1) β c = − B1 and β s = A 1 (6)

u * = [θ c B1* θ ct A 1* ] T By superposition, the helicopter general model

becomes:
*
The pseudo longitudinal cyclic B1 is identical to  
 0   θc 
the control rotor tip path plane longitudinal tilt  x *   x *   γΩξ 
*
β  = A β  +  − β 
angle and the pseudo lateral cyclic A 1 is identical A1  + B L  c 
  s L s
β   16  θ
to the control rotor tip path plane lateral tilt angle.
β c   c  ct 
− γΩ ξ  βs 
Stability and control matrices of the helicopter
B1 
intermediate system are computed using the  16 
formulae given by Prouty [3]. It has been further (7)
assumed that drag on the fuselage at hover is 4% of where we have denoted:
thrust. The equivalent hinge offset was estimated to
be at 2%. Approximate blade profile aerodynamic
characteristics usual for full scale helicopters were  
used with Reynolds number corrections for both  A * 
main and tail rotor. The eigenvalues of the  γξ 0.3 γΩξ 
intermediate system matrix are presented in Table 1
AL =  0 0 − 0 10 0 − 0 
 16 16R 16 
 0.3 0 − 1 0 0 − γξ 0 0 0 − γΩξ 
for hover and in Table 2 for forward flight at 20
knots.
The flapping angle of the control rotor 16R 16 16 
regarded as an independent rotor is expressed as a (8)
function of blade azimuth angle ψ b :  B *
B L = 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 
β = −β c cos ψ b − β s sin ψ b (2)  

and the flapping equation has the form: Some manipulations are necessary to get the model
into a standard form. We will denote the ith row
and the jth column of a matrix A by A(i,:) and
respectively A(:,j). All the rows from i to k will be θ cmd s + 0.18 ϕ cmd s + 0.50
A(i:k,:). Let: = , =

X − 17s Y 10s
k c = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 − 1]
(16)

k s = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0] (9) These compensators play the role of converting

acceleration commands into attitude angle
commands. The vertical and the yaw channels have
 = A L + B L (:,2)k c + B L k s (10) each proportional, integral and derivative (PID)
feedbacks (see Figure 1).
Considering the nature and objectives of
 0 0 
the mission that this vehicle has to accomplish, a
  
collection of criteria were formulated both in time
  γΩξ 
B̂ = B L (:,1) 0 B L (:,3)  (11) and frequency domain. The design requirements
 γΩ ξ 16  and constraints to be met by the controlled system
− 0 
 16
are as follows:
  - negative real part of the controlled system matrix
eigenvalues to ensure stability of the controlled
system;
 Â(1 : 4, :)  - reduced overshoot for good obstacle avoidance
 
A int =  Â(10, :)  (12) characteristics;
- reduced settling time and time constant for quick
Â(5 : 9, :) response and reduced oscillation;
- smooth position response in the initial transient
A = [A int (:,1 : 4) A int (:,10) A int (:,5 : 9)] (13) domain, no zero or negative velocity regions;
- limited maximum peak in the response to wind
gust for good wind disturbance rejection;
 B̂(1 : 4, :)  - reduced settling time in the response to wind gust
  for good wind disturbance rejection;
B =  B̂(10, :)  (14) - adequate gain and phase margins at the plant input
B̂(5 : 9, :) to ensure robustness with respect to actuator
uncertainties;
- adequate gain and phase margins at the plant
Therefore, combining equations (1) and (4) we
output to ensure robustness with respect to sensor
eventually obtain a standard form for the helicopter
uncertainties;
general model:
- prescribed bandwidth values of the inner and
outer loops to ensure adequate performance.
x = Ax + Bu c The controller gains were determined
x = [u w q θ β c v p ϕ r β s ] T (15) using decoupled systems. An iterative trial and
error procedure was used for all four channels
u c = [θ c B1 θ ct A 1 ] T
based on sequentially closing the feedback loops
and root locus analysis [2]. The gains thus obtained
The eigenvalues of the general system matrix are are presented in Table 3.
presented in Table 1 for hover and in Table 2 for
forward flight at 20 knots.
4. Actuators Model

3. Controller Identical actuators were assumed in all the

four control channels. Simple, first order
Both the longitudinal and the lateral representation of the following form for actuator
channels have an inner loop structure formed by models is included:
pitch/roll angular rate and pitch/roll attitude angle
feedback and an outer loop structure formed by 1
Fact ( s) = (17)
longitudinal/lateral velocity and longitudinal/lateral τs + 1
position feedback. A low frequency first order
approximation of the inverse of the vehicle
longitudinal/lateral acceleration to pitch/roll 5. GPS Model
attitude transfer function is used as a compensator
in the outer loop of both the longitudinal and lateral The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a
channels, respectively. They have the following satellite navigation system that allows the user
expressions: accurate determination of position and velocity
based on noisy observations of the satellite signals.
To suit the purposes of this simulation a simple
model has been developed to generate the errors of
the GPS system. The GPS models are included in
the position and velocity feedback loops in the
longitudinal and lateral channels. Vertical position
is assumed to be measured by ultrasonic altimeters.
Except for the GPS system, sensor dynamics and
sensor noise for the rest of the sensors are not
included in this analysis as those effects are found
to be rather small.
The model has the same structure for both
position and velocity but with different parameter
values. The block diagram is presented in Figure 2
and the values of the parameters of the model in
Table 4. The main characteristics of the GPS which
have been considered are the latency, the update
rate, the accuracy and the error dynamics
parameter. The update rate represents the rate at
which the position and velocity signals are sent to
the receiving processor and is modeled as a
quantization. The latency is the time delay that
occurs between the time the satellite information is
received and the time the position/velocity output is
sent to the receiver. It is modelled as a pure time
delay. The accuracy is the radius of the circle with
the origin at the actual position/velocity which
contains 50% of the sensors output values. The
errors of the GPS sensors package are generated as
output of a first order linear differential equation
with random Gaussian input and initial conditions.
6. Turbulence Model
The frozen field concept [5], valid for
fixed wing aircraft, is expanded for rotorcraft at
hover by considering a reference velocity [6] that
describes the rate at which turbulence perturbations
occur. Only linear velocity effects are included as
additive perturbations to the aerodynamic terms of
the linear aircraft model. Spatial gradients effects
are insignificant due to the small size of the aircraft
[7] and are not taken into account.
Assume that equations 15 describe the
helicopter model in still air. Then the linear system
including wind and turbulence effects is:
x = Ax + B t u t (18)
where the input vector becomes:
u t = [θ c B1 θ ct A 1 u g v g w g ] T (19)
and the control matrix is:
B t = [B  − A(:,1)  − A(:,6)  − A(:,2)]
(20)
We have thus obtained a linear model where the
inputs u g , v g , w g can be deterministic functions
of time, to describe wind, or random variable that
can be generated in time domain to match statistical
properties of turbulence models. The method of the
sum of sinusoids [8] is used to generate random air
velocity perturbations that match the statistical
properties of the von Karman model [9].
7. Numerical Simulation Results
The following five cases are presented to
illustrate numerical simulation results:
Case 1. Effects of GPS sensors error: The
helicopter is at hover in still air subject to
commands to maintain initial position and heading.
Results are shown in Figures 3 through 8. Note that
in these figures we mean by “measured values”
simulated sensor output (see also Figure 2). It can
be seen that the GPS model generates sensor errors
in the expected range. Inadequate GPS
characteristics may lead to instability.
Case 2. Flight to new location: The helicopter,
initially at hover in still air, is commanded to move
to a new location while keeping initial yaw attitude.
Smooth position step commands are generated on
three axes. Results are shown in Figures 9 through
12. The vehicle follows the commanded trajectory
in a consistent manner with the controller design
criteria.
Case 3. Lateral constant wind gust: The helicopter
at hover is commanded to maintain initial position
despite a lateral step wind gust. Results are shown
in Figures 13 through 16. The vehicle rejects the
constant wind disturbance in a satisfactory manner
and maintains hover flight
Case 4. Turbulence effects: The helicopter at hover
is commanded to maintain position in severe
turbulence at low altitude. Results are shown in
Figures 17 through 23. Turbulence disturbances are
rejected and excursions from initial position are
kept roughly within a range of ±2 ft. The lateral
channel appears to be more sensitive to turbulence
disturbances while the vertical channel is less
sensitive.
Case 5. Forward flight: The helicopter is
commanded to maintain initial level forward flight
at constant speed of 20 knots in severe turbulence
at low altitude. Results are shown in Figures 24
through 30. The helicopter follows the commanded
trajectory although position excursions from
commanded values are larger than in the hover
case. Note that controller gains designed for hover
flight are used.
8. Conclusions
A simulation model has been developed
for controller design, stability analysis and
controller performance analysis of a micro X-CELL
helicopter as central element of an autonomous
airvehicle system.
Simplifications and approximations have
been considered to provide a simple yet adequate
design and analysis tool for the task at hand.
The model offered good insight into the
complex behavior of the autonomous airvehicle
system that allowed for appropriate GPS package
selection, controller architecture and gains design
and navigator design.
Simulation results were compared with a
limited amount of experimental data and a good
match was observed.

Acknowledgement

Discussions with dr. A. Calise from

Georgia Institute of Technology on the GPS model
are gratefully acknowledged.
This work was carried out as part of the
Autonomous Scout Rotorcraft Testbed Project at
Georgia Institute of Technology sponsored by the
U.S. Army Aviation Applied Technology
Directorate.

References

1. SCHRAGE, D. et al. Autonomous Scout

Rotorcraft Testbed,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Project final
report, 1997
2. PERHINSCHI, M. G & PRASAD, J.V.R.
Helicopter Model Controller Design,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Internal Report,
1996
3. PROUTY, R. W. Helicopter Aerodynamics
Stability and Performance,
Prentice Hall, 1992
4. JOHNSON, W. Helicopter Theory,
Princeton University Press, 1980
5. ETKIN, B. Turbulent Wind and Its Effect on
Flight,
Journal of Aircraft, No 5 1981
6. HESS, R. A. Rotorcraft Handling Qualities in
Turbulence,
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference,
1993
7. PERHINSCHI, M. G. A Turbulence
Representation for Helicopter Control and Stability
Analysis,
First International Conference on Unconventional
Flight, Budapest, Oct. 1997
8. BEAL, T. R. Digital Simulation of Atmospheric
Turbulence for Dryden and von Karman Models,
Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, No. 1
1993
9. ***, Military Specification - Flying Qualities of
Piloted Airplanes,
MIL-F-8785C, 1985
Figure 1. Block Diagram of the Simulation Model

k Ψi 1/ kr
s
- + - Wind and Trim Trim
Ψcmd δ Turbulence Velocit Attitud
Factt ( s) Fδ t ( s)
+
kΨ
+ + Perturbations y es

k Zi 1/ kw
s θt +
+ u
- +
Zcmd δ θc w + +
Helicopter
kZ Factc (s) Fδ c (s)
+ + + q +
Linear
Model +
Xcmd + + θ cmd + + δ B1 θ
k pX FactB1 (s) Fδ B1 (s)
+
X
k θ<0 x = Ax + Bu v +
- - - +
y = Cx p +
A1 ϕ +
δ Fδ A 1 (s)
FactA1 (s)
k dX r +
1/
s
kq Transformation
Matrix

X GPS  
X GPS X Z


Y
Ycmd + + ϕ cmd + + +

k pY k ϕ <0 kp
- - Y 1/ 1/ 1/
- s s
s

k dY

Y
 GPS
X Y Z Ψ
YGPS
Table 1. Eigenvalues of the Helicopter System Matrices at Hover

Helicopter Intermediate Model Helicopter General Model

Mode Eigenvalues Mode Eigenvalues
Fast Longitudinal -2.8370 Fast Longitudinal + -2.3299+7.5742i
Phugoid 0.2246+0.9552i Long. Control Rotor -2.3299_7.5742i
0.2246-0.9552i Phugoid 0.0230+0.8389i
Heave -0.4426 0.0230-0.8389i
Roll -6.2770 Heave -0.3946
Dutch Roll 0.0269+1.0884i Roll + -4.1076+11.6453i
0.0269-1.0884i Lateral Control Rotor -4.1076-11.6453i
Yaw -0.3882 Dutch Roll -0.0261+0.8480i
-0.0261-0.8480i
Yaw -0.4461

Table 2. Eigenvalues of the Helicopter System Matrices in Forward Flight

Helicopter Intermediate Model Helicopter General Model

Mode Eigenvalues Mode Eigenvalues
Fast Longitudinal -3.3179 Fast Longitudinal + -2.3209+7.1597i
Phugoid 0.6611+0.8564i Long. Control Rotor -2.3209-7.1597i
0.6611-0.8564i Phugoid 0.0663+0.8796i
Heave -0.6267 0.0663-0.8796i
Roll -5.7840 Heave -0.6601
Dutch Roll -0.5164+2.3546i Roll + -3.8446+11.1736i
-0.5164-2.3546i Lateral Control Rotor -3.8446-11.1736i
Yaw 0.0478 Dutch Roll -0.3835+2.4470i
-0.3835-2.4470i
Yaw -0.0459

Table 3. Controller Gains

Longitudinal Channel Lateral Channel Yaw Channel Vertical Channel

k 0.40 k 0.20 kr 1.20 k 0.02
q p w
kθ -1.20 kϕ -1.40 kΨ 4.0 kZ -0.016

k dX 0.72 k dY 0.37 k Ψi 0.50 k Zi -0.0019

k pX 0.37 k pX 0.11

Table 4. Parameters of the GPS Model

Position Velocity
Update Rate 5 Hz 5 Hz
Latency 0.075 s 0.075 s
Accuracy 0.65 ft 0.1 ft/s
Error Dynamics Parameter 0.5 s 2.5 s
 k = Accuracy Measured
1 k 2a Error + Value - Error
T1 as + 1 + T2 = +
Update Rate Position or
Velocity
T1 = Initial Command
Integration Step Conditions
Actual Position
Random Random Pure Delay or Velocity
Gaussian Gaussian τ =Latency
σ2 = 1 1
σ2 =
2a

Figure 2. GPS Model in Position and Velocity Feedback Loops

Figure 3. Case 1. Variation of Longitudinal Figure 4. Case 1. Variation of Longitudinal

Position - Actual and Measured Values Velocity - Actual and Measured Values

Figure 5. Case 1. Variation of Lateral Figure 6. Case 1. Variation of Lateral

Position - Actual and Measured Values Velocity - Actual and Measured Values
Figure 7. Case 1. Variations of Vertical Position Figure 8. Case 1. Variations of Attitude
and Velocity Angles

Figure 9. Case 2. Variations of Longitudinal Figure 10. Case 2. Variations of Lateral

Position, Position Command and Velocity Position, Position Command and Velocity

Figure 11. Case 2. Variations of Vertical Figure 12. Case 2. Variations of Attitude
Position, Position Command and Velocity Angles
Figure 13. Case 3. Variations of Longitudinal Figure 14. Case 3. Variations of Lateral
Position and Velocity Position and Velocity

Figure 15. Case 3. Variations of Vertical Figure 16. Case 3. Variations of Attitude
Position and Velocity Angles

Figure 17. Case 4. Variations of Longitudinal Figure 18. Case 4. Variations of Longitudinal
Position and Velocity Position and Turbulence Velocity
Figure 19. Case 4. Variations of Lateral Figure 20. Case 4. Variations of Lateral
Position and Velocity Position and Turbulence Velocity

Figure 21. Case 4. Variations of Vertical Figure 22. Case 4. Variations of Vertical
Position and Velocity Position and Turbulence Velocity

Figure 23. Case 4. Variations of Attitude Figure 24. Case 5. Variations of Longitudinal
Angles Actual and Commanded Position
Figure 25. Case 5. Variations of Longitudinal Figure 26. Case 5. Variations of Lateral
Helicopter Velocity and Turbulence Velocity Position and Velocity

Figure 27. Case 5. Variations of Lateral Figure 28. Case 5. Variations of Vertical
Helicopter Position and Turbulence Velocity Position and Velocity

Figure 29. Case 5. Variations of Vertical Figure 30. Case 5. Variations of Attitude
Helicopter Position and Turbulence Velocity Angles