2018 UKACC 12th International Conference on Control (CONTROL)

Sheffield, UK, 5-7 Sept 2018

Dynamic Analysis of a Twin Rotor MIMO System

and Control Design
Emmanuel Prempain Andrea Lecchini-Visintini
Department of Engineering Department of Engineering
University of Leicester University of Leicester
Leicester, U.K. Leicester, U.K.
ep26@leicester.ac.uk alv1@leicester.ac.uk

Abstract—A control oriented analysis of a Twin Rotor MIMO The paper is organized as follows: Section II provides ex-
System (TRMS) based on a high fidelity, non-linear model, plicit formulae which characterise completely the equilibrium
recently developed, is proposed. Explicit formulae for the sys- states set and the corresponding family of linearised models.
tem states equilibria and for the descriptor matrices of the
corresponding linear systems are provided. A modal analysis is Section III provides insights into the system dynamic be-
presented which gives insights into the dynamics behaviour of the haviour thanks to the use of modal analysis. The control design
system across its operating envelope. Thanks to this analysis and is briefly addressed in Section III where closed-loop responses
to the analytical formulae developed, a simple, robust, LQR state- are presented. Some conclusions are given in Section IV.
feedback controller is designed. Good tracking responses both in
simulation and on the real, physical TRMS system are achieved.
The responses predicted in simulation are almost identical to
those observed on the real, physical system and these compare
very favourably with the results of the literature.
Index Terms—System modelling; Linear control design; Clas-
sical and optimal control methods; Real-Time Control

I. INTRODUCTION

The Twin Rotor MIMO System (TRMS) (Fig. 1) is char-

acterised by a highly non-linear, and cross-coupled, dynamics
and is a challenging system to control. The literature on the
TRMS is abundant see e.g. [1], [2], and [3] and references
therein, to cite a few. In the recently published [3], a high
fidelity non-linear dynamical model of the TRMS was derived Fig. 1: The Twin Rotor MIMO System [4]
from first principles and validated with experimental data. In
this work, based on the model of [3], we develop a rigorous II. CONTROL ORIENTED MODELLING
dynamic analysis of the TRMS, and we address some aspects
which are critical to obtain control oriented models and don’t A. Equations of motion
appear to have been addressed in previous literature such as The equations of motion are taken from [3]. These were
the derivation of explicit analytical formulas for the linearised derived using the formalism of Lagrange see [3] and[5] for
system models as well as a valuable modal analysis. the details:
Using the equations of motion derived in [3] we obtain 1
Iψ ψ̈ − HZ (ψ)φ̈ + It1 ω̇t = − Ic φ̇2 sin(2ψ) − Im1 ωm φ̇ sin ψ
explicit formulae describing the entire state equilibrium set and 2
analytical expressions for the whole family of corresponding − GY (ψ) + CT m ωm |ωm | lm − CRt ωt |ωt | − fvψ ψ̇ − fcψ sgn ψ̇ (1)
linearised models. The dynamic behaviour of the TRMS is
then analysed thanks to modal analysis which provides pow-
 
−HZ (ψ)ψ̈ + Iφ + Ic cos2 ψ φ̈ + Im1 ω̇m cos ψ = HY (ψ)ψ̇2
erful insights into the system dynamics at various equilibrium
points. The modelling tools developed are then used to design + Ic φ̇ψ̇ sin(2ψ) + Im1 ωm ψ̇ sin ψ + CT t ωt |ωt | lt cos ψ
a simple proportional integral state feedback LQR controller. − CRm ωm |ωm | cos ψ − fvφ φ̇ − fcφ sgn φ̇ − Cc (φ − φ0 ) (2)
We show that the designed controller delivers very good
tracking performance once implemented on the real system ktm kum
Im1 ω̇m + Im1 φ̈ cos(ψ) = Im1 φ̇ψ̇ sin ψ + um
and that the responses obtained with the real system are in Rm
very close agreement with those computed with the non-linear
!
kvm ktm
model. − CRm |ωm | fvm + ωm (3)
Rm
978-1-5386-2864-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 87
 !
kut ktt kvt ktt TABLE II: Parameters of the equations of motion [3]
It1 ω̇t + It1 ψ̈ = ut − CRt |ωt | + fvt + ωt (4)
Rt Rt parameter value unit
Im1 1.7249 × 10−4 kg m2
where
It1 3.2170 × 10−5 kg m2
cos ψ − sin ψ 6.1644 × 10−2 kg m2
" # " #" #
HY (ψ) Hy Iψ
:= . (5) Iφ 2.1117 × 10−2 kg m2
HZ (ψ) sin ψ cos ψ Hz
Ic 8.3286 × 10−2 kg m2
In (1)-(4), the subscript “m” or “t” refer to the main or the tail fvψ 4.2150 × 10−4 N m rad−1 s
fcψ 4.0548 × 10−4 Nm
fvφ 1.1243 × 10−4 N m rad−1 s
TABLE I: TRMS parameters [3] fcφ 1.1758 × 10−5 Nm
parameter value unit fvm 4.1993 × 10−6 N m rad−1 s
lm : length of main beam 0.254 m fvt 3.2498 × 10−6 N m rad−1 s
lt : length of tail beam 0.275 m CT+m 1.4971 × 10−5 N s2 rad−2
Rm , Rt : motors’ resistance 8 Ω CT−m 8.9974 × 10−6 N s2 rad−2
kvm , kvt : motors’ EMF constant 0.0202 N m A−1 CT+t 3.7755 × 10−6 N s2 rad−2
ktm , ktt : motors’ torque constant 0.0202 V rad−1 s CT−t 2.3046 × 10−6 N s2 rad−2
kum : main motor’s input gain 8.5 No units CRm + 5.0582 × 10−7 N m s2 rad−2
kut : tail motor’s input gain 6.5 No units CRm − 4.5047 × 10−7 N m s2 rad−2
CRt+ 9.7031 × 10−8 N m s2 rad−2
CRt− 9.9176 × 10−8 N m s2 rad−2
Cc 9.8664 × 10−3 N m rad−1
ψ0 −0.5369 rad
φ0 0.2500 rad
Gz −0.252 54 Nm
Gy 0.150 32 Nm
Hz −1.5446 × 10−3 kg m2
Hy 6.6120 × 10−3 kg m2

where ψe and φe denote, respectively, the pitch and yaw

attitudes at equilibrium. From (6) we get:
1
ωme |ωme | = ((Gy cos ψe − Gz sin ψe )CT t lt cos ψe
∆
+CRt Cc (φe − φ0 )) (7)
1
ωte |ωte | = ((Gy cos ψe − Gz sin ψe )CRm cos ψe
∆
Fig. 2: TRMS notation + CT m lmCc (φe − φ0 )) (8)
with ∆ = (CT mCT t lm lt − CRmCRt ) cos ψe . The equations above
rotor. The control signal is u := [um , ut ]T where um (resp. ut )
can be rewritten in terms of a single circular function by
lies in the range [−2.5, 2.5]. ωm (resp. ωt ) is the main (resp.
introducing the angle θ := tan−1 (−Gz /Gy ) as:
tail) rotor angular velocity. ψ denote the pitch angle, φ the yaw
angle see Figure 2. The geometric parameters of the TRMS C T t lt  q 2 
ωme |ωme | = Gy + G2z cos(2ψe − θ) + Gy
are given in Table I. Mass and inertia properties are given in 2∆
Table II. φ0 is the yaw angle position for which the restoring Cc
+ CRt (φe − φ0 ) (9)
moment due to the cables is zero. The TRMS state vector is ∆ q
defined as: CRm 
ωte |ωte | = G2y + G2z cos(2ψe − θ) + Gy
h iT 2∆
x = ψ φ ψ̇ φ̇ ωm ωt . Cc
+ CT m lm (φe − φ0 ) (10)
∆
In (9)-(10), the propeller thrust, CT m , and drag, CRm , coeffi-
B. Solutions at equilibrium cients take the values of CT+m or CT−m and CRm + −
or CRm (see
Table II) depending on the sign of the rotor angular ωme and
The angular velocities of the rotors, ωme and ωte , at equilib- similarly for ωte . Therefore, in order to get the correct velocity
rium, are obtained by solving the non-linear differential equa- pair, four cases must be tested for each pair of pitch and yaw
tions (1)-(2) with ψ̇, φ̇, ψ̈ and φ̈ identically zero. Therefore, positions. The rotor velocity pair retained is the one with signs
ωme and ωte are the solutions of the system of equations: matching the correct propeller drag and thrust coefficients pair.
ωme |ωme | Equations (9)-(10) show that when the yaw position at
" #" #
C T m lm −CRt
= equilibrium is equal to the unstressed (rest) yaw position, φ0 ,
−CRm cos ψe CT t lt cos ψe ωte |ωte |
then ωme and ωte simultaneously vanish
q and change sign at the
Gy cos ψe − Gz sin ψe
" #  
Cc (φe − φ0 )
(6) rest position ψ0 = −θ − cos−1 Gy / G2y + G2z /2 ≈ −0.5369

978-1-5386-2864-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 88

rad as seen in Figure 3. Because thrust and drag coefficients
" #
change with the rotor angular velocity sign, the velocities I2 0
curves are not symmetric with respect to the point (ψ0 , 0). E= (12)
0 E2
In the more general situation (φe , φ0 ) the influence of φe on
where
ωme will be negligible because CT t lt >> CRt Cc . However, ωte
 Iψ −HZ (ψe ) 0 It1
 
will depend significantly on both pitch and yaw as observed 
 ∗ Iφ + IC cos2 ψe Im1 cos ψe 0 
on the contour map given in Figure 4. E2 =   (13)
 ∗ ∗ Im1 0 

Rotor velocities at ?e = 0.25 rad ∗ ∗ ∗ It1
300

!me and I2 stands for the 2-by-2 identity matrix. The matrix AE
Propellers angular velocities [rad/s]

!te depends on ψe and on the equilibrium propellers’ angular

velocities, ωme and ωte and is defined as:
200

" #
02,2 I2 02,2
100
AE = (14)
AE21 AE22
0 where

-100
AE21 =
GZ (ψe ) 0 − fvψ −Im1 ωme sin ψe
 
 
 C ω2 sin ψ −Cc Im1 ωme sin ψe − fvφ 
-200
Rm me e
 
 0 0 0 0 

-300
0 0 0 0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Ae [rad] and
Fig. 3: Propellers velocities at equilibrium versus pitch attitude AE22 =
(φe = φ0 )  2CT m lm ωme sgn ωme

−2CRt ωte sgn ωte


 2C cos ψ ω sgn ω 2C T t lt cos ψe ωte sgn ωte

 Rm e me me 

 −C Rm 0 

!te [rad/s] 0 −CRt
1

0 0
 
0.8
 
0 0
1

22
 
114.847

6.1
18 07
−  f + kvm ktm (15)
 
15

0.6 9. 6
0
0
1.9

20 
8
 vm
33

Rm
9


fvt + kvtRkt tt
0.4
0
0.2 77
.76 11
Ae [rad]

4.8 189
03 151 .02
47 .93 08
1 39
0 0
0
 
 
4
-0.2
-10
-3 3 0.673
-70 3.50.5 8 5
.58 0266
7
77.7
603 114
.84
71 151

 0 0 

7.67 .93
39
38  0 0 
-0.4
-144 -107
4
-3 3 08.6735
-70 3.50.5
.5 0266
77.7
603 114
BE =  0 0
 (16)
.760 .673 87
-181 7 .84  
-0.6 .847 8 71
5 ktm kum 
-218
.934
3 40

Rm 0 
-14 -70-33.53.58.673
-18 4.7

-0.8
1.8 607 .58 00266 5 ktt kut 
-256
.0211
475 7
0 Rt
-1
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fig. 4: Tail propeller angular velocity contour lines at equilib-
rium
C. Linearisation of the equations of motion
The equations of motion are linearised by perturbing the
system state, x(t), and the control input, u(t), about their
equilibria xe and ue , that is, x(t) = xe +δx(t) and u(t) = ue +δu(t)
are substituted into (1)-(4). This naturally yields the following
system of linear differential equations given in descriptor form:
E δ̇x
in which the matrix E is symmetric and solely depends on the
ψe . E is as follows:
?e [rad] h i
bTE = 0 0 0 0 − fcψ sgn δψ̇ − fcφ sgn δφ̇ (17)
The constant terms in (17) (see Tables I and II), which are
due to Coulomb friction, are small compared to the entries of
BE and thus can be safely neglected.
Matrix E depends only on the pitch position and matrix
AE on pitch position and propellers angular velocities where
the main rotor velocity, ωme , is essentially a function of the
pitch position at equilibrium. The state-space description of the
linearised model family, parametrised in terms of the system
states at equilibrium, can be used to obtain high fidelity linear
parametrically varying (lpv) models of the TRMS system so
= AE δx + BE δu + bE (11) that advanced stability/performance analysis techniques, such
as IQC-analysis, could be employed. The reader is refereed
to [6] for the derivations of such lpv models from parameter
dependent state-space representations.

978-1-5386-2864-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 89

 III. MODAL ANALYSIS • The main rotor eigenvalue is λm = −7.10 × 10−1 and
so the mode time constant is 1.41s. The main rotor
The analysis is based on the evolution matrix of the lin- eigenvector is:
earised system A = E −1 AE computed at the rest position,
 ψ   0.0011 
   
ψe = −0.5789 rad and φe = φ0 = 0.2500 rad, for which the  φ   0.0007 
angular velocities are ωme = −74.68 rad s−1 and ωte = −62.96    
rad s−1 . The evolution matrix is stable and its spectrum consists  ψ̇   −0.0008 
vm =  =
 φ̇   −0.0005 

of two complex conjugate pairs of eigenvalues for the pitch
 ω   1.0000 
and the yaw axes respectively and two real eigenvalues for the  m  
ωt

rotors. −0.0004
• The pitch mode eigenvalues pair is • Similarly, the tail rotor eigenvalue is λt = −2.08 and so
the time constant of the tail rotor mode is of about 0.48 s.
λp = −3.76 × 10−3 ± 2.19 j The tail rotor eigenvector is:
 ψ   0.0001 
   
and so the damping ratio, the undamped natural frequency  φ   0.0002 
and the period of the mode are ζ p = 1.72 × 10−3 ,
 ψ̇   −0.0002 
   
ωnp = 2.19 rad s−1 and T p = 2.87s respectively. This vt =  =
 φ̇   −0.0004 

mode is the fastest of the two oscillatory modes. The  ω   0.0005 
pitch modal vector, given in polar form, with the phase  m  
ωt

1.0000
angles in degrees, is:
The tail rotor mode mode is the fastest of the rotor modes
ψ 0.4565 ∠ −90.1◦
   
    because the tail propeller is the smallest propeller and so

 φ  
  0.0333 ∠ 124.5◦ 
 possesses the smallest inertia.
ψ̇ 1.0000 ∠ 0◦
v p =   = 
   
We note that both rotor modes couple into pitch and yaw
φ̇ 0.0730 ∠ −145.4◦

    weakly.
ωm 0.0581 ∠ 52.6◦
   
 The above analysis can be repeated for other equilibrium
ωt
  
0.7267 ∠ −136.5◦ positions. Figure 5 shows how the system eigenvalues move
according to pitch equilibrium position changes for the rest
As seen from the components of v p , the pitch mode is
yaw position. From Figure 5 one sees that the rotors poles,
dominated by the pitch position and pitch rate. Pitch
which are located on the real axis, move with the pitch
couples into yaw with a yaw-to-pitch coupling ratio of
equilibrium position, that is with the equilibrium rotors speeds
about 7%.
(Figure 3). As observed, the rotors poles move towards minus
• The yaw mode eigenvalues pair is:
infinity as their speeds increase. This is because at higher
λy = −5.35 × 10−4 ± 3.52 × 10−1 j speeds the rotors are subject to higher drag, that is, to higher
resistive torques which make the angular rotors speeds return
and so the damping ratio, the undamped natural frequency quicker to their equilibrium positions if disturbed from them.
and the period of the mode are ζy = 1.52 × 10−3 , ωny = In other words, the rotors time constants decrease as the rotor
3.52 × 10−1 rad s−1 and T y = 17.8 s respectively. speeds increase and this explains the motion of the poles on
The yaw mode eigenvector is given by: the real axis.
We can see that the pitch mode eigenvalues are grouped
ψ 0.0090 ∠ −75.4◦
   
    for values of pitch ranging approximately between -1 rad to

 φ  
  1.0000 ∠ 0◦ 
 0.4 rad ≈ 23◦ and pitch mode becomes unstable for values of
ψ̇ 0.0032 ∠ 14.7◦ pitch higher than 0.4 rad. The situation is similar but reversed
vy =   = 
   
φ̇ 0.3522 ∠ 90.1◦

    for the yaw mode which becomes stable for pitch value higher
ωm 0.1310 ∠ −26.2◦ than −0.4 rad and real at high values of pitch angle.
   
  
ωt

0.0005 ∠ −84.9◦
IV. CONTROL
As seen from the components of vy , the yaw position and A. Integral LQR Control
the yaw rate dominate the mode which also couples into The system angular positions and rotor velocities are avail-
pitch with a ratio of about 1%. As expected, yaw and yaw able for feedback and so in order to use a state-feedback
rate are almost 90 degrees apart with yaw rate leading controller one only needs to estimate the system’s pitch
over yaw. The yaw rate magnitude is also consistent with and yaw angular velocities. This can be done by using a
the angular frequency of the mode i.e. φ̇ ≈ 3.52 × 10−1 × simple finite difference technique. The modal analysis of
1 rad s−1 . the previous section revealed that the system dynamics vary
The two other modes are real and correspond, respectively, to with pitch attitude but not dramatically so. Thus, we will
the main and the tail rotor dynamics. assume that there exists a single robust constant state-feedback

978-1-5386-2864-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 90

 ?e = 14.3 deg (0.25 rad) The similarity between the simulated and the experimental
2.5
A = -57.3 deg
responses is strikingly remarkable and confirms the high
e
2 fidelity of the non-linear model.
A = -33.2 deg
e
1.5 Ae = -3.02 deg Note that the pitch-to-yaw couplings observed are also
A = 27.1 deg
e
close to those predicted by the modal analysis of Section III.
1 However, the modal analysis underestimated the yaw-to-pitch
Ae = 57.3 deg

0.5 couplings. This is perhaps due to the large amplitude of the

yaw reference signal which may yield the system hit some
imag.

0
possible non-linearities.
-0.5 On the real TRMS system, the rotor tachometers signals
are insufficiently filtered and so the control signal applied to
-1
the motors is very noisy as seen in Figure 10. In the future,
-1.5 appropriate low-pass filters will be designed and inserted to
prevent this.
-2
0.5
-2.5
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 A
0.4
real ?
Fig. 5: Eigenvalues map 0.3 Arer
0.2
?ref

Positions [rad]
gain guaranteeing fast pitch and yaw tracking over the entire 0.1

TRMS operating range. Therefore, one will seek a single state-

feedback controller gain, u = Kξ, and in particular a controller
0

minimising the LQR cost: -0.1

Z ∞  -0.2
ξ(t)T Qξ(t) + u(t)T Ru(t) dt
0 -0.3

where the matrices Q and R are design parameters chosen

-0.4
diagonal with entries selected according to the Bryson’s rule
(see e.g. [7] for details). In order to meet the zero steady state -0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
attitude errors to constant commands requirement, the system Time [s]
will be augmented as follows:
Fig. 6: Responses to a square pitch command (non-linear
ξ̇ = Aξ + Bu simulation)
with " # " #
A 0 B
A= ,B =
1

−C 0 0 A
?
where matrices A = E −1 AE , B = E −1 BE will be computed 0.5 Arer
at a carefully selected equilibrium point and where C = I2,6
selects the pitch and the yaw positions which are the states to ?ref
Positions [rad]

be commanded. 0

B. Results
The TRMS was linearised at the equilibrium position φe = -0.5
φ0 = 0.25 rad and ψe = 0 rad which corresponds to the mid-
range pitch position.
A satisfactory state-feedback LQR controller was obtained -1
after a few iterations on the matrices Q and R.
In terms of implementation, the controller integrators were
discretised at 100 Hz and an anti-windup, consisting of a -1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
simple observer gain [7] was added to the proportional integral
Time [s]
LQR controller.
The responses obtained with the non-linear model are given Fig. 7: Responses to a square yaw command (non-linear
in Figures 6 and 7. The experimental responses obtained with simulation)
the real twin rotor system are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10.

978-1-5386-2864-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 91

 0.6 4

A um
? 3
ut

controller output [no units]

0.4
Aref
2
?ref
0.2
Position [rad]

0
0

-1

-0.2
-2

-3
-0.4

-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.6 Time [s]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time [s] Fig. 10: Controller output (TRMS experiment) for the pitch
Fig. 8: Responses to a square pitch command (TRMS experi- command of Figure 8.
ment)

1.5
predicted by the model. This confirms the high fidelity of the
A
non-linear model used. The responses of the controlled twin
? rotor physical system compares extremely well with the results
1
Aref of the literature e.g. [1], [2], [8].
?ref
References
0.5
Position [rad]

[1] M. Lopez-Martinez, M.G. Ortega, C. Vivas, and F.R. Rubio. Nonlinear

control of a laboratory helicopter with variable speed rotors. Automatica,
43(4):655 – 661, 2007.
0
[2] L.M. Belmonte, R. Morales, A. Fernández-Caballero, and J.A. Somolinos.
Robust decentralized nonlinear control for a twin rotor mimo system.
Sensors, 16(8), 2016.
-0.5 [3] Azamat Tastemirov, Andrea Lecchini-Visintini, and Rafael M. Morales-
Viviescas. Complete dynamic model of the twin rotor mimo system (trms)
with experimental validation. Control Engineering Practice, 66:89 – 98,
-1 2017.
[4] Feedback Instruments Ltd. Twin Rotor MIMO System Control Experi-
ments. 33-949S, 2006.
[5] A.J. Brizard. An introduction to Lagrangian mechanics. World Scientific,
-1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2008.
Time [s] [6] J. Mohammadpour and C.W. Scherer. Control of Linear Parameter
Varying Systems with Applications. SpringerLink : Bücher. Springer New
Fig. 9: Responses to a square yaw command (TRMS experi- York, 2012.
[7] B.L. Stevens and F.L. Lewis. Aircraft Control and Simulation. Wiley,
ment) 2003.
[8] D. Rotondo, F. Nejjari, and V. Puig. Quasi-LPV modeling, identification
and control of a twin rotor MIMO system. Control Engineering Practice,
21(6):829 – 846, 2013.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A control oriented model of a twin rotor system based on
the non-linear model developed by [3] is proposed. Explicit
analytical formulae are given for the determination of the
system state equilibria and for the corresponding linearised
models state-space matrices. A modal analysis is provided
which gives insights into the linearised systems dynamics.
Based on this, a simple, constant, robust LQR state-feedback
controller with integral action was designed with the system
model linearised around the horizontal pitch and the yaw
rest positions. Position tracking achieved with this controller
is good both in pitch and yaw as shown by the simulation
results. But, most importantly, the responses obtained with the
physical controlled TRMS system are almost identical to that

978-1-5386-2864-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 92