Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

2019, Vol. 25(23–24) 2894–2909

On the controllers’ design to stabilize ! The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
ground resonance helicopter DOI: 10.1177/1077546319873797
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvc

José A. Ignácio da Silva1 , Douglas D. Bueno2 and

Gustavo L. C. M. de Abreu1

Abstract
Ground resonance (GR) in helicopters is a potentially catastrophic instability commonly caused by coalescence of the
regressive cyclic blade lag mode with the fuselage motion in certain rotor speed ranges. It can limit the helicopter
operational envelope and the design of this type of vehicle can become a difficult task. Although a broad class of actuators
allows the use of active and semi-active techniques to design feedback-based control systems, a limited number of works
in the literature introduce formulations to compute the controller gain to suppress this phenomenon. Also, commonly,
a control approach defines a feedback, particularly to a specific rotor speed. In this context, this work introduces an
alternative methodology to design an active control system to stabilize GR of a helicopter. The proposed approach can
suppress this instability in all rotor speed ranges by using only one control gain. Two strategies are proposed based on
linear matrix inequalities (LMIs). The Lyapunov stability criteria are used and the unstable rotor speed is considered as an
uncertain parameter to define an associated convex space. Using convex optimization, a robust control gain is computed
until all the unstable rotor speed range is stabilized. Numerical simulations are carried out to demonstrate the effect-
iveness of this methodology. The results confirm the viability of the proposed approach to design active and semi-active
controllers.

Keywords
Ground resonance helicopter, controller design, linear matrix inequalities, rotor speed range stabilization, robust
control gain

1. Introduction
Ground resonance (GR) in helicopters is a potentially
catastrophic instability commonly caused by the coales-
cence of the regressive cyclic blade lag mode with the
fuselage motion in certain rotor speed ranges (Chopra,
1990). This phenomenon typically occurs in hinged
(articulated) rotors. However, helicopters using
the soft-inplane hingeless (Lytwyn et al., 1971) and
bearingless rotors (Jang and Chopra, 1998) are also
susceptible to this problem. A classical analysis of this
phenomenon was developed by Coleman and Feingold
(1956) using a simple linear mechanical model.
Despite its relative simplicity, the method accur-
ately predicts the GR boundaries of instabilities for
isotropic rotors (i.e., all blades similar among
them). The accuracy of that proposed method was
verified theoretically and experimentally in the works
of Gabel (1962) and Friedmann and Venkatesan
(1985).
Hammond (1974) used Floquet’s theory to predict
the GR boundaries of instabilities (i.e., the unstable
rotor speed range). That approach can be used to
study anisotropic rotors (blades different among
them). In addition, different studies involving paramet-
ric vibrations and nonlinear analysis about GR phe-
nomenology for isotropic and anisotropic rotors can
be found in Janowski and Tongue (1988), Gandhi
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, São Paulo State University
(UNESP), Faculty of Engineering of Ilha Solteira, São Paulo State, Brazil
2
Department of Mathematics, São Paulo State University (UNESP),
Faculty of Engineering of Ilha Solteira, São Paulo State, Brazil
Received: 18 September 2018; accepted: 24 January 2019
Corresponding author:
José A. Ignácio da Silva, Department of Mechanical Engineering, São Paulo
State University (UNESP), Faculty of Engineering of Ilha Solteira, Avenida
Brasil 56, São Paulo State, Brazil.
Email: jose.i.silva@unesp.br
da Silva et al.
and Malovrh (1999), Kowaleczko and Dzygadlo
(2002), Kunz (2002), Sanches et al. (2011, 2012, 2014),
Bergeot et al. (2016), Gourc et al. (2016), and references
therein.
The GR occurrence implies excessive vibrations
which can lead to a catastrophic destruction of a heli-
copter if they are not reduced on time (Chopra, 1990;
Afolabi, 1993). In this sense, conventional approaches
to mitigate this instability involve the installation of lag
dampers on the blade root. In general, they are passive
hydraulic or elastomeric lag devices. Elastomeric dam-
pers were extensively studied by Kunz (1999) and
Brackbill et al. (2000). Bauchau and Liu (2006) pro-
posed a model of hydraulics lag dampers and validated
their results experimentally. Bergeot et al. (2017) stu-
died the application of nonlinear energy sinks absorbers
mounted on the blades for GR suppression. Kim and
Yun (2001) proposed the use of a new lag damper based
on piezoelectric actuation and a shunt circuit, and com-
pare the results with a classical elastomeric lag damper.
According to these studies, passive lag dampers are
designed to work under particular conditions and
their performance can be substantially reduced when
they are applied in different situations. This is an
important limitation for practical engineering applica-
tions. In another context, the use of semi-active and
active control strategies is an attractive option to sup-
pression of GR since they are capable of adjusting their
dissipation levels for each rotor operational condition
(Panda et al., 2004).
Recent researches have employed semi-active tech-
niques to suppress the GR vibrations, also using mag-
netorheological (MR) lag dampers. Gandhi et al. (2001)
investigated the use of a MR damper with the robust
feedback linearization control law to alleviate the limit
cycle instabilities including nonlinear effects. Zhao et al.
(2004) studied the application of the on–off, sliding
mode, and feedback linearization control methodolo-
gies using MR dampers for isotropic and anisotropic
rotor conditions. Other applications of this kind of
device to suppress the GR phenomenon can be found
in Marathe et al. (1998), Kamath et al. (1999), and Hu
and Wereley (2008). Similarly, a semi-active selective
Coulomb friction-based lag damper is reported by
Bauchau et al. (2010).
Although different methodologies have been pro-
posed in the literature to suppress GR vibrations in
helicopters, commonly they comprise control design
approaches which define controllers’ gain for each par-
ticular steady rotor speed. However, this kind of
instability typically occurs in a continuous range of
rotation (Coleman and Feingold, 1956). In this sense,
to consider a different control gain for each discrete
rotor speed in a range can limit the use of active and
semi-active techniques. The main difficulty, besides
2895
designing several controllers, is to switch the gain
appropriately, which can involve unsafe procedures
and require high computational capacity. In this con-
text, this article proposes the use of linear matrix
inequalities (LMIs) to compute only one control gain
to stabilize a rotor speed range in which GR of a heli-
copter occurs.
The LMIs have been used to solve mechanical and
aeromechanical problems—some of these are presented
in Johnson and Erkus (2005, 2006), Bueno et al. (2014),
Mura and Lovera (2015), Koroishi et al. (2016),
Soliman et al. (2016), Wang et al. (2017); Yazici and
Sever (2018), and these formulations are commonly
based on the well-known Lyapunov’s theory and poli-
topic convex hulls (Boyd et al., 1994). The methods can
involve pole placement restrictions (Chilali and
Gahinet, 1996), saturation constraints (Benzaouia
et al., 2006; Soliman et al., 2016), energy-based specifi-
cations (Boyd et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2009), system
norms as H1 , H2, and L2 (Boyd et al., 1993; Chilali
and Gahinet, 1996; Li et al., 2013; Yazici and Sever,
2018). The typical solutions of these methodologies
involve convex optimization which can be efficiently
solved by using a powerful class of computational algo-
rithms (Gahinet et al., 1995).
In this context, the present article proposes a new
approach to compute only one control gain to stabilize
GR instabilities in a rotor speed range. The rotor speed
is considered as an uncertain parameter to formulate
the method. The set of equations involving this uncer-
tain parameter is easily described by a convex polytopic
hull in a GR boundary. An LMI version of the linear–
quadratic regulator (LQR)- controller is used. Results
and discussions based on the analytical developments
and numerical simulations are introduced to show the
proposed strategy to stabilize the GR.
2. GR dynamic model
The mechanical model used in this work captures the
essential features of the GR phenomenon. It is assumed
that the helicopter on its landing gear can be repre-
sented by effective parameters applied at the rotor
hub (Coleman and Feingold, 1956). The fuselage on
the landing gear is considered anisotropic, which can
be represented by a rigid block with equivalent masses
mfx along the x-direction and mfy along the y-direction;
respectively linked to linear springs with stiffness kfx
and kfy along the x, y directions. Only inplane motions
of the rotor hub are further considered, on the longitu-
dinal x and lateral y directions, described by the xf and
yf degrees of freedom (DOFs), respectively.
The rotor-blades system is considered isotropic
(all blades are similar among them), operating through
constant angular rotor speed () and have radius R. It
2896 Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)

is composed by four blades (Nb ¼ 4) symmetrically
mounted on the rotor hub. Each blade presents the
lead-lag motion nk (the blade in-plane motion) and its
location is determined by the azimuthal angle
wk ¼ t þ 2 ðk  1Þ with x-axis (Coleman and
Feingold, 1956). The blades are considered uniform
and rigid, also including the same mass mb, mass
moment Sb, and moment of inertia Ib around the
z-axis in relation to the lag rotating center (point A in
Figure 1 (b)). They have a root linear torsional spring
kb on the lag hinge. An illustrative scheme of this
system is shown in Figures 1 (a) and 1 (b), where e is
the lag hinge offset, b is the location of the blade’s
center of mass (CM)—the point B in Figure 1 (b)
measured from the lag hinge (point A in Figures 1
(b)). This illustration is an important scheme to simplify
the understanding of the physical meaning behind the
equations presented herein.
(a)
According to the literature, for this problem
aerodynamic effects can be neglected (Coleman and
Feingold, 1956; Hammond,. 1974; Janowski and
Tongue, 1988; Gandhi and Malovrh, 1999; Kim and
Yun, 2001; Kunz, 2002; Zhao et al., 2004; Bielawa,
2006; Bauchau et al., 2010; Sanches et al., 2011, 2012,
2014; Bergeot et al., 2016, 2017); however, this is
dependent on the levels of flexibility and rotor speed.
Also, the fuselage and the blade structural damping are
neglected because the dissipative nature of damping
contributes to stabilize the system. In practice, neglect-
ing this energy dissipation the designed controller is
more conservative. Neglecting damping, the estimated
level of control force can be higher than necessary to
stabilize the damped system. This strategy is typically
employed for the problems of self-excited vibration, as
for an instance, the aeroelastic flutter (Broadbent and
Williams, 1960; Bueno et al., 2015). In this context, if
the structural damping is considered, the formulation
presented herein remains valid. The mechanical model
used to illustrate the proposed approach is described by
six DOFs.

2.1. Mathematical formulation

The position of each kth blade CM (point B in Figure 1
(b)) is projected in the nonrotating coordinate system
(inertial coordinate system) and it is described by

xbk ¼ xf þ e cosð kÞ þ b cosð k  k Þ ð1aÞ

ybk ¼ yf þ e sinð kÞ þ b sinð k  k Þ ð1bÞ

(b) In this case, the total kinetic energy can be

expressed by

X
Nb
T ¼Tfþ T bk ð2aÞ
k¼1

where

1 
Tf¼ mfx x_ 2f þ mfy y_ 2f ð2bÞ
2
1 1  
T bk ¼ Ib ð  _k Þ2 þ mb x_ 2bk þ y_ 2bk ð2cÞ
2 2

and T f is the kinetic energy of the fuselage, and T bk

represents the kinetic energy of each kth blade.
Similarly, the total potential energy can be written by
Figure 1. Mechanical model of a four-bladed helicopter rotor
for ground resonance analysis: (a) top view from the model; and X
Nb

(b) detailed representation of the rotor-blade and hub for a k-th V ¼ Vf þ V bk ð3aÞ
blade. k¼1
da Silva et al. 2897

where moment, Sfx ¼ Sb =RM ~ fx and Sfy ¼ Sb =RM ~ fy are the

nondimensional
 longitudinal
 and lateral fuselage iner-
1 
tia, !2b ¼ Ibkb 2 þ Re Sb is the nonrotating lag blade fre-
Vf ¼ kfx x2f þ kfy y2f ð3bÞ ~ fx and !2 ¼ kfy =M ~ fy are the
2 quency, and !2fx ¼ kfx =M fy
longitudinal and lateral fuselage frequencies, with
1 M ~ fx ¼ mfx þ Nb mb and M ~ fy ¼ mfy þ Nb mb . This proced-
V bk ¼ kb k2 ð3cÞ
2 ure is a classical approach used to study the GR
problem, as shown in Coleman and Feingold (1956),
and V f is the potential energy of the fuselage, and V bk Hammond (1974), Janowski and Tongue (1988),
represents the potential energy of each kth blade. Gandhi and Malovrh (1999), Kim and Yun (2001),
The ground resonance model (GRM) is a system of Kunz (2002), Zhao et al. (2004), Bielawa (2006);
equations obtained through the direct application of Sanches et al. (2011, 2012, 2014), Bergeot et al.
the Lagrange’s equations. Considering the first-time (2016), Gourc et al. (2016), Bergeot et al. (2017), and
derivative of equation (1) and introducing the result the references therein.
into the equations of energy, the Lagrange’s equations It is important to highlight that in the literature there
can be used for each DOF. This is considered to be the are different models to study the GR, such as including
absence of external forces acting on the system. In add- the stiffness of the blades, additional DOFs of fuselage
ition, a first-order Taylor series expansion for the trig- and dynamics of shock absorbers mounted on the land-
onometric blade lag angle terms is applied and the ing gears (Lytwyn et al., 1971; Janowski and Tongue,
nonlinear terms are neglected, as often these are 1988; Jang and Chopra, 1998; Bielawa, 2006; Lee and
employed to study the GR stability. The result is a Kim, 2010). However, the model used herein is also
linear time periodic system of differential equations. widely used for studying the GR (e.g., Coleman and
For the cases where the controller is designed to sup- Feingold, 1956; Gandhi and Malovrh, 1999; Bielawa
press the system response due to external forces, as for 2006; Sanches et al., 2014; Bergeot et al., 2017), and it
an instance a turbulence load, the inclusion of non- is employed in this work to introduce the idea of stabi-
linear terms can be more relevant. However, these lizing a range of rotor speed using a single controller.
terms can be neglected if the designed controller is For a four-bladed helicopter rotor, equations
used to stabilize the system (Gandhi et al., 2001; (4a)–(4c) can be rewritten in a matrix form by
Zhao et al., 2004; Bauchau et al., 2010). In particular,
to simplify the design of the controller, it is considered MðÞq00 ðÞ þ GðÞq0 ðÞ þ KðÞqðÞ ¼ 0 ð5Þ
a nondimensional form by dividing these equations by
(2 R), as discussed in subsection 3.3. The six resultant where qðÞ ¼ fx f y f 1 2 3 4 gT is the vector of
nondimensional equations can be written by displacements, and MðÞ, GðÞ and KðÞ are, respect-
ively, the mass, gyroscopic, and stiffness matrices.
k00 þ Sb x 00f sinð kÞ  Sb y00f cosð kÞ þ !2b k ¼ 0 ð4aÞ This system of equations depends on the nondimensio-
nalized time s which physically corresponds to the time
X
Nb X
Nb change of scale.
x 00f þ Sfx k00 sinð kÞ þ2 Sfx 0k cosð kÞ
k¼1 k¼1
ð4bÞ 2.2. Coleman transformation
X
Nb
!2fx
 Sfx k sinð kÞ þ x f ¼ 0 The GRM contains periodic terms that depend on the
2
k¼1
azimuthal angle wk of each kth blade and it is commonly
named linear periodic system (Bielawa, 2006). In this
X
Nb X
Nb
y 00f  Sfy k00 cosð Sfy 0k sinð case, classical stability analysis and linear control tech-
kÞ þ 2 kÞ
k¼1 k¼1 niques are not suitable to deal with the periodic terms
2
ð4cÞ presented in the GRM. Therefore, it is convenient to
X
Nb ! fy
þ Sfy k cosð kÞ þ y ¼0 introduce the multiblade coordinate transformation
k¼1
2 f (MBC), also referred to as the Coleman transformation
(Coleman and Feingold, 1956). The MBC is a mathem-
where  ¼ t is nondimensional time, atical tool that transforms the system of equations from
ðÞ0 ¼ d ðÞ=d ¼ d ðÞ=dt and ðÞ00 ¼ d2 ðÞ=d 2 ¼ d2 ðÞ=2 dt2 a linear periodic rotating coordinate system (physical
indicate the first and second nondimensional time domain) to a nonrotating coordinate one (Coleman
derivatives. x f ¼ xf =R and y f ¼ yf =R are the normalized domain). This second domain is a linear time-invariant
longitudinal and lateral displacements, respectively. (LTI) mathematical system. For a helicopter with four
Sb ¼ Sb R=Ib is the nondimensional blade mass rotor-blades, the blade lag angle, nk, can be written in
2898 Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)

terms of MBC coordinates by (Bielawa, 2006) Based on the above matrices the following state-
space realization can be used
k ¼ 0 þ 1c cosð kÞ þ 1s sinð kÞ þ ð1Þk 0 ð6Þ
x0 ¼ Ax ð10Þ
where the multi-blade coordinates are defined by

1 X
Nb
1 X
Nb where xðÞ ¼ fqðÞ q0 ðÞgT 2 R2n1 is the state vector,
0 ¼ k , 0 ¼ k ð1Þk ð7aÞ A 2 R2n2n is the dynamic matrix defined below and its
Nb k¼1 Nb k¼1
eigenvalues allow for understanding the system stability
(Chen, 1998). n ¼ 4 is the number of DOFs in this new
2 X Nb
2 X Nb
coordinate system.
1s ¼ k sinð k Þ, 1c ¼ k cosð kÞ ð7bÞ
Nb k¼1 Nb k¼1
 
044 I44
The multi-blade coordinates n0 and 0 represent the A¼ ð11Þ
collective and differential modes of the coupled mech- M1
c Kc M1
c Gc
anical system (rotor-blades/fuselage), respectively. 1c
and 1s are the cosine and sine components of the cyclic Using the above matrix, the GR can be identified by
modes, respectively (Bielawa, 2006). Substituting equa- studying the real part of its eigenvalues for each steady
tion (6) into equations. (4a)–(4c) and considering the  in the operational helicopter envelope (Bielawa,
MBC coordinates defined in equations (7a) and (7b) a 2006). Figure 2 shows an illustrative example of this
new system of equations can be defined. In particular, idea in which min and max define an unstable rotor
the collective and differential rotor modes are speed range. In this sense, according to the theories
decoupled from the other ones (fuselage and cyclic introduced in Section 1, the question herein is to com-
rotor modes) and the used transformation involves pute a unique control gain to stabilize this rotation
exact algebraic manipulation (no approximations). range, which makes the practical use of active and
The resulting system contains four DOFs, that is, the semi-active technologies easier.
longitudinal and lateral hub DOFs and the sine and
cosine ones. In this case, the new matrix form is given
by (see a detailed demonstration in Appendix A):

Mc q00c þ Gc q0c þ Kc qc ¼ 0 ð8Þ

where qc ¼ fx f yf 1s 1c gT is the new nondimen-

sional vector of displacements (described in the nonro-
tating coordinate system), Mc , Gc and Kc are,
respectively, the mass, gyroscopic, and stiffness new
matrices given by
2 3
1 0 2Sfx 0
6 7
6 0 1 0 2Sfy 7
Mc ¼ 6
6 
7
7 ð9aÞ
4 Sb 0 1 0 5
0 Sb 0 1
2 3
0 0 0 0
60 0 0 0 7
6 7
Gc ¼ 6 7 ð9bÞ
40 0 0 2 5
0 0 2 0
2 !2 3
fx
2 0 0 0
6 7
6 !2fy 7
6 7
Kc ¼ 6 0 2 0 0 7 ð9cÞ
6 7
4 0 0 !2b  1 0 5 Figure 2. Schematic representation of a typical ground
resonance boundary of instability, based on the Coleman
0 0 0 !2b 1 diagram.
da Silva et al. 2899

following MBC sine and cosine components of the con-

3. Controller design to suppress GR trol force
In this section, a new approach to compute a control
gain to stabilize the GR in a rotation range is intro- 2 X Nb
2 X Nb

duced. It is considered an actuator placed on each blade Ta1s ¼ Ta sinð k Þ, Ta1c ¼ Ta cosð kÞ
Nb k¼1 k Nb k¼1 k
as illustrated in Figure 3. To compute the control gain,
an LMI formulation of the LQR and a polytopic ð13Þ
description of the continuous rotation range are used.
In this case, the system of equations (equation (8))
can be rewritten, also including the actuators force
3.1. Actuator placement on each blade vector, as
To provide the control action, a hypothetical actuator
mounted on each blade is considered. The interaction 1
Mc q00c þ Gc q0c þ Kc qc ¼  Ta ð14Þ
of the control force (Fak ) with the actuator arm (see Ib  2 c
Figure 3) results in a control moment (Tak ) applied
just in a lag direction that is considered opposite to where Tac ¼ f0 0 Ta1s Ta1c gT is the vector of
the blade lag angle. A schematic illustration for control forces described in the nonrotating frame; the
the actuation attachment mechanism is shown in control input vector defined by uc ¼ fTa1s Ta1c gT can also
Figure 3. A similar mechanism can be found in conven- be used to consider the input matrix e
B such that
tional helicopters such as the Sikorsky CH-53E and
UH-60 (Warrier and Ali, 2017). Therefore, equation 2 3
0 0
(4a) can be rewritten including the control action 60
Tak in its left-hand side (instead of using zero). 6 07
7
Tac ¼ e
Buc , where e
B¼6 7 ð15Þ
Similarly, for a four-bladed helicopter rotor equation 41 05
(5) can be rewritten also including the left-hand side 0 1
term I1
b
2 Ta , where Ta ¼ f0 0 Ta1 Ta2 Ta3 Ta4 gT
is the control forces vector, resulting in equation 12
Introducing equation 15 into equation (14), the
00 0 1 state-space realization is given by
MðÞq ðÞ þ GðÞq ðÞ þ KðÞqðÞ ¼  Ta ðÞ ð12Þ
Ib  2
x0 ¼ Ax þ Bu uc ð16Þ
To write the control force vector in the nonrotating
coordinate system, it is necessary to consider the where Bu 2 R2nm is the control input matrix and m is
the amount of control inputs.
 
1 042
Bu ¼ e ð17Þ
Ib 2 M1
c B

3.2. LMI formulation to LQR problem

Given an LTI system, it is well-known that Lyapunov’s
theory introduces the existence of a quadratic energy
function VðxÞ ¼ xT Px. If a positive defined matrix
P 4 0 exists that satisfies the Lyapunov’s stability cri-
teria (Boyd et al. 1994)
:
_
VðxÞ ¼ x_ T Px þ xT P x 5 0, 8 x 6¼ 0 ð18Þ

the system is asymptotically stable (all trajectories con-

verge to zero as t ! 1) (Boyd et al., 1994). In particu-
lar for the nondimensional time (s) it is also possible to
Figure 3. Attachment of the actuation’s mechanism for ground assure the asymptotic stability considering the follow-
resonance mitigation. ing proposition.
2900
Proposition 1. The LTI system, described in terms of
nondimensionalized time s (equation (10)) is asymptot-
ically stable based on a state quadratic Lyapunov energy
function VðxÞ ¼ xT Px, if a positive defined matrix,
P 4 0, exists that satisfies the condition
dVðxÞ
5 0, 8x 6¼ 0
d
Proof. Differentiating the quadratic Lyapunov energy
function VðxÞ ¼ xT Px on the nondimensionalized time
(s) and substituting in equation (19), results in
dVðxÞ dxT dx
¼ Px þ xT P 5 0, P40
d d d
Considering that  ¼ t, inequality (20) can be
rewritten as
 
1 dxT T dx
Px þ x P 50
 dt dt
with P 4 0. Once the rotor speed is always a positive
number ð 4 0Þ, it is possible to multiply both sides of
inequality (21) by  without changing its signal. In this
case, the final result is equal to that in inequality (18).
To design the controller, an LMI based LQR prob-
lem is implemented. Details of this formulation can be
found in Johnson and Erkus (2006) and it is used as a
decay rate  to improve the LQR transient response.
The LQR–LMI controller has been used in the litera-
ture as shown in, for example, Olalla et al. (2009),
Soliman and Bajabaa (2013), and Soliman et al. (2016).
Consider an LTI system described by equation (16),
the LQR-–LMI controller problem consists of obtain-
ing a control gain F 2 Rm2n such that uc ¼ Fx, that
minimizes the quadratic performance index
Z tope is built by the convex combination of each vertex
1
J¼ e2 ðxT Qx þ uTc Ruc Þd
0 an uncertain parameter is a line with two vertices,
subject to V0 ðxÞ 5 0 (Boyd et al., 1993), where
Q ¼ QT 4 0 2 R2n2n and R ¼ RT 4 0 2 Rmm are
symmetric positive matrices that weigh the states and
control energies, respectively (Anderson and Moore,
2007), and the pair ½A, Bu  must be controllable. The
solution of the LQR-–LMI controller problem is
introduced by Theorem 1.
Theorem 1. (Olalla et al., 2009) The system described
by equation (16) is asymptotically stable, in the sense of
Lyapunov’s theory, by a state feedback control law,
u ¼ Fx, using a decay rate greater than or equal to
 and guaranteed cost J, if the matrices
Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)
W ¼ WT 2 R2n2n , Z 2 Rm2n and X 2 R2n2n exist,
such that they satisfy the following convex minimization
problem
min TrðQWÞ þ TrðXÞ
subject to
ð19Þ AW þ Bu Z þ WAT þ ZT BTu þ 2W 5 0 ð23Þ
" #
X R1=2 Z
4 0, W 4 0
ZT R1=2 W
where the Lyapunov matrix and the state feedback gain
are, respectively, given by P ¼ W1 and F ¼ W1 Z.
Proof. See Appendix A. The matrices W, X, and Z in
ð20Þ
inequality (23) are obtained by solving the convex mini-
mization problem and TrðÞ denotes the matrix trace.
3.3. Polytopic approach and GR boundaries
of instability
ð21Þ
The main point in this article is to write each GR
boundary of instability (see Figure 2) in terms of poly-
topic parametric uncertainty. The strategy is to con-
sider the rotor speed  as an uncertain parameter and
define the associated polytopic convex hull. However,
once the system of equations contains a quadratic term
(1=2 , equation (16)) involving the rotor speed, an alge-
braic manipulation must be previously used to write an
LMI. In this sense, a new uncertain parameter
 ¼ 1=2 is introduced and the associated system
½A ¼ AðÞ, Bu ¼ Bu ðÞ is considered which depends on
this new linear uncertain parameter limited through the
minimum (min) and maximum (max) values, that is,
 2 ½min , max  ¼ ½2 2
max , min .
In practice, the admissible values of h are con-
strained in a polytope in the parameter space Rnp
with n ¼ 2np vertices (in this case np ¼ 1). This poly-
(Boyd et al., 1994). For this problem, the polytope of
ð22Þ
n ¼ 2, in parameter space R that can be expressed by
P ¼ fg 2 Co f1 , 2 g
( )
Xn X
n
 li  i , li ¼ 1, li  0 , i ¼ 1, . . . , n
i¼1 i¼1
ð24Þ
where 1 ¼ min and 2 ¼ max . Based on these values it
is possible to define the polytopic system by

½A, Bu ðÞ 2 Co ½A, Bu i , . . . , ½A, Bu n 
da Silva et al. 2901

( ) Table 1. Helicopter parameters used in the numerical

X
n X
n
 li ½A, Bu i , li ¼ 1, li  0 , i ¼ 1, . . . , n application (Hammond, 1974).
i¼1 i¼1 Parameter Value
ð25Þ
Number of blades, Nb 4
Rotor radius, R 5.64 m
The introduced model nondimensionalization allows Operational rotor speed, 0 31.42 rad/s
for the reduction of the polytope dimension. If the Blade mass, mb 94.9 kg
dimensional system is used, there are two terms to be Blade mass moment, Sb 289.1 kg.m
defined as uncertain parameters ( and 2). In this Blade mass moment of inertia, Ib 1084.7 kg.m2
case, the polytope must be a rectangle (four vertices)
Lag hinge offset, e 0.3048 m
which can be more complex to be solved by the convex
Lag spring, kb 0 N.m/rad
optimization algorithm in comparison with the solving
approach herein. Longitudinal hub mass, mfx 8026.6 kg
The main advantage of describing this problem by Lateral hub mass, mfy 3283.6 kg
convex polytopic hulls is the guarantee of achieving the Longitudinal hub spring, kfx 1240481.08 N/m
stability in all rotor speed ranges where the GR occurs. Lateral hub spring, kfy 1240481.08 N/m
Also, in practice, the LMI solutions must be done only
at the polytopic vertices instead of all points inside it
(Boyd et al., 1994). In other words, if it is possible to
find a pair of matrices Z and W such that all LMIs are modal damping diagrams (Figures 4 (a) and 4 (b)) are
simultaneously satisfied. used to characterize the stability of the rotor/fuselage
To achieve an asymptotically stable system behavior system in the context of GR.
in all rotor speed ranges ½min , max  using a unique Figure 4 (a) shows the Coleman diagram, which pre-
control gain it is necessary to write the LMI in equation sents the frequencies’ evolution through the rotor
(23) for each vertex of the polytope defined in equation speed. It is used as a normalized rotor speed to simplify
(25), as given by the following LMI the understanding. In addition, Figure 4 (b) shows the
damping behavior from which two system instabilities
min½TrðQWÞ þ TrðXÞ subject to are detected (the range of negative relative modal
Ai W þ Bui Z þ WATi þ Z BTui þ 2W 5 0
T damping). By comparing these results, it is possible to
identify the system instability in the coalescence of
i ¼ 1, 2 ð26Þ regressive blade mode (1s ) with the longitudinal fusel-
" #
X R 1=2
Z age mode (xf) and, subsequently, the lateral fuselage
T 1=2
4 0, W40 mode (yf) as the rotor speed increases, characterizing
Z R W
the GR occurrence. In this case two boundaries of
instabilities are observed because the fuselage is con-
where the Lyapunov matrix and the state feedback gain sidered anisotropic.
are given by P ¼ W1 and F ¼ W1 Z, respectively. Based on these results the unstable ranges of rotor
speed are min1 ¼ 0:4480    max1 ¼ 0:61260
and min2 ¼ 0:6690    max2 ¼ 1:020 . It is
4. Numerical application noted that the second range requires more damping
To illustrate the proposed approach numerical simula- to stabilize the GR.
tions are carried out considering the helicopter’s par-
ameters defined in Hammond (1974), for which the
4.2. Controller design
system’s physical and geometric properties are shown
in Table 1. The GR stability analysis is performed to To design the controller two strategies were considered.
find the GR boundaries and the control design is done The fuselage is assumed anisotropic which implies that
by using the introduced formulation. two unstable rotor speed ranges exist. For the first
strategy (Approach A), a unique polytope is used to
comprise the two boundaries of instabilities. The
4.1. GR identification system is represented by ½A, Bu ðÞ ¼ CofðAmin1 , Bmin1 Þ,
An eigenvalue analysis is initially performed using the ðAmax2 , Bmax2 Þg and the computed gain is FT .
matrix A (equation (11)) to determine the frequencies The second strategy (Approach B) consists of con-
(!j , 8j ¼ 1, . . . , 4) and modal damping (j , 8j ¼ sidering one polytope for each unstable rotor range. In
1, . . . , 4) for each system mode. The Coleman and the this case, a specific controller gain is computed to
2902 Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Feedback scheme for active suppression of the

ground resonance phenomenon for both control Approaches
(A and B).

transformation is applied on the control inputs as fol-

lows (see Figure 5)
2 3
sinð 1Þ cosð 1Þ
6 sinð cosð 7
6 2Þ 2Þ 7
uðÞ ¼ Pc ðÞuc ðÞ, Pc ðÞ ¼ 6 7
4 sinð 3 Þ cosð 3Þ 5
sinð 4Þ cosð 4Þ
ð27Þ
Figure 4. (a) Coleman diagram for an undamped rotor system;
and (b) modal damping diagram for an undamped rotor system. where u ¼ fTa1 Ta2 Ta3 Ta4 gT is the physical con-
trol input vector and Pc is the inverse MBC coordinate
transform matrix; the resulting feedback gain is peri-
odic once it depends on the azimuthal angle of blades.
stabilize each boundary of instability. It is defined F1 For this numerical application the control gains are
for the first GR boundary, for which the system is computed by using Q ¼ 260  I88 and R ¼ 0:001
described by the polytope ½A, Bu ðÞ ¼ CofðAmin1 , I22 , where I is the identity matrix, a decay rate
Bumin1 Þ, ðAmax1 , Bumax1 Þg, and min1    max1 . T ¼ 0.01 is employed in Approach A, and 1 ¼ 0.16
Similarly, F2 is the control gain designed to stabilize and 2 ¼ 0.08 are used for Approach B. These values
the second GR boundary. The system polytopic were defined arbitrarily.
description is ½A, Bu ðÞ ¼ CofðAmin2 , Bumin2 Þ, ðAmax2 , Figures 6 (a) and 6 (b) show the Coleman diagram
Bumax2 Þg, where min2    max2 is the rotor speed and the modal damping diagram for the controlled
range. In practice, Approach B consists of switching system considering Approach A. It is possible to note
the control gain appropriately for each rotor oper- an important changing of relative eigenfrequencies
ational speed. (Figure 6 (a)) in comparison with the uncontrolled
To compute the control gain, the new coordinate system (Figure 4 (a)) once the coalescence effect does
system obtained from the Coleman transformation is not exist. Also, the stability can be verified through
considered. Based on this gain, the control forces uc Figure 6 (b) for the rotor speed range using one con-
are defined in the nonrotating coordinate frame and troller gain.
they need to be converted to the physical coordinates Based on the control Approach B, the Coleman dia-
for practical applications. In this case, an inverse MBC gram and the modal damping diagram are shown in
da Silva et al. 2903

(a) (a)

(b)
(b)

Figure 7. (a) Coleman diagram for the controlled system

(Approach B); and (b) modal damping diagram for the controlled
Figure 6. (a) Coleman diagram for the controlled system system (Approach B).
(Approach A); and (b) modal damping diagram for the controlled
system (Approach A).

Figures 7 (a) and 7 (b), respectively. A similar effect in

comparison with Approach A was noted. However, the
controlled system exhibits low values of relative eigen-
frequencies and modal damping once a specific control-
ler is designed for each unstable rotor speed range. In
this case, the control gain must stabilize a small convex
space, and because of this the second strategy can be
more convenient for practical applications.

4.3. Time response analysis

To demonstrate the controllers’ performances over time
the system responses are evaluated for  ¼ 0:560 and
 ¼ 0:80 . These values correspond to the rotor speeds
with smaller relative modal damping for the first and
second GR boundaries, respectively (see Figure 4 (b)).
The time responses are obtained by direct time integra-
tion of equations (5) and (12), respectively, for the Figure 8. Time response of normalized longitudinal fuselage
uncontrolled and controlled conditions. A fourth (xf =R) motion ( ¼ 0:560 ).
2904
order Runge–Kutta method is used with initial condi-
tion q0 ¼ f0:01 0:01 0 0 0 0gT and a time step
equal to 104 seconds.
Figure 8 shows the longitudinal fuselage time
response at  ¼ 0:560 . The results demonstrate the
assured stability for both Approaches A and B (the
equilibrium position is reached in approximately 1.0
second). In addition, Figure 9 shows the phase map
to be asymptotically stable and the differences between
these two control strategies. The control forces for
the actuators placed on blades 1 and 2 are shown in
Figures 10 and 11, respectively. For these blades the
Figure 9. Phase map of longitudinal fuselage motion
( ¼ 0:560 ).
Figure 10. Control effort on blade 1 (Fa1 ) – ( ¼ 0:560 ).
Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)
maximum control efforts are 768 N and 5.9 kN for
Approach A, and 610 N and 1.9 kN for Approach B.
Figure 12 shows the lateral fuselage time response at
 ¼ 0:80 for both uncontrolled and controlled condi-
tions. The stability is also achieved using the proposed
strategies. Figure 13 shows the phase map of lateral
fuselage motion for this rotor speed and some differ-
ences between the approaches. Figures 14 and 15 show
the control efforts acting on blades 1 and 2. Based on
Approach A, the maximum control force is 1.46 kN on
blade 1 and 5.9 kN on blade 2. For Approach B these
maximum values are 1.26 kN and 2.6 kN, respectively.
Figure 11. Control effort on blade 2 (Fa2 ) – ( ¼ 0:560 ).
Figure 12. Time response of normalized lateral fuselage (yf =R)
motion for  ¼ 0:80.
da Silva et al.
Figure 13. Phase map of lateral fuselage motion ( ¼ 0:80 ).
Figure 14. Control effort on blade 1 (Fa1 ) – ( ¼ 0:80 ).
Based on these results it is possible to conclude that
both control Approaches A and B can be used to sta-
bilize the GR phenomenon. In particular, Approach A
can be more difficult to establish a numerical solution
once it considers just one convex space to comprise two
unstable rotor speed ranges. It can require large control
forces, but the use of the small decay rate  can avoid
high levels. On the other hand, the use of two control
gains computed through Approach B requires a select-
ive feedback produce to switch the gain appropriately
according to the rotor speed range.
The control efforts are calculated for each torque
Tai, i ¼ 1, . . . , 4, and they are converted to control
forces by using the geometric actuator arm.
The maximum force level is equal to 5.9 kN, which is
representative of a typical hydraulic actuator for
2905
Figure 15. Control effort on blade 2 (Fa2 ) – ( ¼ 0:80 ).
helicopter blades (Bauchau and Liu, 2006), modern
semi-active MR lag dampers (Zhao et al., 2004), and
semi-active lag friction dampers (Bauchau et al., 2010).
5. Conclusions
In this work an alternative approach to stabilize the
GR phenomenon in helicopters using active control
techniques and LMIs is presented. The classical mech-
anical model for GR analysis is employed.
The main contribution of this work consists of con-
sidering the GR boundaries of instabilities (i.e., an
unstable rotor speed range) as an uncertain parameter
which can be easily described by a convex polytopic.
An LMI version of the LQR controller with a pre-
scribed degree of the stability problem is employed.
The quadratic robust criteria ensure that all previously
unstable rotor speed ranges become asymptotically
stable by using only one control gain. In particular,
the proposed method is applied to solve the GR prob-
lem considering the helicopter’s parameters defined in
Hammond (1974). Based on the present study, the fol-
lowing conclusions are obtained:
1. The nondimensionalization of the used GRM is
an important strategy to solve the problem once
it reduces the convex space dimension. This
procedure allows the use of Lyapunov’s energy
function to design the controller via LMIs
(Proposition 1).
2. The LQR-–LMI controller demonstrates high
performance through fast temporal system stabil-
ization. Time responses are shown for the more
critical rotor speeds (i.e., rotor speeds that require
more damping for the GR suppression).
2906
3. The two control Approaches (A and B) can be
used to suppress the GR phenomenon. Approach
A is simpler to implement, but it can require
higher levels of control forces. On the other
hand, although Approach B requires a switching
procedure to set the control gain for each unstable
rotor speed range, the convex optimization solu-
tion may be simpler once it involves stabilizing a
more limited convex space in comparison with
Approach A.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) would like to thank the São Paulo Research
Foundation (FAPESP), under Grant No. 2016/05988-2, for
the financial support to this research.
ORCID iD
José A. Ignácio da Silva https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6960-
250X
References
Afolabi D (1993) The cusp catastrophe and the stability prob-
lem of helicopter ground resonance. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences 441(1912): 399–406.
Anderson BD and Moore JB (2007) Optimal Control: Linear
Quadratic Methods. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier
Corporation.
Bauchau OA and Liu H (2006) On the modeling of hydraulic
components in rotorcraft systems. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society 51(2): 175–184.
Bauchau OA, Van Weddingen Y and Agarwal S (2010)
Semiactive coulomb friction lead-lag dampers. Journal of
the American Helicopter Society 55(1): 12005-1–12005-12.
Benzaouia A, Tadeo F and Mesquine F (2006) The regulator
problem for linear systems with saturations on the control
and its increments or rate: An LMI approach. IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers
53(12): 2681–2691.
Bergeot B, Bellizzi S and Cochelin B (2016) Analysis of
steady-state response regimes of a helicopter ground res-
onance model including a non-linear energy sink attach-
ment. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 78:
72–89.
Bergeot B, Bellizzi S and Cochelin B (2017) Passive suppres-
sion of helicopter ground resonance using nonlinear
energy sinks attached on the helicopter blades. Journal of
Sound and Vibration 392: 41–55.
Bielawa R (2006) Rotary Wing Structural Dynamics and
Aeroelasticity. 2nd edition. Reston, VA: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)
Boyd S, Balakrishnan V, Feron E, et al. (1993)Control system
analysis and synthesis via linear matrix inequalities. In:
Proceedings of 1993 American Control Conference, San
Francisco, California, USA, 2–4 June 1993. Piscataway,
NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
pp.2147–2154.
Boyd S, El Ghaoui E, Feron E, et al. (1994) Linear Matrix
Inequalities in Systems and Control Theory, Volume 15,
Studies in Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia, PA:
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Brackbill CR, Lesieutre GA, Smith EC, et al. (2000)
Characterization of the low strain amplitude and fre-
quency dependent behavior of elastomeric damper mater-
ials. Journal of the American Helicopter Society 45(1):
34–42.
Broadbent EG and Williams M (1960) The Effect of
Structural Damping on Binary Flutter, R & M 3169,
London: Ministry of Aviation, Aeronautical Research
Council. Available at: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/
reports/arc/rm/3169.pdf (accessed September 2018).
Bueno DD, Goes LCS and Goncalves PJP (2014) Control of
limit cycle oscillation in a three degrees of freedom airfoil
section using fuzzy Takagi–Sugeno modeling. Shock and
Vibration. Article ID 597827. pp.12. Available at: https://
www.hindawi.com/journals/sv/2014/597827/ (accessed
September 2018).
Bueno DD, Goes LCS and Goncalves PJP (2015) Flutter
analysis including structural uncertainties. Meccanica
50(8): 2093–2101.
Chen C-T (1998) Linear System Theory and Design, 3rd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Chilali M and Gahinet P (1996) H1 : design with pole place-
ment constraints: An LMI approach. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control 41(3): 358–367.
Chopra I (1990) Perspectives in aeromechanical stability of
helicopter rotors. Vertica 14: 457–508.
Coleman RP and Feingold AM (1956) Theory of self-excited
mechanical oscillations of helicopter rotors with hinged
blades. Techreport 1351, NACA. Available at: https://
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
19930092339.pdf (accessed September 2018) .
Feron E, Balakrishnan V, Boyd S, et al. (1992) Numerical
methods for H2 related problems. In: Proceedings
of 1992 American Control Conference, Chicago,
Illinois, USA, 24–26 June 1992. Piscataway, NJ:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
pp.2921–2922.
Friedmann P and Venkatesan C (1985) Coupled helicopter
rotor/ body aeromechanical stability comparison of theor-
etical and experimental results. Journal of Aircraft 22(2):
148–155.
Gabel R (1962) Exact mechanical instability boundaries as
determined from the Coleman equation. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society 7(1): 17–23.
Gahinet P, Nemirovski A, Laub AJ, et al. (1995). LMI
Control Toolbox for Use With MATLAB. The
MathWorks, MA: Inc Natick. Available at: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/3611303_LMI_control_tool-
box_user’s_guide (accessed September 2018).
da Silva et al.
Gandhi F and Malovrh B (1999) Influence of balanced rotor
anisotropy on helicopter aeromechanical stability. AIAA
Journal 37(10): 1152–1160.
Gandhi F, Wang KW and Xia L (2001) Magnetorheological
fluid damper feedback linearization control for helicopter
rotor application. Smart Materials and Structures 10(1):
96–103.
Gao C, Duan G and Jiang C (2009) Robust controller design
for active flutter suppression of a two-dimensional airfoil.
Nonlinear Dynamics and Systems Theory 9(3): 287–299.
Gourc E, Sanches L, Michon G, et al. (2016) Post-critical
analysis of ground resonance phenomenon: Effect of
stator asymmetry. Nonlinear Dynamics 83(1): 201–215.
Hammond CE (1974) An application of Floquet theory to
prediction of mechanical instability. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society 19(4): 14–23.
Hu W and Wereley NM (2008) Hybrid magnetorheological
fluid-elastomeric lag dampers for helicopter stability aug-
mentation. Smart Materials and Structures 17(4): 045021.
Jang J and Chopra I (1998) Ground and air resonance of an
advanced bearingless rotor in hover. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society 33(3): 20–29.
Janowski M and Tongue B (1988) Construction and analysis
of a simplified non-linear ground resonance model.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 122(2): 233–241.
Johnson EA and Erkus B (2005) Investigation of dissipativity
for control of smart dampers via LMI synthesis. In:
Proceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference,
Volume 5, Portland, Oregon, USA, 8–10 June 2005.
Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, pp.3084–3089.
Johnson EA and Erkus B (2006) Dissipativity and perform-
ance analysis of smart dampers via LMI synthesis.
Structural Control and Health Monitoring 14(3): 471–496.
Kamath GM, Wereley NM and Jolly MR (1999) Analysis
and testing of a model scale magnetorheological fluid heli-
copter lag mode damper. Journal of American Helicopter
Society 44: 234–248.
Kim SJ and Yun CY (2001) Performance comparison
between piezoelectric and elastomeric lag dampers on
ground resonance stability of helicopter. Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 12(4): 215–222.
Koroishi E, Lara-Molina F, Borges A, et al. (2016) Robust
control in rotating machinery using linear matrix inequal-
ities. Journal of Vibration and Control 22(17): 3767–3778.
Kowaleczko G and Dzygadlo Z (2002) Effect of free play in
rotor blades hinges on the non-linear ground resonance of
a helicopter. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology 74(6): 508–516.
Kunz D (1999) Elastomer modelling for use in predicting
helicopter lag damper behavior. Journal of Sound and
Vibration 226(3): 585–594.
Kunz DL (2002) Nonlinear analysis of helicopter ground res-
onance. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications 3(3):
383–395.
Lee Y-K and Kim K-J (2010) Ground resonance analysis for
an eight-degrees-of-freedom rotorcraft with double-stage
oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers. Journal of Aircraft
47(5): 1647–1655.
2907
Li H, Liu H, Hilton C, et al. (2013) Non-fragile H1 control
for half-vehicle active suspension systems with actuator
uncertainties. Journal of Vibration and Control 19(4):
560–575.
Lytwyn RT, Miao W and Woitsch W (1971) Airborne and
ground resonance of hingeless rotors. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society 16(2): 2–9.
Marathe S, Gandhi F and Wang KW (1998) Helicopter blade
response and aeromechanical stability with a magnetor-
heological fluid based lag damper. Journal of Intelligent
Materials Systems and Structures 9(4): 272–282.
Mura R and Lovera M (2015) Rotorcraft vibration control:
Adaptive vs LPV methods. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(26):
109–114.
Olalla C, Leyva R, Aroudi AE, et al. (2009) Robust
LQR control for PWM converters: An LMI approach.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 56(7):
2548–2558.
Panda B, Mychalowycz E, Kothmann B, et al. (2004) Active
controller for Comanche air resonance stability augmen-
tation. In: Proceedings of the 60th Annual American
Helicopter Society Conference, Volume 3, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA, 7–10 June 2004. New York: Vertical
Flight Society, pp.2048–2060.
Sanches L, Michon G, Berlioz A, et al. (2011) Instability
zones for isotropic and anisotropic multibladed rotor con-
figurations. Mechanism and Machine Theory 46(8):
1054–1065.
Sanches L, Michon G, Berlioz A, et al. (2012) Parametrically
excited helicopter ground resonance dynamics with high
blade asymmetries. Journal of Sound and Vibration
331(16): 3897–3913.
Sanches L, Michon G, Berlioz A, et al. (2014) Response and
instability prediction of helicopter dynamics on the
ground. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics
65: 213–225.
Soliman HM and Bajabaa NS (2013) Robust guaranteed-cost
control with regional pole placement of active suspensions.
Journal of Vibration and Control 19(8): 1170–1186.
Soliman HM, Benzaouia A and Yousef H (2016) Saturated
robust control with regional pole placement and applica-
tion to car active suspension. Journal of Vibration and
Control 22(1): 258–269.
Wang M, Cole MOT and Keogh PS (2017) New LMI based
gain-scheduling control for recovering contact-free oper-
ation of a magnetically levitated rotor. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 96: 104–124.
Warrier J and Ali SF (2017) Control of ground resonance in
helicopters using semi active damping, In: Proceedings of
2017 Indian Control Conference (ICC), Guwahati, India,
4–6 January 2017. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, pp.111–116.
Yazici H and Sever M (2018) L2 gain state derivative feed-
back control of uncertain vehicle suspension systems.
Journal of Vibration and Control 24(16): 3779–3794.
Zhao Y, Choi YT and Werely N (2004) Semi-active damping
of ground resonance in helicopters using magnetorheolo-
gical dampers. Journal of American Helicopter Society 15:
468–492.
2908 Journal of Vibration and Control 25(23–24)

In addition, Feron et al. (1992) introduced that the

Appendix A: Proof of Theorem 1 nonlinear term, TrðR1=2 ZW1 ZT R1=2 Þ can be replaced
x ¼ e x and e
Let e uc ¼ e . These new variables are used by a second auxiliary variable X, which satisfies the
to define the linear–quadratic regulator (LQR)- per- following convex minimization problem
formance index J from the classical LQR technique
such that min TrðXÞ subject to X 4 R1=2 ZW1 ZT R1=2 ð35Þ
Z 1
T which applying the Schur’s complement (Boyd et al.,
J~ ¼ x Qe
ðe uTc Re
x þe uc Þd ð28Þ
0 1994) becomes
" #
subject to V0 ð~
xÞ 5 0. In addition, the system dynamics X R1=2 Z
considering the decay rate  is given by Anderson and min TrðXÞ subject to 40
ZT R1=2 W
Moore, (2007)
ð36Þ
0
~ ¼ ðA þ IÞ~
x x þ Bu ~
uc ð29Þ
Finally, the complete formulation for the LQR-–
and the state feedback control law in terms of the new linear matrix inequality (LMI) problem is
variables e
x and euTc is ~ ~ x, where F
uc ¼ F~ ~ ¼ F.
Consider a typical Lyapunov’s function min ½TrðQWÞ þ TrðXÞ subject to
Vð~
xÞ ¼ x~T P~
x, substitute equation (29) into the AW þ Bu Z þ WAT þ ZT BT þ 2W 5 0
Lyapunov’s inequality (equation (28)) and introduce " # ð37Þ
the state feedback control law ~ x, the perfor-
uc ¼ F~ X R1=2 Z
4 0, W 4 0
mance index J~ (equation (28)) is rewritten by ZT R1=2 W
Z 1
T where W ¼ P1 and the gain of state feedback is
J~ ¼ x ðQ þ FT RFÞe
e x d ð30Þ
0 obtained by F ¼ ZW1 . Based on the above
results the LQR-–LMI is introduced, quod erat
subject to ðAT þ FT BTu ÞP þ PðA þ Bu FÞ þ 2P 5 0. Pre demonstrandum.
and post-multiply this inequality by P1 , and let
W ¼ P1 , to obtain Appendix B: Ground resonance
(GR) model
WðAT þ FT BTu Þ þ ðA þ Bu FÞW þ 2W 5 0 ð31Þ
The Lagrange’s equations applied for the GR problem
Applying the matrix trace operator TrðÞ on the per- can be defined as
formance index J~ (equation (30)) and after some alge-

d @T @T @V
braic rearrangements involving matrix trace operator  þ ¼ Qx ð38aÞ
(Chen 1998), is obtained dt @x_ f @xf @xf
!
d @T @T @V
 þ ¼ Qy ð38bÞ
J~ ¼ TrðQWÞ þ ðFT RFWÞ ð32Þ dt @y_f @yf @yf

R1

where W ¼ 0 xxT d satisfies the Lyapunov’s inequal- d @T @T @V
 þ ¼ Qk ð38cÞ
ity in equation (31) (Boyd et al., 1993; Johnson and dt @_k @k @k
Erkus, 2006). A new variable Z ¼ FW is introduced
once equation (31) is not linear. In this case where, Qx, Qy, and Qk are the external forces acting on
the system. Considering the first-time derivative of
WAT þ ZT BTu þ WA þ Bu Z þ 2W 5 0 ð33Þ equation (1) and introducing the result into equation
(2c), the blade’s kinetic energy is accounted for. Then,
The matrix R can be decomposed as R ¼ R1=2 R1=2 substituting the energy expressions (equations (2a)–(3c))
because it is symmetric and positive defined. Based on in the Lagrange’s equations (equations (38a)–(38c)) con-
this result, and using equation (32), the LQR- perfor- sidering the absence of external forces acting on the
mance index, J~ can be rewritten by system, the equations of motion can be derived as

TrðQWÞ þ TrðR1=2 ZW1 ZT R1=2 Þ ð34Þ Ib €k þ Sb x€ f sinð k  k Þ  Sb y€f cosð k  k Þ

da Silva et al. 2909

The system defined in equations (40a)–(40c) can be

þ eSb 2 sinðk Þ þ kb k ¼ 0, 8k ¼ 1, . . . , Nb ¼ 4
re-written in terms of multiblade coordinate transform-
ð39aÞ ation (MBC) coordinates, by introducing equation (6)
into equation (40a) and writing equations (40b) and
X
Nb
(40c) in terms of MBC coordinates, resulting in
~ fx x€ f þ Sb
M €k sinð k  k Þ
k¼1
ð39bÞ 000 þ ð!2b  1Þ0 ¼ 0 ð41aÞ
X
Nb
2
 Sb ð  _k Þ cosð k  k Þ þ kfx xf ¼ 0
k¼1 000 þ ð!2b  1Þ0 ¼ 0 ð41bÞ

X
Nb 00
1s þ Sb x 00f  21c
0
þ ð!2b  1Þ1s ¼ 0 ð41cÞ
~ fy y€ f  Sb
M €k cosð k  k Þ
k¼1
ð39cÞ 00
1c  Sb y 00f þ 21s
0
þ ð!2b  1Þ1c ¼ 0 ð41dÞ
X
Nb
2
 Sb ð  _k Þ sinð k  k Þ þ kfy yf ¼ 0 !fx2
00
k¼1 x f þ 2Sfx 1s
00
þ x f ¼ 0 ð41eÞ
2
Following Coleman and Feingold (1956), Hammond 00 !fy2
(1974), Janowski and Tongue (1988), Gandhi and y f  2Sfy 1c
00
þ y f ¼ 0 ð41fÞ
2
Malovrh (1999); Kim and Yun (2001), Kunz (2002),
Zhao et al. (2004), Bielawa (2006), Bauchau et al. The collective and differential rotor modes are
(2010), Sanches et al. (2011, 2012, 2014), Bergeot decoupled from the other ones (fuselage and cyclic
et al. (2016, 2017), Warrier and Ali (2017) and the ref- rotor modes), thence they can be eliminated from the
erences therein, a small lagging angle motion (k  1) analysis. The resulting system contains four degrees of
around the trivial equilibrium position of the system freedom (DOFs), that is, the longitudinal and lateral
was assumed, thus equations (39a)–(39c) are expanded hub DOFs and the sine and cosine ones, that can be
in a first-order Taylor series resulting in a linear system compacted in the following matrix form
with periodic coefficients. A nondimensional form of
this is considered by dividing these equations by Mc q00c þ Gc q0c þ Kc qc ¼ 0 ð42Þ
(2 R), resulting in
where qc ¼ fx f y f 1s 1c gT is the nondimensional
k00 þ Sb x 00f sinð   00 cosð
k Þ  Sb y f kÞ þ !2b k ¼0 ð40aÞ vector of displacements (described in the non-rotating
coordinate system), Mc , Gc and Kc are respectively the
X
Nb X
Nb mass, gyroscopic and stiffness matrices given in equa-
x 00f þ Sfx k00 sinð kÞ þ2 Sfx 0k cosð kÞ tions (9a)–(9c).
k¼1 k¼1
ð40bÞ
X
Nb
!2fx
 Sfx k sinð kÞ þ x f ¼ 0
k¼1
2

X
Nb X
Nb
y 00f  Sfy k00 cosð kÞ þ2 Sfy 0k sinð kÞ
k¼1 k¼1
2
ð40bÞ
X
Nb ! fy
þ Sfy k cosð kÞ þ y ¼0
k¼1
2 f