Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Electrical Engineering

H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting

sensor and control singularities
Parthish Kumar Paul ⇑, Jeevamma Jacob
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper addresses the robust control problem of Twin Rotor Multi input multi output System (TRMS)
Received 30 May 2016 via H2 and H1 control techniques. An output error optimization technique is proposed to develop H2 and
Accepted 11 July 2019 H1 controllers for the well posed plant. Computer simulation results are presented for closed loop TRMS
Available online xxxx
in hovering positions which show marked improvements over previous works. The simulated plant exhi-
bits stable responses in hovering position at the desired pitch and yaw angles. Corrections are incorpo-
Keywords: rated in model formulation to compensate control and sensor singularities. The output error
Modeling
optimization technique proposed in the present paper can be essentially adopted in controlling of 2 by
Singularity
Output error optimization
2 plants exhibiting non-minimum phase dynamics.
Well-posedness Ó 2019 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
TRMS versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction resulting in more intricate system mathematics. In human maneu-

With the advent of robust control techniques and state-of-the-
art mathematical tools, the stabilization and control problems of
airborne vehicles are less tedious; yet the challenges in designing
and proposing control algorithms for such plants are in no way les-
ser. A class of such Multi Input Multi Output (MIMO) systems with
Right Half Plane (RHP) dynamics is difficult to be tackled due to
inverse responses. The TRMS, developed by Feedback Instruments
Ltd. [1], a laboratory model of helicopter known for its intricate
cross coupled and non-minimum phase dynamics is a test bench
which can be used to validate robust control techniques. Multiple
zeros at the origin bring TRMS to the verge of instability and intro-
duce a wide arena of challenges in robust control applications on
the system. The present paper is the result of motivation to pro-
pose another robust control technique to fly TRMS.
TRMS is a laboratory scale electro mechanical helicopter
derived from traditional rotorcraft. It has improved rotor dynamics
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Dr. Akhilesh Das Gupta Institute of Technology and Management, New Delhi –
110053, India.
E-mail addresses: parthishpaul@gmail.com (P.K. Paul), jeeva@nitc.ac.in (J. Jacob).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
vered rotorcrafts, the control is generally achieved by tilting the
blades of the rotors at appropriate angles with the collective and
cyclic actuators, while keeping the rotor speed constant as cited
in their work by Martinez et al. [2]. The blades of the rotors in
TRMS have a fixed angle of attack, and control is achieved by con-
trolling the speeds of the rotors as presented by Martinez et al. [3].
Accordingly, this system presents higher coupling between
dynamics of the rigid body and that of the rotors as compared to
a conventional helicopter, and yields highly non-linear, strongly
cross-coupled dynamics. TRMS has one main rotor in the horizon-
tal plane and one tail rotor in the vertical plane with fewer degrees
of freedom of movement and more involved plant dynamics as
compared to a conventional helicopter. Thus, this setup may be
tested in laboratory for its controllability and stability in two
degrees of freedom of movement through two degrees of freedom
of control. Hence, this system is fit to do laboratory experiments
and understand the effect of cross coupling in 2  2 systems in
specific and MIMO systems in general. Fig. 1 illustrates a simple
schematic diagram of TRMS at rest. Fig. 2 is illustration of real
TRMS in hovering position.
Robust control techniques can be implemented to achieve
desired pitch and yaw displacements of the TRMS from the rest
and acquire hovering positions of the system as well. A robust con-
troller guarantees robust behavior from external disturbances and
modeling uncertainties, i.e., controls the slow dynamics robustly,
while neglecting the fast dynamics of a system. In TRMS, the
propeller-rotor groups exhibit fast dynamics, while movement on

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
2090-4479/Ó 2019 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
2 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 1. Sketch of TRMS laboratory unit [1].
Fig. 2. Working model of TRMS in hover. (Curtsey: Control Systems Laboratory,
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut,
India.)
the pitch and yaw angles are confined to slow dynamics. In addi-
tion, the linear models obtained by traditional linearization meth-
ods are nominal models and devoid of critical system information.
It is also known that a robust controller is able to stabilize the sys-
tem when there is marked variation between the actual plant and
the linear model used to determine the robust controller. Thus,
TRMS is a suitable platform for testing robust control strategies.
The techniques and algorithms for the design of robust con-
troller for TRMS have been improved gradually as reported in var-
ious national and international conferences and journals. In the
present work, this class of systems have been extensively surveyed,
identifying a number of control strategies that range from linear
robust control techniques as stated by Smerlas et al. in [4] to more
recent nonlinear approaches as mentioned by Vilchis et al. in [5]. It
can be proved that the dynamics of TRMS are non-minimum phase,
exhibiting unstable zero dynamics, which make the system not
suitable for classical feedback linearization techniques [2]. This
fact, jointly with important modeling uncertainties, especially in
the high frequency range, makes the system hard to control by
standard techniques as mentioned by Mullhaupt et al. in [6].
Other classical approaches to sort out the difficulty associated
with modeling uncertainties in the high frequency range, make
use of simplifying assumptions to decouple rigid body and rotor
dynamics, such that partial feedback linearization can be applied
Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
[3]. With these assumptions, the linearized system takes the form
of a classical master-slave cascade linear system, where the simpli-
fied linear system can be controlled with well-known linear strate-
gies for instance, H1, LQR, optimal, or switched control [2,6].
Contemporary to these results, several advances in the theory of
nonlinear control have been reported. One such control strategy
is the nonlinear extension of classical robust L2 control [3]. Lu
and Wen [7] have decoupled TRMS as two SISO plants and it is con-
trolled through one degree of freedom controller on each of the
SISO system.
Several robust control optimization techniques are discussed by
Skogestad and Postlethwaite in [8] from which the present work is
partially motivated. In this work, an output error optimization
technique is proposed by using generalized plant encapsulating
TRMS and other subsystems except robust controller. The H2 and
H1 optimization algorithm and the generalized plant are used to
design the robust controllers. Prior to this, the nonlinear dynamic
mathematical model of TRMS is linearized to obtain the nominal
model. The generalized plant is formulated by using the nominal
model of TRMS.
Determination of the nominal model of a physical plant is the
first and inevitable step in solving any control system problem in
general. In this case, the required nominal model is linear. This
can be determined by linearizing the mathematical relationship
of the system and obtaining the state space model. Several efforts
have been made in the past to derive a representative linear model
of TRMS that behaves in the same manner as the physical TRMS in
hover (translatory motion w.r.t. ground being zero). In a recent
work, Nejjari et al. [9] have presented system identification and
modeling of TRMS leading to Quasi-LPV modeling. In a former
work, the forward path Transfer Functions (T.F.s) were derived
by Lu and Wen [7] for the SISO sub-systems of the decoupled
TRMS. A dynamic model characterizing the TRMS in hovering posi-
tion was extracted using a black box system identification tech-
nique in the works of Ahmed et al. [10–13]. Identification of
system parameters of TRMS based on least squares parametric
identification method is presented by Belkheiri et al. [14]. Tanaka
et al. [15] considered linear parameter varying identification of
TRMS via grey box modeling. Rahideha et al. [16] and Ekbote
et al. [17] had used Lagrangian based formulation of equation of
motion to derive a dynamic model of TRMS. In a recent attempt,
Vishnupriyan et al. [18] have presented uncertainty modeling
and control using linearized plant model of TRMS. In another
recent work, a model based on first-principle modeling was
derived and its parameters were refined by identification based
on real-time experiments as presented by Chapula et al. [19]. In
the present work a nominal model of TRMS is obtained by lineariz-
ing it using Taylor series expansion followed by defining Jacobians.
A 2  2 T.F. model is obtained from the state space representation.
But this T.F. model is devoid of the RHP zero dynamics of the plant.
The missing dynamics in the T.F. matrix are taken care by robust
control technique developed in this work.
Subsequently, a generalized output error optimization tech-
nique is proposed in this paper. Two different robust controllers
are designed using this technique, viz. H2 and H1 controllers. A
feed forward gravity compensation block is used to compensate
acceleration due to gravity in the vertical plane. The control sys-
tems are simulated with unity feedback control of TRMS. Computer
simulation of TRMS demonstrates improved results over the past
contributions. The algorithm is superior over other robust control
techniques because the singularities are taken care by the design
itself. Following section gives the mathematical description of
TRMS. Table 1 defines the abbreviations and symbolic presenta-
tions. All variables are measured in SI units.
 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Table 1 I2  u
€ ¼ M 2  M Bu  M R ð7Þ
Nomenclature.

Symbol Definition M2 ¼ a2  sT 2 þ b2  sT ð8Þ

w pitch angle from rest
I1 moment of inertia of the vertical rotor MBu ¼ B1u  w_ þ B2u  signðu
_Þ ð9Þ
M1 nonlinear static momentum in horizontal plane
MFG gravity momentum
_ R ¼ kc T 0 s_ M þ kc sM  M R
TpM ð10Þ
MBw friction forces momentum in horizontal plane
MG gyroscopic momentum in horizontal plane
sM main motor torque T 21 s_ T ¼ T 20 sT þ k2 uT ð11Þ
uM main motor control input
u azimuth angle from rest Different vectors used in Eqs. (1)–(11) are illustrated in Fig. 3
I2 moment of inertia of the horizontal rotor [1]. Table 2 presents the list of parameters and the nominal values
M2 nonlinear static momentum in vertical plane
as used in the present work.
MBu friction forces momentum in vertical plane
MR cross reaction momentum in vertical plane It is already stated that system modeling is an essentially pri-
sT tail motor torque mary step in any control system design problem. This paper will
uT tail motor control input limit its scope to derivation of a linear nominal model for TRMS.
I/O Input/Output The following section discusses modeling problem of TRMS in
T.F. Transfer Function
detail. It includes linearization of TRMS. In later sections general-
LFT Linear Fractional Transformation
Mp peak overshoot ized plant formulation using the linear nominal model of TRMS is
Ess steady state error discussed.
Tss settling time
Umax Maximum allowable rotor input voltage
3. State space modeling of TRMS

From the set of nonlinear mathematical equations of TRMS sta-

2. Mathematical description of TRMS ted in Eqs. (1)–(11), the linear state space model may be obtained
as:
TRMS has strong cross coupling between main rotor and tail
rotor dynamics. The two rotors are in mutually perpendicular X_ ¼ AX þ BU ð12Þ
planes with a comparatively faster dynamics as compared to the
rigid body. The angular momentum of one rotor affects the angular Y ¼ CX þ DU ð13Þ
momentum of the other. The gyroscopic effect of the main rotor
where the state vector is
has strong impact on the yaw angle, while that of the tail rotor  
has weak effect on the pitch angle of the TRMS as evident from X¼ w u w_ u
_ sM sT MR ð14Þ
its mathematical model stated in [1] and cited in the subsections
that follow. i:e:; X ¼ ½ x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7  ð15Þ
The input vector is
2.1. Moments in the vertical plane
U ¼ ½ uM uT  ð16Þ
The nonlinear equations in time domain pertaining to the pitch
The output vector is
movement of TRMS are quoted from Eqs. (1)–(6):
Y ¼ ½w u
T
€ ¼ M 1  M FG  MBw  M G ð17Þ
I1  w ð1Þ
To linearize the nonlinear terms in Eqs. (1)–(11), Taylor series is
M 1 ¼ a1  sM 2 þ b1  sM ð2Þ used and Jacobians are obtained.
Main rotor of TRMS provides necessary thrust for pitch. Rest
position of pitch is balanced by a counter weight, which is modeled
by choice, to set the angle of elevation as desired. The elevation of
TRMS functionally connects, gyroscopic momentum in horizontal
plane to gravity momentum as depicted in Eq. (3). The weight
and position of counter weight provide necessary inputs for
designing the gravity compensation block, to be used in feed for-
ward compensation, as mentioned in a later section.
M FG ¼ M G  sin ðwÞ ð3Þ


M Bw ¼ B1w  w_ þ B2w  sign w_ ð4Þ

M G ¼ K gy  M1  u
_  cos ðwÞ ð5Þ

T 11 s_ M ¼ T 10 sM þ k1 uM ð6Þ

2.2. Moments in the horizontal plane

The nonlinear equations in time domain pertaining to the yaw

movement of TRMS are quoted from Eqs. (7)–(11): Fig. 3. TRMS working model [1].

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
4 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Parameters and values [1].

Parameter Value
I1 – moment of inertia of vertical rotor 6.8  102 kg m2
I2 – moment of inertia of horizontal rotor 2  102 kg m2
a1 – static characteristic parameter 0.0135
b1 - static characteristic parameter 0.0924
a2 – static characteristic parameter 0.01
Fig. 4. General control configuration.
b2 – static characteristic parameter 0.09
MG – gravity momentum 0.32 N-m
B1w – friction momentum function parameter 6  103N-m-s/rad.
B2w – friction momentum function parameter 1  103N-m-s/rad. This configuration is confined to the linear time invariant MIMO
B1u – friction momentum function parameter 1  101N-m-s/rad.
finite order systems tested for its well-posedness with finite H2/H1
B2u – friction momentum function parameter 1  103N-m-s/rad.
Kgy – gyroscopic momentum parameter 0.05 s/rad norms. Commonly available optimization methods for RHP zero
k1 – motor 1 gain 1.1 plants frequently fail prematurely solely because of the divide by
k2 – motor 2 gain 0.8 zero encounters while iteration, if not taken care at the design
T11 – motor 1 denominator parameter 1.2 stage. Manipulating programming code or resetting word length
T10 – motor 1 denominator parameter 1
of variable types in simulation software is rather an uneducated
T21 – motor 2 denominator parameter 1
T20 – motor 2 denominator parameter 1 approach in solving such hurdles. A sophisticated output error
Tp – cross reaction momentum parameter 2 optimization approach is proposed in this paper to overcome such
T0 – cross reaction momentum parameter 3.5 hurdles.
kc – cross reaction momentum gain 0.2
State space representation of P(s) is considered as
_
XðsÞ ¼ AXðsÞ þ B1 WðsÞ þ B2 UðsÞ ð23Þ
2 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 ZðsÞ ¼ C 1 XðsÞ þ D11 WðsÞ þ D12 UðsÞ ð24Þ
6 7
6 7
6 4:348 0 0:088 0 1:246 0 0 7
6 7 YðsÞ ¼ C 2 XðsÞ þ D21 WðsÞ þ D22 UðsÞ ð25Þ
A¼6
6 0 0 0 5 1:482 3:6 18:75 7
7
6 7 Thus, the generalized plant acquires the form in state space as:
6 0 0 0 0 0:833 0 0 7
6 7 2 3
4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 A ½ B1 B2 
6  D 7
0 0 0 0 0:017 0 0:5 PðsÞ ¼ 4 C 1 11 D12 5 ð26Þ
ð18Þ C2 D21 D22

 T with inputs W(s) and U(s), outputs Z(s) and Y(s). The robust con-
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 troller K(s), to be designed by H2/H1 optimization algorithm, is pre-
B¼ ð19Þ
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 sented in state space as:

  X_ k ðsÞ ¼ Ak X k ðsÞ þ Bk YðsÞ ð27Þ

1 0 0 0 0 0 0
C¼ ð20Þ
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 UðsÞ ¼ C k X k ðsÞ þ Dk YðsÞ ð28Þ

  The controller coefficients Ak, Bk, Ck and Dk are real valued

0 0 matrices to be determined by the proposed output error optimiza-
D¼ ð21Þ
0 0 tion technique.
The 2  2 T.F. matrix of TRMS, derived from its state space
4.1. H2 and H1 optimization algorithm
model given in Eqs. (12)–(13), is presented as:
 
g 11 ðsÞ g 12 ðsÞ Objective of H2 and H1 optimization algorithm is to minimize
GðsÞ ¼ the respective norms of the closed loop matrix Tzw(s) from W(s)
g ðsÞ g 22 ðsÞ
" 21  # to Z(s) for a given generalized plant P(s) [20]. While an H2 opti-
1:359= s3 þ 0:9091s2 þ 4:706s þ 4:278 0 mization algorithm can very well iterate to an optimal value of
¼  
ð17:5s þ 5Þ= s4 þ 1:409s3 þ 0:4545s2 3:6= s3 þ s2 closed loop H2 norm (c < 1), the H1 optimization algorithm will
ð22Þ compromise a strictly proper controller at the cost of optimal
norm. In other words, a suboptimal solution for an H1 optimiza-
This nominal model G(s) will be used in the formulation of the tion algorithm will lead to designing a strictly proper controller
generalized plant described in the next section. with closed loop H1 norm > 1. Thus, the H2 optimization problem
can be stated as finding a stabilizing controller K(s) that minimizes
jjT ZW jj2 . Similarly, the H1 optimization problem may be stated as
4. General H2/H‘ control configuration
finding a stabilizing controller K(s) that minimizes jjT ZW jj1 such
that 0 < jjT ZW jj1 < c as mentioned by Delgado and Zhou in [21].
The general control configuration for designing H2/H1 con-
An iteration algorithm results as closed loop gain less than c.
troller is shown in Fig. 4. The designing of the controller K(s) starts
Initially, limits of c are considered as clow and chigh assigning
with generalized plant formulation for the present problem. The
input vectors W(s) and U(s) stand for the exogenous inputs (distur-
cn = chigh. If iteration completes, then
bances) and control inputs, respectively. The output vectors Z(s) 
cnþ1 ¼ 0:5 cnlow þ cn ð29Þ
and Y(s) are the constrained/penalized error signals and outputs,
respectively. The generalized plant P(s) includes the actual plant
G(s) along with all subsystems except the controller, K(s).
cnþ1
high ¼ c
n
ð30Þ

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Otherwise, if iteration fails, then early independent and the rows of the matrix C2(sI-A)1B1 + D21
are linearly independent.


cnþ1 ¼ 0:5 cnhigh þ cn ð31Þ
4.2.3. Condition 3
In case of H2 optimization, the condition, D11 ¼ 0 and D22 ¼ 0
are treated separately.
cnþ1
low ¼ c
n
ð32Þ
The iteration repeats until we get, 4.2.3.1. Condition D11 ¼ 0. The software used in many cases do not

 support optimization with this condition. So, with such occurrence
cnhigh  cnlow < tolerance ð33Þ the existing algorithms may be modulated to acquire D11 –0.

Stable H2/H1 controllers can be designed by directly computing 4.2.3.2. Condition D22 ¼ 0. This case resembles to direct transfer of
the norm constrained stable transfer matrices Q in the H2/H1 sub- input to output. It is compensated manually.
optimal controller parameterization. First the problem is trans-
formed into nonlinear unconstrained optimization problem.
5. Design of H2/H‘ controllers by output error optimization
Then, a two stage numerical search is carried out. Consider Gs(s)
as a stable transfer matrix with state space realization,
The desired performance of TRMS is specified in terms of a ref-
  erence model G0(s) having the form as:
A B  
Gs ðsÞ ¼ ð34Þ g 01 ðsÞ 0
C 0 G 0 ð sÞ ¼ ð40Þ
0 g 02 ðsÞ
Then, g 01 ðsÞ and g 02 ðsÞ are chosen as standard second order systems satis-
  fying the implied stability conditions.
jjGs jj22 ¼ TraceðB QBÞ ¼ TraceðCRC Þ ð35Þ
In the present technique, outputs of the generalized plant P(s)
Then, R and Q are the controllability and observability grami- are penalized by comparing outputs of TRMS with that of G0(s).
ans, which can be obtained by solving the Lyapunov equations, More specifically, output errors are penalized in this case. The ref-
erence plant, G0(s) generates desired outputs. Any deviation of
AR þ RA þ BB ¼ 0 ð36Þ actual outputs (pitch and yaw displacements of TRMS) is consid-
ered as controlled error outputs of the plant P(s) to be tackled by
A Q þ QA þ C  C ¼ 0 ð37Þ H2/H1 control algorithms. Further, solving H2 and H1 problems
Consider the generalized plant P(s) is Eq. (26). Rewriting the using mathematical tools are often limited by sensor and control
same for the purpose of lower Linear Fractional Transformation singularities at zero and infinite frequencies, respectively, in addi-
(LFT), tion to the deficit observable and/or controllable variables. To over-
2 3 come this hurdle, control singularity at infinite frequency is
A ½ B1 B2    compensated by adding an additional plant output as euV(s). Sim-
6C  D 7 P 11 P12
PðsÞ ¼ 4 1 11 D12 5 ¼ ð38Þ ilarly, the sensor singularity at steady state is compensated by add-
P 21 P22 ing an additional disturbance term eyW(s). Unlike previous efforts
C2 D21 D22
to augment physical input/output variables to overcome singular-
Recalling Fig. 4, ity as well as controllability and/or observability issues, mathemat-
ical augmentation of such variables in generalized plant
T zw ¼ F l ðP; K Þ ¼ P11 þ P21 KðI  P22 KÞ1 P 21 ð39Þ
formulation is the essence of the approach proposed in this paper.
The lower LFT presented in Eq. (39) is optimized to iterate opti- Thus the generalized plant will have four controlled outputs, two
mal H2 controller and suboptimal H1 controllers. sensor outputs, two reference inputs and two disturbance inputs.
Fig. 5 is a line diagram presenting interconnection of subsystems.
4.2. Conditions for well-posedness TRMS being a 2  2 plant, Fig. 5 can be illustrated more elabo-
rately from physical perspective as shown in Fig. 6:
A well-posed feedback loop establishes all transfer functions in Input vector; ½ W
T
U  ¼ ½ r1 r2 w1 w2 v 1 v 2 T ð41Þ
the feedback loop as well defined and proper, failing which the
optimization algorithm is prone to collapse [22–25]. The three con-
Output vector; ½ Z Y T ¼ ½ Z 1 Z2 y1 y 2 T
ditions to be tested to assure well-posedness of the system are
considered in the rest of this section. Testing for well-posedness ¼ ½ q1 z1 q2 z2 y1 y 2 T ð42Þ
is equivalent to validating the controllability and observability of
the generalized plant formulated in the context. State vector; X ¼ ½ x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9 x10 x11 T
ð43Þ
4.2.1. Condition 1
This constraint pertains to the controllability and observability
tests for the pairs (A, B2) and (C2, A), respectively. This is to ensure a
stable feedback control system. Failing these tests, the system
needs to be amended with additional control inputs and measure-
ments for stability.

4.2.2. Condition 2
The second condition ensures that any exogenous (disturbance)
input is measured at output and considered for generating control
signal. Thus, the columns of the matrix C1(sI-A)1B2 + D12 are lin- Fig. 5. Control scheme of TRMS as output error optimization problem.

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
6 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

 T
0 0 e1u 0
D12 ¼ ð53Þ
0 0 0 e2u
 
1 0 0 0
D21 ¼ ð54Þ
0 1 0 0

 
0 0
D22 ¼ ð55Þ
0 0
Thus,
2 3
g 01 0 g 11 e1y 0 g 11 0
6 0 g 0 g 22 e2y 0 g 22 7
6 02 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 e1u 0 7
Fig. 6. Elaborate control structure for robust output error optimization technique P ð sÞ ¼ 6
6 0 0
7 ð56Þ
with TRMS. 6 0 0 0 e2u 77
6 7
4 1 0 g 11 e1y 0 g 11 0 5
 T 0 1 0 g 22 e2y 0 g 22
i:e:; X ¼ w u w_ u
_ sM sT MR y10 y_ 10 y20 y_ 20
ð44Þ The generalized model of P(s) as obtained in Eqs. (47)–(56) is
used to iterate c using H1 and H2 optimization algorithms. An

g 01 ðsÞ ¼ xn1 2 = s2 þ 2n1 xn1 s þ xn1 2 ð45Þ optimal H2 controller and a suboptimal H1 controller are thus
obtained by iteration. The controllers are tested by simulating
 TRMS with main rotor feed-forward gravity compensation function
g 02 ðsÞ ¼ xn2 2 = s2 þ 2n2 xn2 s þ xn2 2 ð46Þ
as 0.3(w + 1). Simulation results are presented and discussed in
The matrices in state space representation can be expressed as: the following section.

2 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 7
6 4:348 0 0 0 1:246 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 5 1:482 3:6 18:75 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0:833 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
A¼6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 ð47Þ
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0:017 0 0:5 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
6 7
6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xn1 2 2n1 xn1 0 0 7
6 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xn2 2 2n2 xn2

2 3T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g a1 xn1 2 0 0 6. Results and discussion
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g a2 xn2 2 7
6 7 ð48Þ
B1 ¼ 6 7 All the conditions given in Section 4.2 are tested for well-
4 0 0 0 0 e1y 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
posedness of the generalized plant. Both the H2 and H1 controllers
0 0 0 0 0 e2y 0 0 0 0 0 designed are of type zero and 11th order. A decoupler is suitable
 T chosen to minimize the cross path interactions between yaw and
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 pitch. Simulation results of pitch and yaw displacements are illus-
B2 ¼ ð49Þ
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 trated and discussed in rest of this section. Rotor inputs in simula-
tion interface of MATLAB are limited to ±2.5 V.
2 3
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 6.1. H2 control simulation results
6 7
C1 ¼ 6 7 ð50Þ
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Numerical values assigned to different parameters and con-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
stants for H2 optimization are as follows:
 
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 xn1 ¼ 0:5; xn2 ¼ 0:5; g a1 ¼ 1:02; g a2 ¼ 1:02; e1y ¼ 0:01;
C2 ¼ ð51Þ
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e2y ¼ 0:01; e1u ¼ 0:01; e2y ¼ 0:01; n1 ¼ 0:9; n2 ¼ 0:9;
2 3 Nominal model of linearized TRMS obtained in Eq. (22) are
0  0
6 . . .
. . .. 7
quoted below for reference (see Figs. 7a and 7b, Figs. 8a and 8b).
D11 ¼ 4 .. 5 ð52Þ
 
0  0 g 11 ðsÞ ¼ 1:359= s3 þ 0:9091s2 þ 4:706s þ 4:278 ;g 22 ðsÞ ¼ 3:6= s3 þ s2
44

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

6.2. H1 control simulation results

Numerical values assigned to different parameters and con-

stants for H-infinity optimization are as follows:

xn1 ¼ 0:5; xn2 ¼ 1e  3; n1 ¼ 0:9; n2 ¼ 0:9; e1y ¼ 0:01;

e2y ¼ 0:01; e1u ¼ 0:01; e2y ¼ 0:01; g a1 ¼ 1:02; g a2 ¼ 1e  2;

g 11 ðsÞ and g 22 ðsÞ are taken as given in Section 6.1 (see Figs. 9a and
9b, Figs. 10a and 10b).
Yaw control is achieved within specifications with H1 con-
troller as illustrated in the following Figs. 11a and 11b, Figs. 12a
and 12b.
Fig. 7a. Pitch output against set point of 28° (without gravity compensation) – H2
control.

Fig. 9a. Pitch output against set point of 28° (without gravity compensation) – H1
control.
Fig. 7b. Main rotor input for pitch set point of 28° (without gravity compensation)
H2 control.

Fig. 9b. Main rotor input for pitch set point of 28° (without gravity compensation)
H1 control.
Fig. 8a. Pitch output against set point of 28° (with gravity compensation) – H2
control.

Fig. 8b. Main rotor input for pitch set point of 28° (with gravity compensation) H2 Fig. 10a. Pitch output against set point of 28° (with gravity compensation) – H1
control. control.

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
8 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 10b. Main rotor input for pitch set point of 28° (with gravity compensation) -
H1 control. Fig. 12a. Yaw output against set point of 60° – H1 control.

Fig. 11a. Yaw output against set point of 10° – H1 control.

Fig. 12b. Tail rotor input for yaw set point of 60° – H1 control.

Table 3
Relative and absolute stavility parameters – H2 Vs H1 pitch control.

Sl. Parameter H2 H-infinity Remarks

No. control control
1 Peak overshoot 3.57% 2.3% Without gravity
compensation
2 Peak overshoot 10.35% 9.3% With gravity
compensation
3 Settling time (2% margin) 11 s 10.5 s Without gravity
compensation
4 Settling time (2% margin) 11 s 11.5 s With gravity
compensation
5 Steady state error 0.89% 0.357% Without gravity
compensation
6 Steady state error 0.89% 0 With gravity
compensation
Fig. 11b. Tail rotor input for yaw set point of 10° – H1 control.

Table 3 contains the list of relative and absolute stability
parameters for (1) H2 controller and (2) H1 controller:
Table 3 summarizes a range of stability parameters of TRMS
with H2 and H1 controllers for pitch. It can be concluded that
H1 controller exhibits superior results in aggregate. However, per-
formance of H1 controller without gravity term is not upto the
mark while it performs well in the presence of gravity compensa-
tion. In addition, H2 optimization did not yield satisfactory results
for yaw displacement whereas with H1 controller desirable yaw
movements are observed.
Further, the approach proposed in this work imbibes the rela-
tive and absolute stability requirements in the form of second
order transfer functions (G0(s)). Thus, this method is superior to
the sensitivity function shaping methods in which the controlled
outputs are penalized by using a weighting function which is again
optimized by trial and error method. Hence, output error optimiza-
tion technique is a straight forward method and minimizes con-
troller design time and other requirements.
7. Conclusion
The present work establishes the superiority of (1) H1 con-
troller over H2 controller when optimized via the proposed output
error optimization technique tested on TRMS and (2) output error
optimization technique over sensitivity function shaping method
using weighting functions. Thus, output error optimization

Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
 P.K. Paul, J. Jacob / Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
technique proposed in this paper is time efficient and guaranteed
approach. As order of the H1 controller K(s) and that of the plant
P(s) are the same, the controller is strictly proper (numerator –
10th order and denominator – 11th order) guaranteeing strong sta-
bility of control loop. The work contributes to the class of 2 by 2
plants with non-minimum phase dynamics like TRMS that cannot
be tackled using traditional approaches. This approach clearly
explains the compensation of singularities at zero and infinite fre-
quencies which are common hurdles in computer simulations. It
further guarantees controllability and observability via well-
posedness tests. Simulation results have illustrated the robust
behavior of the controlled system as it is clearly shown that the
controllers are designed using nominal model of TRMS, reference
model and generalized plant model. Based on the simulation
results, H1 controller is established as the superior one in this case.
The present method can be extended to control the class of sys-
tems where number of measurements is deficit for full control of
the plant. Results of the real time implementation of this controller
will be reported in an ensuing paper.
Acknowledgements
This research work was performed at the Control Systems lab-
oratory of the Electrical Engineering Department, National Insti-
tute of Technology Calicut, India. The authors are thankful to the
technical staff of the Institute for providing the experimental facil-
ities and arrangement. The authors appreciate the valuable com-
ments from the reviewers.
References
[1] Feedback Instruments Ltd. Twin Rotor MIMO System Control Experiments 33-
949S Laboratory Manual, U.K.; 2005.
[2] Martinez ML, Viva C, Ortega MG. A multivariable nonlinear H1 controller for a
laboratory helicopter. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control; 2005. p. 4065–4070.
[3] Martinez ML, Vivas C, Ortega MG, Rubio FR. Nonlinear L2 control of a
laboratory helicopter with variable speed rotors. Automatica 2007;43:655–61.
[4] Smerlas AJ, Walker DJ, Postlethwaite I, Strange ME, Howitt J, Gubbels AW.
Evaluating H1 controllers on the NRC Bell 205 fly-by-wire helicopter. Control
Eng Pract 2001;9:1–10.
[5] Vilchis JCA, Brogliato B, Dzul A, Lozano R. Nonlinear modelling and control of
helicopters. Automatica 2003;39:1583–96.
[6] Mullhaupt Ph, Srinivasan B, Levine J, Bonvin D. Cascade control of the
toycopter. In: Proceedings of European Control Conference (ECC’99),
Karlsruhe; 1999.
[7] Lu TW, Wen P. Time optimal and robust control of twin rotor system. IEEE
International Conference on Control and Automation ThA3-2; 2007. p. 862–
866.
[8] Skogestad S, Postlethwaite I. Multivariable feedback control - analysis and
design. 2nd ed. England: John Wiley and Sons; 2005.
[9] Nejjari F, Rotondo D, Puig V, Innocenti M. Quasi-LPV modelling and non-linear
Identification of a twin rotor system. In: 20th Mediterranean Conference on
Control & Automation (MED) Barcelona, Spain; 2012. p. 229–234.
[10] Ahmad SM, Chipperfield AJ, Tohki MO. Modelling and control of a twin rotor
multi-input multi- output system. In: Proceedings of American Control
Conference; 2000. p. 1720–1724.
[11] Ahmad SM, Chipperfield AJ, Tohki MO. Dynamic modelling and optimal control
of a twin rotor mimo system. In: Proceedings of IEEE; 2000. p. 391–398.
[12] Ahmad SM, Chipperfield AJ, Tohki MO. Dynamic modelling and linear
quadratic Gaussian control of a twin-rotor multi-input multi-output system.
In: Proceedings of Instn. Mech. Engrs, Journal of Systems and Control
Engineering 217 Part I; 2003. p. 203–227.
[13] Ahmad SM, Chipperfield AJ, Tohki MO. Dynamic modelling and open-loop
control of a two-degree-of-freedom twin-rotor multi-input multi-output
Please cite this article as: P. K. Paul and J. Jacob, H2 Vs H1 control of TRMS via output error optimization augmenting sensor and control singularities2 Vs
H1 control of TRMS via output error –>, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.07.001
9
system. In: Proceedings of Instn. Mech. Engrs, Journal of Systems and
Control Engineering, 218 Part I; 2004. p. 451–463.
[14] Belkheiri M, Rabhi A, Boudjema F, Elhajjaji A, Bosche J. Model parameter
Identification and nonlinear control of a twin rotor mimo system – trms. In:
Proceedings of the 15th IFAC Symposium on System Identification, Saint-Malo,
France; 2009. p. 1487–1492.
[15] Tanaka H, Ohta Y, Okimura Y. A local approach to lpv-identification of a twin
rotor mimo system. In: Proceedings of the 18th World Congress - The
International Federation of Automatic Control, Milano (Italy); 2011. p. 7749–
7754.
[16] Rahideha A, Shaheed MH, Huijberts HJC. Dynamic modelling of a TRMS using
analytical and empirical approaches. Control Eng Pract 2008;16:241–59.
[17] Ekbote AK, Srinivasan NS, Mahindrakar AD. Terminal sliding mode control of a
twin rotor multiple-input multiple-output system. In: Proceedings of the 18th
World Congress - The International Federation of Automatic Control, Milano
(Italy); 2011. p. 10952–10957.
[18] Vishnupriyan J, Manoharan PS, Ramalakshmi APS. Uncertainty modeling of
nonlinear 2-dof helicopter model. In: International Conference on Computer
Communication and Informatics (ICCCI -2014), Coimbatore, India; 2014.
[19] Chalupa P, Přikryl J, Novák J. Modelling of twin rotor MIMO system. Procedia
Eng 2015;100:249–58.
[20] Megretski A. On the order of optimal controllers in the mixed H-2/H-infinity
control. In: Proceedings of the 33rd conference on Design and Control, Lake
Buena Vista (Florida); 1994. p. 3173–3174.
[21] Delgado DUC, Zhou K. A parametric optimization approach to H1 and H2
strong stabilization. Automatica 2003;39:1205–11.
[22] Zhou K, Doyle JC, Glover K. Robust and optimal control. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall; 1996.
[23] Iwasaki T, Hara S. Well-posedness of feedback systems: insights into exact
robustness analysis and approximate computations. IEEE Trans Autom Control
1998;43(5):619–30.
[24] Francis BA. A course in H-infinity control theory, lecture notes in control and
information science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1987.
[25] Doyle JC, Francis BA, Tannenbaum AR. Feedback control theory. New
York: Macmillan; 1992.
Parthish Kumar Paul is Assistant Professor with the
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Dr. Akhilesh Das Gupta Institute of Technology and
Management, New Delhi. He received B.E. in Electrical
Engineering from Regional Engineering College, Durga-
pur, India in the year of 1999, M. Tech. in Electrical
Engineering with specialization in Instrumentation and
Control Systems in the year of 2008 and PhD in Elec-
trical Engineering in the year of 2019 from National
Institute of Technology, Calicut, India.
His research interest is in the area of robust control of
MIMO systems. He has special interest in linear and
nonlinear control theory, system modeling and circuit theory. He is member of IEEE,
IIIE and ISTE. The author is developing site oriented text books for Elctricians. He is
nterested in UAV/UAS for further research.
Jeevamma Jacob is Professor with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Calicut, Kerala, India. She received the B.Tech degree in
Electrical Engineering in 1983 from the University of
Kerala, India and M. Tech. (Instrumentation & Control)
degree in 1985 from National Institute of Technology,
Calicut (formerly REC, Calicut). She received the Ph.D
(Control Systems) degree in 1994 from Indian Institute
of Technology, Bombay, India.
Her areas of interest include robust multivariable con-
troller design aspects extended to the areas of power
systems, process control, digital control and biomedical
engineering. She has published several papers in her areas of interests. Dr. Jee-
vamma Jacob is member of IEEE, ISTE and SSI.