View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico do Porto

CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

HELICOPTER SYSTEM MODELLING AND CONTROL WITH MATLAB

J. Coelho, R. Neto, D. Afonso, C. Lebres, H. Fachada, N. M. Fonseca Ferreira(1)

E. J. Solteiro Pires(2), J. A. Tenreiro Machado(3)

Institute of Engineering of Coimbra, PORTUGAL1

University of TrásosMontes and Alto Douro, PORTUGAL2
Institute of Engineering of Porto, PORTUGAL3

Abstract: This paper presents the modelling and
control of a laboratory helicopter system with
MatLab. In this perspective, students are
motivated to investigate the dynamics, trajectory
planning and control. Based on this experience,
further studies on helicopter system, using more
sophisticated concepts, are, then, more attractive
from the students point of view.
Keywords: Helicopter, model, PID, Fuzzy control
1. Introduction
Da Vinci is credited with the design of the first
helicopter, basically a helical air screw (figure 1),
which was conceived to lift off the ground vertically.
However, nearly four centuries later, when
technology advancements allowed sustained,
powered manned flight, the practical solution
demonstrated by the Wright brothers used a fixed-
surface to provide the lift. This required the aircraft
to accelerate along the ground until a sufficient speed
was reached, so that the necessary force could be
generated for the vehicle to become airborne.
Figure 1 – The first helicopter helical air screw.
Historical flight documents have hundreds of failed
helicopter projects [1]. Most of them were made
based on hope in flying at any cost. However, some
of these designs provided a significant contribution
to a new understanding that ultimately led to the
successful improvement of the modern helicopter.
Yet, it was not until the more technical contributions
of engineers such as Juan de la Cierva, Henrich
Focke, Raoul Hafner, Harold Pitcairn, Igor Sikorsky,
Arthur Young, and others, that the design of a truly
safe and practical helicopter becomes a reality [2].
Sikorsky described seven fundamental technical
problems that limited early experiments with
helicopters.
Understanding the basic aerodynamics of vertical
flight. The theoretical power required to produce a
fixed amount of lift was an unknown quantity to the
earliest experimenters, who were guided more by
intuition than by science.
Another problem was the lack of a suitable engine,
which was solved through the development of
practical internal combustion (gasoline-powered)
engines in the twentieth century. The structural
weight and the engine weight down so the machine
could lift a pilot and a payload. Early power motors
were made of cast iron and were heavy. Aluminium
was not available commercially until about 1890.
The counteracting rotor – torque reaction was
another problem. The relatively simple idea of a tail
rotor, to counter torque reaction, was not used on
most early helicopter designs; these machines were
either coaxial or side-by-side rotor configurations.
Yet, building and controlling two or more primary
lifting rotors was even more difficult than controlling
one rotor, a fact that seemed to evade many inventors
and constructors. Providing stability and properly
controlling the machine, including a means of
defeating the unequal lift produced on the blades
advancing into and retreating from the relative wind
when in forward flight. These were problems that
were only to be fully overcome with the use of blade
articulation, ideas that were pioneered by Cierva,
Breguet, and others, and with the development of
practical forms of cyclic blade pitch control by
Hafner and others. The vibrations were a source of
many mechanical failures of the rotor and airframe
because of an insufficient understanding of the
dynamic and aerodynamic behaviour of rotating
wings. Other problem is the safety capability in the
event of engine failure. It is fair to say that this
capability is critical to the success of any practical
helicopter, or other type of rotorcraft, because it
would simply not be accepted otherwise.

110 www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

The relatively high weight of the structure, engine, The paper is organized as follows. Section two,
and transmission was mainly responsible for the provides an overview of the system model. Section
painfully slow initial development of the helicopter. three shows the classical and the fuzzy controllers.
In particular, the success of the helicopter had to wait Section four presents simulated results. Finally,
until aircraft engine technology could be refined to section five outlines the conclusions.
the point that lightweight engines, with considerable
power, could be built. By 1920, gasoline-powered 2. Helicopter model
reciprocating engines, with higher power-to-weight
ratios were more widely available and the anti-torque We consider the rotation of the beam in a vertical
and control problems of achieving successful vertical plane, i.e., around the horizontal axis. Having in
flight were at the forefront. mind that the driving torques produced by the
This resulted in the development of a vast number of propellers, the rotation can be described in principle
prototype helicopters. Many of the early designs like the motion of a pendulum.
were built in Britain, France, Germany, and Italy,
that led the field in several technical areas. One of the Table I – Helicopter Model Nomenclature
most important advances of all was in engine Variable Description Units[SI]
technology, with powerful reciprocating and gas Horizontal position (azimuth [rad]
turbine (turboshaft) engines, the latter of which Dh position) of the model beam
revolutionized both fixed-wing and rotating-wing Angular velocity (azimuth velocity) [rad/s]
:h of the model beam
borne flight. Horizontal DC-motor voltage control [V]
Uh
input
Recent years have witnessed a rapid progress in the Gh
Linear transfer function of tail rotor
enabling technologies for unmanned aerial vehicles. DC-motor
Non-linear part of DC- motor with [rad/s]
Those include airframes, propulsion systems, H
tail rotor
payloads, safety or protection systems, launch and Zh Rotational speed of tail rotor [rad/s]
recovery, data processor, ground control station, Non-linear function (quadratic) of [N]
Fh
navigation and guidance, and autonomous flight aerodynamic force from tail rotor
controllers. From all those factors, system Effective arm of aerodynamic force [m]
lh
from tail rotor
technology occupies the most critical contribution to Non-linear function of moment of [Kg.m2]
the success of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) Jh
inertia with respect to vertical axis
development and operation. Mh Horizontal turning torque [N.m]
Kh Horizontal angular momentum [N.m.s]
Moment of friction force in vertical [N.m]
Creating reliable helicopter systems control is not an fh
axis
easy task, because, in general, we are talking about Vertical position (Pitch position) of [rad]
Dv
MIMO systems. In figure 7, we can see a MIMO the model beam
Block Diagram of the Twin Rotor helicopter system Angular velocity (Pitch velocity) of [rad/s]
:v the model beam.
control. The helicopter model consists of a common Vertical DC-motor voltage control [V]
core of rigid-body dynamics equations, main and tail Uv
input
rotors flapping dynamics and aerodynamics, a Gv
Linear transfer function of main
mathematical model that provides the aerodynamic rotor DC-motor
Non-linear part of DC-motor with [rad/s]
forces and moments. v main rotor
The helicopter model adopted in this paper is a Rotational speed of main rotor [rad/s]
highly nonlinear two inputs and two output system Zv
[3, 4]. This system can also lead to very complicated Non-linear function (quadratic) of [N]
Fv
aerodynamic force from main rotor
models and several methods could have been used to Arm of aerodynamic force from [m]
derive its dynamics. lv
main rotor
This paper presents several control techniques for a Jv
Moment of inertia with respect to [Kg.m2]
lab helicopter model, illustrated in Figure 2 and 3. horizontal axis
Mv Vertical turning moment [N.m]
For that propose we consider the helicopter, the Twin Kv Vertical angular momentum [N.m.s]
Rotor Mimo System (Feedback TRMS) and the Moment of friction force in [N.m]
fv
conventional PID and Fuzzy Logic controllers. horizontal axis
Vertical turning moment from [N.m]
f
counterbalance
Vertical angular momentum from tail [N.m.s]
Jhv
rotor
Horizontal angular momentum from [N.m.s]
Jvh
tail rotor
Non-linear function (quadratic) of [N.m]
gvh
reaction turning
Non-linear function (quadratic) of [N.m]
ghv
reaction turning
t Time [s]
Figure 2  Two views of the twin rotor MIMO 1/s Transfer function of an integrator
System.

www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal 111

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

The physical model is developed under some
simplifying assumptions. Furthermore, it is assumed
that friction in the system is of the viscous type. It is
assumed also that the propeller air subsystem could
be described in accordance with the postulates of
part of the beam, lb is the length of the counter-
weight beam, lcb is the distance between the counter-
weight and the joint and g is the gravitational
acceleration. Also:
flow theory. M v2 l m Fv Z m  (4)

First, consider the rotation of the beam in the where Mv2 is the moment of the propulsive force
vertical plane, around the horizontal axis. Having in produced by the main rotor, Zm is angular velocity of
mind that the driving torques is produced by the
the main rotor and Fv(Zm) denotes the dependence of
propellers, the rotation can be described in principle
the propulsive force on the angular velocity of the
as the motion of a pendulum.
rotor.
From Newton´s second law of motion we obtain:

M v3 : 2h  A  B  C  sin D v cos D v (5)

d 2D v
Mv Jv (1)
dt 2 where Mv3 is the moment of centrifugal forces
corresponding to the motion of the beam around the
where Mv is the total moment of forces in the vertical vertical axis, and:
plane, Jv is the sum of moments of inertia to the
horizontal axis Įv is the pitch angle of the beam and:
dD h
:h (6)
4 dt
Mv ¦M
i 1
vi (2a)
where ȍh is the angular velocity of the beam around
8 the vertical axis and is the azimuth angle of the beam.
Jv ¦ J vi (2b) To determine the moments of propulsive forces
i 1 applied to the beam consider the situation given in
Protection figure 5.
Tail Rotor y
Tail Rotor

Horizontal Axis
Main Rotor
Protection Optical mtsg lt
Encoders +
mtrg mtg lm x
Beam of two degres of Dv Main
freedom Rotor
Counter Balance lcb
mmg mmsg
+
lb
mmrg
mcbg
Figure 3 – The twin rotor mimo system.

To determine the moments of gravity forces applied

to the beam, making it rotate around the horizontal mbg
axis, we consider the situation in figure 4, and: Figure 4 – Gravity forces in the TRMS,
M v1 g >A  B @cos D v  C sin D v (3a) corresponding to the return torque, which
§m · determines the equilibrium position of the system.
A ¨ t  mtr  mts ¸lt (3b)
© 2 ¹ y
Vertical Axis
§m ·
B ¨ m  mmr  mms ¸lm (3c) Horizontal Axis
© 2 ¹
Fv
mb
C lb  mcblcb (3d)
2 Dv x
where Mv1 is the return torque corresponding to the Zm
forces of gravity, mmr is the mass of the main DC-
motor with main rotor, mm is the mass of main part of Main
the beam, mtr is the mass of the tail motor with tail Rotor
rotor, mt is the mass of the tail part of the beam, mcb Mv4+Mv2
is the mass of the counter-weight, mb is the mass, of
the counter-weight beam, mms is the mass of the main
shield, mts is the mass of the tail shield, lm is the Figure 5 – Propulsive force moment and friction
length of main part of the beam, lt is the length of tail moment in the TRMS.

112 www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

Finaly: To determine the moments of forces applied to the

beam and making it rotate around the vertical axis,
M v4 : v K v (7) consider the situation shown in Figure 6.

where Mv4 is the moment of friction depending on the M h1 lt .Fh ( wt ) cos D v (13)
angular velocity of the beam around the horizontal
axis, and: where Zt is the rotational velocity of tail rotor, Fh(Zt)
denotes the dependence of propulsive force on the
dD vh angular velocity of the tail rotor which should be
:v (8) determined experimentally, and:
dt
Tail Rotor
where ȍv is the angular velocity around the Fh(Zm)
horizontal axis and Kv is a constant.
y
According to figure 5 we can determine components
of the moment of inertia relative to the horizontal
axis. Notice, that this moment is independent of the lt Vertical Axis of
position of the beam. rotation
Dh
lm x
J v1 mmr lm2 (9a)
lm2
J v2 mm (9b)
3
2
J v3 mcb lcb (9c) Mhl

lb2
J v4 mb (9d) Figure 6 - Moments of forces in horizontal plane.
3
J v5 mtr lt2 (9e) M h2 : h K h (14)
lt2 Jh 2
D cos D v  E sin D v  F 2
(16)
J v6 mt (9f)
3 mb 2 2
mms 2 D lb  mcb l cb (17)
J v7 rms  mms lm2 (9g) 3
2
§ mm · §m ·
J v8 mts rts2  mts lt2 (9h) E ¨  m mr  mms ¸l m2  ¨ t  mtr  mts ¸lt2 (18)
© 3 ¹ © 3 ¹
2 mts 2
where rms is the radius of the main shield and rts is the F m ms rms  rts (19)
radius of the tail shield. 2
Similarly, we can describe the motion of the beam
The helicopter motion can be describe by the
around the vertical axis, having in mind that the
equations:
driving torques are produced by the rotors and that
the moment of inertia depends on the pitch angle of
the beam. The horizontal motion of the beam (around dS v l m Fv (Z m )  : v K v  G  H
the vertical axis) can be described as a rotational (20)
dt Jv
motion of a solid mass:
G g >( A  B ) cos D  C sin D v @ (21)
d 2D h 1 2
Mh Jh (10) H : h  A  B  C sin 2D v (22)
2 2
dt
dD v
:v (23)
where, Mh is the sum of moments of forces acting in dt
the horizontal plane, and Jh is the sum of moments of S v  J tr Z t
inertia relative to the vertical axis. Then: :v (24)
Jv
2 dS h l t Fh (Z t ) cos D v  : h K h
(25)
Mh ¦ M hi (11) dt Jh
i 1
8 dD h
:h (26)
Jh ¦ J hi (12) dt
i 1
J tmr Z m cos D v
:h Sh  (27)
Jh

www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal 113

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

where Jtr is the moment of inertia in DC motor tail, Z t Ph (u hh ) (31)

Jmr is the moment of inertia in DV motor main, Sv is where Tmr is the time constant of the main motor and
the angular momentum in vertical plane of the beam Ttr is the time constant of the tail motor.
and Sh is the angular momentum in horizontal plane Finally, the mathematical model becomes a set of
of the beam. six non-linear equations, namely:
The angular velocities are a function of the DC
motors, yielding:
U >U h U v @T (32)
du vv 1
 u vv  u v  (28)
X >S h D h u hh S v D v u vv @T (33)
dt Tmr
Y >: h D h Z t : v D v Z m @T
(34)
Zm Pv (u vv ) (29) where U is the input, X is the state and Y is the
du hh 1 output vector.
 u hh  u h  (30)
dt Ttr

Mh Kh Dh(t)
Uh
Zh Fh lh(D v)
+ ³
+ ³
Gh h Fh 1/Jh

Motor-DC with +
tail rotor +
ghv fh
:h
+
Jhv

Jvh
+
gvh :v
fv
+
+ + Dv(t)
Uv Gv v Fv lv ³ 1/Jv ³
Zv Fv Mv
Motor-DC with
+ Kv
primary rotor +
f

Figure 7 – The MIMO Block Diagram of the Twin Rotor

3. Twin Rotor MIMO Controllers Td) that minimize J, the integral of the square error
(ISE), defined as:
3.1. PID controllers
³0 ^>D h t   D hd t @  >D v t   D vd t @ `dt
f 2 2
J (36)
The PID controllers are the most commonly used
control algorithms in industry. Among the various
existent schemes for tuning PID controllers, the where Di(t) is the step response of the closed-loop
Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N) method is the most popular system with the PID controller and Did(t) is the
and is still extensively used for the determination of desired step response.
the PID parameters. It is well known that the
compensated systems, with controllers tuned by this The control architecture can be resumed in the block
method, have generally a step response with a high diagram of figure 8, with the two independent
percent overshoot. Moreover, the Z-N heuristics are controllers.
only suitable for plants with monotonic step response
[5-7].
Helicopter Model
The transfer function of the PID controller is: 
Tail Controller
Dhr t
( )  eh (t) uh (t)
U s  § 1 · Gc1 (s)
Gc s  K ¨¨1   Td s ¸¸ (35) Dh (t)
E s  © Ti s ¹

Gp( s )
Rotor Controller
where E(s) is the error signal and U(s) is the Dv (t)
(t)  ev (t) uv(t)
controller’s output. The parameters K, Ti, and Td are
Gc2(s)
the proportional gain, the integral time constant and

the derivative time constant of the controller,
respectively.
The design of the PID controller will consist on the
determination of the optimum PID set gains (K, Ti, Figure 8 –Twin Rotor Mimo Block PID Control
Diagram.

114 www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

3.2. Fuzzy Controllers Table III7he PID control gains.

Parameters Main Tail
KP 14.5 10.0
Basically, Fuzzy Logic (FL) is a multivalued logic
KI 10.7 3.7
that allows intermediate values to be defined
KD 7.0 8.0
between conventional evaluations like ‘true’ or
‘false’, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, ‘high’ or ‘low’. Notions like
‘rather tall’ or ‘very fast’ can be formulated In order to study the system dynamics, we apply,
mathematically and processed by computers, in separately, a step perturbation, at the tail and main
order to apply a more humanlike way of thinking in rotor references, that is, we perturb the reference with
the programming of computers. The introduction of {GDh,GDv} = {12º,0} and {GDh,GDv} = {0º,12º}. In all
fuzzy concepts was set by Lotfi Zadeh (1965), since experiments we consider the same controller
then FL controllers have received considerable sampling frequency fc = 1 kHz, and the operating
interest from many researchers [8-13]. point of the object Dh 24 degrees and Dv 24
FL has emerged as a profitable tool for the degrees. Figures 10 and 11 show the time response
controlling and steering of systems and complex for a step perturbation.
industrial processes, as well as for household and 20
Reference
PID
entertainment electronics and expert systems and 18

16
FUZZY

applications such as the helicopter control. 14

For each FL controller of the helicopter we have 12

h [Deg]
two inputs, one output and six fuzzy rules (Table II). 10

D
8
Each of the inputs has a membership function (as 6

shown in Figure 9). The input from the encoders is 4

passed on this membership functions to generate 2

input fuzzy variables, which are then normalize to 0

38 40 42 44 46 48
Time[s]
50 52 54 56 58 60

evaluate the fuzzy rules and to generate the output

10
fuzzy variables. Output fuzzy variables are then 8
PID
FUZZY

defuzzied to generate output for both main and tail 6

rotors. 4
v [Deg]

Įhr (t) 0
D

ehr (t) Fuzzifier Rules Defuzzifier uh (t) -2

Main Rotor Main Rotor Main Rotor

ơhr (t) -4

-6

Fuzzy Logic Controller -8

Įvr (t) -10

38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Time[s]
52 54 56 58 60

evr (t) Fuzzifier Rules Defuzzifier uv (t)

Tail Rotor Tail Rotor Tail Rotor
ơvr (t) Figure 10  Time response of Dv and Dh using the
PID and FL controllers, for a pulse perturbation at
Figure 9 – Twin Rotor Mimo FL Block Control Diagram the Dhr position reference GDh = 12º.
2
PID
FUZZY

For both fuzzy controllers we have 2 inputs, which 1.5

are the position error and the error variation. 1

0.5
[Deg]

Table II – Fuzzy Logic Main Rotor Control Rule. 0

h
D

-0.5

Position Error -1

P Z N -1.5
Error P VOP VOZ VOP
-2
Variation Z VOP VOZ VON 38 40 42 44 46 48
Time[s]
50 52 54 56 58 60

N VON VOZ VON

20
Reference
18 PID

The labels stand for P Positive, Z Zero, N Negative 16

FUZZY

and VOP/Z/N Voltage Output Positive, Zero and 14

Negative. The membership functions chosen are 12

[Deg]

10
Gaussian with equidistant centres over the interval
Dv

[1, +1]. 6

2
4. Controller Performances 0
38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Time[s]

In this section we analyze the system performance;

furthermore, we compare the response of classical Figure 11  Time response of Dv and Dh using the
PID and FL controllers. For the PID case we adopt PID and FL controllers, for a perturbation at the Dvr
the parameters of table III. position reference, GDv = 12º.

www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal 115

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

Figure 12 shows the quadratic error (Hh,v) for where Ui is voltage input, N is the number of
trajectory perturbation, at the tail and main rotor samples, P represent the sample mean and V is the
references. standard deviation.
400

GD   D
PID

Hh h ref Dh 2
vref 2 Dv (37) 350

300

Hv D h ref  D h   GD vref  D v 
2 2
(38)

Relative Frequence
250

200

where H{^HGh, HGv} represent the corresponding 150

perturbations in the variables ^GDh,GDv}, 100

50
respectively.
0
15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Uv [V]
PID
FUZZY

400
PID
350
10

300
Hh

Relative Frequence
250

5 200

150

100
0
38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Time(s) 50

0
15
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Uh [V]
PID
FUZZY

Figure 13 Rotor and tail voltage statistical

10
distribution of the control action using the PID
controller.
Hv

5
350

300

250
0
38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Relative Frequence

Time[s]
200

Figure 12 Quadratic error (Hh,v) for trajectory 150

perturbation, at Dh and Dv rotor references, using the 100

PID and FL controllers.
50

0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Uv
The time responses characteristics, namely the
percent overshoot PO%, the steady-state error ess, the 350
data1

peak time Tp, the rise time Tr and the settling time Ts, 300

are presented in (Tables IV and V). 250

Relative Frequence

200

Table IV – Main rotor response parameters 150

PO(%) eSS (º) tr (s) tp (s) ts (s)
100
PID 41.6 0.2 0.6 2.1 2.4
FUZZY 34.2 0.9 0.5 1.9 3.0 50

0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Uh
Table V – Tail rotor response parameters
PO(%) eSS (º) Tr (s) Tp (s) ts (s) Figure 14  Rotor and tail voltage statistical
PID 40.0 0.5 1.2 2.2 12.0 distribution of the control action using the FL
FUZZY 36.6 1.2 1.2 2.2 12.0 controller.

Figures 13 and 14 show the voltage statistical The control system using the FL controller presents
distribution at main rotor and tail for both higher voltage, for main rotor perturbation, PFL
controllers. The standard deviation can be obtained 1.75V and VFL 0.66, comparing with the PID
by: controller PPID 1.32V and VFL 0.59. But for tail
rotor perturbation the FL controller presents better
U i  P 2 results PFL 0.15V, VFL 0.41 and PPID 0.35V,
V (39) VFL 0.44.
N

116 www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal

 CEE'07 - 2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ISBN: 978-972-99064-4-2

Figure 15 shows the time response for a sinusoidal [7] Åström, K. J. and Wittenmark, B. (1984). Computer
trajectory in references, Dv and Dh. Controlled Systems, theory and Design, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
35
Reference
[8] Islam, B.U.; Ahmed, N.; Bhatti, D.L.; Khan, S., Controller
PID
30 FUZZY design using fuzzy logic for a twin rotor MIMO system,
Multi Topic Conference, 2003. INMIC2003. 7th
25
Internationa,lVolume , Issue , 8-9 Dec. 2003 Page(s): 264
– 268.
[Deg]

20
h
D

15
[9] Przemysáaw Gorczyca, Krystyn Hajduk, Tracking Control
10
Algorithms For A Laboratory Aerodynamical System, Int.
J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 2004, Vol. 14, No. 4, 469–
5
475.
0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Time[s] [10] Rahideh, A, Shaheed, M H, Proceedings of the I MECH E
Part I Journal of Systems & Control Engineering, Volume
35
Reference 221, Number 1, January 2007 , pp. 89-101(13)
PID
30 FUZZY

[11] Amaral, T.G.; Crisostomo, M.M.; Pires, V.F., Helicopter

25
motion control using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
controller, IEEE IECON 02 Volume: 3 , 5-8 Nov. 2002 ,
v [Deg]

20

Page(s): 2090 -2095 vol.3

D

15

10
[12] Siler, W. and Ying, H. (1989). Fuzzy control theory: The
linear case, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 33: 275–290.
5

[13] Tso, S. K. and Fung, Y. H. (1997). Methodological

0
40 45 50 55 60
Time[s]
65 70 75 80
development of fuzzy-logic controllers from multivariable
linear control, IEEE Trans. Systems Man & Cybernetics
Figure 15  Time responses of Dv and Dh using the 27(3): 566–572.
PID and FL controllers, for a sinusoidal reference at
Dv and Dh. Author addresses

J. Coelho, R. Neto, D. Afonso, Students of

5. Conclusions
The conventional PID controller has better
performance than the FL controller, but depends on
the control table.
The performance was evaluated by introducing a
small perturbation and the results demonstrated
good performance for the PID and the FL controller.
However, both controllers reveal same overshoot in
the output responses and the FL needs more energy
to perform the same task.
References
[1] J. Gordon Leishman, Principles of Helicopter
Aerodynamics, Second Edition, Cambridge University
Press.
[2] Martin D. Maisel, Demo J. Giulianetti and Daniel C.
Dugan, The History of the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research
Aircraft From Concept to Flight, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Office of Policy and Plans NASA
History Division Washington, D.C.2000.
[3] Feedback Instruments Ltd. Manual: 33-007-1C Ed04,
2002.
[4] M. López Martínez, F.R. Rubio (2004), Approximate
Feedback Linearization of a Laboratory Helicopter, Sixth
Portuguese Conference on Automatic Control, pp.43-45,
Faro, Portugal
[5] Åström, K., Hang, C., Persson, P. and Ho,W. (1992).
Towards intelligent PID control, Automática 28(1): 1–9.
[6] Åström, K. J. and Hägglund, T. (1995). PID controller-
Theory, Design and Tuning, second edn, Instrument
Society of America, 67 Alexander Drive, POBox 12277,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.
Department of Electrical Engineering, Instituto
Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, R. Pedro Nunes,
Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal, email:
joaobcoelho@hotmail.pt, email: rodolfonneto.gmail.com
C. Lebres, Eq. Prof. Adj., Institute of Engineering of
Coimbra, Dept. of Electrotechnical Engineering,
Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal, email:
clebres@isec.pt
H. Fachada, Prof. Adj., Institute of Engineering of
Coimbra, Dept. of Electrotechnical Engineering,
Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal, email:
hfachada@isec.pt
N. M. Ferreira, Eq. Prof. Adj., Institute of
Engineering of Coimbra, Dept. of Electrotechnical
Engineering, Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra,
Portugal, email: nunomig@isec.pt
E. J. Solteiro Pires, Professor Auxiliar, Universidade
TrásosMontes e Alto Douro Ap 1013, 5000911
Vila Real, Portugal, email: epires@utad.pt
J. A. Tenreiro Machado, Coordinator Professor,
Institute of Engineering of Porto, Dept. of
Electrotechnical Engineering, Rua Dr. Antonio
Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal,
email: jtm@isep.ipp.pt

www.dee.isec.pt/cee07 26-28 November 2007, ISEC-Coimbra – Portugal 117