ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

Dynamic modelling of a TRMS using analytical and

empirical approaches
A. Rahideha,b, M.H. Shaheeda,, H.J.C. Huijbertsa
a
Department of Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK
b
School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran
Received 13 October 2006; accepted 23 April 2007
Available online 15 June 2007

Abstract

This investigation presents 1 degree of freedom (1DOF) dynamic modelling of an experimental aerodynamic test rig, a twin rotor
multi-input–multi-output system (TRMS) using analytical as well as empirical approaches. The TRMS is a highly nonlinear system
which can be considered as an experimental model of a complex air vehicle. Such vehicles are required to be modelled precisely to ensure
satisfactory control performance to meet the demand for automation and sophistication. The TRMS is modelled in terms of vertical and
horizontal 1DOF dynamics using Newtonian and Lagrangian methods based analytical approaches and neural networks based empirical
approaches. The analytical modelling is carried out in two phases. In the first phase the interface circuit, DC motors and propulsive
forces due to these motors are modelled. Thereafter, the dynamic equations for the remaining parts are formulated taking all the effective
forces into account. Two neural network based models are developed using Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) and gradient descent (GD)
algorithms. The responses of all the analytical and empirical based models are compared with that of the real TRMS to validate the
accuracy of the models. The performances of the models are also compared with respect to each other.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dynamic modelling; Helicopter; Lagrange method; Newton method; TRMS; Neural networks

1. Introduction and Miller (1990). This investigation deals with the

The TRMS is a laboratory set-up developed by Feed-
back Instrument Ltd. (Feedback Co., 1998) for control
experiments. The system is perceived as a challenging
engineering problem due to its high nonlinearity, cross-
coupling between its two axes and inaccessibility of some of
its states and outputs for measurements. Accurate dynamic
model of the system is, thus, required to be developed to
achieve control objectives satisfactorily.
Substantial investigations are reported to have addressed
the modelling and control of TRMS and similar systems
using various analytical and artificial intelligence (AI)-
based empirical approaches. For instance, general dynamic
modelling and feedback control of a side-by-side rotor
tandem helicopter has been proposed in Rao, Biswas, Butz,
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.h.shaheed@qmul.ac.uk (M.H. Shaheed).
development of a dynamic model and design of a feedback
controller for reducing torque oscillations of a side-by-side
rotor tandem helicopter, which is an MIMO system. Wu,
Ignatov, Muenst, Imaev, and Zhu (2002) have presented a
nonlinear flight controller design for a helicopter model by
trajectory linearization method. In that paper, the authors
have presented the development of a nonlinear dynamic
model of a 3 degree of freedom (3DOF) flight control
experiment apparatus, a helicopter, with three propellers
driven by DC motors. Exact linearization and non-
interacting control of a four rotors helicopter via dynamic
feedback has been reported in Mistler, Benalleque, and
Msirdi (2001). The authors have presented a nonlinear
dynamic model for a four rotors helicopter in a form suited
for control design. Hover control via Lyapunov approach
for an autonomous model helicopter has been proposed by
Mahony, Hamel, and Dzul (1999). In that investigation a
dynamic model based on physical insight has been

0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2007.04.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
242 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

Nomenclature Jtr/mr moment of inertia in tail/main DC motor

(kg m2)
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2) Jv moment of inertia about horizontal axis (kg m2)
h length of pivoted beam (m) Lah/v armature inductance of tail/main motor (H)
iah/n armature current of tail/main motor (A) Mcable(ah) torque of the flat cable force (N m)
ka j torque constant (N m/A) Meh/v electro-magnetic torque of tail/main motor
kah/v, kfhp, kfhn, kfvp, kfvn, kth/v positive constants (N m)
lb length of counterweight beam (m) Mfric,h torque of the friction force in horizontal plane
lcb distance between the counterweight and the (N m)
joint (m) Mfric,v torque of the friction force in vertical plane
lm length of main part of the beam (m) (N m)
lt length of tail part of the beam (m) MLh/v load torque of tail/main motor (N m)
lT1 centre of gravity of the free–free beam (m) Mprop,h propulsive torque due to tail propeller rotation
lT2 centre of gravity of the counterbalance beam (N m)
(m) Mprop,v propulsive torque due to main propeller rota-
m mass (kg) tion (N m)
mb mass of the counterweight beam (kg) Pn nominal power (W)
mcb mass of the counterweight (kg) Rah/v armature resistance of tail/main motor (O)
mh mass of the pivoted beam (kg) T kinetic energy (J)
mm mass of main part of the beam (kg) T1 kinetic energy of the free–free beam (J)
mmr mass of the main DC motor (kg) T2 kinetic energy of the counterbalance beam (J)
mms mass of the main shield (kg) T3 kinetic energy of the pivoted beam (J)
mt mass of tail part of the beam (kg) Uh/v horizontal/vertical voltage control input (V)
mtr mass of the tail DC motor (kg) Vh/v horizontal/vertical motor terminal voltage (V)
mts mass of the tail shield (kg) V potential energy (J)
mT1 total mass of the free–free beam (kg) V1 potential energy of the free–free beam (J)
mT2 total mass of the counterbalance beam (kg) V2 potential energy of the counterbalance beam (J)
rms radius of the main shield (m) V3 potential energy of the pivoted beam (J)
rts radius of the tail shield (m) Vn nominal voltage (V)
Btr/mr viscous friction coefficient of the tail/main DC ah horizontal position of TRMS beam (rad)
motor (kg m2/s) av vertical position of TRMS beam (rad)
Eah/v electro-motive force of tail/main motor (V) jh/v magnetic flux of tail/main motor (Wb)
Fh/v nonlinear function of aerodynamic force from oh/v rotational speed of tail/main rotor (rad/s)
tail/main rotor (N) on nominal speed (rpm)
J1 moment of inertia of the free–free beam (kg m2) Oh angular velocity of TRMS beam in horizontal
J2 moment of inertia of the counterbalance beam plane (rad/s)
(kg m2) Ov angular velocity of TRMS beam in vertical
J3 moment of inertia of the pivoted beam (kg m2) plane (rad/s)

developed for a reduced scale autonomous helicopter using
Newton’s equations. Real-time stabilization and tracking
of a four-rotor mini rotorcraft has been described in
Castillo, Dzul, and Lozano (2004). The authors have
developed a controller and implemented it on a mini
rotorcraft. The dynamic model of the four-rotor rotorcraft
has been obtained via a Lagrange approach. Nonlinear
dynamics and control of a wind-milling gyroplane rotor
has been proposed by Somov and Polyntsev (2003). In that
study the mathematical models of auto-rotation and
flapping the wind-milling rotor have been extracted and
used for nonlinear dynamic modelling. The development of
a nonlinear model and nonlinear control strategy for a
Vario scale model helicopter has been presented (Avila-
Vilchis, Brogliato, Dzul, & Lozano, 2003). The model is
based on Lagrangian equations. Cerro, Valero, and
Barrientos (2005) have proposed identification of a small
unmanned helicopter model using genetic algorithm (GA).
A hybrid (analytic and empiric) model of a small
helicopter, the stability, response of the model and
parameter identification using GA have been presented in
that study. Mathematical modelling of an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) during take off with nose-wheel off the
ground has been discussed (Song-Yun, Ji-Hong, & Chun-
Hua, 2004). The model is formulated according to New-
ton–Euler method. Jun, Roumeliotis, and Sukhatme (1999)
have presented the state estimation of an autonomous
helicopter using Kalman filtering. The authors have
proposed a technique to estimate the state of a robot
helicopter using combination of gyroscopes, acceler-
ometers, inclinometers and global positioning system
(GPS).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259
Modelling of TRMS and similar system using neural
networks (NNs) are also abundantly reported in the
literature. For example, nonlinear modelling of a TRMS
using radial basis function (RBF) networks has been
addressed in Ahmad, Shaheed, Chipperfield, and Tokhi
(2000), which presents nonlinear system identification
method for modelling air vehicles of complex configura-
tion. Ahmad, Chipperfield, and Tokhi (2000) have carried
out dynamic modelling and optimal control of a TRMS.
The extracted model is employed in the design of a
feedback linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) compensator.
Performance analysis of four types of conjugate gradient
algorithms in the nonlinear dynamic modelling of a TRMS
using feedforward NNs has been reported (Shaheed, 2004).
Dynamic modelling of a TRMS has also been presented
in Mat-Darus, Aldebrez, and Tokhi (2004), which has
investigated the utilization of NNs and parametric linear
approaches for modelling the system in hovering position.
Aldebrez, Mat-Darus, and Tokhi (2004) have proposed
a parametric modelling of a TRMS using GA. In
their approach the global search technique of GA has
been used to identify the parameters of the TRMS based
on one-step-ahead prediction. It is noted that NNs have
also been used to model various other systems. For
instance, an efficient NN model has been proposed for
real-time path planning with obstacle avoidance of
car-like robots in dynamic environment (Yang & Meng,
1999). In that investigation the stability and convergence of
the NN system has been proved using Lyapunov stability
analysis. Mohd-Hashim, Tokhi, and Mat-Darus (2004)
have investigated a nonlinear dynamic modelling of a
flexible beam structure using NN. A comparative perfor-
mance of the model and conventional recursive least-
square scheme has been carried out in the time and
frequency domains. Dynamic modelling of flexible-link
manipulators using NNs with application to the space
station remote manipulator system has been proposed in
Talebi, Patel, and Asmer (1998). The method can be
considered both as an on-line identifier that can be used as
a basis for designing NN controllers as well as an off-line
learning scheme to compute deflections due to link
flexibility for evaluating forward dynamics. Karras (2004)
has proposed NN models based on regularization techni-
ques for off-line robot manipulator path planning.
The method involves a regularized Kohonen feature
map which aims at quantizing the input variable space
into smaller regions representative of the input space
probability distribution. Modelling and control of a
pneumatic manipulator based on dynamic NN has been
presented in Wang and Peng (2003). The proposed method
consists of a three-layer feedforward NN as controller
and a diagonal recurrent NN as model predictor. Model-
ling of robot manipulator dynamics based on a multi-
dimensional RBF-like NN has been presented (Krabbes &
Doschner, 1999). The NN is hierarchically organized to
reach optimal adjustment to the common structural
knowledge about the identification problem. Sun, Wang,
243
and Mao (2002) have investigated the application of
wavelet based NNs for identifying the model of a robot
manipulator. The authors have introduced an algorithm
for constructing the wavelet network, and backpropaga-
tion method has been used for network training. The
application of NNs in the identification of models for
underwater vehicles can be found in Van de Ven, Johansen,
Sorensen, Flanagan, and Toal (2007). In that method,
knowledge regarding the various parts of the model has
been used to apply NNs for those parts of the model that
are most uncertain.
This investigation addresses the 1DOF horizontal and
1DOF vertical dynamic modelling of a TRMS using
analytical and empirical approaches. The analytical
models are developed considering all the effective
forces into account. Such investigations on dynamic
modelling of TRMS or similar systems are very limited
in the literature. It is also evident from the literature that
the system has also not been modelled using effective
neural learning algorithms like that of Levenberg–
Marquardt.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes
the TRMS and presents the dynamic models developed
using Newtonian approach. Section 3 presents the
model based on Lagrangian method. The NN-based
modelling is presented in Section 4. Section 5 presents
the results of all the developed models and their
comparative performances. Finally, the paper is concluded
in Section 6.
2. Newtonian based modelling
The TRMS as introduced in Section 1 is shown in Fig. 1.
It is driven by two DC motors. Its two propellers are
perpendicular to each other and joined by a beam pivoted
on its base that can rotate freely in the horizontal and
vertical plane. The joined beam can be moved by changing
the input voltage in order to control the rotational speed of
the propellers. The system is equipped with a pendulum
Tail rotor
Tail shield
Main shield
Main rotor
DC motor+ Pivot
tacho
Free-free beam
Counterbalance DC-motor+
Tower tacho
TRMS 33-220
Fig. 1. The twin rotor MIMO system.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
244 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

Table 1
The main differences between a helicopter and a TRMS

TRMS Helicopter

Location of pivot Midway between The main rotor head

point two rotors
Lift generation or Speed control of Collective pitch controla
vertical control main rotor
Yaw is controlled Tail rotor speed Pitch angle of the tail rotor
by blades
Cyclical control No Yes (for directional control)
a
Pitch angles of all the blades of the main rotor are changed but at
constant rotor speed.

counterweight hanging from the beam and is used for

balancing the angular momentum in steady state or
with load. In certain aspects, its behaviour resembles
that of a helicopter. For example, it possesses a strong
Fig. 2. Relationship of Uv and Vv.
cross-coupling between the collective (main rotor) and the
tail rotor like a helicopter. However, the TRMS is
substantially different from a helicopter. Table 1 lists the
main differences between a helicopter and a TRMS.
The crude dynamic model of the system supplied by the
manufacturer does not represent the system dynamic
precisely as all the effective forces are not taken into
consideration. However, accurate dynamic modelling of
the system is a prerequisite to achieve satisfactory control
performance. In this study the system is modelled using
Newtonian and Lagrangian equations taking all the
effective forces into account as well as using NN-based
modelling approaches. The analytical modelling is carried
out in two stages. In the first stage, the interface circuit, DC
motors and propulsive force due to these motors are
modelled. Thereafter the dynamic equations for the
remaining parts are developed.

2.1. Interface circuit

Fig. 3. Relationship of Uh and Vh.

It is noted that the magnitude of the input voltage of the

main motor (Uv) in the MATLAB/Simulink environment Lah/v Rah/v
and that of the motor terminal voltage (Vv) are not same,
iah/v
and the relationship between these two is nonlinear. The
relationship is obtained by changing the input voltage in Eah/v P
Vv/h N
the MATLAB/Simulink environment, and measuring the
relative terminal voltage as shown in Fig. 2. Like the main h/v
motor the magnitude of the input voltage of the tail motor
(Uh) in the MATLAB/Simulink environment and that of
the motor terminal voltage (Vh) are different. Fig. 3 shows Fig. 4. Circuit diagram of a DC motor.
the relationship between Uh and Vh.
in Eqs. (1)–(5). The motor parameters are listed in Table 2:
2.2. DC motors diah=v
V h=v ¼ E ah=v þ Rah=v iah=v þ Lah=v , (1)
dt
The TRMS possesses two permanent magnet DC
motors; one for the main and the other for the tail E ah=v ¼ kah=v jh=v oh=v , (2)
propelling. The motors are identical with different mechan-
ical loads. The mathematical equations governing the doh=v
M eh=v ¼ M Lh=v þ J tr=mr þ Btr=mr oh=v , (3)
main and tail motors, as shown in Fig. 4, are presented dt
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 245

Table 2 dav
The motors parameters
¼ Ov . (8)
dt
Parameter Value

Pn (W) 6
2.4. 1DOF TRMS modelling in horizontal plane
Vn (V) 18
on (rpm) 8300 The mathematical model of the remaining parts of the
Jmr (g cm2) 1272 system in horizontal plane is described in Eqs. (9)–(11) (see
Jtr (g cm2) 248 Fig. 6). In Eq. (9) the first term is the torque of propulsive
Ra (O) 8
La (mH) 0.86
force due to the tail rotor, the second term implies the
Ka.j (N m/A) 0.0202 torque of the friction force, and the third term refers to the
kth 3.6  107 torque of the flat cable force that is completely nonlinear
ktv 8.7  107 and can be obtained by point-by-point measurement. Fig. 7
shows the torque of the friction force that covers viscous,
coulomb and static frictions:
− v Vertical plane
Tail rotor lt dOh l t F h ðoh Þcos av  M fric;h  M cable ðah Þ
lm ¼ , (9)
dt D cos2 av þ E sin2 av þ F
where
g(mtr + mts) Fv (v)
mtg av ¼ cte,
lcb Main rotor
m  m 
mmg m t
lb − lcb
gmb
D¼ þ mmr þ mms l 2m þ þ mtr þ mts l 2t ,
g(mmr + mms) 3 3
gmcb mb 2 2 2 mts 2
E¼ l þ mcb l cb ; F ¼ mms rms þ r ,
3 b 2 ts
TRMS 33-220 (
kfhp joh joh for oh X0;
F h ðoh Þ ¼ (10)
kfhn joh joh for oh o0;
Fig. 5. Gravity forces and propulsive force in the vertical plane.

dah
¼ Oh . (11)
M eh=v ¼ kah=v jh=v iah=v , (4) dt

M Lh=v ¼ kth=v joh=v joh=v . (5)

Horizontal plane
Tail rotor
TRMS 33-220

2.3. Vertical 1DOF model of the TRMS

h Main rotor
Fh (h)
The model of the remaining parts of the system in
vertical plane is described in Eqs. (6)–(8) (see also Fig. 5).
In Eq. (6) the first term denotes the torque of the
propulsive force due to the main rotor, the second term Horizontal axis
refers to the torque of the friction force, and the torque of
gravity force is shown in the third term. Fig. 6. Propulsive force in the horizontal plane.
dOv l m F v ðov Þ  M fric;v þ g½ðA  BÞcos av  C sin av 
¼ ,
dt Jv
(6) Mfric,v/h

where
m  m 
t m
A¼ þ mtr þ mts l t ; B ¼ þ mmr þ mms l m ,
2 2
m  Ωv/h
b
C¼ l b þ mcb l cb ,
2
(
kfvp jov jov for ov X0;
F v ðov Þ ¼ (7)
kfvn jov jov for ov o0;
Fig. 7. The friction torque profile.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
246 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

3. Lagrangian based modelling

Tail rotor

TRMS 33-220
In developing Lagrangian based model the TRMS h R O
3 y
configuration has been divided into three subsystems; the
P3 Main rotor
first one consists of the free–free beam (tail and main
beams), tail rotor, main rotor, tail shield and the main
P1
shield, the second one comprises the counterbalance beam
h
and weight, and finally the third one is a pivoted beam.
x
3.1. Coordinates
Fig. 10. Top view of TRMS.
Assume ½rx ðR1 Þ; ry ðR1 Þ; rz ðR1 Þ denotes the coordinate of
point P1 on the free–free beam parameterized in the
distance R1 from O1 (that means P1O1 ¼ R1). And also It should be noted that ah has no effect on the rz(R)’s
assume OO1 ¼ h in which O is the original of the and for simplicity it can be assumed to be zero as shown in
coordinates. It is noted that in order to simplify the figure Fig. 9.
the x- and y-axes have been drawn from O2. Let ½rx ðR2 Þ; ry ðR2 Þ; rz ðR2 Þ denotes the coordinate of
According to Figs. 8–10 the following equation can be point P2 on the counterbalance beam parameterized in
obtained: the distance R2 from O1 (that means P2O1 ¼ R2). Accord-
8
ing to Fig. 8 the following equation can be obtained:
< rx ðR1 Þ ¼ R1 sin ah cos av þ h cos ah ;
>
8
ry ðR1 Þ ¼ R1 cos ah cos av  h sin ah ;
>
: r ðR Þ ¼ R sin a :
(12) < rx ðR2 Þ ¼ R2 sin ah sin av þ h cos ah ;
>
z 1 1 v ry ðR2 Þ ¼ R2 cos ah sin av  h sin ah ; (13)
>
: r ðR Þ ¼ R cos a :
z 2 2 v
Tail rotor z
For more accuracy the point P3 can be considered with
Pivoted beam
the coordinate ½rx ðR3 Þ; ry ðR3 Þ; rz ðR3 Þ on the pivoted beam
P3 O where R3 is the distance between P3 and O:
O1 Free-free beam 8
h
< rx ðR3 Þ ¼ R3 cos ah ;
>
Counter P1 Main rotor ry ðR3 Þ ¼ R3 sin ah ; (14)
balance
P2
>
: r ðR Þ ¼ 0:
beam z 3

−v

3.2. 1DOF TRMS modelling in horizontal plane

ry (R1)
O2
y In this case the vertical angle is constant and so the
velocities related to each part can be obtained by
rx (R1) differentiating Eqs. (12)–(14) with respect to time and the
square magnitude of the velocity of Pi is given by
P′1
v2 ðRi Þ ¼ v2x ðRi Þ þ v2y ðRi Þ þ v2z ðRi Þ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3. (15)
x
Substitution and simplification yield the following
Fig. 8. Twin rotor MIMO system.
equations:
z v2 ðR1 Þ ¼ R21 a_ 2h cos2 av þ h2 a_ 2h , (16)
R1
v2 ðR2 Þ ¼ R22 a_ 2h sin2 av þ h2 a_ 2h , (17)
O1
y
−v
Tail rotor R2 v2 ðR3 Þ ¼ R23 a_ 2h . (18)
P1
P2
The kinetic and potential energies are shown in the
Main rotor following equations, respectively:
Z
T ¼ 2 v2 ðRÞ dmðRÞ;
1
(19)

TRMS 33-220 Z
V ¼g rz ðRÞ dmðRÞ. (20)
Fig. 9. Front view of TRMS with ah ¼ 0.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 247

Z
The kinetic and potential energies of the free–free beam mh 2
J3 ¼ R23 dmðR3 Þ ¼ h ,
are also obtained as follows: 3
T 1 ¼ 12J 1 a_ 2h cos2 av þ 12h2 a_ 2h mT1 , (21) V 3 ¼ 0. (26)
Z m  The Lagrangian equation defines L as
t
J1 ¼ R21 dmðR1 Þ ¼ þ mtr þ mts l 2t
3 X
3 X
3
m  mms 2 L¼ Ti  Vi (27)
m
þ þ mmr þ mms l 2m þ r þ mts r2ts , i¼1 i¼1
3 2 ms
Z and the equation of motion is given by
 
mT1 ¼ dmðR1 Þ ¼ mt þ mtr þ mts þ mm þ mmr þ mms , d qL qL X
 ¼ M ih . (28)
dt q_ah qah i
V 1 ¼ gmT 1 l T 1 sin av , (22)
Therefore by substituting Eqs. (21)–(26) into Eqs. (27)
R and (28) and simplification, the following equation is
R1 dmðR1 Þ
l T1 ¼ R obtained:
dmðR1 Þ X
ððmm =2Þ þ mmr þ mms Þl m  ððmt =2Þ þ mtr þ mts Þl t ½J 1 cos2 av þ J 2 sin2 av þ h2 ðmT 1 þ mT 2 Þ þ J 3 €ah ¼ M ih .
¼ . i
mT 1
(29)
The kinetic and potential energies of the counterbalance P
In Eq. (29), i M ih is the sum of applied torques in the
beam are demonstrated as
horizontal movement, and can be summarized as
T 2 ¼ 12J 2 a_ 2h sin2 av þ 12h2 a_ 2h mT2 , (23) X
M ih ¼ M prop;h  M fric;h  M cable ðah Þ, (30)
Z i
mb 2
J2 ¼ R22 dmðR2 Þ ¼ l þ mcb l 2cb ,
3 b M prop;h ¼ l t F h ðoh Þcos av .
Z
mT2 ¼ dmðR2 Þ ¼ mb þ mcb , 3.3. 1DOF TRMS modelling in vertical plane

V 2 ¼ gmT2 l T2 cos av , (24) This time the horizontal angle is constant and so the
velocities related to each part can be obtained by differentiating
R
R2 dmðR2 Þ ðmb =2Þl b þ mcb l cb Eqs.(12)–(14) with respect to time and the square magnitude of
l T2 ¼ R ¼ . the velocity of Pi in vertical plane is given by Eq. (15).
dmðR2 Þ mT2
Substitution and simplification yield the following equations:
The following equations are the kinetic and potential
energies of the pivoted beam, respectively: v2 ðR1 Þ ¼ R21 a_ 2v , (31)

T 3 ¼ 12J 3 a_ 2h , (25) v2 ðR2 Þ ¼ R22 a_ 2v , (32)

Fig. 11. A typical MLP network with R inputs and three layers i.e. M ¼ 3.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
248 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

v2 ðR3 Þ ¼ 0. (33) The equation of motion is given by

 
The kinetic and potential energies of each part can be d qL qL X
 ¼ M iv . (39)
written as follows: dt q_av qav i

T 1 ¼ 12J 1 a_ 2v , (34) So by substituting Eqs. (34)–(38) into Eqs. (27)–(39) and

simplifying the following equation is obtained:
V 1 ¼ gmT 1 l T 1 sin av , (35)   X
ðJ 1 þ J 2 Þ€av þ g mT 1 l T 1 cos av þ mT 2 l T 2 sin av ¼ M iv .
i

T2 ¼ 1 _2
2 J 2 av , (36) (40)
P
In Eq. (40), i M iv is the sum of applied torques in the
V 2 ¼ gmT 2 l T 2 cos av , (37) vertical movement, and can be expressed as
X
M iv ¼ M prop;v  M fric;v , (41)
T 3 ¼ V 3 ¼ 0. (38) i

M prop;v ¼ l m F v ðov Þ.
It can be seen both Newtonian and Lagrangian approaches
lead to the similar equations; however, the assumptions of
them are a little different, that means the pivoted beam has
been considered in the Lagrangian approach but it has been
neglected in the Newtonian method.

Fig. 13. The structure of the NN-based model in terms of 1DOF

horizontal.

Fig. 12. The flowchart of the Levenberg–Marquardt learning approach. Fig. 14. The structure of the NN-based model in terms of 1DOF vertical.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 249

0.6
100
Real TRMS
0.4 Model
10−1
0.2
10−2
Yaw angle (rad)

Magnitude
PSD of real TRMS
0
10−3 PSD of the model

−0.2
10−4

−0.4 10−5

−0.6 10−6

−0.8 10−7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 15. The yaw angle of the beam in response to sine input with frequency of 0.2 Hz and amplitude 0.7 V, and PSD.

0.8
101
Real TRMS
0.6 Model
100
0.4
10−1
Yaw angle (rad)

PSD of real TRMS

0.2 PSD of the model
Magnitude

10−2
0
10−3
−0.2

−0.4 10−4

−0.6 10−5

−0.8 10−6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 16. The yaw angle of the beam in response to square input with frequency of 0.1 Hz and amplitude 0.3 V, and PSD.

0.25
Real TRMS 10−1
0.2 Model
10−2
0.15
10−3
Pitch angle (rad)

PSD of real TRMS

PSD of the model
Magnitude

0.1
10−4
0.05
10−5

0 10−6

−0.05 10−7

−0.1 10−8
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 17. The pitch angle of the beam in response to sine input with frequency of 0.1 Hz and amplitude 0.5 V, and PSD.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
250 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

4. NN-based modelling ments arranged in patterns similar to biological NNs.

These computational models have now become exciting
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are computational alternatives to conventional approaches in solving a variety
models comprising numerous nonlinear processing ele- of engineering and scientific problems. Fig. 11 shows a

0.4
100
Real TRMS
0.3 Model
10−1
0.2
10−2
Pitch angle (rad)

PSD of real TRMS

Magnitude
0.1
10−3 PSD of the model

0
10−4

−0.1 10−5

−0.2 10−6

−0.3 10−7
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 18. The pitch angle of the beam in response to square input with frequency of 0.05 Hz and amplitude 0.5 V, and PSD.

0.6
NN−based model 100
Real TRMS PSD of NN−based model
0.4
10−1 PSD of real TRMS

0.2
10−2
Yaw angle (rad)

Magnitude

0
10−3

−0.2
10−4

−0.4 10−5

−0.6 10−6

−0.8 10−7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 19. The yaw angle of the beam in response to sine input with frequency of 0.2 Hz and amplitude 0.7 V, and PSD (LM).

0.8
101
NN−based model
PSD of NN−based model
0.6 Real TRMS
PSD of real TRMS
100
0.4
10−1
Yaw angle (rad)

0.2
Magnitude

10−2
0
10−3
−0.2

−0.4 10−4

−0.6 10−5

−0.8 10−6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 20. The yaw angle of the beam in response to square input with frequency of 0.1 Hz and amplitude 0.3 V, and PSD (LM).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 251

typical multi-layer perceptron (MLP) network with R this part the LM learning algorithm is briefly explained.
inputs, M layers (here M ¼ 3), S1 neurons in the first layer, A full description can be found in Hagan and Menhaj
S2 neurons in the second layer and SM neurons in the Mth (1994). Assume all network weights and biases are
layer. The final layer is called the output layer due to the considered in a vector as
fact that it produces the network output. The other layers
are hidden layers, e.g. in Fig. 11 the network has two
w ¼ ½w11;1 . . . w1S1;R b11 . . . b1S1 w21;1 . . . w2S2;S1 b21 . . . b2S2 . . . . . .
hidden layers. As mentioned before LM and GD learning
M M T
algorithms have been used to train the empirical models. In wM M
1;1 . . . wSM;SM1 b1 . . . bSM 

Auto–correlation of residuals Cross–correlation of input and residuals

1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of input square and residuals Cross–correlation of input square and residuals square
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of residuals and (input*residuals)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8
−1
−500 0 500
lag

Fig. 21. Correlation validation of 1DOF horizontal NN-based model with LM training algorithm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
252 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

with n elements (the elements can be renamed as
w ¼ ½ w1 w2    wn T ) and the total sum square error
P
is defined as V ðwÞ ¼ N 2
i¼1 ei ðwÞ, where N ¼ Q  SM, Q is
the number of patterns used for training and SM is the
number of network outputs. The error vector is considered
as e ¼ ½ e1 e2    eN T . Note that each element of
error vector (e.g. ei) represents the difference between one
of the network outputs and the corresponding desired
value for only one patterns of training set. The flowchart of
LM learning approach is illustrated in Fig. 12.
LM learning algorithm can be considered as a modified
version of Gauss–Newton approach. Like all other training
algorithms the first step is initialization. The Jacobian
matrix is calculated using the differentiation of each error
with respect to each weight or bias and consequently the
result will be an N  n matrix. A set of equations are
defined in order to find Dw(t). The new sum square error is
then computed and compared to the previous one, if the
performance becomes better, i.e. the new error is less than
the previous one, then the new parameters are defined as
w(t+1) ¼ w(t)+Dw(t) and m is decreased using m ¼ m/b.
The new iteration is started if the stop criteria are not
satisfied, otherwise m is increased using m ¼ mb and Dw(t) is
recalculated.
4.1. 1DOF horizontal
In order to model the TRMS in terms of 1DOF
horizontal dynamics an MLP NN model of 6  3  1
configuration has been used. In other words, the NN-based
model has six inputs, three neurons in hidden layer and one
neuron in output layer. To find a suitable configuration it is
common to start from a simple configuration, usually only
one hidden layer, and then increase the number of neurons
and even the number of layers if necessary. The inputs are
tail rotor voltage at present time, Vh(t), tail rotor voltage at
previous time, Vh(t1), tail rotor voltage at two samples
before, Vh(t2), yaw angle of the beam at previous time,
ah(t1), yaw angle of the beam at two samples before,
ah(t2), and yaw angle of the beam at three samples

0.6 100
PSD of NN−based model
NN−based model
PSD of real TRMS
0.4 Real TRMS 10−1

0.2 10−2
Yaw angle (rad)

Magnitude

0 10−3

−0.2 10−4

−0.4 10−5

−0.6 10−6

−0.8 10−7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 22. The yaw angle of the beam in response to sine input with frequency of 0.2 Hz and amplitude 0.7 V, and PSD (GD).

0.8
NN−based model
101
PSD of NN−based model
0.6 Real TRMS PSD of real TRMS
100
0.4
10−1
Yaw angle (rad)

0.2
Magnitude

10−2
0
10−3
−0.2

−0.4 10−4

−0.6 10−5

−0.8 10−6
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 23. The yaw angle of the beam in response to square input with frequency of 0.1 Hz and amplitude 0.3 V, and PSD (GD).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 253

before, ah(t3). Fig. 13 shows the structure of the NN-
based model in terms of 1DOF horizontal dynamics. It is
noted that the activation functions used in the hidden layer
and output layer are logarithmic and pure linear,
respectively. The number of patterns for training and
testing are 8290 and 850 sets, respectively. The sample time
of data is set to be 0.2 s which implies that the frequency of
sampling is 5 Hz. The NN has been trained with
Levenberg–Marquardt and gradient descent (GD) training
methods. It is noted that all data for training and testing
have been extracted from the real TRMS.
4.2. 1DOF vertical
In order to model the TRMS in terms of 1DOF vertical
dynamics, an MLP NN model of 6  3  1 configuration

Auto–correlation of residuals Cross–correlation of input and residuals

1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of input square and residuals Cross–correlation of input square and residuals square
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of residuals and (input*residuals)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8
−1
−500 0 500
lag

Fig. 24. Correlation validation of 1DOF horizontal NN-based model with GD training algorithm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
254 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

has been used. In other words, the NN-based model has six
inputs, three neurons in the hidden layer and one neuron in
the output layer. The inputs are main rotor voltage at
present time, Vv(t), main rotor voltage at previous time,
Vv(t1), main rotor voltage at two samples before,
Vv(t2), pitch angle of the beam at previous time, av(t1),
pitch angle of the beam at two samples before, av(t2), and
pitch angle of the beam at three samples before, av(t3).
Fig. 14 shows the structure of the NN-based model in
terms of 1DOF vertical dynamics. It is noted that the
activation functions used in the hidden layer and the
output layer are logarithmic sigmoid and pure linear,
respectively. The number of patterns for training and
testing are set to be 10 700 and 750, respectively. The NN
has been trained with GD as well as Levenberg–Marquardt
training methods.
5. Results
Results of the developed models are discussed in this
section. Performances of the models are presented by
comparing their responses with that of the real TRMS,
comparing the power spectral densities (PSDs) of the
model and the real TRMS and performing a set of
correlation tests. This section is divided into two subsec-
tions; one presenting the response of the analytical
modelling that is obtained using energy and mass equations
and another related to the response of empirical NN-based
modelling with two learning algorithm approaches.
5.1. Newtonian and Lagrangian based model
As mentioned before the Lagrangian and Newtonian
based model approaches lead to the similar equations, so
the responses are also the same as shown here. For more
validation of the performance of the models, the PSD of
each response has been shown. Figs. 15 and 16 show the
yaw angle of the beam with respect to different input
signals and their corresponding PSDs. The pitch angle
responses and corresponding PSDs are also shown in
Figs. 17 and 18.

0.25
NN−based model 10−1
Real TRMS PSD of NN−based model
0.2 PSD of real TRMS
10−2
0.15
Pitch angle (rad)

10−3
Magnitude

0.1
10−4
0.05

0 10−5

−0.05 10−6

−0.1 10−7
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 25. The pitch angle of the beam in response to sine input with frequency of 0.1 Hz and amplitude 0.5 V, and PSD (LM).

0.4
NN based model
100
Real TRMS PSD of NN
0.3
10−1 PSD of real TRMS

0.2
10−2
Pitch angle (rad)

Magnitude

0.1
10−3

0 10−4

−0.1 10−5

−0.2 10−6

−0.3 10−7
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 26. The pitch angle of the beam in response to square input with frequency of 0.05 Hz and amplitude 0.5 V, and PSD (LM).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 255

5.2. NN-based model
Two NNs with the same configurations have been
developed for modelling the TRMS in terms of 1DOF
vertical and horizontal dynamics. For validation, the
models’ dynamics have been tested with a data set that
has not been used for the training purpose. In order to
achieve a reasonable comparison, the inputs similar to
those of previous section have been used in testing
procedure. Figs. 19 and 20 show the output of 1DOF
horizontal NN-based model with LM training method with
respect to different input signals and their corresponding
PSDs. Correlation validation (Billings & Voon, 1986;
Billings & Zhu, 1994) of 1DOF horizontal NN-based
model with LM training algorithm is shown in Fig. 21. For
comparison purpose, the results of the model developed on

Auto–correlation of residuals Cross–correlation of input and residuals

1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of input square and residuals Cross–correlation of input square and residuals square
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of residuals and (input*residuals)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8
−1
−500 0 500
lag

Fig. 27. Correlation validation of 1DOF vertical NN-based model with LM training algorithm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
256 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259

the basis of standard GD algorithm have also been
presented. Figs. 22 and 23 show the output of 1DOF
horizontal NN-based model with GD training method with
respect to different input signals and their corresponding
PSDs. Correlation validation of 1DOF horizontal NN-
based model with GD training algorithm is shown in
Fig. 24.
Figs. 25 and 26 show the output of 1DOF vertical NN-
based model with LM training method with respect to
different input signals and their corresponding PSDs.
Correlation validation of 1DOF vertical NN-based model
with LM training algorithm is shown in Fig. 27. Figs. 28
and 29 show the output of 1DOF vertical NN-based model
with GD training method with respect to different input
signals and their corresponding PSDs. Correlation valida-
tion of 1DOF vertical NN-based model with GD training
algorithm is shown in Fig. 30.
If the residuals (model errors) contain no information
about past residuals or about the dynamics of the system, it
is likely that all information has been extracted from the
training set and that the model approximates the system
well. It is common to check if the functions for lags in the
interval t 2 ½20; 20 are zero within
pffiffiffiffi an asymptotical
pffiffiffiffi 95%
confidence interval, i.e. if 1:96= moro1:96= m where r
is the correlation function and m is the number of data.
It is noted from Figs. 19 and 20 that the horizontal model
with LM training algorithm performed so well that the
model and real system responses cannot be distinguished. It
is also obvious from these figures that the PSDs of the model
and system responses are closely overlapped especially at
low frequencies. It is noted that all the five correlation
functions; auto-correlation of residuals (Fig. 21a), cross-
correlation of input and residuals (Fig. 21b), cross-correla-
tion of input square and residuals (Fig. 21c), cross-
correlation of input square and residuals square (Fig. 21d),
and cross-correlation of residuals and input multiplied by
residuals (Fig. 21e) are within the 95% confidence bands
indicating that the model is adequate, i.e. the model
behaviour is closed to the real system performance.
However, although Figs. 22 and 23 show that the horizontal

0.25
NN−based model 10−1
Real TRMS PSD of NN−based model
0.2 PSD of real TRMS
10−2
0.15
10−3
Pitch angle (rad)

Magnitude

0.1
10−4
0.05
10−5

0 10−6

−0.05 10−7

−0.1 10−8
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 28. The pitch angle of the beam in response to sine input with frequency of 0.1 Hz and amplitude 0.5 V, and PSD (GD).

0.3
100
PSD of NN−based model
0.2 PSD of real TRMS
10−1
0.1
10−2
Pitch angle (rad)

Magnitude

0
10−3

−0.1 10−4

−0.2 10−5

−0.3 NN−based model 10−6

Real TRMS
−0.4 10−7
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 29. The pitch angle of the beam in response to square input with frequency of 0.05 Hz and amplitude 0.5 V, and PSD (GD).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259 257

Auto–correlation of residuals Cross–correlation of input and residuals

1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of input square and residuals Cross–correlation of input square and residuals square
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.4
−0.6 −0.6
−0.8 −0.8
−1 −1
−500 0 500 −500 0 500
lag lag

Cross–correlation of residuals and (input*residuals)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8
−1
−500 0 500
lag

Fig. 30. Correlation validation of 1DOF vertical NN-based model with GD training algorithm.

model with GD training algorithm has a reasonable
performance with respect to overlapping and PSD tests,
but according to Fig. 24 the correlation functions go beyond
the 95% confidence bands and therefore the model cannot
be considered adequate to be used for sophisticated control
purpose.
Figs. 25 and 26 show that the vertical model with LM
training algorithm performed so well that the model and
real system responses are perfectly overlapped. It is also
obvious from these figures that the PSDs of the model and
system responses are closely matched especially at low
frequencies. It is noted that all the five correlation
functions; auto-correlation of residuals (Fig. 27a), cross-
correlation of input and residuals (Fig. 27b), cross-
correlation of input square and residuals (Fig. 27c),
cross-correlation of input square and residuals square

258 A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259
(Fig. 27d), and cross-correlation of residuals and input
multiplied by residuals (Fig. 27e) are within the 95%
confidence bands indicating that the model is adequate.
However, Figs. 28 and 29 show that the vertical model with
GD training algorithm has a reasonable performance with
respect to overlapping and PSD tests, but according to
Fig. 30 the correlation functions go beyond the 95%
confidence bands and therefore the model cannot be
considered to be adequate.
5.3. Comparative study
It can be observed from the results that the error of
empirical model with efficient learning algorithms is less
than the error of the analytical model. Although the
analytical model is less accurate it is valid for any input
signal with any frequency. The empirical model is only
valid in the range of training data provided. On the other
hand, in the case of black-box modelling, the structure of
the process is lost and this is one of the drawbacks of
empirical modelling. The significant advantage of
NN-based modelling is that the model is easy and fast to
develop. Table 3 depicts the comparative performance of
the analytical and empirical models. The responses of the
both Newtonian and Lagrangian models are satisfactory
and they follow the real TRMS response very closely. On
the other hand, although the NN-based models with LM
training method follow the real TRMS response very
satisfactorily but the performance of the GD training
method is not as good as that of the LM training method.
Again, the response of the NN-based models with LM
training method is better than that of the analytical models,
but the responses of analytical models have a better
performance compared to the NN-based model with GD
training approach. As presented in Table 3, the mean
square errors (MSEs) of the yaw angle in the case of the
Lagrangian and Newtonian models are 1.9  103 as
against 1.35  105 and 1.74  102 in the case of NN-
based model with LM and GD training methods,
respectively. Similar performance is achieved in the case
of pitch angle. In this case the MSE 7.1  104 is obtained
with analytical models as opposed to 8.84  106 and
1.15  103 in the case of NN-based models with LM and
GD training methods, respectively. Note that the criteria
for the model satisfaction are small amount of error
Table 3
Comparative study of the analytical and empirical approaches
Approach Model Yaw angle Pitch angle
MSE MSE
Analytical Newtonian 1.9  103 7.1  104
Lagrangian 1.9  103 7.1  104
Empirical NN(LM) Train 1.57  105
Test 1.35  105
NN(GD) Train 1.13  102
Test 1.74  102
ARTICLE IN PRESS
between the model output and the real system output, and
reliability of the model in a range of necessary frequencies.
6. Conclusion
In this investigation the dynamic modelling of an
experimental system, TRMS, using both analytical and
empirical based methods has been developed. In develop-
ing the analytical model of the system various parts of the
TRMS have been modelled separately and then integrated.
The responses of the models are compared with that of the
real plant. It is shown that the models obtained using both
methods can generally be considered adequate in repre-
senting the system. However, the NN-based modelling
approach with LM training algorithm appeared to be the
best in terms of accuracy, but analytical approaches have a
better performance compared to the GD based NN
modelling approach.
References
Ahmad, S. M., Chipperfield, A. J., & Tokhi, M. O. (2000). Dynamic
modelling and optimal control of a twin rotor MIMO system. In
Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE international conference on national
aerospace and electronics (pp. 391–398).
Ahmad, S. M., Shaheed, M. H., Chipperfield, A. J., & Tokhi, M. O.
(2000). Nonlinear modelling of a twin rotor MIMO system using radial
basis function networks. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE international
conference on national aerospace and electronics (pp. 313–320).
Aldebrez, F. M., Mat-Darus, I. Z., & Tokhi, M. O. (2004). Dynamic
modelling of a twin rotor system in hovering position. In Proceedings
of the 2004 international symposium on control, communications and
signal processing (pp. 823–826).
Avila-Vilchis, J. C., Brogliato, B., Dzul, R., & Lozano, R. (2003).
Nonlinear modelling and control of helicopters. Automatica, 39(9),
1583–1596.
Billings, S. A., & Voon, W. S. N. (1986). Correlation based model validity
tests for non-linear models. International Journal of Control, 44(1),
235–244.
Billings, S. A., & Zhu, Q. M. (1994). Nonlinear model validation using
correlation tests. International Journal of Control, 60(6), 1107–1120.
Castillo, P., Dzul, A., & Lozano, R. (2004). Real-time stabilization and
tracking of a four-rotor mini rotorcraft. IEEE Transaction on Control
Systems Technology, 12(4), 510–516.
Cerro, J. D., Valero, J., & Barrientos, A. (2005). Identification of a small
unmanned helicopter model using genetic algorithms. In Proceedings
of the 2005 IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and
systems (pp. 3360–3365).
Feedback Co., 1998. Twin rotor MIMO system 33-220 user manual.
Hagan, M. T., & Menhaj, M. B. (1994). Training feedforward networks
with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Transaction on Neural Networks,
5(6), 989–993.
Jun, M., Roumeliotis, S. I., & Sukhatme, G. S. (1999). State estimation of
an autonomous helicopter using Kalman filtering. In Proceedings of
the 1999 IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and
systems, Vol. 3 (pp. 1346–1353).
Karras, D. A. (2004). Neural network models based on regularization
techniques for off-line robot manipulator path planning. In Proceed-
ings of the 2004 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks,
1.54  105 Vol. 1 (pp. 35–39).
8.84  106 Krabbes, M., & Doschner, C. (1999). Modelling of robot dynamics based
2.37  102 on a multi-dimensional RBF-like neural network. In Proceedings of the
1.15  103 1999 IEEE international conference on information intelligence and
systems (pp. 180–187).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Rahideh et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 241–259
Mahony, R., Hamel, T., Dzul, A. (1999). Hover control via Lyapunov
control for an autonomous model helicopter. In Proceedings of the
1999 IEEE international conference on decision and control, Vol. 4
(pp. 3490–3495).
Mat-Darus, I. Z., Aldebrez, F. M., & Tokhi, M. O. (2004). Parametric
modelling of a twin rotor system using genetic algorithms. In
Proceedings of the 2004 international symposium on control, commu-
nications and signal processing (pp. 115–118).
Mistler, V., Benalleque, A., & Msirdi, N. K. (2001). Exact linearization
and non-interacting control of a 4 rotors helicopter via dynamic
feedback. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE international workshop on
robot and human interactive communication (pp. 586–593).
Mohd-Hashim, S. Z., Tokhi, M. O., & Mat-Darus, I. Z. (2004). Nonlinear
dynamic modelling of flexible beam structures using neural networks.
In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international conference on
mechatronics (pp. 171–175).
Rao, M., Biswas, S. K., Butz, B. P., & Miller, D. G. (1990). Dynamic
modelling and feedback control of a side-by-side rotor tandem
helicopter. In Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE international symposium
on intelligent control systems (pp. 780–785).
Shaheed, M. H. (2004). Performance analysis of 4 types of conjugate
gradient algorithm in the nonlinear dynamic modelling of a TRMS using
feedforward neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international
conference on systems, man and cybernetics (pp. 5985–5990).
Somov, Y. I., Polyntsev, O. Y. (2003). Nonlinear dynamics and control of
a wind-milling gyroplane rotor. In Proceedings of the international
conference on physics and control, Vol. 1 (pp. 151–156).
259
Song-Yun, D., Ji-Hong, Z., Chun-Hua, H. (2004). Mathematical
modelling of a UAV during take-off with nose-wheel off the
ground. In Proceedings of the World automation congress, Vol. 15
(pp. 359–364).
Sun, W., Wang, Y., Mao, J. (2002). Using wavelet network for identi-
fying the model of robot manipulator. In Proceedings of the
fourth congress on intelligent control and automation, Vol. 2
(pp. 1634–1638).
Talebi, H. A., Patel, R. V., & Asmer, H. (1998). Dynamic modelling of
flexible-link manipulators using neural networks with application to
the SSRMS. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE international conference
on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 673–678).
Van de Ven, P., Johansen, T., Sorensen, A., Flanagan, C., & Toal, D.
(2007). Neural network augmented identification of underwater vehicle
models. Control Engineering Practice, 15(6), 715–725.
Wang, X., Peng, G. (2003). Modelling and control for pneumatic
manipulator based on dynamic neural network. In Proceedings of the
2003 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics
Vol. 3 (pp. 2231–2236).
Wu, X., Ignatov, R., Muenst, G., Imaev, A., & Zhu, J. J. (2002).
A nonlinear flight controller design for a UFO by trajectory
linearization method, Part I: Modelling. In Proceedings of the 2002
southeastern symposium on system theory (pp. 97–102).
Yang, X., & Meng, M. (1999). An efficient neural network model for path
planning of car-like robots in dynamic environment. In Proceedings of
the 1999 IEEE Canadian conference on electrical and computer
engineering (pp. 1374–1379).