You are on page 1of 20

Hima, Bestaoui

1

Trim trajectories

NONHOLONOMIC MOTION GENERATION ON TRIM AEROSTATICS TRAJECTORIES FOR AN AUTONOMOUS UNDERACTUATED AIRSHIP Salim HIMA, Yasmina BESTAOUI Laboratoire des Systèmes Complexes, CNRS-FRE 2492 Université d’Evry Val d’Essonne, 38 rue du Pelvoux, 91020 Evry, France
Tel : (33) 169-47-75-19; fax : (33) 169-47-75-99

E-mail : hima@cemif.univ-evry.fr and bestaoui@cemif.univ-evry.fr

Abstract : We are currently studying a small airship that has no metal framework and collapses when deflated. In the first part of this paper, dynamic modeling of small autonomous non rigid airships is presented, using the Newton-Euler approach. This study discusses the motion in 6 degrees of freedom since 6 independent coordinates are necessary to determine the position and orientation of this vehicle. Euler angles are used in the formulation of this model. In the second part of the paper, path planning is introduced. Motion generation for trim trajectories is presented. This motion generation takes into account the dynamic model presented in the first part. Key-words : Autonomous Airship, Trajectory planning, Underactuated systems, Nonholonomic systems

1.

Introduction

Since their renaissance in early 1980’s, airships have been increasingly considered for varied tasks such as transportation, surveillance, freight carrier, advertising, monitoring, research, and military roles. More recently, attention has been given to the use of unmanned airships as aerial inspection platforms, with a very important application area in environmental, biodiversity, and climatological research and monitoring [CAM99, KHO99, PAI99]. The first objective of this paper is to present a model of a small autonomous airship : kinematics and dynamics. For kinematics, Euler angles are presented. For dynamics, a mathematical description of a dirigible flight must contain the necessary information about aerodynamic, structural and other internal dynamic effects (engine, actuation) that influence the response of the airship to the controls and external atmospheric disturbances. The airship is a member of

Hima, Bestaoui

2

Trim trajectories

the family of under-actuated systems because it has fewer inputs than degrees of freedom. In some studies such as [FOS96, HYG00, KHO99, ZHA99], motion is referenced to a system of orthogonal body axes fixed in the airship, with the origin at the center of volume assumed to coincide with the gross center of buoyancy. The model used was written originally for a buoyant underwater vehicle [FOS96, ZIA98]. It was modified later to take into account the specificity of the airship [HYG00, KHO99, ZHA99]. In [BES01], the origin of the body fixed frame is the center of gravity. The second objective of this paper is to generate a desired flight path and motion to be followed by the airship. A mission starts with take-off from the platform where the mast that holds the mooring device of the airship is mounted. Typically, flight operation modes can be defined as : take-off, cruise, turn, landing, hover…[BES01, CAM99, PAI99, ZHA99]. After the user has defined the goal tasks, the path generator then determines a path for the vehicle that is a trajectory in space. In this paper, the trajectories considered are trimming or equilibrium trajectories. The general condition for trim requires that the rate of change of the magnitude of the velocity vector is identically zero, in the body fixed frame. In this paper we propose some motion generation on trim helices to be followed by the airship, considering a mixed time-energy cost function. 2. AIRSHIP DYNAMIC MODELING

2.1.

Kinematics.

A general spatial displacement of a rigid body consists of a finite rotation about a spatial axis and a finite translation along some vector. The rotational and translational axes in general need not be related to each other. It is often easiest to describe a spatial displacement as a combination of a rotation and a translation motions, where the two axes are not related. However, the combined effect of the two partial transformations (i.e. rotation, translation about their respective axes) can be expressed as an equivalent unique screw displacement, where the rotational and translational axes in fact coincide. The concept of a screw thus represents an ideal mathematical tool to analyze spatial transformation [ZEF99]. The finite rotation of a rigid body does not obey to the laws of vector addition (in particular commutativity) and as a result the angular velocity of the body cannot be integrated to give the attitude of the body. There are many ways to describe finite rotations. Direction cosines, Rodrigues – Hamilton’s (quaternions) variables [FOS96], Euler

Hima. ZIA98]. This formulation has been first used for underwater vehicles [FOS96. In this paper. Its axes ( xv yv zv ) are the principal axes of symmetry when available. Two reference frames are considered in the derivation of the kinematics and dynamics equations of motion. A 3*3 direction cosine matrix (of Euler rotations) is used to describe the orientation of the body (achieved by 3 successive rotations) with respect to some fixed frame reference. the origin C of Rm coincides with the center of volume of the vehicle. The orientation matrix R is given by: ⎛ cψ cθ -sψ cφ + cψ sθ sφ sψ sφ + cψ sθ cφ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ R = ⎜ sψ cθ cψ cφ + sψ sθ sφ -cψ sφ + sψ sθ cφ ⎟ ⎜ -sθ ⎟ cθ sφ cθ cφ ⎝ ⎠ Where cθ = cos (θ ) and sθ = sin (θ ) eq2 R ∈ SO(3) denotes the orthogonal rotation matrix that specifies the orientation of the airship frame relative to the inertial reference frame in inertial reference frame coordinates. Euler angles [BES01]. assembled with the three position coordinates allow the description of the situation of a rigid body. Some of these groups of variables are very close to each other in their nature [ZEF99]. θ pitch and ψ yaw angles. They must form a right handed orthogonal normed frame. Bestaoui 3 Trim trajectories parameters [WEN91]. The position η1 and the orientation η2 of the vehicle C in R f can be respectively described by : ⎛ x⎞ ⎜ ⎟ η1 = ⎜ y ⎟ ⎜z⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛φ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ η2 = ⎜ θ ⎟ ⎜ψ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ and eq1 with φ roll. The position and orientation of the vehicle should be described relative to the inertial reference frame while the linear and angular velocities of the vehicle should be expressed in the body-fixed coordinate system. SO(3) is the special orthogonal group of order 3 which is represented by the set of all 3*3 orthogonal rotation matrices that characteristics are : . The usual minimal representation of orientation is given by a set of three Euler angles. can serve as examples. These are the Earth fixed frame R f and the body fixed frame Rm (figure 1).

tan θ ⎜ J (η2 ) = ⎜ 0 cφ ⎜ 0 sφ / cθ ⎝ cφ . This description is valid in the region − exists for: eq3 π 2 <θ < π 2 . k ∈ Z . the special Euclidean group of rigid-body transformations in three dimensions [RAB00. ⎟ ⎜ 03*3 ⎜η ⎟ ⎝ ⎝ 2⎠ where ⎛ 1 sφ . ⎛u⎞ ⎜ ⎟ Let’s introduce V = ⎜ v ⎟ as the linear velocity of the origin C expressed in Rm and ⎜ w⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ p⎞ ⎜ ⎟ Ω = ⎜ q ⎟ as the angular velocity expressed in Rm . R R = I 3*3 . ⎧ ⎫ ⎡ R η1 ⎤ 3*3 ⎪A A = ⎢ ⎥ . ℜ 3 represents the set of 3*1 real vectors and ℜ 3*3 the set of 3*3 real matrices.SEL96].det( R) = 1 ⎪ ⎩ ⎭ eq4 SE(3) is a Lie group. The kinematics of the airship can be ⎜r⎟ ⎝ ⎠ expressed in the following way : ⎛ . at each instant. The set of all such matrices is called SE(3).Hima. Bestaoui 4 Trim trajectories RT R = I 3*3 and det( R) = 1 I3x3 represents the 3*3 identity matrix. the configuration (position and orientation) of the airship can be described by an homogeneous transformation matrix corresponding to the displacement from frame R f to frame Rm . If we use the manipulators formulation.tan θ ⎞ ⎟ − sφ ⎟ cφ / cθ ⎟ ⎠ 03*3 ⎞ ⎛ V ⎞ ⎟ J (η2 ) ⎠ ⎜ Ω ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ eq5 eq6 . R ∈ SO (3) ⊂ ℜ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎣0 1 ⎦ SE (3) = ⎨ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ 3 T ⎪η1 ∈ℜ . A singularity of this transformation θ= π 2 ± kπ . ⎞ ⎜ η1 ⎟ = ⎛ R ⎜ .

sk (Ω) ∈ ℜ .Hima. Assume that the airship move in a trim manner and the flight mode is aerostatics (hover or low speed). It is advantageous to formulate the equations of motion in a body fixed frame to take advantage of the vehicle’s geometrical properties. In this section. Applying Newton’s laws of motion relating the applied forces and moments to the resulting translational and rotational accelerations assembles the equations of motion for the 6 degrees of freedom. and the influence of gust is considered as a continuous disturbance. degradation of the airship skin due to thermal cycling and temperature exposure and buoyant gas leakage. analytic expressions for the forces and moments on the dirigible are derived. meaning that it is well inflated. Dynamics. the gravitational field is constant. the aeroelastic effects are ignored. TUR73]. Bestaoui 5 Trim trajectories If we use the metric formulation. 2.V ∈ ℜ ⎬ 0⎦ ⎩⎣ 0 ⎭ eq7 q ⎤ − p⎥ ⎥ 0 ⎥ ⎦ where sk(Ω) represents the skew-matrix : ⎡ 0 −r sk (Ω) = ⎢ r 0 ⎢ ⎢− q p ⎣ This matrix has the property that for an arbitrary vector U ∈ ℜ 3 sk (Ω)U = Ω × U eq8 × : represents the cross vector product in ℜ 3 . the aerodynamic forces . Introducing all these factors into the dynamic model would result in very complicated partial differential equations. the tangent space of SE(3). High temperature will increase permeability of the airship skin and increase leakage. This tangent space se(3) has the structure of a Lie algebra. The buoyancy system lifetime will be limited by a number of components and factors. denoted by se(3) is given by: ⎧⎡ sk (Ω) V ⎤ ⎫ 3*3 3 se(3) = ⎨⎢ ⎥. The forces and moments are referred to a system of body-fixed axes. centered at the airship center of volume. ignoring its stochastic character [MIL73. The deformations are considered to be negligible. the airship is supposed to be a rigid body. We will make in the sequel some simplifying assumptions : the earth fixed reference frame is inertial.2. Included is the corrosion of unprotected airship skin. the density of air is supposed to be uniform. then the buoyancy is compensated by the weight force.

Let’s assume that the forces developed by the two vectored lateral helices are equal : F1 = F2 = F eq9 The dynamics model is expressed in the body fixed frames as [HYG00]: Forces equations : Axial force : 2 F cos( µ ) = mz wq − m y rv − m ( a x ( q 2 + r 2 ) − a z rp ) eq10 Lateral force : F3 = − mx ur + mz wp + m( − a x pq + a z rq ) eq11 Normal force : 2F sin(µ ) = −my vp + mx qu + m −ax rp + az q 2 + p 2 ( ( )) eq12 Moment equations : Roll moment : F3O3 z = ( J z − J y ) rq − I xz pq − ma z ( ur − pw ) + a z FG cos(θ ) sin(φ ) eq13 Pitch moment : FOx sin(µ ) − FOz cos(µ ) = −( J x − J z ) pr + I xz r 2 − p2 ( ) +m( ax ( vp − qu ) − az ( wq − rv ) ) − az FG sin(θ ) − ax FG cos(θ )cos(φ ) eq14 Yaw moment : F3O3 x = ( J z − J y )qp + I xz qr − m ( −ax ( ur − pw) ) − ax FG cos(θ )sin(φ ) eq15 where : Oij is the jth coordinate of the origin of the actuator i. From these equations we can derive 3 nonholonomic constraints : First nonholonomic constraint: ( O 3z M x + Ma z ) ru − ( O 3z M z + Ma z ) pw − M ( a x pq + a z rq ) − ( J z − J y ) rq + I xz pq − a z Fg cos (θ ) = 0 eq16 . Bestaoui 6 Trim trajectories can be neglected as well as the different linear and angular accelerations in the body fixed frame.Hima. Ox = O1x + O3 x and Oz = O1z + O3 z .

wind drift correction and ground reference maneuvers. Bestaoui 7 Trim trajectories Second nonholonomic constraint: ( O3x M x + Max ) ru − ( O3 x M z + Max ) pw − MO3 x ( az rq − ax pq ) − ( J y − J x ) qp − I xz pr + ax Fg cos (θ ) sin (φ ) = 0 Third nonholonomic constraint: 1 1 Oz M z wq − M y rv − M ax q 2 + r 2 − az rp − Ox M x qu − M y vp + M az q 2 + p 2 − ax rp 2 2 − ( J x − J z ) pr − I xz r 2 − p 2 − M ( ax ( vp − uq ) − az ( wq − vr ) ) eq17 ( ( ( ) ) )) ( ( ( ) )) ( eq18 −az Fg sin (θ ) + ax Fg cos (θ ) cos (φ ) = 0 These three constraints must be considered in the reference trajectories generation. . 3. the aircraft will be accelerated under the action of non-zero resultant aerodynamic and gravitational forces and moments. . p = φ − ψ Sθ . u=v=w= p=q=r =0 Using eq5. the angular velocity can be written as: . Path generation The fundamentals of flight are in general : straight and level flight (maintenance of selected altitude). .Hima. q = θ Cφ + ψ Sφ Cθ . The trim problem is generally formulated as a set of nonlinear algebraic equations. . r = −θ Sφ + ψ Cφ Cθ eq19 . . .1. level turns. ascents and descents. . Trim is concerned with the ability to maintain flight equilibrium with controls fixed. A trimmed flight condition is defined as one in which the rate of change (of magnitude) of the aircraft’s state vector is zero (in the body-fixed frame) and the resultant of the applied forces and moments is zero. . . these effects will be balanced by effects such as centrifugal and gyroscopic inertial forces and moments. Trim trajectories 3. In a trimmed maneuver.

r0 = ψ 0 Cφ Cθ 00 eq20 with one of the solutions given by : . p0 = −ψ 0 Sθ 0 . ⎜ ψ =ψ t ⎟ 0 ⎝ ⎠ eq22 from the same equation Eq 5. ⎜ ψ = cst = ψ 0 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ eq21 thus ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ φ = cst = φ 0 ⎟ ⎜ θ = cst = θ 0 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ . we obtain . . . Bestaoui 8 Trim trajectories differentiating versus time and nullifying these derivatives. we obtain ⎛ x( s) ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ r ( s) = ⎜ y ( s) ⎟ ⎜ z(s) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ eq25 with . ⎛ ⎞ φ =0 ⎜ ⎟ . q0 = ψ 0 Cθ 0 Sφ0 .Hima. trimming trajectories are characterized by : . z = z0 = −sin(θ0)u0 + cos(θ0 )sin(φ0)v0 + cos(θ0 )cos(φ0 )w0 eq23 where ax = cos(θ0 )u0 + sin(θ0 )sin(φ0 )v0 + sin(θ0 )cos(φ0 )w0 by = ax bx =−cos(φ0 )v0 + sin(φ0 )w0 ay =−bx eq24 Integrating. ⎜ ⎟ θ =0 ⎜ ⎟ . y = ay cos(ψ 0 t) + by sin(ψ0 t) . . . x = ax cos(ψ0 t) + bx sin(ψ0 t) . . ⎟ ⎜ .

z z= s Ve 0 0 0 9 Trim trajectories .Hima. ψ0 ψ0 bx ax y = − . side-slipping maneuver at constant speed. . . Cx = . auto-rotation or sustained turns are also trims. . The trim condition can be a turning (about the vertical axis). ⎛ 2 ⎞ a x + b x2 ψ0 ⎜ sin( s) ⎟ ⎞⎜ . Bestaoui . x sin( 0 s ) − . . descending or climbing (assuming constant air density and temperature). sin( s ) − . ⎟ 2 2 ⎟⎜ a x + bx ψ 0⎟⎜ − cos( 0 s ) ⎟ . cos( s) Ve Ve ψ ψ . ⎟ 1⎟⎜ z ⎟⎜ ⎟ s ⎠⎜ ⎟ Ve ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ eq27 the trajectories represented by these equations are a classical helices rotated around the ⎛b ⎞ vertical axe by an angle of arctan ⎜ x ⎟ and have a constant curvature and torsion ⎝ ax ⎠ k= V 2 Ax2 + Bx2 V 2 Ax2 + Bx2 + C x2 C xV ( ) eq28 τ= V 2 Ax2 + Bx2 + C x2 . ψ ψ a b x = . V = Ve Ve ψ ψ 0 0 ( ) eq29 where The most general trim condition resembles a spin mode. More conventional flight conditions such as hover. . ψ0 ax bx z0 Ax = . ⎜ ⎟ Ve ⎟ ψ0 ⎟ ⎟⎜ . 0 eq26 where s represents the curvilinear abscissa and we suppose a uniform motion such that 2 2 2 s = Vet = t u0 + v0 + w0 . Bx = . x cos( 0 s ) Ve Ve ψ ψ . rearranging these equation in the form : ⎛ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ax ⎛ ⎜ 2 a x + b x2 x(s) ⎞ ⎜ bx ⎟ ⎜ y(s) ⎟ = ⎜ − 2 a x + b x2 0 z(s) ⎟ ⎜ ⎠ ⎜ 0 ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ bx a + b x2 2 x ax 2 a x + b x2 0 . cruise. The spin axis is always directed vertically in the trim and pass through the origin of ℜ f . ⎟ Ve 0⎟ ψ0 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ .

Resolution of the minimum time problem Optimization theory gives a solution to the minimum time problem. We may propose an optimization problem where the objective function may be a mixed time energy function The total time can be expressed as : Tf = z f − zi − sin θ . sin φ . min subject to λT f + (1 − λ ) E F ≤ Fmax F3 ≤ F3 max eq32 µ min ≤ µ ≤ µ max 3 nonholonomic constraints A proposed resolution method is introduced in the following section. Since the linear velocity is constant.Hima.w eq30 while the energy is given by eq9 : E = ( F 2 + F32 ) . Bestaoui 10 Trim trajectories 3. this problem will be solved assuming that each constraint is saturated. It is located on the boundary of the admissible set. .u + cosθ . First. the optimal time solution for this problem have minimum paths length.2. the airship moves using maximum actuator capabilities. The resolution will be organized as follows. On trim paths.3. The overall problem consists now in determining some variables ⎛ u v w ψ ⎞ to minimize ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ the specified objective function : mixed time-energy subject to three equality constraints (dynamics) and inequality constraints (actuators). 3. Motion generation : Problem formulation Once the path is planned. Then the largest value of all the computed times will be taken as the predicted arrival time. we are looking for the form of the motion that allows the airship to move along this path in a minimum time and a safe manner (without slipping or excitation of the harmful modes such as a roll oscillation).e. i. forces as well as moments have a constant value. cos φ .T f ⎝ ⎠ eq31 .v + cosθ .

1) and Bj (j=0. as well as the motion. we solve the three equality constraints (eq15.1.4. Thus the solution of the optimization problem can be found analytically. Bestaoui 11 Trim trajectories In the first instance. We obtain two imaginary solutions.2) are constants dependent on the parameters of the dynamic model and the initial and final configurations.2 B 4 ψ + B 2 ψ + B0 = 0 eq35 where the coefficients Ai (i=0. Resolution of the mixed time – energy problem In this section we treat the problem of finding helices.⎞ ∑ anum. Depending on our goal. eq34 . 3. this allows us . Applying the second order necessary and sufficient conditions. µ = µmin and µ = µmax lead to four simple second order polynomial equation of the form .2 A 0 ψ + A1 = 0 2 Solving F 2 = Fmax leads to a fourth order polynomial equation of the form . that minimize both time and energy.k ⎜ ψ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ J = i =0 k 2 ⎛. The multi-variable optimization problem becomes now a mono-variable optimization problem. k ⎜ ψ ⎟ ∑ ⎝ ⎠ k =0 6 eq37 Differentiating J and nullifying its derivative lead to a seventh order polynomial equation : . The cost function is given by : J = (1 − λ ) J E + λ J t = (1 − λ ) F 2 + F3 T f + λ T f 2 ( ) eq36 Simplification can be made on these equation to formulate this equation in the form of rational polynomial equation given by : i ⎛. to obtain (u v w ) versus ψ .Hima. eq16. . F = Fmax 2 2 F3 = ±F3max µ = µmin µ = µmax eq33 Solving F3 = ±F3max .⎞ aden . one real positive and one real negative. eq17). we have to solve a set of five nonlinear equations. we choose the positive or negative solution.4 .

3 rad we obtain the following linear and angular velocities . SIMULATION RESULTS The lighter than air platform is the AS200 by Airspeed Airships.6 m 3 volume airship equipped with two vectorable engines on the sides of the gondola and 4 control surfaces at the stern. while respecting the nonholonomic constraints and the actuators limitations. For the following initial conditions: θ = 0.53N .4m diameter and 8. we take the one that presents a minimal cost.43rad . During flight the ruddervators (Rudder and elevator) are used for all movements in pitch and yaw. Bestaoui i 7 ∂J ⎛.Hima. 4. µtrim = -0.62 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎛ p = -1. The engines are standard model aircraft type units. Rudder and elevator can be moved from –25 to +25 degrees.⎞ = ∑ bi ⎜ ψ ⎟ ∂ψ i = 0 ⎝ ⎠ 12 Trim trajectories eq38 from the seven solution derived from the last equation. F3trim = -13.35 ⎟ m / s ⎜ w = -2. It is a remotely piloted airship designed for remote sensing. Envelope pressure is maintained by air fed from the propellers into the two ballonets located inside the central portion of the hull. In addition.23 ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ The trim values for the inputs are : Ftrim = 100 N . It is a non rigid 6m long.44 rad. the trim function can be used to alter the attitude of the airship in order to obtain level flight or to fly with a positive of negative pitch angle.57 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ v = -4. Climb or dive angles should not exceed 30 degrees. particularly at full throttle. The maximum velocity is 13m/s and the maximal height is 200m. 1. These ballonets are self regulating and can be fed from either engine.59 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ q = 1 ⎟ rad / s ⎜ r = 3. The propellers can be rotated through 120 degrees. The four stabilisers are externally braced on the full and rudder movement is provided by direct linkage to the servos.φ = 0. ⎛ u = 2.

For the mixed time-energy cost function. Trimming trajectories have been presented. the generated forces . φ ) usable for a forward flight when considering only the limitation on F.Hima. given realistic constraints. . Figure 8 shows the set of initial conditions (θ . However. the constraints of staying within the linear flight regime are excessive. For trim flights. CONCLUSIONS Airships are a highly interesting study object due to their stability properties. The classical theory of airship stability and control is based on a linearised system of differential equations usually obtained by considering small perturbations about a steady flight condition. the physical limits of the system must be taken into account. y . . The angle ψ has a linear variation versus time. while figure 3 presents its projection on the x-y plane. Figure ⎛. ⎠ Depending on the initial conditions. the set of initial conditions when we add the constraint on the tail thruster and the tilt angle. Bestaoui 13 Trim trajectories Figure 2 presents the trim trajectory : a helix with constant curvature and torsion. In the second part of this paper. 5 and 6 show respectively the derivatives ⎛. A direct generalization of this model is to introduce the effects of the vertical and horizontal control surfaces. we have to consider the propulsion constraints on a given order. in the first part of this paper. They consist in helices with constant curvature and torsion. The design of advanced control system must take into account the strong non linearities of the dynamic model. we propose a motion generation problem by minimizing the traveling time.⎞ z ⎟ while figure 16 shows the angle ( ψ ) versus ⎠ . 14 and 15 show the derivatives ⎜ x ⎝ time. When specifying a trajectory. y have a sinusoidal variation while z is constant.⎞ z ⎟ while figure 7 shows the angle ( ψ ) versus time. The most basic constraint is the limitation of the main thruster. figures 11 and 12 present respectively the 3D helix and its projection in the x-y plane. we have discussed kinematics and dynamics of an airship. then we have to consider either the constraint on the tail thruster or the tilt angle. ⎜x ⎝ . We can notice that the derivatives x . y . using Newton Euler approach. while figures 9 and 10 show respectively. 5. 13. we have discussed caracterisation of some helices as paths for airships. In this prospect. Figure 4.

[FOS96] T. Campos. Our future prospect is how to steer the configuration of this mechanical system from one point to another in 3D. S. ‘Airship technology ‘ Cambridge university press. Detroit. Khoury. BIBLIOGRAPHY [BES01] Y. France. Toulouse. 139-166. Gillet. M. 2328 – 2335. M. MI. MI. K. Wiley press. 2001. Milne ‘Theoretical aerodynamics’ Dover Publications. Bestaoui. [PAI99] E. [MIL73] L. Selig ‘Geometrical methods in robotics’ Springer-verlag. eds. 1996. S. W. [KHO99] G. J. #3-4. [SEL96] J. 1148-1161. [RAB00] P. A. Bueno. 1973. de Paiva. Wen. S. J. May 1999. One immediate generalization is to consider the trim trajectories for the aerodynamic flight. 1996. C. Ramos. P. M. pp. 2584 – 2589. J. #10. Hygounec. Rabier. Y. May 1999. Rheinboldt ‘Nonholonomic motion of rigid mechanical systems from a DAE viewpoint ’ SIAM press. J. [CAM99] M. Turner ‘Buoyancy effects in fluids’ Cambridge University Press. Oct. Kreutz – Delgado ‘The attitude control problem’ IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. [WEN91] J. volume 11 (XLVII). [TUR73] J. T. [HYG00] E. Bestaoui 14 Trim trajectories and the tilt angle. Bergerman ‘A control system development environment for AURORA’s semi-autonomous robotic airship’ IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation. Hima ‘Some insights in path planning of small autonomous airships’ Archives of control sciences. C. Etude de la cinématique et de la dynamique’ CNRS report #426.Hima. vol 36. F. Detroit. Lacroix ‘Modélisation d’un dirigeable. 1991. Polish Academy of Sciences. Soueres. S. D. LAAS. 1999. B. S. 1973. S. pp. pp. . 2000. L. Fossen ‘Guidance and control of ocean vehicles’ J. 2000. Gomes. pp. M. de Souza Coelho ‘Autonomous dirigible navigation using visual tracking and pose estimation‘IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation.

vol. ‘Contribution à la modélisation. 618 – 623. C. France. J. 243-258. V.5 0 x 0. [ZHA99] H.5 y -1 -0. l’estimation des paramètres dynamiques et à la commande d’un engin sous-marin’ Ph. University of Nantes. #2.5 2 Figure 2 : 3D helix . 18.5 1 1. P. 1999. pp. feb. Zhang. MI. pp. Ziani-Cherif.D Thesis.5 1 0. Zefran. cv F3 yv ey ex θ µ φ cg xv F zv ψ ez Figure 1 0 -5 z -10 -15 -20 1. Kumar. [ZIA98] S. Ostrowski ‘Visual servoing with dynamics : Control of an unmanned blimp’ IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation.Hima. Detroit. Bestaoui 15 Trim trajectories [ZEF99] M. Croke ‘Metrics and connections for rigid-body kinematics’ International Journal of Robotics Research. May 1999.5 0 -0. 1998.

2 1 0.8 0.4 -0.5 4 .5 1 1.Hima.2 -0.4 0.5 1 1.5 x 1 1. Figure 4 : x 4 3 2 1 dy 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 0. Bestaoui 16 Trim trajectories 1.5 2 Figure 3 : projection in the x-y plane 4 3 2 1 dx 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 0.6 -0.5 3 3.8 -0.5 2 t 2.5 y 0 0.5 2 t 2.6 0. Figure 5 : y .5 3 3.5 4 .2 0 -0.

5 -1 -1.5 1 1. Figure 6 : z 15 10 ψ 5 0 0 0.Hima.5 3 3.5 -2 dz -2.5 -5 0 0.5 3 3.5 4 Figure 7 : the angle ψ Figure 8 : possible initial conditions for F=Fmax .5 -4 -4. Bestaoui 17 Trim trajectories 0 -0.5 4 .5 2 t 2.5 1 1.5 -3 -3.5 2 t 2.

Hima. Bestaoui 18 Trim trajectories Figure 9 : possible initial conditions for F=Fmax and F3 ≤ F3max Figure 10 : possible initial conditions for F=Fmax and µ ≤ µ max 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 15 10 5 0 y -5 0 2 4 x 6 8 10 z Figure 11 : 3D helix .

5 -1 -1.5 1 dy 0.5 -1 -1.5 1 0.Hima.5 0 2 4 6 t 8 10 12 . Bestaoui 19 Trim trajectories 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure 12 : projection in the x-y plane 2.5 2 1.5 0 2 4 6 t 8 10 12 .5 2 1.5 -2 -2.5 dx 0 -0. Figure 13 : x 2.5 0 -0.

Figure 15 z 4 3. Bestaoui 20 Trim trajectories . Figure 14 : y 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 dz -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 0 1 2 3 4 5 t 6 7 8 9 10 .Hima.5 psi 2 1.5 0 0 2 4 6 t 8 10 12 Figure 16 : ψ .5 3 2.5 1 0.