Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2023), 36(4): 268–285

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with

helicopters based on power consumption and robust
adaptive game control
Dengyan DUAN, Gen LENG, Jie GAO, Xinming FENG, Jianbo LI *

National Key Laboratory of Rotorcraft Aeromechanics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China

Received 25 January 2022; revised 9 August 2022; accepted 30 October 2022

Available online 12 January 2023

KEYWORDS Abstract It is of great significance to reasonably distribute the slung load to each helicopter while
Differential game; considering difference in power consumption, relative position and interaction comprehensively.
Helicopter; Therefore, the load distribution strategy based on power consumption and robust adaptive game
Load distribution; control is proposed in this paper. The study is on a ‘‘2-lead” multi-lift system of four tandem heli-
Multi-lift system; copters carrying a load cooperatively. First, based on the hierarchical control, the load distribution
Power consumption; problem is divided into two parts: the calculation of expected cable force and the calculation of the
Tracking control anti-disturbance cable force. Then, aimed at minimizing the maximum equivalent power of heli-
copter, an optimization problem is set up to calculate the expected cable force. Specially, the agent
power model is trained by BP neural network, the safe distance constraint between helicopters is set
to 2.5 rotor diameters to reduce aerodynamic interference, and the helicopters with different perfor-
mance can be considered by introducing the equivalent power factor into the objective function.
Next, considering the difference and interaction between helicopters, the robust adaptive differen-
tial game control is proposed to calculate the anti-disturbance cable force. Particularly, to solve the
coupled Hamiltonian equations, an adaptive solving method for value function is proposed, and its
stability is proved in the sense of Lyapunov. The simulation results indicate that the proposed load
distribution method based on power consumption is applicable to the entire flight trajectory even
there are differences between helicopters. The game control can consider interaction between heli-
copters, can deal with different objective functions, and has strong robustness and small steady-
state error. Based on the entire strategy, the cable force can be reasonably allocated so as to resist
disturbance and improve the flight performance of the whole system.
Ó 2023 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ljb101@nuaa.edu.cn (J. LI). 1. Introduction
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.
The helicopter’s ability to take off vertically and hover at fixed
point makes the helicopter/load system not limited by cargo
shape and geographical terrain. So, it has been widely used
Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2023.01.001
1000-9361 Ó 2023 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters
in both military and civil aspects.1–4 Considering the high com-
plexity and low economics of heavy transport helicopter,
multi-lift as an alternative has attracted more and more atten-
tion.5–7 According to ‘‘cask effect”, the capability of a system
depends on its weakest component. For the multi-lift system,
its load capacity and endurance depend on the helicopter with
the largest power consumption or the helicopter with the
smallest endurance under the same power consumption.
Therefore, it is necessary to distribute load reasonably to avoid
premature failure of one or more helicopters during the flight
process.
Load distribution strategy to equalize cable forces has been
proposed in many studies. For a twin-lift system with two
Yamaha RMAX helicopters, Bernard8 discussed a load distri-
bution control concept to equalize the cable force and the
related flight tests verified the effectiveness of the method. Ber-
rios et al.9 designed a feedforward controller to calculate the
position of the following helicopter relative to the leading heli-
copter, and proposed a feedback control strategy to make the
cable forces of the front and rear helicopters equal. Based on
the load distribution controller mentioned above, the difference
between the cable forces will be less than 2 % of the load
weight. Geng and Langelaan10,11 studied a multi-lift system
with four quadrotors based on hierarchical approach. The load
distribution problem is converted into a convex optimization
problem and flight tests are carried out. The social spider algo-
rithm is introduced by Duan et al.12 to solve the above convex
optimization problem, which has high robustness and is not
easy to fall into local optimal solution. However, the above
convex optimization problem is aimed at minimizing the sum
of cable forces, which cannot achieve equal distribution of
the load. So, in the subsequent research by Geng et al.,13,14 a
trajectory planning and tracking control method that seeks to
evenly distribute cable tensions is proposed. But the introduc-
tion of load trajectory will double the design variables, result
in long calculation time and make it difficult to converge.
However, equal cable tension cannot guarantee equal power
consumption if the helicopters are different in performance or
at forward flight. The flight performance optimization of a
multi-lift rotorcraft formation with four UH-60 Black Hawk
helicopters was carried out by Enciu and Horn15 And it was
pointed out that the performance of the whole system can be
optimized by being aimed at minimizing the maximum power
of the helicopter and considering the dynamics constraints, for-
mation constraint and safe distance constraint meanwhile. The
calculation results show that for the multi-lift system with ‘‘2-
lead” formation at forward flight speed of 100 ft/s (1 ft/s = 0
.3048 m/s), the maximum power consumption by equal
power-based load distribution can be reduced by 16 % com-
pared to that by equal force-based load distribution. However,
the above calculation method is only applicable to the steady
flight state and the approach for high maneuver is not given.
Similar result is obtained by Song et al.16 Trimming and stabil-
ity analyses constrained by maintaining 100 ft (1 ft = 0.3048 m)
distance between helicopters are carried out at different for-
ward flight speed and the results show that with the increase
of flight speed, the collective pitch demand of the front heli-
copter is much greater than that of the rear helicopter.
Moreover, for the tracking control of the load, it is usually
assumed that there is no difference in control requirements
between helicopters, or the weighted objective functions are
simply added together as the overall control goal of the
269
multi-lift system. As a result, the differences among helicopters
cannot be considered and the interaction influence cannot be
introduced. Aimed at minimizing the sum of state error and
related manipulations, a load tracking control based on Bry-
son’s backward sweep method was proposed by Geng et al.13,14
For cooperative transport of a bar-shaped payload with rotor-
crafts, Gimenez et al.17 introduced the trajectory following tar-
get, the collision avoidance target and the weight distribution
target, and then designed the control law based on null-space
theory. Arab et al.18 proposed a leaderless distributed control
algorithm to ensure safe transport of the load. But the influ-
ences from load to helicopters are regarded as disturbances,
so the trajectory and the attitude of load cannot be controlled
explicitly and the interaction between helicopters cannot be
considered. Chopra and Ghose19 equipped the load with
IMU and an optical sensor, and then the outputs of the sensors
were compared to the reference trajectory to generate control
inputs. However, the proposed controller acts equally on all
UAVs in the formation, and the interaction between heli-
copters can still not be considered.
Game theory has been widely used in the field of multi-agent
control. Jimenez-Lizarraga et al.20 designed a novel control
strategy based on differential game for the formation flight of
n quadrotors, in which the lead vehicle follows the pre-
designed trajectory and other vehicles follow the leader. Jiang
et al.21 proposed a formation control for multiple UAVs based
on cooperative game theory. Each agent interacts with each
other and reaches a consensus by reducing the weighted team
cost. The simulation results show the superiority of cooperative
differential game over non-cooperative game and original opti-
mal control in UAV formation flight. Chai et al.22 studied an on-
orbit assembly strategy based on robust event-triggered game
theory. The disturbance is taken as a special player to the game
and the coupled Ricatti equations are solved by Lyapunov iter-
ation method. It can be seen that based on game control, each
agent can design individual objective according to its own per-
formance and task independently and can consider interactions
with each other meanwhile. This brings inspiration to the pro-
posal of robust adaptive game-based tracking control.
In light of the preceding discussion, the load distribution
strategy based on power consumption and robust adaptive
game control is proposed. First, for the baseline configuration
of four tandem helicopters carrying a load cooperatively, based
on hierarchical control, Section 2 divides the load distribution
problem into two parts: the calculation of expected cable force
and the calculation of the anti-disturbance cable force. Model-
ling of the multi-lift system is carried out in Section 3. Then,
Section 4 proposes the load distribution strategy based on
power consumption for the calculation of expected cable force.
Section 5 proposes the robust adaptive game-based tracking
control for the calculation of the anti-disturbance cable force.
In Section 6, some simulations are carried out to verify the
effectiveness of the whole proposed load distribution strategy.
Finally, this article is concluded in Section 7.
2. Problem formulation
2.1. Hierarchical control for multi-lift system
It is well known that if one of the helicopters runs out of
energy or loses effectiveness during flight, cooperative trans-
270 D. DUAN et al.

portation will break down. Therefore, it is necessary to dis- 3. Modelling

tribute load reasonably to make the endurances of helicopters
equal during the flight process. 3.1. Load model
Suppose path is given, and the load-leading hierarchical
control for the multi-lift system shown in Fig. 1 is mainly com-
Suppose the origin of coordinate xL yL zL is located at the mass
prised of three layers as follows:
center of the load, and then the dynamics of the slung load can
(A)The load layer: calculates expected cable force and
be described by Newton-Euler approach3 as.
moment based on expected trajectory and state of the load,
and meanwhile calculates the anti-disturbance one by tracking ML x_ þ CL x ¼ gL þ Mc þ Maero ð1Þ
control. Then the total required cable force and moment can
where
be obtained by adding the expected cable force and the anti-
8 2 3
disturbance one together. > I33
>
>
(B)The cable layer: calculates force of each cable based on >
> 6 I33 7
>
> 6 7
the total required cable force and moment. The cable force and >
> ML ¼ 6 7
>
> 4 m I 5
cable angle are related to the power consumption of helicopter >
>
L 33
>
> J
in a specific flight state. >
> L
>
> 2 3
(C)The helicopter layer: calculates the desired position of >
>  e RL VL
>
>
each helicopter according to the cable force. Then the control >
> 6  Euler R 7
>
> 6 Body; L xL 7
>
> CL x ¼ 6 7
strategy is designed to follow the expected position. >
< 4 mL xL  VL 5
By combining the load and cable layers, it can be seen that ð2Þ
> xL  JL xL
the load distribution problem can be divided into the calcula- >
> 2 3
>
> 031
tions of expected and anti-disturbance forces for each cable. >
>
>
> 6 7
Therefore, considering the performance, position, state and >
> 6 031 7
> gL ¼ 6 L
> 7
constraint differences of each helicopter, load distribution >
> 4 R ½ 0 0 m g  T 5
>
> e L
strategy based on power consumption and robust adaptive >
>
>
> 0 31
game control is proposed. >
> h h i iT
>
> P_ L /_ L ; h_ L ; w_ L V_ L x_ TL
T T
> x_ ¼
>
e
>
>
2.2. Baseline configuration >
:  e T T
x¼ PL ½/L ; hL ; wL  VTL xTL

This study is on a multi-lift system with ‘‘2-lead” formation as
shown in Fig. 2. The baseline configuration describes four tan-
dem helicopters carrying a heavy load cooperatively through
four 7.2-meters-long cables. The length, width and height of
the cuboid slung load are 1 m, 0.4 m and 0.4 m respectively.
Each tandem helicopter has two two-blade rotors with hori-
zontal offset of 1.165 m. The rotational speed is 113 rad/s
and the rotor diameter is 1.8 m. The weight of the load is
10 kg which is larger than the load capacity (3.5 kg) of a single
helicopter and smaller than the whole capacity (14 kg) of the
multi-lift system. And in Fig. 2, xe ye ze , xib yib zib , xL yL zL repre-
sent the north-east-down earth coordinate, the body coordi-
nate of helicopter i, and the body coordinate of the load
respectively.
where mL is the mass of the load, JL is the inertia matrix in
xL yL zL with diagonal elements as inertias Jxx , Jyy and Jzz , g
is the gravitational acceleration, VL ¼ ½uL ; vL ; wL T is the vec-
tor of linear velocities along xL ,yL , zL axis, xL ¼ ½pL ; qL ; rL T
is the vector of angular velocities along xL , yL , zL axis, and
e
PL ¼ ½xL ; yL ; zL T is the load position in xe ye ze ./L , hL and
wL are the roll angle, pitch angle and yaw angle respectively,
and the above three Euler angles between coordinates xe ye ze
and xL yL zL meet yaw-pitch-roll rotation order. 0mn is zero
matrix with m rows and n columns, Imm is m dimensional
identity matrix, LRe is the transformation matrix from xe ye ze
to xL yL zL , LRe is the transpose of LRe, and EulerRBody,L is the
transformation matrix from angular velocities in xL yL zL to
Euler angular velocities.

Fig. 1 Load leading hierarchical control for multi-lift system.

Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters 271

Fig. 2 Baseline configuration of multi-lift system with four tandem helicopters.

2 32 3
1 0 0 cos hL 0  sin hL are given, Mc can be calculated by Eq. (1) conveniently. In this
6 76 7 paper, Mc is written as
L
Re ¼4 0 cos /L sin /L 54 0 1 0 5
2 3
0  sin /L cos /L sin hL 0 cos hL 061
2 3 ð3Þ 6 7
cos wL sin wL 0 Mc ¼ 4 Fc; sum 5 ð6Þ
6 7
4  sin wL cos wL 0 5 Mc; sum
0 0 1 where Fc; sum is a 3  1 vector representing the sum of cable
2 3 force, and Mc; sum is a 3  1 vector representing the sum of
1 tan hL sin /L tan hL cos /L cable moment.
6 7
Euler
RBody; L ¼ 4 0 cos /L  sin /L 5 ð4Þ
0 sin /L = cos hL cos /L = cos hL 3.2. Cable model
Specially, the 0.4 m  0.4 m  1 m slung load is similar in
shape to the standard 8 ft  8 ft  20 ft MILVAN container In real applications of the multi-lift system, compared to cable
(Military-Owned Demountable Container). With a length forces, as well as the gravity and aerodynamic forces of the
scale factor sload = 6.1, we can obtain the aerodynamic force helicopters and the load, the cables have much smaller weights
Maero using the wind tunnel test data23–25 of the standard MIL- and windward areas. So, in this paper, the four 7.2-meters-long
VAN container. Here, a steady load model is introduced by cables are modelled as spring-damper systems ignoring the
2 3 effects of their cable gravity and aerodynamic drag force.
061 Besides, the cable forces are assumed to be positive and the
6 T 7
Maero ¼ Qload 4 ½ Fx; ref Fy; ref Fz; ref  =s2load 5 ð5Þ cables are not loose.
½ Mx; My; ref Mz; ref T =s3load Based on the cable forces, we can obtain the position ePi in
ref
xe ye ze of helicopter i by
Where Fx; ref , Fy; ref , Fz; ref are the reference aerodynamic force e
Pi ¼ e
PL þ e
RL ðhi þ Ii Þ ð7Þ
along xL , yL , zL axis respectively; Mx; ref , My; ref , Mz; ref are
the reference aerodynamic moment along xL , yL , zL axis where hi is the vector from the origin of xL yL zL to cable point i,
respectively. And these six variables are derived from wind and
tunnel data23–25 related to the attack angle and the sideslip 2 3
li sin ai cos bi
angle. Besides, Qload is the dynamic pressure of the load. 6 7  L 
It should be noted that the only unknown variable in Eq. Ii ¼ 4 li sin ai sin bi 5 þ fcable;i  C _lc;i =K ð8Þ
(1) is Mc . In other words, if the desired trajectory and state li cos ai
272 D. DUAN et al.

where li is the length of cable i, K is the spring stiffness, C is the Besides, Mextra is a vector representing the forces and
damping coefficient, _lc;i is a 3  1 vector representing the moments from main rotors, fuselage and cables.
change rates of cable length in xL yL zL coordinate, and ai , bi Based on the Pitt-Peters dynamic inflow model,28 the rotor
and Lfcable,i = [Lfcable,ix Lfcable,iy Lfcable,iz] are the cone angle, inflow can be modeled as
regional angle and force vector as defined in Fig. 3,
respectively. 2 3 2 3 2 3
k_ 0 k0 CT
6 7 6 7 6 7
M4 k_ 1s 5 þ VL1 4 k1s 5 ¼ 4 CL 5 ð11Þ
3.3. Helicopter model
k_ 1c k1c CM

The tandem helicopter is modelled as in Refs.26,27 For heli-

copter i, its flight dynamics can be described as where the definitions of matrixes M, V, L can be found in
Ref.,28 ½k0 ; k1s ; k1c  are the coefficients of inflow velocities in
Mi x_ rigid;i þ Ci xrigid;i ¼ gi þ Mextra ð9Þ the form of Fourier series, and CT , CL and CM are the thrust
coefficient, roll moment coefficient, and pitch moment coeffi-
where
cient of the rotor respectively.
8 2 3 The flapping motion of the rotor blade can be modeled as29.
> I33
>
>
>
> 6 I33 7
>
> 6 7
>
> Mi ¼ 6 7 € ¼ MA þ MCF þ Mcor þ MR þ MBA
>
> 4 m I 5 Ib b ð12Þ
>
>
i 33
>
> J
>
> i
>
> 2 3
>
>  e Ri Vi
>
> where Ib is the inertia moment of the blade relative to the flap-
>
> 6  Euler R 7
>
> Ci xrigid;i ¼ 6 Body;i xi 7 ping hinge, b is the flapping angles, MA is the aerodynamic
>
> 6 7
>
< 4 mi xi  Vi 5 moment, MCF is the centrifugal moment, Mcor is the Coriolis
x  J x ð10Þ moment, MR is the spring moment, and MBA is the moment
>
> 2
i i i
3
>
>
that results from angular acceleration.
>
> 0 31
>
> 6 7 Therefore, for the i th helicopter, there are 30 state param-
>
> 6 031 7
>
> gi ¼ 6 i 7 eters in total including 12 rigid body state parameters, 9 front
>
> 4 Re ½ 0 0 mi g  5 T
>
> rotor state parameters and 9 rear rotor state parameters, as
>
>
>
> 031 follows:
>
> h h i iT
>
>
>
> x_ rigid;i ¼ e_T
Pi /_ i ; h_ i ; w_ i V_ Ti x_ Ti
>
> 8 h iT
>
>  e T T >
:
xrigid;i ¼ Pi ½/i ; hi ; wi  VTi xTi
>
> xfront;i ¼ b0; F ; b1s; F ; b1c; F ; b_ 0; F ; b_ 1s; F ; b_ 1c; F ; k0; F ; k1s; F ; k1c; F
>
>
< h iT
where mi and Ji are the mass and the inertia matrix of the i th xrear;i ¼ b0; R ; b1s; R ; b1c; R ; b_ 0; R ; b_ 1s; R ; b_ 1c; R ; k0; R ; k1s; R ; k1c; R
>
>
>
> h iT
helicopter respectively, Vi ¼ ½ui ; vi ; wi T is the vector of linear >
: x ¼ xT
i rigid; i xT
front; i xT
rear; i
velocities along xib , yib , zib axis, xi ¼ ½pi ; qi ; ri T is the vector of
angular velocities along xib , yib , zib axis, e Pi ¼ ½xi ; yi ; zi T is ð13Þ
the position of the i th helicopter in xe ye ze , /i , hi and wi are
the roll angle, pitch angle and yaw angle of the i th helicopter h i
respectively, iRe is the transformation matrix from xe ye ze to where ½b0 ; b1s ; b1c  and b_ 0 ; b_ 1s ; b_ 1c are the coefficients of flap-
xib yib zib , iRe is the transpose of iRe, and EulerRBody,i is the trans- ping angles and flapping angular velocities in the form of
formation matrix from angular velocities in xib yib zib to Euler Fourier series respectively, the subscript F represents the front
angular velocities. rotor, and the subscript R represents the rear rotor.

Fig. 3 Force, cone angle and regional angle of the ith cable.
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters
4. Load distribution based on power consumption
4.1. Agent model of power consumption
The power consumption of helicopter should be calculated
under trimming condition. If the power consumption is calcu-
lated by trimming online in each optimization iteration, it will
be time-consuming. Therefore, a power agent model based on
Back Propagation (BP) neural network is proposed.
4.1.1. Power consumption calculation
The slung point of the tandem helicopter is assumed to be on
the gravity center. Then the sling forces and moments for heli-
copter i in xib yib zib can be calculated by
" #
i
Re e RL L fcable:i
Mcable;i ¼ ð14Þ
031
Newton’s method is introduced to trim helicopters loaded
by cable forces. This is a process to set parameters in vector
x_ i to given values or zeros by changing the manipulation vari-
ables in Eqs. (9), (11) and (12). After trimming, the power con-
sumption of the helicopter can be calculated by
P ¼ ðQF þ QR ÞX ð15Þ
where QF and QR are the torque generated by the front and
rear rotors while trimming respectively, and X is the rotational
speed of the rotor.
Fig. 4 show the calculated power consumptions in hover-
ing and at advance ratio of 0.1. As we can see, while hover-
ing, the power consumption is more related to the
magnitude of cable force and angle a. This is the reason
why most studies proposed the even-force-based load distri-
bution strategy with fixed angle a. However, at relatively
high flight speed as shown in Fig. 4(b), the power consump-
tion is related to the cable force, the angle a and the angle
b. For the multi-lift system with ‘‘2-lead” formation, the val-
ues of angle b of front helicopters are between 90 and
90°, and the cable force corresponds to backward cable
force acting on the helicopter. Meanwhile, the values of
angle b of rear helicopters are between 180 and 90 or
90° and 180°, and the cable force corresponds to forward
cable force. Obviously, at forward flight, the two rear heli-
copters are in favorable positions to reduce power consump-
Fig. 4 Calculated power consumption.
273
tion while the two front helicopters are in disadvantageous
positions. Therefore, it is essential and necessary to study
the load distribution method based on even power consump-
tion to achieve long endurance.
Besides, it is worth mentioning that multi-lift system as a
close formation flight, there exists not only complex dynamics
coupling but also serious aerodynamic interference between
helicopters especially at forward flight. However, according
to previous work,30–32 aerodynamic interference induced
power addition is complex and difficult to model. And a sepa-
ration of 2.5 rotor diameters between helicopters is enough to
avoid interferences for the baseline configuration. Therefore,
instead of introducing aerodynamic interference into the agent
model, a safe distance constraint of 2.5 rotor diameters is uti-
lized in the following optimization.
4.1.2. Neural-network-based agent model
The agent model is established based on BP neural network
with structure shown in Fig. 5. The input layer has four vari-
ables: advance ratio, cone angle, regional angle and the magni-
tude of cable force. Forty neurons are utilized in the hidden
layer considering the complexity of the problem to be solved.
The final output is the power consumption. The active func-
tion f in the hidden layer is hyperbolic tangent function, and
the one in the output layer is identity function.
Besides, in Fig. 5, m0 is the number of the input variables, l0
is the number of neurons in hidden layer, n0 is the number of
neurons in output layer and meanwhile the number of the out-
put variables, and p and a represent the vector of the input
variables and the vector of the output variables of neurons
respectively. Specially, the superscripts of p and a represent
the indexes of layers, IW1;1 and LW2;1 represent the weights
of neurons in hidden and output layers respectively, and b1
and b2 represent the bias of neurons in hidden and output lay-
ers respectively.
For each small tandem helicopter, the database is used to
train agent model spans advance ratios from 0 to 0.11, cone
angles from 0 to p=2, regional angles from p to p, and cable
forces from 0 to 100 N (weight of the load). As a result, there
are 4680 points in the database. 4000 of these points are used
to train the network, and the rest for validation. As we can see
in Fig. 6, the agent model is effective and can be utilized in the
optimization problem.
274 D. DUAN et al.

Fig. 5 BP neural network.

4.2. Mathematical formulation of cable layer optimization greater the cable force required to carry the same load. To
avoid this, longer cables are generally required and 7.2-
4.2.1. Design variables meters-long ropes of the baseline configuration are enough.
For the baseline configuration of four tandem helicopters Some bound constraints in Eq. (19) are introduced to
transporting a load cooperatively, there are 12 design variables increase the convergence speed. The constraints for lateral
as follows: cable force components are used to reduce the possibility of
 T
cable crossing.
u¼ L
fcable;1x ; L
fcable;1y ; L
fcable;1z ;    ; L
fcable;4x ; l
fcable;4y ; L
fcable;4z ½ 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 mL g 6 u 6
ð19Þ
ð16Þ ½ 1 0 0:05 1 1 0:05 1 1 0:05 1 0 0:05 mL g

Meanwhile, by setting the absolute value of each cable force

4.2.2. Constraints to be greater than 0 as in Eq. (20), the situation of slack cable
First, the designed variables should meet the load dynamics in can be avoided.
Eq. (1) which can be rewritten as k L
fcable;i k > 0 i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 ð20Þ
2 3
063 063 063 063 Moreover, considering the position limit from planned path
6 7
4 I33 I33 I33 € þ CL x_  gL  Maero
I33 5u ¼ ML x in advance, the constraints of cone and regional angles are
   
ðh1 Þ ðh2 Þ ðh3 Þ ðh4 Þ included by
(
ð17Þ ai;min 6 ai 6 ai;max
 i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 ð21Þ
where ðhi Þ is the skew symmetric matrix of vector hi . bi;min 6 bi 6 bi;max
In order to avoid helicopter collision and reduce aerody-
namic interference, a safe separation constraint is introduced where ai;min and ai;max are the minimum and maximum allowed
as values of angle a respectively, and bi;min and bi;max are the min-
imum and maximum allowed values of angle b respectively.
k e
Pi  e
Pj k P dmin i; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 ð18Þ
where dmin equals 4.5 m (2.5 rotor diameters). Indeed, the far- 4.2.3. Objective function
ther the distance, the larger the cone angle, and then the To distribute the load to each helicopter based on power con-
sumption evenly, meanwhile considering the performance dif-
ferences between helicopters, the objective function is defined
as
J ¼ min ðmax ðki Pi ÞÞ i ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4 ð22Þ
where Pi represents the power consumption of helicopter i, and
ki is the scaling factor related to performance differences. For
instance, the endurance of helicopters 1 and 2 is 60 minutes
and 30 minutes respectively under the same power consump-
tion of 500 W. Then k2 is set to 2 to avoid helicopter 2 running
out of energy prematurely.

4.2.4. Numerical solution

The MATLAB/fmincon function with the sqp algorithm is
adopted to solve the nonlinear numerical optimization prob-
lem, which is of good robustness and computational effi-
ciency. The tolerance on design variables, objective function
and constraints are set to 1  10-6, 1  10-6 and 1  10-4
respectively.
Fig. 6 Fitting results of power consumption.
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters 275
2 3
5. Load distribution based on tracking control 033 033
60 033 7
6 33 7
D ¼ 6 1 7 ð27Þ
There may be different control requirements between heli- 4 mL I33 033 5
copters participating in cooperative transportation. If each 033 J1
L
helicopter adopts the same objective function or takes the
weighted sum of the objective function of each helicopter as To design a robust controller, the individual performance
the system objective function, the influence of the interaction index function of each helicopter is defined as
!
between helicopters cannot be fully considered and system     Z 1  T  X N
T 
potential cannot be brought into full play. Therefore, for the Ji x0 ; ui ; u^i ; v ¼ x Qi x þ uj Rij uj  c v Ti v dt
2 T

0
calculation of anti-disturbance cable force, the robust adaptive j¼1

game control is proposed. i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N ð28Þ

  
5.1. Differential game formulation where x0 is the initial state of x, ui is the control strategy of

helicopter i, u^i is a vector of control strategies of other heli-
According to Section 4, the optimal trajectory and manipula- copters except helicopter i, Qi 2 R66 , Rij 2 R33 and
tion achieving even power consumption, defined as xr and ur Ti 2 R33 are positive definite matrices, and c is a given posi-
respectively, can be obtained. On this basis, the linear model T 
tive scalar. Here, the first term x Qi x penalizes the state devi-
at each optimal point is obtained by linearizing Eq. (1) with  
ation, the second term uTj Rij uj penalizes the control effort of
Jacobi linearization method as follows:
helicopter j, and the third term c2 vT Ti v is introduced to
Dx_ ¼ fðxr þ Dx; ur þ DuÞ  fðxr ; ur Þ penalize the disturbance from the position of helicopter i.
@f @f The objective of each helicopter is to find control strategy
¼ j Dx þ jx¼xr ;u¼u Du ð23Þ by optimizing Eq. (28) independently and to work with other
@x x¼xr ;u¼ur @u
helicopters to transport the load cooperatively. It is assumed
¼ A Dx þ B Du
that the system state information is completely known to each
where f ¼ M1
L ðgL þ Mc þ Maero  CL xÞ. For the convenience
helicopter. Qi , Rij and Ti are time-independent weighting
  matrices. Through the above analysis, the control problem
of formula derivation, define Dx ¼ x and Du ¼ u in the follow-
ing. Furthermore, can be converted into a differential game problem as follows:
     
2 @f1 @f1 @f1 3 2 @f1 @f1 @f1 3 Vi x0 ¼ min max Ji x0 ; ui ; u^i ; v i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N ð29Þ
@x1
 @xi
 @x12 @u1
 @ui
 @u12
 u i v
6 7 6 7
6 .. .. .. 7 6 .. .. .. 7
6. . . 7 6. . . 7 Then the game can be converted into a form of optimal
6 7 6 7
6 @fi @fi @fi 7 6 @fi @fi @fi 7 value function
A ¼ 6 @x     @x12 7; B ¼ 6 @u   @u12 7
6 1 @xi
7 6 1 @ui
7      
6. .. .. 7 6. .. .. 7
6. 7 6. 7 Vi x0 ¼ min max Ji x0 ; ui ; u^i ; v
4. . . 5 4. . . 5  v
ui
@f12
@x1
 @f12
@xi
@f12
   @x12 @f12
@u1
 @f12
@ui
 @f12
@u12
    ð30Þ
ð24Þ
¼ max min

Ji x0 ; ui ; u^i ; v ; i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N
v ui

where fi represents the i th equation of f, xi represents the i th where V is the optimal value function of helicopter i, and
parameter of vector x, and ui represents the i th parameter of    i
vector u. ui ; u^i is the combination of Nash equilibrium control
Taking disturbance into account, Eq. (23) can be rewritten strategies.
as
5.2. Robust Nash equilibrium
_
  X
N

x ¼ Axþ gj uj þ Dv ð25Þ
j¼1


where N is the number of helicopters in the multi-lift system, uj Definition 1. [Robust Nash equilibrium]33: If the following N
is the control strategy of the helicopter j, gj is the 3j  2 th to 3j  
inequalities are satisfied, ui and u^i are said as robust Nash
th columns of matrix B, v represents the disturbances from 
equilibrium solution, where v is the corresponding worst-case
environment and unmodeled factors, and
uncertainty.
2 3
061            
6 7 Ji x; ui ; u^i ; v 6 Ji x; ui ; u^i ; v 6 Ji x; ui ; u^i ; v
v ¼ 4 vF 5 ð26Þ
vM i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N ð31Þ

where vF is a 3  1 vector representing the disturbances related Based on given uj and v, the value function of helicopter i
to force, and vM is a 3  1 vector representing the disturbances can be expressed as
related to moment. Besides,
276 D. DUAN et al.
!
  Z 1
T  X
N
T  Then, by substituting Eq. (39) into Eq. (33), the Hamilton
Vi x ðtÞ ¼ x Qi x þ uj Rij uj  c2 vT Ti v ds functions can be rewritten as
t j¼1
  T  P
N
i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N ð32Þ ^ 1;    ; W
Hi x; W ^N ¼x Qi x þ 14 ^ T rdj gj R1 Rij R1 gT rdT W
W j jj jj j j
^j
j¼1
Deriving from both sides of Eq. (32), the Hamilton function ^ T rdi DT1 DT rdT W
 4c12 W ^i
i i i
can be obtained as
P
N
! þW

^ T rdi
^ T rdi A x  1 W gj R1 T ^
jj gj rdj Wj
T
  
 T  P
N  
i 2 i
j¼1
Hi x;rVi ; ui ; u^i ;v ¼ x Qi x þ uj Rij uj  c v Ti v
T 2 T
^ T rdi DT1 DT rdT W
^i
j¼1 þ 2c12 W i i i
! ð33Þ ,ei i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N
 P
N 
þðrVi ÞT A x þ gj uj þ Dv i ¼ 1; 2;  ; N ð40Þ
j¼1
^ i to minimize the following perfor-
It is desired to select W
where rVi ¼ @V @x
.
i
mance error:
Then the feedback control strategies can be obtained by
8 1
Ei ¼ e2i ð41Þ
< @H i ¼ 0 ) u ¼  1 R1 gT rV i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N 2
@ ui i 2 ii i i
ð34Þ
: @Hi ¼ 0 ) v ¼ 12 T1 DT rV i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N The tuning strategy can be obtained with gradient-descent
@v 2c i i
rule as
Substituting Eq. (34) into Eq. (33), we can obtain N cou-
^_ i ¼ gi @Ei ¼ gi ei hi
W ð42Þ
pled Hamilton functions. Obviously, in the N coupled Hamil- ^i
@W
ton functions, there are N unknown variables rVi , i 2 N.
Once the value of rVi has been calculated, the feedback con- where gi is the learning rate of the neural network, and
trol strategies can be obtained by Eq. (34). However, the !
 1X N
^ j þ 1 DT1 DT rdT W
^i
Hamilton functions are highly coupled, and the value of hi ¼ rdi Ax g R1 gT rdTj W
rVi is difficult to obtain. Thus, the adaptive learning method 2 j¼1 j jj j 2c2 i i

is introduced. ð43Þ

Under the above analysis, W ^ i can be updated according to

5.3. Adaptive learning
Eq. (42) first, and then the robust equilibrium solution can be
calculated by Eq. (39).
The neural network based adaptive learning method is intro-
duced to fit the optimal value function as follows:
   5.4. Stability analysis
Vi x ¼ WTi di x þ ei x ð35Þ

where Wi 2 RK0 is the ideal weight vector, di 2 RK0 is the active Theorem 1. Consider a linear system in the form Eq. (25).
function vector, ei 2 R is the reconstruction error, and K0 is the Using control law Eq. (39), the stability of the closed-loop

number of neurons. Deriving Eq. (35) with respect to vector x, system will be guaranteed with the adaptation law Eq. (42).
we can obtain Proof Consider a Lyapunov function as follows:

rVi ¼ rdTi Wi þ rei x ð36Þ X
N XN
1 T
L¼ L i ðt Þ ¼ Wi Wi ð44Þ
2g
where rdi 2 RK0 12 and rei 2 R12 . i¼1 i¼1 i

The approximation is expressed as 

where Wi ¼ Wi  W ^ i . After differentiating Eq. (44) with
^ T di ðxÞ
V^i ðxÞ ¼ W ð37Þ respect to time, we have
i

1  _
^ i ¼ rdT W
rV ^i ð38Þ L_ i ðtÞ ¼ WTi Wi ð45Þ
i gi
where W ^ i is the estimation value of the weight vector. Substi-
where
tuting Eq. (38) into Eq. (34), we can obtain
_

8^ ^_ i ¼ gi ei hi
Wi ¼ W ð46Þ
< T ^
ui ¼  12 R1
ii gi rdi Wi
T
i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N ð39Þ
: 1 T T ^
Substitute Eq. (46) into Eq. (45), and L_ i ðtÞ can be rewritten
^v ¼ 2c2 Ti D rdi Wi
1
i ¼ 1; 2;    ; N as
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters 277

L_ i ðtÞ ¼ WTi hi ei It should be noticed that once the inequality (54) is satisfied,
!
      P
N        L_ ðtÞ < 0. The system is asymptotically stable in the sense of
¼  WTi hi WTi hi  WTi hi WTi Dij Wj þ WTi hi 2c12 WTi Fij Wi
j¼1 Lyapunov. In addition, it can be seen that k Z k is uniformly
! ! 
P
N     P
N    
ultimately bounded. Moreover, k Wi k is uniformly ultimately
 1
2
WTi Dij Wj  2c12 WTi Fij Wi 1
2
WTi Dij Wj  2c12 WTi Fij Wi
j¼1
!
j¼1
! bounded.
  P
N     P
N    
þ WTi hi 1
4
WTj Eij Wj þ WTi hi 1
2
WTi Dij Wj  2c12 WTi hi WTi Fij Wi
j¼1
!
j¼1 6. Results and discussion
  P
N   
 WTi hi 1
2
WTj Eij Wj þ WTi hi eHi
j¼1
In this section, numerical simulation results are presented. The
ð47Þ baseline configuration is scheduled flying from waypoint A to
where eHi represents the value of Hamilton function with ideal B. In general, choose A as the origin of coordinate xe ye ze with
weight vector, and zero velocity and acceleration. B is a waypoint with
8 1 T
e
PL ¼ ½ 80 10 10 T and zero velocity and acceleration.
< Dij ¼ rdi gj Rjj gj rdj
T
>
Eij ¼ rdj gj R1 1 T
jj Rij Rjj gj rdj
T
ð48Þ 6.1. Load trajectory
>
: 1 T
Fij ¼ rdi DTi D rdi T

During flight, Euler angles of the load are set as 0° in order to

Suppose k Dij k 6 kDMij , k Eij k 6 kEMij , k eHi k 6 beHi , have minimal aerodynamic forces. Load trajectory is devel-
k WTi Dij k 6 bDij , k WTi Fij k 6 bFij , k WTj Eij k 6 bEij , him 6 oped based on the third order polynomial as shown in
k hi k 6 hiM , bim 6 k hi k 6 biM , where k  k represents the 2- Fig. 7, where the legend x, y and z represent the related com-
norm number of a matrix, and kDMij , kEMij , beHi , bDij , bFij , bEij , ponent along xe , ye and ze axis respectively. It can be noted
him , hiM , bim and biM are positive constants. Then the first term that at 10 s the forward flight speed gets its maximum value
of Eq. (47) can be converted as 7.5 m/s corresponds to the advance ratio of 0.07. Besides, there
     2
exists a maximum forward acceleration of 1.2 m/s2 at 4 s and a
 WTi hi WTi hi 6 h2im k Wi k ð49Þ minimum one of 1:2 m/s2 at 16 s. The curves of position,
velocity and acceleration along ye and ze axis are the same
The fourth term satisfies the following inequality: because the position targets along ye and ze axis are 10 m.
! !!
X
N
1X N   1   1X N   1  
 WT Dij Wj  2 WTi Fij Wi WT Dij Wj  2 WTi Fij Wi 6.2. Power-based load distribution
i¼1
2 j¼1 i 2c 2 j¼1 i 2c
6 ZT M1 Z
6.2.1. Comparison of power-based and force-based load
ð50Þ
distribution strategies
 T
 2  2  2
where Z, k W1 k ; k W2 k ;    ; k WN k 2 RN , and M1 is a Simulation results by power-based and force-based strategies
are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 respectively. To facilitate com-
positive definite matrix. parative analysis, it is assumed that there is no difference in the
Other terms in Eq. (47) are in the form of multiplication of performance between the four tandem helicopters in this sub-
two terms. Take the third item as an example, and the follow- section. Therefore, ki in Eq. (22) equals 1. Different from
ing inequality should be satisfied: Ref.,14 cable angle a instead of load trajectory is introduced
! to equalize cable tension and reduce design variables in the
  X
N         
 WTi hi WTi Dij Wj ¼  WTi hi WTi Di1 W1 þ    þ WTi DiN WN ð51Þ force-based strategy.
j¼1
As we can see, in Fig. 8(b), the power consumptions of four
          2 helicopters are equal. As shown in Fig. 9(a), at 10 s, there exists
 WTi hi WTi Dik1 Wk1 ¼  12 wi2k1 WTi hi þ wi2k1
1
WTi Dik1 Wk1 the maximum mean square deviation 7.7  10-3 among the
 2   2 four cable tensions, but it is not an order of magnitude com-
w2i2k1 WTi hi  w21 WTi Dik1 Wk1 pared with the real value of the cable tension. These are con-
i2k1

w2i2k1 h2iM  2
k2DMik1  2  2 sistent with the optimization objectives.
6 2
k Wi k þ 2w2i2k1
k Wi k k Wk1 k The difference between cable forces in Fig. 8(a) exists to
ð52Þ make the power consumption of each helicopter equal. And
four cable forces all change smoothly without large fluctua-
where wi2k1 is an adjustable parameter not equal to zero. In tion, which indicates the feasibility of the power-based load
summary, Eq. (47) can be converted as distribution strategy.
X
N As shown in Fig. 9(b), from 4 to 16 s, the power difference
L_ ðtÞ ¼ L_ i ðtÞ 6 ZT M1 Z þ TZ þ K ð53Þ between the front helicopters (Helicopters 3, 4) and the rear
i¼1
helicopters (Helicopters 1, 2) is large. Referring to Fig. 7, this
where km 6 k M1 k 6 kM , k T k 6 TM , k K k 6 KM . km , kM , corresponds to the time period when the forward flight speed is
TM and KM are positive constants. larger than 3.5 m/s. Specially, at 10 s when the forward flight
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi speed reaches its maximum value of 7.5 m/s, the power con-
TM þ T2M þ 4kM KM sumptions of Helicopters 1,2 are 487.5 W, and the ones of
kZk> ð54Þ Helicopters 3,4 are 623.0 W. The difference reaches 21.8 %.
2kM
By power-based strategy, at 10 s, the power consumptions of
278 D. DUAN et al.

Fig. 7 Designed load trajectory.

Fig. 8 Simulation results by power-based strategy.

Fig. 9 Simulation results by force-based strategy.

Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters
four helicopters are 525.5 W. Compared with those by force-
based strategy, the power consumptions of Helicopters 3, 4,
i.e., the maximum power consumptions of the multi-lift sys-
tem, are reduced by 15.7 %. Although the powers of Heli-
copters 1,2 are increased by 7.8 %, the system power
consumption is reduced by 5.4 %.
There is also big difference in cable angles between power-
based and force-based strategy, as shown in Fig. 8(c), (d) and
Fig. 9(c), (d) respectively. Taking 10 s as an example, for
power-based strategy, we have
a ¼ ½32:4 ; 32:4 ; 22:5 ; 22:5 
ð55Þ
b ¼ ½111:0 ; 111:0 ; 56:7 ; 56:7 
For force-based strategy, we have
   
a ¼ ½28:5 ; 28:5 ; 24:3 ; 24:3 
ð56Þ
b ¼ ½123:2 ; 123:2 ; 37:9 ; 37:9 
It can be seen that in Eq. (55) the absolute values of b for
Cables 1, 2 (3, 4) are smaller (larger) than those in Eq. (56).
Referring to Fig. 4(b), this means that the power consumption
of Helicopters 1, 2 (3,4) are increased (reduced), which is ben-
eficial to equalize the power consumption. The change of angle
a is to meet the dynamic constraints of the load.
In addition, no matter by power-based or force-based strat-
egy, the distances between helicopters are less than the safe dis-
tance constraint 4.5 m, i.e., 2.5 rotor diameters. Fig. 8(f) and
Fig. 9(f) depict the three-dimensional trajectories of the
multi-lift system. As we can see, the trajectories of the load
and four helicopters change smoothly, which verifies the effec-
tiveness of the two load strategies.
In summary, when flying at low speeds with small maneu-
ver, the power-based and force-based load distribution strate-
gies are equivalent. However, with the increase of forward
flight speed, the difference of power consumption between
the front and rear helicopters increases. Considering that
the power consumption directly affects the endurance and
flight range of each helicopter, the power-based strategy is
better.
6.2.2. Simulation results when k3 , k4 equal 0.85
This subsection discusses the feasibility of power-based strat-
egy when the performance of the four helicopters are different.
It is assumed that the endurances of Helicopters 1, 2 are 85 %
of those of Helicopters 3, 4 under the condition of equal power
consumption. Therefore, in Eq. (22), k1 , k2 are set to 1 and k3 ,
k4 are set to 0.85. The simulation results are depicted in
Fig. 10. The power consumptions of helicopters 1, 2 are basi-
cally 85 % of those of Helicopters 3, 4 during the simulation
process.
Taking 0 s as an example, in Fig. 10, we have
8 increases positively. After 0.7 s, uL is negative. To get close
< fcable ¼ ½34:1 N; 34:1 N; 39:6 N; 39:6 N
> 
a ¼ ½44:1 ; 44:1 ; 51:7 ; 51:7  ð57Þ
>
: 
b ¼ ½159:0 ; 159:0 ; 44:5 ; 44:5 
In Fig. 8, when ki equals 1, we have
8 Considering that there is no difference among the value
< fcable ¼ ½29:3 N; 29:3 N; 28:9 N; 28:9 N
> functions of Helicopters 1, 2, 3, Helicopter 1 is taken as an
a ¼ ½33:2 ; 33:2 ; 32:1 ; 32:1  ð58Þ
>
: 
b ¼ ½128:7 ; 128:7 ; 49:4 ; 49:4 
279
Referring to Fig. 4(a), the power consumption in hovering
is mainly related to the cable force and angle a. To realize that
powers of Helicopters 1, 2 are 85 % of those of Helicopters 3,
4, the cable forces and angles a of Helicopters 3, 4 all need to
be increased. Moreover, to satisfy the load dynamics con-
straint in Eq. (17), the cable forces and angles a of Helicopters
1, 2 are increased too. Besides, the change of b is utilized to
meet the load dynamics and safe distance constraints.
In addition, it can be seen from Fig. 10 (e), (f) that the dis-
tances between helicopters are safe and the cables are not
crossed, which indicates the validity of power-based strategy
when there are performance differences between helicopters.
6.3. Game-based tracking control

The purpose of game-based tracking control is to calculate u to

make x equal 0 no matter under disturbances or when there is
difference in control requirement between helicopters. To facil-
itate comparative analysis, in the following simulations, the
 
initial condition is that uL equals 1 and other items of x equal
0.
6.3.1. Results with different value function
The following three cases are designed to validate the ability of
game-based control to deal with the situation when there is dif-
ference in control requirement between helicopters.
(A) Case 1: the value functions of four helicopters are the
same. And the weight matrices are
8
< Q1 ¼ Q2 ¼ Q3 ¼ Q4 ¼ I1212
>
R11 ¼ R22 ¼ R33 ¼ R44 ¼ 0:01 I33 ð59Þ
>
:
Rij ¼ 033 ði; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; i–jÞ
(B) Case 2: the value functions of Helicopters 1, 2, 3 are the
same as those in Case 1. For the value function of Helicopter 4,
Q4 is set to 2 I1212 and other items related to Helicopter 4 in
Eq. (59) remain unchanged.
(C) Case 3: the value functions of Helicopters 1, 2, 3 are the
same as those in Case 1. For the value function of Helicopter 4,
R44 is set to 0:02 I33 and other items related to Helicopter 4 in
Eq. (59) remain unchanged.

Simulation results of items of x are shown in Fig. 11. It can

be seen that the variation trends of uL in three cases are basi-
cally the same. And in the three cases, the overshoot are 13%,
14% and 11% respectively, and the steady-state errors are
less than 5 % after 2.3 s. This shows the effectiveness of
game-based tracking control under different value functions.
 
The relationship between uL and xL can be found in Eq. (2).
  
Before 0.7 s, to reduce the value of uL , qL is positive and hL


to 0, qL becomes negative and hL decreases. After 2.3 s, the
steady-state error is less than 5 %, so the values of qL and

hL tend to be 0.
example for analysis below. As can be seen in Fig. 12, in three
cases, the components of f cable; 1 are almost equal.
280 D. DUAN et al.

Fig. 10 Simulation results when k3 , k4 equal 0.8.


Fig. 11 Simulation results of items of x by game-based control.

In Case 2, the weight matrix Q4 of Helicopter 4 is twice that

in Case 1. Meanwhile, only uL is 1 under the initial condition.

So before 0.7 s, the value of f cable; 1x is almost twice that in Case
 
1, and the values of f cable; 1y and f cable; 1z are almost equal. In
Case 3, the weight matrix R44 of Helicopter 4 is twice that in

Case 1, so all the components of f cable; 4 are almost half of
those in Case 1.
The simulation results of value function are shown in
Fig. 13. As we can see, the value functions of Helicopter 1 in
three cases are almost equal. For Helicopter 4, the value func-
tion in Case 2 is the largest because Q4 is set to 2 I1212 . In Case
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters 281


Fig. 12 Simulation results of u by game-based control.


3, though R44 is twice those in Cases 1 and 2, the value of R44 is 
0.02 m/s, and the fluctuation amplitudes of qL and hL are less
0:02 I33 . It is not of the same order of magnitude as the value than 1  10-3. This indicates that the game-based tracking con-
of Q4 , so there is almost no difference between the value func- trol has strong robustness. In addition, as shown in Fig. 14 (b)-
tions in Cases 1 and 3. (e), after 2.3 s there also exists fluctuation with period of 2 s for
the cable forces, which is the compensation for the additional
6.3.2. Results with disturbances disturbances.
This subsection shows the robustness of game-based tracking 
Besides, the value of uL before 0.7 s is greater than 0, so the
control in the presence of disturbances. The disturbance v in 
Eq. (25) is set to component of f cable; i in x direction is greater than 0. And after

0.7 s, the opposite is true. Meanwhile, the items of x in lateral
v ¼ 0:2 sin ðptÞ I61 ð60Þ
are set to 0 under the initial condition, and thus the value of
It can be seen that the amplitude of Eq. (60) is 0.2 and the 
the component of f cable; i in y direction is small. The compo-
period is 2 s. The simulation results by game-based control  
with disturbances are shown in Fig. 14. nents of f cable; 1 and f cable; 2 in z direction are less than 0 before
 
It can be seen that the trends of items of x in Fig. 14 are not 0.7 s and greater than 0 after 0.7 s. The components of f cable; 3
different from those in Fig. 11. Meanwhile, there exist fluctu- 
 and f cable; 4 in z direction are greater than 0 before 0.7 s and less
ations with periods of about 2 s for items of x resulting from 
the additional disturbances. But the fluctuation amplitude is than 0 after 0.7 s. This is consistent with the changes of qL and
 
small. After 5 s, the fluctuation amplitude of uL is less than hL .

Fig. 13 Simulation results of value function by game-based control.

282 D. DUAN et al.

6.4. Simulation results based on whole load distribution strategy During the simulation process, disturbance v is set as that in
Eq. (60) too. As can be seen in Fig. 15, the value of fcable; i is
The whole load distribution strategy is obtained by combining the sum of the cable force calculated by power-based strategy
the power-based strategy and the game-based tracking control. and the one by game-based control. Similarly, the fluctuation

Fig. 14 Simulation results by game-based control with disturbances.


Fig. 15 Simulation results of u based on whole load distribution strategy.
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters 283


Fig. 16 Simulation results of x only by power-based strategy under disturbances.


Fig. 17 Simulation results of x based on whole load distribution strategy.
284
with a period of about 2 s is introduced to compensate for the
disturbance. The legends xtra , ytra , ztra represent the results by
power-based strategy only.

Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 show the results of x by the power-based
strategy only and by the whole load distribution strategy
respectively. In the presence of disturbances, by the power-
based strategy only, the calculated expected cable force cannot
carry the load to the specified position, but will cause the oscil-
lation and divergence of the whole multi-lift system. At 20 s,
xL , yL , zL , /L , hL and wL converge to 494:6 m, 200.2 m,
980.6 m, 130.0°, 34.4° and 114.3° respectively. And in this sta-
tus, the frontal area of the load is large and there exists
unsteady aerodynamic force.
Referring to Fig. 17, four helicopters can carry the load to
the desired position cooperatively by the whole load distribu-
tion strategy. At 20 s, xL , yL and zL are 80.00 m, 10.00 m
and 9.99 m respectively. Although there exist fluctuations with
periods of about 2 s for the velocity, Euler angle and angular
velocity, the amplitude is small. And it is acceptable for base-
line configuration.
7. Conclusions
To improve the flight performance of the baseline configura-
tion, the load distribution strategy based on power consump-
tion and robust adaptive game control is proposed
considering the differences in power consumption and relative
position between helicopters as well as the interactions. First,
based on the load-leading hierarchical control, the load alloca-
tion problem is divided into two parts: the calculation of
expected cable force and the calculation of the anti-
disturbance cable force. The effects of forward flight speeds,
cable forces and cable angles on the power consumption of
helicopter are considered in detail. Then, the power agent
model is trained based on BP neural network and the safe dis-
tance constraint is set as 2.5 rotor diameters to reduce aerody-
namic interference. Subsequently, aimed at minimizing the
maximum equivalent power of helicopters, the expected cable
force is calculated by optimization method based on
MATLAB/fmincon algorithm. For the calculation of the
anti-disturbance cable force, considering the difference and
interaction between helicopters, the robust adaptive differen-
tial game control is proposed. The simulation results indicate
that the power-based strategy is applicable to the whole flight
trajectory and the situation when there are performance differ-
ences among helicopters. The game-based tracking control can
consider interaction between helicopters, can deal with differ-
ent objective functions, and has strong robustness and small
steady-state error. Based on the entire strategy, the cable force
can be reasonably allocated to resist disturbance and further
improve the flight performance of the whole system.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the proposed load dis-
tribution strategy not only is applicable to the baseline config-
uration, but also can be applied to the multi-lift system with
two or more aircraft by substituting the power agent model,
changing the number of aircraft, increasing or decreasing num-
bers of constraints and so on. The Appendix describes how to
apply the proposed load distribution strategy to other multi-
lift system in detail.
D. DUAN et al.
In the future, we will concentrate on speeding up the opti-
mization solving algorithm for real-world experiments, getting
load distribution strategy considering obstacle avoidance, and
designing helicopter control strategy to transport the load to
target position precisely.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix. The appendix describes how to apply the proposed
load distribution strategy to other multi-lift systems. Partic-
ularly, the establishment of the power agent model, the
effects of the number of aircraft and the constrains are
discussed.
(1) Power agent model
First, to obtain the original data of power consumption, we
should trim the helicopter loaded by cable forces. For other
aircraft, though their manipulation methods or aerodynamic
components may be different from the tandem helicopter,
the trim equations all include the key flight dynamic equations
and the trimming methods are essentially consistent no matter
by Newton’s approach or other advanced optimization meth-
ods. Besides, the input variables of the power agent model
based on BP neural network include: advance ratio, cone
angle, regional angle and the magnitude of cable force. And
the output variable is the power consumption. It is obvious
that the above five variables are convenient to get after trim-
ming. In this way, the power agent model of other aircraft
can be obtained.
(2) Effects of the number of aircraft
In the condition where there are only two aircraft in the
multi-lift system, the two aircraft are generally arranged side
by side or in front and back. In other words, the cable points
on the load are on the axis of coordinates xL yL zL . Therefore in
this case, the six-freedom-movement of the load cannot be
achieved and some other constraints must be added to solve
Eq. (17).
If there are three or more aircraft in the multi-lift system,
Eq. (17) is generally solvable as long as the rank of the matrix
in the left side of Eq. (17) is not less than 6. And if there are too
many aircraft, the biggest challenge becomes collision
avoidance.
(3) Constraints
If there are only two aircraft and if the two aircraft are in
the side-by-side arrangement, to solve Eq. (17), the pitch
movement must be ignored; if the two aircraft are in the
front-by-rear arrangement, the roll movement must be
ignored. And if there are too many aircraft, we should reason-
ably and carefully arrange the positions of aircraft and deter-
mine the safe distance constraints among these aircraft.
Load distribution strategy for multi-lift system with helicopters
References
1. Ronen T, A BRYSON J Jr, Hindson W. Dynamics of a helicopter
with a sling load. 13th Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference.
1986 August 18-20 ; Williamsburg,USA. Reston: AIAA; 1986.
2. Cicolani LS, Kanning G, Synnestvedt R. Simulation of the
dynamics of helicopter slung load systems. J Am Helicopter Soc
1995;40:44–61.
3. Bisgaard M. Modeling, estimation, and control of helicopter slung
load system[dissertation]. Aalborg: Aalborg University; 2008.
4. Bisgaard M, la Cour-Harbo A, Dimon BJ. Adaptive control
system for autonomous helicopter slung load operations. Control
Eng Pract 2010;18:800–11.
5. Cicolani LS. Equations of motion of slung-load systems, including
multilift systems.Washington. D.C.: NASA; 1992.
6. Raz R, Rosen A. Trim and stability of a twin-lift system in
forward flight. J Am Helicopter Soc 2005;50:138–49.
7. Yi K, He YQ, Han JD, et al. A review on control methods for
multi-lift rotorcraft systems. 2018 IEEE 8th Annual International
Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and
Intelligent Systems.2018 July 19-23; Tianjin, China.Piscataway:
IEEE Press;2018.
8. Bernard M. A system of autonomously flying helicopters for load
transportation [dissertation]. Thüringer Wald: Ilmenau University
of Technology; 2013.
9. Berrios M, Takahashi M, Whalley M, et alLoad distribution
control and swing angle feedback for an autonomous dual lift system
with flight test results. Phoenix, USA. Fairfax: American Heli-
copter Society (AHS); 2018. p. 1–13.
10. Geng JY, Langelaan JW. Implementation and demonstration of
coordinated transport of a slung load by a team of rotorcraft.
AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum. 2019 January 7-11; San Diego, USA.
Reston: AIAA; 2019.
11. Geng JY, Langelaan JW. Cooperative transport of a slung load
using load-leading control. J Guid Control Dyn 2020;43:1313–31.
12. Duan DY, Zhao H, Yu TL, et al. Application of social spider
optimization and improved active disturbance rejection controller
in hierarchical control of cooperative multi-lift with four
unmanned helicopters. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng
2022;236:671–84.
13. Geng J. Control, estimation and planning for coordinated transport
of a slung load by a team of aerial robots [dissertation].University
Park. The Pennsylvania State University; 2020.
14. Geng JY, Singla P, Langelaan JW. Trajectory planning and
control for a multilift system based on load distribution. AIAA
Scitech 2021 Forum.2021 January 11-15; Nashville ,USA. Reston:
AIAA; 2021.
15. Enciu J, Horn JF. Flight performance optimization of a multilift
rotorcraft formation. J Aircr 2017;54:1521–38.
16. Song Y, Horn JF, Li Z, et al. Modeling, simulation, and non-
linear control of a rotorcraft multi-lift system. Proceedings of
Annual Forum Proceedings, 69th American Helicopter Society
International Annual Forum. 2013 May 21-23; Phoenix, USA.
Alexandria: AHS International; 2013.
285
17. Gimenez J, Salinas LR, Gandolfo DC, et al. Control for
cooperative transport of a bar-shaped payload with rotorcraft
UAVs including a landing stage on mobile robots. Int J Syst Sci
2020;51:3378–92.
18. Arab F, Shirazi FA, Yazdi MRH. Planning and distributed
control for cooperative transportation of a non-uniform slung-
load by multiple quadrotors. Aerosp Sci Technol 2021;117
106917.
19. Chopra O, Ghose D. Distributed control for multiple UAV
transport of slung loads. AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum. 2022
January 3-7; San Diego, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2022.
20. Jimenez-Lizarraga M, Garcia O, Chapa-Garcia R, et al. Differ-
ential game-based formation flight for quadrotors. Int J Control
Autom Syst 2018;16:1854–65.
21. Jiang LW, Gonzalez F, McFadyen A. Cooperative game theory
based multi-UAV consensus-based formation control. Athens,
Greece. Piscataway: IEEE Press; 2020.
22. Chai Y, Luo JJ, Han N, et al. Robust event-triggered game-based
attitude control for on-orbit assembly. Aerosp Sci Technol
2020;103 105894.
23. Cicolani L, Kanning G. A comprehensive estimate of the static
aerodynamic forces and moments of the 8-by 8-by 20-Foot cargo
container. Washington, C: NASA; 1987.
24. Cicolani LS, da Silva JGA, Duque EPN, et al. Unsteady
aerodynamic model of a cargo container for slung-load simula-
tion. Aeronaut J 2004;108:357–68.
25. Cicolani LS, Cone A, Theron JN, et al. Flight test and simulation
of a cargo container slung load in forward flight. J Am Helicopter
Soc 2009;54:32006–3200618.
26. Mahmuddin F. Rotor blade performance analysis with blade
element momentum theory. Energy Procedia 2017;105:1123–9.
27. Duan D, Li Y, Ding Z, et al. Flight dynamics analysis of a small
tandem helicopter considering aerodynamic interference. Proc Inst
Mech Eng, Part G: J Aerosp Eng 2022;236:2803–16.
28. Gaonkar G, Peters D. Review of dynamic inflow modeling for
rotorcraft flight dynamics. 27th Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference. 1986 May 19-21 May;San Antonio,
USA. Reston: AIAA; 1986.
29. Padfield GD. Helicopter flight dynamics: The theory and applica-
tion of flying qualities and simulation modelling. 2nd. New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. p. 87–184.
30. Duivenvoorden R, Voskuijl M, Morée L, et al. Numerical and
experimental investigation into the aerodynamic benefits of
rotorcraft formation flight. J Am Helicopter Soc 2022;67:1–17.
31. Jain KP, Fortmuller T, Byun J, et al. Modeling of aerodynamic
disturbances for proximity flight of multirotors. 2019 International
Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS).2019 June
11-14; Atlanta, USA. Piscataway: IEEE;2019.
32. Shi GY, Hönig W, Yue YS, et al. Neural-swarm: Decentralized
close-proximity multirotor control using learned interac-
tions. France. Piscataway:IEEE Press; 2020.
33. Cruz N, Jimenez-Lizarraga M. Finite time robust feedback Nash
equilibrium for linear quadratic games. IFAC-PapersOnLine
2017;50:11794–9.