Anda di halaman 1dari 6
                   
                 
 

Global

stabilization

of a PVTOL

 

aircraft

 
   

with

bounded

thrust

       
   

I.

Fantoni, A. Zavala 1, R. Lozano

       
     

Heudiasyc, UMR CNRS 6599 UTC, BP 20529 60205 CompiSgne, France

       
   

{ifantoni/zavala/rlozano}@hds. ut

c.

fr

   
 

Abstract

       

Global stabilizing control design is proposed for the pla- nar vertical takeoff and landing (PVTOL) aircraft. The methodology is based on the use of nonlinear combina- tions of saturation functions bounding the thrust input to arbitrary saturation limits. The algorithm is simple and provides global convergence of the state to the ori- gin.

year, Martin et al. [5] presented an extension of the result proposed by Hauser [2]. Their idea was to find a flat output for the system and to split the output track- ing problem in two steps. Firstly, they designed a state tracker based on exact linearization by using the flat output and secondly, they designed a trajectory gener- ator to feed the state tracker. They thus controlled the tracking output through the flat output. In contrast to the approximate-linearization based control method proposed by Hauser, their control scheme provided out-

of the aircraft (i.e. c ¢ 0). Sepulchre et al. [81 applied

Keywords:

Aircraft

control,

Non-linear

control

put tracking of nonminimum phase flat systems. They

 

systems,

Global

stabilization,

Saturated

functions,

have also taken into account in the design the coupling

Bounded control.

     

between the rolling moment and the lateral acceleration

a linear high gain approximation of backstepping to the

 

1

Introduction

     

approximated model neglecting the coupling. In 1999,

Numerous design methods for the flight control of the Planar Vertical Take Off and Landing (PVTOL) air- craft model exist in the literature. Indeed, this partic- ular system is a simplified aircraft with a minimal num- ber of states and inputs but retains the main features that must be considered when designing control laws for a real aircraft. Since, the system possesses special prop- erties such as, for instance, unstable zero dynamics and signed (thrust) input, several methodologies for control-

Lin et al. [3] studied robust hovering control of the PV- TOL using nonlinear state feedback based on optimal control. Reza Olfati-Saber [6] proposed a configuration stabilization for the VTOL aircraft with a strong input coupling using a smooth static state feedback. M. Saeki et al. [7] offered a new design method which makes use of the center of oscillation and a two-step linearization. In fact, they designed a controller by applying a linear high gain approximation of backstepping to the model. A recent paper on an internal-model based approach for the autonomous vertical landing on an oscillating plat-

ling such a system have been proposed. Hauser et al. [21 in 1992 applied an approximate I-O linearization proce-

R.

Teel [121 illustrated his central result of nonlinear

small gain theorem using the example of the PVTOL

form has been proposed by

Marconi et al. [41. They

dure which results in bounded tracking and asymptotic stability for the V/STOL aircraft. In 1996, Andrew

aircraft with input corruption. His theorem provided

presented an error-feedback dynamic regulator that is robust with respect to uncertainties of the model pa- rameters and they provided global convergence to the zero-error manifold.

a formalism for analyzing the behavior of control sys-

In

the

present

paper,

we present a global stabilizing

tems with saturation. He established a stabilization al-

strategy for the control of the PVTOL aircraft. The

gorithm for nonlinear systems in so-called feedforward

proposed algorithm copes with a bounded thrust and

form which includes the PVTOL aircraft. The same

takes

into

account

its

positive

nature.

The stability

 

1On leave from Instituto Potosino

de Investigacidn

Cienfffica

proof is simple. As far as we are aware, the previous

y

Tecnoldgica,

Mexico, e-rural: azavala@titan.ipicyt.edu.mx,

works on the topic do not cover all these features simul-

his participation in this research work was supported by the Cen-

taneously.

The paper is organized as follows. In section

tre National

de la Recherche Scientifique,

France.

                 
           

2, we recall the equations of motion for the PVTOL air-

craft. In section 3, the global stabilizing

control law is

developed. Simulations are presented in section 4 and

conclusions are finally given in section 5.

2

The

PVTOL

aircraft

model

The PVTOL aircraft dynamics are modelled by the fol- lowing equations [2]

 

=

-

+

--

COS(0)%

1

@

£sin(0)%

2

--

1

(1)

I

%2

where

x,

y denote

the

center

of mass

horizontal

and

vertical position

and

0

is

the

roll angle

of the

aircraft

with the horizon.

The control

inputs

Ul and

u2

are the

thrust

(directed out the bottom of the aircraft)

and

the

angular acceleration

(rolling moment).

The

parameter

c is a small coefficient which characterizes the coupling

between the rolling moment and the lateral acceleration

of the aircraft. The constant "-1" is the normalized

gravitational acceleration.

Figure

1 provides

a repre-

sentation

of the system.

In general,

c is negligible

and

y

 

y

.......

 

i

i

 

0

>

x

 

X

Figure

1: The PVTOL

aircraft

(fi'ont view)

not

always well-known

[2]. Therefore,

it is possible

to

suppose that

 

c-

0,

i.e.

 

--

--

sin(O)u

I

(2)

--

Cos(O)tt

I

--

1

(3)

(4)

Furthermore, several authors have shown that by an ap- propriate change of coordinates, we can obtain a rep-

resentation of the system

[6,

7,

91.

For instance,

R.

without

the

term

due

to

c

Olfati-Saber [61 applied the

following change of coordinates

-

-

(5)

-

y

+

(cos(O)

-

l)

(6)

The

system

dynamics

considering

 

these

new

coordi-

nates become

 
 

-- sin(0)~21

 
 

~)

--

Cos(O)~

 

1

--

1

(7)

 

--

%2

where

Ul

-

Ul

-

st) 2.

Note that

this structure

(7) has

the

same form as

(1) with

c

-

0.

Out" control objective

is to stabilize the PVTOL

aircraft to the origin.

3

Global

stabilizing

input

Let us begin by explaining the background philosophy of the proposed control scheme. Notice that the PV- TOL dynamics (2)-(4) can be divided in two subsys-

tems according to the nature of the motion: the rota- tional motion equation (4), and the translational mo-

tion dynamics (2)-(3).

The first one consists of a double

integrator with u2 as unique external input.

It evolves

independently of the translational motion variables.

On

the contrary, the second one consists of two (indepen-

dent) double integrators with U l and 0 as common ex-

ternal forcing agents. Hence, as done in

[8,

61,

0

can

be viewed as an intermediate (fictitious) input to con-

trol, together with Ul, subsystem (2)-(4). Under such perspective, let us define

 

gl

--

v/r 2 +

(1 +

 

(8)

e

=

at'ctan(-rl,

r2) 2 1 -[- r2)

(9)

Note that

Ul

>

0.

0 in (9) represents the (unique)

angle

y/r~ + (l+r2) 2

and

cos0

=

l+r2

y/r~ + (l+r2) 2"

such that

sin 0

=

-~~

By taking

(8)

and

(9),

it follows that

 
 

--

7"1

(10)

--

7" 2

with

r 1

and

7"2 as free functions

(auxiliary inputs)

that

can

be

suitably

defined

to

achieve

our

control

objec-

tive.

The

convenient

selection

of

rl

and

r2

actually

constitutes

the

second

 

step

of

the

design

methodol-

ogy.

Finally,

the

last

step

consists

in

the

consider-

ation

of the

rotational

 

motion

equation

to

determine

an

appropriate

 

u2

that

makes

0

follow

the

desired

motion

expressed

in

(9).

Nevertheless,

the

second-

order

dynamics

(4)

does

not

permit

u2

to

give

di-

rectly

any

desired

form

to

0.

The

idea

is,

then,

to

achieve

lira 0(t) = aI'ctan(-rl,

1 +

r2).

 

As

a

conse-

t---+ oc

quence,

lira 2(t)

t---+ cc

=

rl

and

lira 9(t)

t---+cc

=

r2.

Now,

rl

and

r2

could

be

simply

selected

as

linear

stabilizing

state

feedbacks,

i.e.

rl

=

-kllX-

k12k

and

r2

-k21y-

k22~/, with

kij

>

0,

Vi, j

=

1,2,

as

is ac-

tually

proposed

in

[71

and

[81.

Moreover,

a

similar

   

tracking

version

could

be

considered

for

us

in

(4),

i.e.

us

=

Od

--

k31(O --

Od)

--

k32([~ -- [~d), with

Od

arctan(--rl,

1 +

r2)

and

k3i

>

0,

Vi

=

1, 2,

as exposed

in

[7] 1 .

Nevertheless,

such

approaches

do

not

seem

to

be

appropriate

whenever

Ul

and/or

us

are

(physi-

cally)

bounded

inputs.

This constitutes

the interest

of

the present

study:

to provide a solution

to our control

problem whenever the thrust

is furnished

by

an

actua-

tor with

(output)

saturation

limits

(which is a realistic

case).

In

other words,

we take

Ul

_< U1 (recall that

the

thrust

is

by

nature

nonnegative)

for some

finite

posi-

tive (constant)

U1. We consider the proposed approach

to

constitute

a

first

step

towards

a complete

solution

considering both Ul and us bounded,

which we are cur-

rently working on.

necessary

Notice,

for the

from

(3), that

U1

>

1

is

a

condition

PVTOL

to

be stabilizable

at

any

desired

position.

Indeed,

any

static

condition

implies

that

the

aircraft's

weight

be

compensated.

 

In

such scenario,

the selected functions

rl,

r2,

and

us

are

based

on

the

stabilization

approach

proposed

in

[11].

Therefore,

they

are

defined

in terms

of linear

satura-

tion functions,

whose definition is recalled in [11]:

 

Definition 3.1

Given

two

positive

constants

L,

M

with L <_ M, a function ~

" J~

-+

J~

is

said

to

be a

linear saturation for

(L, M)

if

it

is

a continuous,

non-

decreasing function satisfying

(~)

~(~)

>

o fo~

~ll

~ ¢

0

(~)

~(~)

-

~

~h~

~

<_ L

(~)

~(~)

<_ M

fo~

~ll

~ c

Our main result

is now stated.

Theorem 3.1 Consider the P VTOL dynamics (2)-(4)

with thrust saturation

bound

U1

>

1.

Let

us

define

u,

-

v/r~

+

(1

+

r2)2,

wi#~

 

r,

-

-~12(~

+

~11 (x

+

~))

~d

~

-

-~(~

+

~,(y

+

~)),

~d

~

-

Od -

~3~(0 +

~31(0+0)),

~ithO

A

O-Od

~dOd

-- ~rct~.(-~,,

l+~),

where

the functions

aij

(i

-

1, 2, 3,

j

-

1, 2)

are twice

differentiable

linear

saturations

for

given

(Lij,M, ij),

with M,il

<

--

1, 2, 3,

and M12

 

and M22

such

that M22

<

1 and M~2+(1+M22) 2 <_ U~.

Then, for arty

w(O)

 

C

~6

where w

-A

(x,k,y,{/,O,O),

 

lira w(t)

-

O,

 

t--+oo

~ith

0 <

1

-

M~

_< ~1 (t) _< x/M~

+

(1 +

M~)~

_<

U,,

Vt>0.

     

Proof:

 

Let

z-

(*,~,v

,

o)r

~d

~

~

-

(O 0)r

,

.

Not~

that

in

view

of the

choice

of

u2

the

(t~, t)) subsystem

1Though, strangely enough, ~Jd and 0d are neglected in the control law when a stabilization objective equivalent to the one taken here is considered.

is

given by ~1

--

~2,

~2

--

--Cr32(~2

q-Cr31(~1

q-~2)).

Hence,

from Theorem

2.1

in

[11], it follows that,

for any

~5(0) C

lg 2,

lira

~5(t) -

0.

That

is

0 --+ Od as

t

--+ co.

In

/~---+oo

 

the

limit when

0 -

Od, the

(x, k)

and

(y, ~)) subsystems

are given

by

 

,~1

--

Z2

,~2 --

--0"12(Z2

@ 0"11(Z1

@ Z2))

 

~3 -

z4

,~4 -

-022(z4

+

021(z3 +

z4))

The stability of the overall system during the transient

when 0 --+ Od can be guaranteed

by the result of Sontag

[10].

The

stability

of the

system when

0

-

Od is again

obtained fi'om Theorem 2.1 in [11]. It then follows that,

for any

z(0)

 

C

//~a,

lira z(t)-

t--+ oo

O, with

 

rx(t)

_< MI2

and

r2(t)

< M22,

Vt

>

O.

Now,

from the

definitions

of

rl,

r2,

crij

(i

-

1, 2, 3, j

-

1, 2),

and

Od, it

is not

difficult

to

check that

such

asymptotical

stabilization

of

z

im-

plies

lira R(t)-

t---+oc

 

O, where

R

A

(rl,r2,?l,?2)T,

which

in

turn

entails

lira

Od(t)-

O, where

Od

A

(Od, od)r

 

t---+oc

 

with

0

<

1-

M22

ul(t)

v/M122 +

(1 +

M22) 2

 

U1,

Vt

_> 0.

Then,

the proof follows.

 

Let

us

note

that

if M22

were

permitted

 

to

take

val-

ues

greater

than

1,

U l

could

eventually

vanish

which

would

result

 

in

a

control

singularity

(recall

the

def-

inition

of

u2)

 

since

t)d

=

rli'2-(1+r2)i'l

 

and

0d

~-1~:2-(1+~-2)~'1-20e(~-1¢-1+(1+~-2)¢-2)Constraining M22 to

be selected smaller than

1, such singularity

is avoided.

Finally, let us emphasize on

the fact that

Od

is

gen-

erated

on line according

to

a state

dependent

relation

(the proposed control algorithm is actually a global sta-

bilizing nonlinear

state feedback).

In other words,

it

is

not a pre-specified time dependent

function.

Hence, the

bound

on Od -- Od(Z) depends

on the state initial condi-

tions and cannot be arbitrarily fixed.

Therefore,

Corol-

lary

2.1

in

[111 cannot

be

applied

to

the

closed-loop

rotational motion dynamics, u2 is, then, a bounded

input

whose bound

depends

on

the

state

initial

condi-

tions.

Bounding

u2

to

an

arbitrary

(saturation)

limit

(as done

with

Ul)

is

still

to

be

considered

and

consti-

tutes

(as mentioned

above)

our current

research work.

 

4

Simulation

results

In this

section,

we present

some simulation

results us-

ing MATLAB

and

SIMULINK

in order

to observe the

performance

of the

proposed

control

law.

In particu-

lar, we have considered

two different

examples

and

for

   

both,

we started

the PVTOL

aircraft

at

the

same

ini-

tial

conditions,

i.e.

(x(0), 2(0), y(0), ~)(0), 0(0), t)(0))

(50, 0, 0, 0,

~,

0).

Note

that

the

aircraft

initial

roll

angle exceeds

g.

In

fact,

in

contrast

to

some

ap-

proaches which require that

the roll angle be restricted

to

(-~,

~)

(see

for

instance

[1,

2,

61),

the

proposed

method

allows

0

C

ff~.

The

linear

saturations

used

in these

simulations

are described

in Appendix

A.

For

the

first

example,

we

have

chosen

a

thrust

satura-

tion

bound

U1

=

4

and

linear

saturation

parameters

M32 =

4,

L32 =

3.5,

M31

 

=

1.5,

L31

=

1,

M22 =

0.9,

L22

=

0.8,

]///21 =

0.3,

L21

=

0.2,

M12

--

3.5,

L12

=

3.1,

Mll

=

1.5, Lll

=

1.

The results are shown on Figures

2

and

3.

Observe that

the thrust

input

Ul remains within

its saturation

bounds.

Then,

in the second example, we

have

chosen

a thrust

saturation

bound

U1

=

2,

in

or-

der

to

observe

the

effect

of saturations.

The

rest

of

the

parameters

are

M32 =

2,

L32 =

1.8,

M31

=

0.8,

L31

=

0.7,

M22 =

0.9,

L22 =

0.8,

M21

=

0.3,

L21

=

0.2,

M12

---- 0.6,

L12

--

0.5,

Mll

---- 0.2, Lll

--

0.1.

We clearly

see, on Figure

5 that

the thrust

input

U l saturates

dur-

ing

the

first

5 seconds.

 

The

obvious

consequence

is

that

x

and

y

(on Figure

4)

converge

slowly

compared

to

Figure

2.

The

performance

of

the

proposed

con-

troller is however satisfactory

since global stabilization

is achieved with a restrictive thrust

bound.

For compar-

ison

purposes,

we provide

 

simulations,

with

the

same

initial

conditions,

using the

stabilizing

lin-

ear feedbacks rl

=

-kllX-

 

unbounded k12:;b, r2 =

-k21Y-

k22~/ !%1

 

(s)),

=

with Od = gains

as

in

arctan(--rl,

[71, i.e.

kll

1+r2).

We selected the feedback

=

1.69,

k12

=

1.82,

k21

=

2.89,

k22

=

2.38,

k31

=

72.5,

k32

=

13.6.

shown in Figures

6

and

7.

Notice that

The results are even though the

time responses

are short,

U l takes

initially large values

(~

84; see Figure

7).

 

5

Conclusions

 

Based on the results presented in [11] a global stabiliza- tion control scheme is proposed for the PVTOL aircraft. Compared to the previous works, the exposed solution takes into account saturation bounds and the positive nature of the thrust input. Furthermore, the stability proof is simple. Several numerical simulations support the theoretical results.

 

Appendix

A

Any linear saturations

crij

(i

-

1, 2, 3,

j

-

1, 2)

can

be

taken

for

the

implementation

of the

proposed

control

strategy,

provided

that

they

are

twice

differentiable.

We

present

the

linear

saturations,

and

 

their

first

and

second derivatives with respect to their argument,

used

position x dx/dt 50 0 40 -1 30 -2 20 -3 10 0 0 10 20
position x
dx/dt
50
0
40
-1
30
-2
20
-3
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
time [s]
time [s]
altitude y
dy/dt
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-0.5
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-1.5
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
time [s]
time [s]
Figure
2:
System states
with
U1
-
4
angle 0
d(O)/dt
2
1.5
1
0.5
-0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
time [s]
time [s]
ul
u2
-5
,
0.5
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
time [s]
time [s]
Figure
3:
System states
and
control inputs,
4
U1
--
   
position x dx/dt 40 20 : ~ ~ ! -20 -40 -8 50 100 150 200
position x
dx/dt
40
20
:
~
~
!
-20
-40
-8
50
100
150
200
0
50
100
150
time [s]
time [s]
altitude y
dy/dt
1
o
-1
-10
-15
-20
-5
0
50
100
150
200
0
50
100
150
time [s]
time [s]
Figure
4:
System states with
U1
-
2
angle O
d(O)/dt
0.6
2
0.4
1.5
0.2
1
0
0.5
-0.2
0
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-1
-0.8
0
50
1O0
150
200
0
50
1O0
150
time [s]
time [s]
ul
u2
15
2
10
1.5
5
1
0
0.5
-5
0
50
1O0
150
200
0
50
1O0
150
time [s]
time [s]
Figure
5:
System states
and
control inputs,
U1
position x dx/dt 50 5 0 40 -5 30 -10 20 -15 10 -20 0 -25
position x
dx/dt
50
5
0
40
-5
30
-10
20
-15
10
-20
0
-25
-10
-30
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
200
time [s]
time [s]
altitude y
dy/dt
0.5
2
-0.5
-1.5
-3
200
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
time [s]
time [s]
Figure
6: System states with unbounded input
angle O
d(O)/dt
2
5
0
-5
-10
-2
-15
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
200
time [s]
time [s]
ul
u2
100
80
60
40
-50
20
-1 O0
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
time [s]
time [s]
200
Figure
7:
System
states
and
control
inputs
with
-
2
bounded input

un-

   
to get the simulation results of Section 4. arctan(a(s - Lij)) ÷ Lij if s >
to
get
the
simulation results of Section 4.
arctan(a(s -
Lij))
÷ Lij
if s
>
Lij
a
if
s
<<_ Lij
+
_
if s
<
-Lij
a
'
1
if s
>
Lij
1 4- a2(8 --
Lij) 2
!
1
if
8
< Lij
if s
<
-Lij
,1
+ a2(8
+
Lij) 2
'
2a2(s-
Lij)
ifs
>
Lij
I1
+
I!
0
if
8
< Lij
2a2(s ÷ Lij)
if
s
<
-Lij
,
[1
+
+
where
a
A
~
, with
M,~j > Lij
> O, Vi-
1
2, 3
--
2(M~j-L~j)
,
,
j
-
1, 2.
The
form of
such
functions
(with
L
-
1 and
M-
1.5)
is given
in figure
8.
1
.~0
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
~o.~
-2
-1
0
2
2
1
~o
-I
-2
I
I
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
s
Figure
8:
Twice differentiable linear saturation
and
its

first and second derivatives with respect to its

argument

References

[1]

I. Fantoni,

R. Lozano,

and P. Castillo.

A simple

stabilization algorithm for the PVTOL aircraft. In 15 th

IFA C World Congress, Barcelona,

Spain,

2002.

 

[2]

J.

Hauser,

S.

Sastry,

and

G.

Meyer.

Nonlin-

ear control design for slightly nomninimum

phase sys-

tems: Application to V/STOL aircraft. Automatica,

28(4) :665-679, 1992.

 

[3]

F.

Lin, W.

Zhang,

and R. D. Brandt.

Robust hov-

ering control of a PVTOL

aircraft.

IEEE

Transactions

on Control Systems

Technology, 7(3):343-351,

1999.

[4]

L.

Marconi,

A.

Isidori,

and

A.

Serrani.

Au-

tonomous vertical landing on an oscillating platform:

an internal-model based approach. 32, 2002.

Automatica,

38:21-

[5]

P.

Martin,

S. Devasia,

and

Brad

Paden.

A

dif-

ferent look at output tracking: Control of a VTOL craft. Automatica, 32(1):101-107, 1996.

air-

[6]

R. Olfati-Saber. Global configuration stabiliza-

tion for the VTOL aircraft with strong input coupling.

In Proceedings of the 39 th IEEE

Conf. on Decision and

Control, Sydney, Australia,

2000.

[7]

M.

Saeki

and

Y.

Sakaue.

Flight

control

design

for a nonlinear non-minimum phase VTOL

aircraft via

two-step linearization.

In Proceedings of the 40 th

Con-

ference on Decision and Control CDC'01, 2001.

[8]

R.

Sepulchre,

M. JankoviS,

and

P.

Kokotovid.

Constructive

Nonlinear

Control.

Springer-Verlag Lon-

don,

1997.

 

[9]

P.

Setlur,

Y.

Fang

D.

Dawson,

and

B.

Costic.

Nonlinear

tracking

control

of the

VTOL

aircraft.

In

Proceedings

of

the

40 th

Conference

on

Decision

and

Control CDC'01, 2001.

 

[10]

E.

D.

Sontag.

Smooth

stabilization

implies

co-

prime factorization.

IEEE

Transcations

1989.

on Automatic

Control, 34:1376-1378,

[11]

A.

R.

Teel.

Global stabilization and restricted

tracking for multiple integrators with bounded controls.

Systems

~

Control Letters,

18:165-171,

1992.

[12]

A.R.

Teel.

A nonlinear

small gain theorem

for

the analysis of control systems with saturation.

IEEE

Transactions

on Automatic

Control,

41(9):1256-1270,

1996.