Intelligent predictive control of a model helicopter's yaw angle

Abstract

In this paper the concept of Control Inertia is introduced and based on this concept, unexpectedly inadequate control behaviour of High Control Inertia systems is explained. Fuzzy compensators are then suggested to improve the control behaviour. This work is in the area of non‐model‐based control. In order to indicate the merit of the proposed technique, a neuro‐predictive (NP) control is designed and implemented on a highly non‐linear system, a lab helicopter, in a constrained situation. It is observed that the behaviour of the closed loop system under the NP controller either displays considerable function (with a low value of a particular design parameter) or is very slow (with high values of the same design parameter). In total, the control behaviour is very poor in comparison to existing fuzzy controllers, whereas NP is used effectively in the control of some other systems. Considering the concept of Control Inertia, a Sugeno‐type fuzzy compensator was added to the control loop to modify the control command. A newly designed neuro‐predictive control with fuzzy compensator (NPFC) improves the performance of the closed loop system significantly by the reduction of both overshoot and settling time. Furthermore, it is shown that the disturbance rejection of the NPFC controlled system as well as it parameter robustness is satisfactory. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley and Sons Asia Pte Ltd and Chinese Automatic Control Society

A Novel Actuator Controller: Delivering a Practical Solution to Realization of Active-Truss-Based Morphing Wings

“…A common practice is to maximize the inherited robustness of a controller by careful parameter design and tuning [5], [6]. Further robustness improvement can be achieved via advanced techniques such as nonlinear control [7]- [9], H ∞ or optimized loop-shaping robust control [10]- [12], and adaptive intelligent control [13], [14]. A more attractive approach distinguished from the aforementioned comes with the concept of unknown-input estimation, which brings disturbance rejection to a higher level, as demonstrated by various industrial applications [15]- [22].…”

Intelligent modeling of a piezoelectric tube actuator

“…However, in dynamic models/systems, delayed outputs are the inputs to the model. If the model is used in predictive control (with a horizon of two or more, see [18])), sensor-less control or process simulation, after the very first estimations, the delayed outputs will not be available and one-stepprediction is not applicable. In this case, previously estimated values of system output(s) need be used as model inputs.…”

Double-command feedforward-feedback control of a nonlinear plant

“…The most popular input to feedforward controllers is the reference or setpoint signal [1][2][3][4]6], although measurable disturbance signals may also play this role [5,8,9]. However, especially when disturbance rejection is not the main issue, there is no general methodology to determine whether a feedforward controller is useful, and if so, to find the feedforward control law.…”

“…Some recent applications for feedforward control include power systems [1], medical engineering [2], aircraft/helicopter control [3,4], vibration and noise control [5], manufacturing [6] and robotics [7].…”