Dron
Dron
Dron
net/publication/341910513
CITATIONS READS
4 311
4 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Improvement of DSOGI PLL Synchronization Algorithm with Filter on Three-Phase Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System View project
Development of Robust Fuzzy Logic Control for Spark Ignition Engine Torque Control View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Esa Apriaskar on 04 June 2020.
Abstract— Due to potential features of unmanned aerial vehicles for society, the development of bicopter
has started to increase. This paper contributes to the development by presenting a performance evaluation
of balancing bicopter control in roll attitude. It aims to determine the best controller structure for the
balancing bicopter. The controller types evaluated are based on Ziegler-Nichols tuning method; they are
proportional (P), proportional-integral (PI), and proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers. Root locus
plot of the closed-loop balancing bicopter system is used to decide the tuning approach. This work considers
a difference in pulse-width-modulation (PWM) signal between the left and right rotors as the signal control
and bicopter angle in roll movement as the output. Parameters tuned by the method are Kp, Ti, and Td
which is based on the ideal PID structure. The performance test utilizes rising time, settling time, maximum
overshoot, and steady-state error to determine the most preferred controller. The result shows that PI-
controller has the best performance among the other candidates, especially in maximum overshoot and
settling time. It reaches 8.34 seconds in settling time and 3.71% in maximum overshoot. Despite not being
the best in rising time and resembling PID-controller performances in steady-state error criteria, PI-
controller remains the most preferred structure considering the closeness of the response to the desired
value.
44
45 Jurnal Teknik Elektro Vol. 11 No. 2
Juli - Desember 2019
of a fixed wing plane, but gives two tilt-rotors and a ducted- can lift a bicopter, which is expressed in (3). L represents a
fan. The modifications are intended to generate a lift force range between rotation axis of the rotor to the center body of
during a vertical flight. PID controller adjusted to the system bicopter.
were not tuned. It followed default parameters of the PX4-
autopilot device.
In this paper, Ziegler-Nichols tuning method is used to
determine the control parameter based on PID components.
This work also aims to evaluate which controller types better
in performing attitude control of balancing bicopter system.
The performance of the method is tested using a balancing
bicopter on roll movement. The balancing bicopter model and
the determination of control parameter for bicopter system
using Ziegler-Nichols method are described in section II. Z
Section III presents how the controllers perform through
simulation. It also includes the performance comparison
between P, PI, and PID-controllers tuned by Ziegler-Nichols
concept. Section IV concludes the paper with suggestions for
future works. Y X
II. DESIGN AND METHOD Figure 1. Balancing bicopter design
A. Balancing Bicopter Model
LK f (12 22 )
The input and output variables have to be determined first MB
before controlling a system. Balancing bicopter system used K M (12 22 )
in this work consider roll angle (𝜑) as the output and actuating To represent the dynamics of a balancing bicopter with
signal for two rotors as the input. Figure 1 shows the rotor signal as the input and roll angle as the output, [13] has
balancing bicopter design applied in this paper. Each rotor i developed a transfer function model. Rigorous modelling
produces moment M i and aerodynamic force Fi . The steps have been introduced involving multi-level periodic
relations between them are described in (1) - (2) with K f as perturbation signal. Several model structures were generated
and validated with a certain distribution of data sets. Thus, it
constant for aerodynamic force and K M for moment constant.
obtains the most appropriate model by comparing their fitness
The angular velocity of the rotor applied in balancing bicopter values. Final validation using a feedback control scheme has
are represented with i (i=1,2). singled out a 4th-order transfer function as written in (4).
Fi K f i 2 (s ) 0.6126s 3 1.359s 2 28.81s 5.315
PWM (s) s 4 2.27s 3 19.89s 2 14.84s 2.74
Mi KM i 2
From (1)-(2), which describe the forces and moments
generated by the propellers, we obtain the moment M B that
Desired Roll
Angle Base PWM
Balancing Bicopter System
Rotor Left
+ ESC +
+ Rotor Left
+ e PWM
Controller
-
ESC +
- Rotor Right
+
Roll Angle
Present Value
Base PWM
Rotor Right
Sensory System
ki
U (s ) (k p k d s )e (s )
s
There are several methods to decide appropriate PID
parameters for a particular control system or so-called tuning
method. One of the most well-known methods for tuning a
PID controller is Ziegler-Nichols. That is classified into two
methods based on the existence of integrator or dominant
complex-conjugate poles [15]. The first approach is for the
system that does not consist of both integrator and complex-
conjugate poles. It is based on an open-loop structure relying
on reaction curves. The second approach is for the system
which has one of integrator or complex-conjugate poles. It is Figure 4. Marginally stable condition
based on a closed-loop structure with the computation of
ultimate gain Kcr and ultimate period Pcr. Since the system TABLE I. ZIEGLER-NICHOLS RULES
involved in this paper is possessing complex-conjugate poles, Controller type kp Ti Td
as shown in Figure 3, it is best to use the closed-loop approach. P-controller 0.5 Kcr - -
PI-controller 0.45 Kcr 0.833 Pcr -
47 Jurnal Teknik Elektro Vol. 11 No. 2
Juli - Desember 2019
proposed controller as shown in Table II, despite not optimization approach may be necessary. It is also possible to
evaluating the comparative performance between P, PI, and create a more robust controller after utilizing artificial
PID-controller. It has confirmed through a simulation that the intelligence in the control parameter tuning process [23].
proposed controller could gain steady-state error and
maximum overshoot which are close to 0 for attitude control IV. CONCLUSION
in a quadcopter. It has also occurred with bicopter system in Finally, this work has evaluated performances of balancing
[9]. It resembled roll angle attitude control, which resulted in bicopter control on roll movement tuned by Ziegler-Nichols
zero steady-state error and maximum overshoot. As shown in concept. The closed-loop approach of Ziegler-Nichols method
Table II, the three controllers evaluated in this work could not has been utilized due to the existence of complex-conjugate
obtain absolutely the same performance. It declares that the poles in the balancing bicopter transfer function. The tuning
Ziegler-Nichols tuning method is not enough to eliminate the method can provide fine parameters for three controller types;
overshoot in the case of balancing bicopter control. they are P, PI, and PID-controllers. The result concludes that
Nevertheless, we can determine the best controller type based on Ziegler-Nichols tuning method, PI-controller is the
between P, PI, and PID-controller for the balancing bicopter most preferred option for balancing bicopter control system
system. PI-controller tends to perform the best for a balancing among the other controller types due to better performance,
bicopter system in roll angle attitude control based on ziegler- especially in settling time and maximum overshoot criteria.
nichols tuning method. It can obtain overshoot and steady- The robustness test using impulse disturbance has also
state error which are closer to 0 rather than other controllers. ensured the determination of PI-controller. It has produced
A robustness test has also been conducted to ensure that shorter stabilizing time compared to the P and PID controller.
the determination of controller type is proper. An impulse However, it seems still possible to develop the controller
disturbance can be applied to test the robustness of a parameter tuning since several works indicate that the
controller [19]. The test considers that balancing bicopter is performance of maximum overshoot can still be improved.
initially in a hovering position. Thus, it is given reference 0 Using a more advanced tuning method can be an unfilled
degree in roll angle. An impulse signal is supplemented with space for future work in the development of a bicopter control
0.1 second in duration time starting from 0.25 second. Figure system.
8 shows the comparison response between P, PI, and PID
controller after being perturbed. In this test, PID-controller has REFERENCES
the highest stabilizing time in approximately 12 seconds. It is [1] S. D. Kale, S. V Khandagale, S. S. Gaikwad, S. S. Narve, and P. V
followed by P-controller which achieves 10.81 seconds. PI- Gangal, “Agriculture Drone for Spraying Fertilizer and Pesticides,” Int.
J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 804–807, 2015.
controller looks to give better performance than the two [2] Y. B. Huang, S. J. Thomson, W. C. Hoffmann, Y. Bin Lan, and B. K.
controllers with 8.77 seconds. Fritz, “Development and prospect of unmanned aerial vehicle
technologies for agricultural production management,” Int. J. Agric.
Biol. Eng., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2013.
[3] S. Amici et al., “Volcanic environments monitoring by drones, Mud
Volcano case Study,” Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf.
Sci. Vol. XL-1/W2, 2013 UAV-g2013, vol. XL-1/W2, no. September, pp.
5–10, 2013.
[4] E. Apriaskar, Y. P. Nugraha, and B. R. Trilaksono, “Simulation of
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Using Hexacopter and RGBD
Camera,” in International Conference on Automation, Cognitive
Science, Optics, Micro Electro-Mechanical System, and Information
Technology, 2017, pp. 48–53.
[5] Y. S. Chou and J. S. Liu, “A robotic indoor 3D mapping system using a
2D laser range finder mounted on a rotating four-bar linkage of a
mobile platform,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 10, 2013.
[6] Q. Galvane, J. Fleureau, F.-L. Tariolle, and P. Guillotel, “Automated
Cinematography with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” in WICED 2016
Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Intelligent
Cinematography and Editing, 2016, pp. 23–30.
[7] S. Agarwal, S. Shetty, A. Bhagat, J. Ghule, and P. S. H. Mane, “UAV
based Quadcopter with Wheels,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev., vol. 2, no. 2, pp.
1003–1006, 2014.
Figure 8. Robustness test using impulse disturbance for P, PI, and PID [8] R. K. Rangel and A. C. Terra, “Development of a Surveillance tool
controller tuned by Ziegler-Nichols using UAV ’ s,” IEEE Aerosp. Conf., no. March 2015, pp. 1–11, 2018.
[9] Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, J. Zhao, and S. Zhang, “Modeling and attitude
The robustness test using impulse perturbation has further control of Bi-copter,” in AUS 2016 - 2016 IEEE/CSAA International
confirmed that PI-controller is the best option among the other Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems, 2016, vol. 100191, pp. 172–
options. It can stabilize the roll angle under an impulse 176.
[10] L. Hrečko, J. Slačka, and M. Halás, “Bicopter stabilization based on
disturbance faster than P and PID controller tuned by Ziegler- IMU sensors,” in 20th International Conference on Process Control,
Nichols. To maximize the response, especially improving the 2015, pp. 192–197.
overshoot performances, more advanced tuning methods, such [11] G. R. Gress, “Natural Pitch Stabilization of Bicopters in Hover Using
as involving genetic algorithm [20], particle swarm Lift-Propeller Gyroscopics,” J. Guid. Control. Dyn., vol. 41, no. 2, pp.
476–487, Feb. 2018.
optimization [21], iterative-tuning method [22] or another
49 Jurnal Teknik Elektro Vol. 11 No. 2
Juli - Desember 2019
[12] J. M. Bustamante, C. A. Herrera, E. S. Espinoza, C. A. Escalante, S. [18] M. Reyad, M. Arafa, and E. A. Sallam, “An optimal PID controller for
Salazar, and R. Lozano, “Design and Construction of a UAV VTOL in a qaudrotor system based on DE algorithm,” in 2016 11th International
Ducted-Fan and Tilt-Rotor Configuration,” in 2019 16th International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES), 2016, pp.
Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and 444–451.
Automatic Control (CCE), 2019, pp. 1–6. [19] E. Susanto, A. Surya Wibowo, and E. Ghiffary Rachman, “Fuzzy
[13] Fahmizal, M. Arrofiq, E. Apriaskar, and A. Mayub, “Rigorous Swing Up Control and Optimal State Feedback Stabilization for Self-
Modelling Steps on Roll Movement of Balancing Bicopter using Multi- Erecting Inverted Pendulum,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 6496–6504,
level Periodic Perturbation Signals,” in 6th International Conference 2020.
on Instrumentation, Control, and Automation (ICA), 2019, pp. 52–57. [20] Y. Qin, G. Zhao, Q. Hua, L. Sun, and S. Nag, “Multiobjective Genetic
[14] M. Z. Fadel, M. G. Rabie, and A. M. Youssef, “Modeling, Simulation Algorithm-Based Optimization of PID Controller Parameters for Fuel
and Control of a Fly-by-wire Flight Control System Using Classical Cell Voltage and Fuel Utilization,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 12, pp.
PID and Modified PI-D Controllers,” J. Eur. des Systèmes Autom., vol. 1–20, Jun. 2019.
52, no. 3, pp. 267–276, Aug. 2019. [21] M. I. Solihin, L. F. Tack, and M. L. Kean, “Tuning of PID Controller
[15] T. T. Hlaing, “Simulation of Ziegler-Nichols PID Tuning for Position Using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO),” Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf.
Control of DC Servo Motor,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ., vol. 9, no. 7, p. Technol., vol. 1, no. 4, p. 458, 2011.
p9184, Jul. 2019. [22] F. S. M. Alkhafaji, W. Z. W. Hasan, M. M. Isa, and N. Sulaiman, “A
[16] A. A. Aly and F. A. Salem, “A New Accurate Analytical Expression novel method for tuning PID controller,” J. Telecommun. Electron.
for Rise Time Intended for Mechatronics Systems Performance Comput. Eng., vol. 10, no. 1–12, pp. 33–38, 2018.
Evaluation and Validation,” Int. J. Autom. Control Intell. Syst., vol. 1, [23] A. Triwiyatno, S. Sumardi, and E. Apriaskar, “Robust fuzzy control
no. 2, pp. 51–60, 2015. design using genetic algorithm optimization approach: case study of
[17] R. C. Dorf and R. H. Bishop, Modern Control Systems, 12th ed. New spark ignition engine torque control,” Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 14, no. 3,
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011. pp. 1–13, 2017.