Copyright © IFAC 2007

Symp. Cost Oriented Automation, La Habana, Cuba, February 2007

DEFINITION AND MODELLING OF THE COMMUNICATION ARCHITECTURE FOR THE

CONTROL OF A HELICOPTER-DRONE

Ján Galdun*,**, Rony Ghostine***, Jean-Marc Thiriet*, Ján Liguš**, Ján Sarnovský**

* Laboratoire d’Automatique de Grenoble (LAG UMR 5528 CNRS-INPG-UJF)

BP 46, F-38402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex
jan.galdun@tuke.sk, jean-marc.thiriet@ujf-grenoble.fr

** Department of Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence, Technical University of Košice,

Letná 9, SK-04012 Košice
jan.galdun@tuke.sk, jan.ligus@tuke.sk, jan.sarnovsky@tuke.sk

*** Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy (CNRS UMR 7039)

Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine
2 avenue de la Forêt-de-Haye, 54516 Vandoeuvre, France,
rony.ghostine@ensem.inpl-nancy.fr

Abstract: This paper presents a laboratory mini-helicopter model and its

implementation and simulation as a networked control system. A model of the mini-
helicopter, together with the choice of a communication architecture, is proposed.
Simulations are effected to study the mentioned system as a networked control
system in consideration of network delays, etc. Proposed simulations are achieved
thanks to the TrueTime framework which is a Matlab / Simulink based toolbox. This
toolbox provides several types of networks which are briefly described in the paper.
The mentioned system is simulated by using two types of networks – CAN and
Ethernet wire network. Results show differences in quantitative deviations among
simulations of the mini-helicopter as system without network and with network.
Copyright © 2007 IFAC

Keywords: Networked control system, TrueTime, CAN, Ethernet, communication

architecture.

1. INTRODUCTION embedded system based on the MaRTE OS

Distributed control systems are a very important part
of the automation control field because they support
the implementation of complex control systems and
also can offer a better diagnostic than the system
with the same or better control results (depend on the
control algorithm and other aspects). A lot of
advantages of these systems are the main reason for
their application from laboratories up to the industry
field.
In this paper we would like to present a laboratory
mini-helicopter model and its simulation as a
networked control system by using the TrueTime
Matlab / Simulink based toolbox (Anderson, et al.,
2005; Cervin, et al., 2003). The mentioned
laboratory model is composed of two basic parts – a
mobile mini-helicopter model which consists of
sensors, actuators and a communication interface and
a static control base which could encapsulate the
control or diagnosis algorithm and a communication
interface. The static control base represents an
environment.
The paper is organized as follows. In the first section
is presented background of this research which
involves previous work. In the next part is described
the mini-helicopter real model structure and its parts.
In the third part we briefly present the mathematical
model of the system prepared by (Castillo, et al.
2004) which is realised by using Matlab / Simulink.
In the other part we present the mini-helicopter
system as a networked control system prepared by
using the TrueTime toolbox; in this part we propose
to add a network in the model of Castillo, Dzul and
Lozano. In the last part of this paper are presented
results of the simulation. Some problems are shown
with the application of distributed control system or
networked control system.
In further text we write about the mini-helicopter
model by using different words such as helicopter-
drone, helicopter model, rotorcraft and model with
the same meaning.
 2. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Current research on mini-helicopter model is
motivated by the fact that is necessary to find the
type of the network which is suitable for control the
real-time helicopter system.
Castillo, Dzul and Lozano (2004) were proposed
controller to control mini-helicopter based on
Lyapunov analysis. Guenard, Hamel and Moreau
(2005) were proposed intuitive control strategy with
using non-linear controller which was developed too.
Another type of the controller and the control scheme
for mini-helicopter altitude stabilisation was
proposed by Tayebi and McGivlray (2006). Proposed
controllers are designed as a part of the system
without network.
Need for implementation the network into the
proposed control system is required for control mini-
helicopter with using PC. It means displacement
controller hardware from helicopter’s body directly
to the PC.
Implementation the network into the current control
scheme opens the space for research on the field of
the networked control systems or distributed control
systems. Innovated control scheme up to networked
control system could to add advantages proposed by
this type of the control into the current control
system.
3. MINI-HELICOPTER REAL MODEL
DESCRIPTION
As was mentioned above, the whole control system
is composed of the mobile helicopter model and its
control part – a static control base (PC). This
embedded system is interconnected with a 3-D
Tracker system (Polhemus) to measure the helicopter
position and orientation. The communication
between Polhemus and PC is at the moment realised
by an RS 232 communication interface, but we plan
to implement communication network, this point is
discussed further.
The helicopter model is composed of the following
parts:
Sensors:
- Three magnetometers – measure the intensity of
the local magnetic field,
- three gyrometers – measure angular speed of the
helicopter,
- three accelerometers – acceleration measuring,
- sensors for measuring the angular velocity of
each rotor,
- six ultrasonic sensors – used to measure the
distance from any obstacle and define the position of
the helicopter.
Actuators:
- Four motors.
Other parts:
- Four propellers,
- four branches – arranged in a cross,
- electronics – placed in the middle of the cross,
- others.
Detailed basic physical characteristics of the mini-
helicopter model are shown in the table 1. This table
describes weight and size of the helicopter’s parts
and the distances between them. Figure 1 shown
abovementioned discussed real mini-helicopter
model.
In the case of the static control base, this part of the
whole system is based on the MaRTE OS
environment which is a real-time kernel for
embedded application (Lozano, et al., 2004; Castillo,
et al., 2004). This real-time kernel provides C and
Ada language interfaces. These interfaces allow
development mixed C-Ada applications for control
and diagnostic of the mini-helicopter model.
Table 1: Basic physical characteristic of the Mini-
Helicopter laboratory model
Mini-Helicopter’s part / distances Weight / size
Helicopter (excluding batteries) 320 g
Batteries 200 g
Maximum length 74 cm
Diameter of rotors 29 cm
Height 11 cm
Distance between motor and
20.5 cm
center of gravity
Fig 1. Mini-helicopter real model
The next section of the paper proposes a short
description of the mini-helicopter mathematical
model.
3.1 Mathematical model.
In this part of the paper we briefly present the
mathematic model proposed by Castillo, Dzul and
Lozano (Castillo, et al., 2005) and adapted by
(Guerrero Castellanos, et al. 2005). To obtain a
mathematical model was used a Lagrangian
approach. The generalized coordinates for the With defining generalized moments τ on the η
rotorcraft are: variables
q = (x, y, z,ψ ,θ , φ ) , ⎛τ ψ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
τ ≅ ⎜τ θ ⎟,
where x, y and z denote the position of the centre of
⎜τ ⎟
mass of the rotorcraft and angles ψ, θ and φ ⎝ φ ⎠
represent Euler angles (yaw, pitch and roll angles)
which denote the orientation of the rotorcraft. These the Coriolis-Centripetal vector
coordinates are divided into translational and
rotational coordinates:
ξ = ( x, y, z ) , η = (ψ ,θ , φ ) .
⎛
V (η ,η& ) = ⎜⎜ J& −
1 ∂ T
(
2 ∂η
η& J )⎞⎟⎟η& = −C (η ,η& )η& ,
⎝ ⎠
The translational kinetic energy of the rotorcraft is:
and with other mathematical modifications was
m
Ttrans ≅ ξ& T ξ& , obtained this model:
2 ⎛ − sin θ ⎞ ⎛ 0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
mξ&& = u ⎜ cos θ sin φ ⎟ + ⎜ 0 ⎟
where m denotes the mass of the rotorcraft. The ⎜ cos θ cos φ ⎟ ⎜ − mg ⎟
rotational kinetic energy is: ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
1
Trot ≅ η& T Jη& , J η&& = −C (η ,η& )η& + τ
2

where matrix J represents the inertia matrix. And 3.2 TrueTime toolbox application
potential energy is given by:
U = mgz . The replacement of the classic control structure by a
networked control structure is a first step to add
Thus the Lagrangian is: network interface into the Matlab / Simulink
.
simulation (Anderson, et al., 2005; Cervin, et al.,
L(q, q ) = Ttrans + Trot − U
. 2003). Both parts of the system, helicopter and base,
m 1 are modelled by using classical Simulink blocks
= ξ& T Jξ& + η& T Jη& − mgz
2 2 whereas the TrueTime library provides specific
blocks for the network interface modelling. This
The model of the rotorcraft dynamics is obtained library is developed in C++ language. All the
from the Euler-Lagrange equations with external developed files are compiled in Matlab by using an
generalized force: external C++ compiler.
d ∂L ∂L
− =F, The controller (static base) communicates via
dt ∂ q.
∂q network with sensors and actuators which are placed
on the moveable part of the whole system – mini-
helicopter. Controller receives 9 signals from the
where F = (Fξ, τ) and Fξ is the translational force
helicopter sensors which are used by the control
applied to rotorcraft due to the control inputs. Small
algorithm to compute actuating value for each one
body forces are ignored and thus:
propeller drive (actuator). Structure of the described
⎛0⎞ system modelled by TrueTime is shown in the figure
⎜ ⎟ 2.
Fˆ = ⎜ 0 ⎟ ,
⎜u ⎟ TrueTime provide few types of networks which can
⎝ ⎠
be used for simulation of the NCS. These networks
are divided into two categories – wire and wireless
where control input u = f1 + f2 + f3 + f4 and f1 = kiωi
networks. Provided wire network by TrueTime are:
where ki > 0 is constant and ωi is the angular speed
- Ethernet (CSMA / CD)
of the i-th motor. Then
- CAN (CSMA / AMP)
Fξ = RFˆ , - Round Robin (Token Bus)
where R is the transformation matrix representing the - TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
orientation of the helicopter (for cos was used c and - FDMA (Frequency Division Multiple Access)
for sin was used s). - Switched Ethernet

⎛ cψcθ sψsθ − sθ ⎞ Offered wireless networks are follows:

⎜ ⎟ - WLAN (802.11 b/g)
R = ⎜ cψsθsφ − sψcφ sψsθsφ + cψsφ cθsφ ⎟ - ZigBee (802.15.4)
⎜ cψsθcφ + sψsφ sψsθcφ − cψsφ cθcφ ⎟⎠
⎝
The network interconnects 15 nodes. 9 sensors which
send actual system output values to the controller and
other 4 nodes (actuators) which receive actuating
value from the controller. Each node is represented
by TrueTime kernel (Anderson, et al., 2005) which
encapsulates D/A, A/D converter, receiver, sender,
etc…
In simulation we used CAN and Ethernet network
model (Pekhteryev, et al., 2005; Kumar, 2001). CAN
and Ethernet networks were chosen to show
differences in quality of the control between network
which is determined for control applications and
network developed for wide fields of applications.
TrueTime Matlab / Simulink model
Mini-helicopter
Sensors
N Static control base
E
T
W Controller
Model
O The orientation of the helicopter in the space is
R described by Euler angles (yaw, pitch and roll
K
Actuators
Fig. 2. Structure of the networked control system.
CAN network uses CSMA/AMP arbitration (Carrier
Sense Multiple Access with Arbitration on Message
Priority). If the network is busy, the sender waits
until the network is free. If a collision occurred (two
transmissions are being started within 1
microsecond), the message with the highest priority
will continue its transmission. When two messages
with the same priority are sent simultaneously an
arbitrary will choose first one to continue its
transmission. However, the networked control
system which is discussed in this paper is composed
of nodes with different priorities. The same
”philosophy” is used in the real networked control
systems where CAN network is used.
CAN arbitration system does not cause the delays in
the network but only when amount of transmitted
datum is acceptable by network’s data rate. To
determine whether CAN data rate could be sufficient
we can use very simple equations:
1 simulation were very similar. Hence only two
8 Ad nN
T ,
s=
br
where Ad is amount of data which could be sent by
each node in bytes (8 – represent bits per byte), T
sample period each of the node, nN is number of
nodes and br is bit rate of the network in bit per
second. When s is lower than 1 network bit rate
could be sufficient to transfer all required
informations from all nodes within sample period T.
If it be to the contrary (more than 1) than network bit
rate is not sufficient to transfer required information
within sample period T.
Nodes connected to Ethernet network use CSMA/CD
arbitration (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Detection). When the network is occupied
by data transmission then another node will start with
data sending after the first finished. When a collision
occurs (two messages are being started within 1
microsecond) then the sender will back off for a time
defined by:
min _frame_size
tbackoff = ×R,
data_rate
where R = rand(0, 2K-1) (discrete uniform
distribution) and K is the number of collision in a
row. After waiting the node will try to send data
again.
4. SIMULATIONS
angles) or quaternion. Mentioned quaternion
represents state of the system. The main aim of the
control is to obtain required system state q = [q0, q1,
q2, q3] = [1 0 0 0] which can be considered as a
stable position of the system. This quaternion
represents the attitude of the model (Guenard, et al.,
2005) (Tanwani, et al., 2006) and describes
helicopter’s orientation in the space.
First provided simulation of the system was realised
without network, as a classic control structure, to
demonstrate the required behaviour of the system (as
a reference). This simulation is shown in the figure 3.
We can see that the system has obtained the desired
state after two seconds of simulations.
Other two simulations were realised with two
different networks i.e. CAN and Ethernet network. In
the case of CAN network was used 1 Mbit/s bit rate
in comparison with 10 Mbit/s bit rate of the Ethernet
network. This bit rate was chosen because results of
the simulations with lower bit rate were insufficient
(see figure 6). Thus, to obtain a better result it was
necessary to increase the data rate up to 10 Mbit/s.
Thus three simulations were provided i.e. system
without network, with CAN network (1 Mbit/s) and
with Ethernet network (10 Mbit/s). The results of the
elements of the quaternion q = [q0, q1, q2, q3] were
compared with different data rate. This comparison is
shown in the figures 4 and figure 5, where are
compared curves which represent element q0 and q2
of quaternion q. The curves were obtained as output
the simulation with two different networks: CAN (1
Mbit/s) and Ethernet (10 Mbit/s). In the case of the
simulations with network, thus networked control
system simulation, similar results were obtained
when CAN control network was used. Obtained
curves are almost the same shape as in the case of the
simulation without network.

Finally a simulation of the system with Ethernet
network is presented, with the same bite rate as the
CAN network (1 Mbit/s). Obtained insufficient result
is shown in figure 4. As it was mentioned before, to
obtain a better result it was necessary to increase the
data rate up to 10 Mbit/s which is a usual value for
Ethernet networks. Figures 4 and 5 show that after
increasing the data rate the system has reached the
required state q.
All simulations were provided with sample period
T = 0.01s. Thus, each node of the network (sensors,
controller, etc.) sends the required data within the
mentioned sample period T.
1.2
1 0.07
0.8
0.6
q
This result confirms that CAN network is designed
for transfer small amount of data in small time
intervals (Balogh et al., 2001). In combination with
arbitration the medium access method by message
priority are informations transmitted without delays
but only when amount of transmitted data does not
exceed network’s data rate. We can see that medium
access method and combination other parameters of
the system (sample period, bit rate, etc.) has
significant influence to system behaviour (Lian, et
al., 2002). Hence CAN network is able to work with
lower bit rate as Ethernet, however with comparable
results. In the figures 4 and 5 we can see different
delays. These different delays are caused by two
different networks and their different medium access
method.
0.08
Without network
CAN 1Mb/s
q0 Eth 10Mb/s
0.06
q1
0.05
q2
0.04
q3

q2 0.03
0.4
0.02

0.2 0.01

0
0
-0.01

-0.2 -0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time [s] time [s]

Fig. 3. System behaviour without network. Fig. 5. Comparison of the curves q2.

1.005 1
q0
0.8
1 q1
0.6 q2

0.995 q3
Without network 0.4
CAN 1Mb/s
0.2
0.99 Eth 10Mb/s
0
q

0.985
q0

-0.2

0.98 -0.4

-0.6
0.975
-0.8
0.97
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
0.965
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time [s] Fig. 6. Ethernet network with a data rate of 1 Mbit/s.
Fig. 4. Comparison of the curves q0. As we can see, the simulation result of the Ethernet
network (shown in figure 6) was insufficient when
the network data rate was 1 Mbit/s. A solution of this
5. RESULTS problem was found when data rate was increased up
Provided simulations show that differences among to 10 Mbit/s. The reason for the insufficient result
system output obtained by simulation without with 1 Mbit/s network data rate can found in the
network, with 1 Mbit/s CAN network and with 10 medium access method (arbitrary system) too. The
Mbit/s Ethernet network are very small (figure 4 and occurrence of the collisions on the network depends
5). Thus, in the case of both networks with on some characteristics of the NCS such as the
mentioned data rates were obtained results which do number of nodes connected to the network, on the
not disturb the required quality of the control (in network data rate, on the synchronisation among the
comparison with simulation results without network). nodes, on the sampling period, etc (Balogh et al.,
2001). The probability of collisions increases if the
above characteristics are not correctly tuned. When
the mentioned aspects such as data rate, number of
nodes, sample period are not optimally tuned the
system can be destabilised (Lian, et al., 2002) as in
the figure 6. We can see that a low bit rate in
combination with a small sampling period for each
node represents a NCS with none optimally tuned
parameters.
In the model of the presented networked control
system we suppose that all connected nodes are
synchronized. This synchronisation increases the
probability of the collisions because each node send
sampled or computed data with the same sample
period in the same time. Thus, when the system is
synchronized and the sample period of each node is
0.01s, as in mini-helicopter simulation, then the
probability of collisions as well as the delays is
rapidly increasing. In the case of the simulation with
Ethernet network with 1 Mbit/s data rate all of
mentioned conditions (low bit rate, a lot of nodes,
small sample period, etc.) is occurred hence the
system was destabilized. The simulation result show
that Ethernet network is more suitable for application
where they are not sent a lot of data in the short time
intervals. Hence conditions which are required by
networked control systems are not suitable for its
application.
On the basis of obtained results we can suppose that
sending a lot of data in short time intervals via
network with insufficient data rate, can cause
network delays which can make the system unstable.
Hence it is necessary to take care of the network type
determined for application in the conditions of the
networked control systems.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this work is to study Networked Control
Systems, and more precisely to see on performance
parameters of the control network. We are
particularly interested in the influence of these
parameters to stability and reliability of the system.
This approach with using provided simulations is
necessary for realization the real networked control
structure of the mini-helicopter model.
This paper is a contribution to the study of the
influence of the network parameters to stability and
quality of the control realized for networked control
system. Results show difference between using the
network developed especially for control and the
network determined for widely use in common
distributed systems where short time delays are
ignored. We can also see that relation between
network rate and quality of the control is very close.
Simulations show that other parameters have
influence to performance characteristic of the
networked control systems too.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank colleagues and students
from Grenoble: Małgorzata Sztokfisz, Aneel Kumar
Tanwani, Guillermo Fermi, Sylviane Gentil, Suzanne
Lesecq.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M., Henriksson, D., Cervin, A., (2005)
TrueTime 1.3 – Reference Manual, Lung Institute of
Technology.
Balogh, R., Bélai, I., Dorner,J., Drahoš, P., (2001)
Priemyselné komunikácie, STU Bratislava, ISBN 80-
227-1600-6
Castillo, P., Dzul, A., Lozano, R., (2004). Real-Time
Stabilisation and Tracking of a Four Rotor Mini-
Rotorcraft, IEEE Transaction on control systems
technology, Vol 12, No. 4, p. 510 – 516.
Cervin, A., Henriksson, D., Lincoln, B., Eker, J., Arzen,
K.,E., (2003) How Does Control Timing Affect
Performance? Analysis and Simulation of Timing
Using Jitterbug and TrueTime, IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, Vol 23, No. 3, p. 16 – 30.
Cheong SO, J.K (2003). Delay Modelling And Controller
design for networked Control systems. Master of
applied thesis. Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering University of Toronto.
Guenard, N., Hamel, T., Moreau, V., (2005) Dynamic
modeling and intuitive control strategy for an “X4-
flyer”, International Conference on Control and
Automation, 26-29 June 2005, Vol 1, p.141 - 146.
Guerrero Castellanos J.F, S. Lesecq, N. Marchand, and
J.Delamare (2005) A low-cost air data attitude
heading reference system for the tourism airplane
applications. IEEE Sensors.
Kumar P.R., (2001) New Technological Vistas for Systems
and Control: The Example of Wireless Networks,
IEEE Control System Magazine.
Lian, F., L., Moyne, J., R., Tilbury, D., M., (2002)
Network design consideration for distributed control
systems, IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology,
Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 297–307, 2002.Barger, P., J.M.
Thiriet, M. Robert (2003). Safety analysis and
reliability estimation of a networked control system
In: SAFEPROCESS 2003, Washington, D.C, USA.
Ligušova J., Thiriet J.M., Liguš J., Barger P, Effect of
Elements Initialization in Synchronous Networked
control System to Control Quality, RAMS/IEEE
conference 2004 (Annual Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium), Los Angeles, January
2004.
Lozano, R., Castillo, P., Garcia, P., Dzul, A., (2004)
Robust prediction-based control for unstable delay
systems: Application to the yaw control of a mini-
helicopter, Automatica, Vol. 40, p. 603 - 612.
Pekhteryev, G. Sahinoglu, Z. Orlik, P. Bhatti, G.,
(2005) Image Transmission over IEEE 802.15.4 and
ZigBee, Networks Circuits and Systems. IEEE
International Symposium, Vol 4, p. 3539 - 3542
Rufino, J. and P. Verissimo (1995), A study on the
inaccessibility characteristics of the controller area
network, Proceeding of the 2nd International CAN
Conference .
Tanwani, A. K., Galdun, J., Thiriet, J-M., Lesecq, S.,
Gentil, S. Modelling of an experimental networked
drone with consideration of faults, submitted to
ECC’07.
Tayebi, A., McGilvray, S., (2006) Attitude Stabilization of
a VTOL Quadrotor Aircraft, IEEE Transactions on
control systems technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 562 -
571