See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359160377

ME464: System Dynamics and Control Modelling and Closed-Loop Yaw Control
of a One Degree-of-Freedom Tail-plane COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEM

Preprint · March 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 94

1 author:

Ibad Hussain
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology
15 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibad Hussain on 11 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GHULAM ISHAQ KHAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

ME464: System Dynamics and Control

Modelling and Closed-Loop Yaw Control of a One
Degree-of-Freedom Tail-plane
COMPLEX ENGINEERING PROBLEM

Presented to: Prof. S. M. Ahmad

Name: Reg. No:

Ali Hamza 2018059
Amna Qaisar 2018066
Faraz Ahmad 2018111
Huzaifa Rehan 2018160
Ibad Hussain 2018161
Muhammad Hashir Rehan 2018280
Muhammad Hasnain 2018281

Page 1 of 19
 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 3: Problem Statement..................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 4: Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 5: Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 8
PID Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Mathematical Modelling................................................................................................................................. 9
Transfer Function......................................................................................................................................... 9
Steady State Error ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Time Constant............................................................................................................................................. 12
SIMULINK Model............................................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER 6: Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 14
PID Controller Without Disturbance ...................................................................................................... 14
PID Controller with Disturbance ............................................................................................................. 15
Implemented PID model ............................................................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER 7: Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER 8: References .................................................................................................................................. 19

Page 2 of 19
 CHAPTER 1: Abstract

An airplane has three principal axes yaw, pitch, and roll. Controlling these motions is
crucial for controlling the plane’s motion. Yaw is the right and left motion of the plane. A
rudder is used in planes to control its yaw. In this study, we designed a PID controller for
controlling a lab tail plane’s yaw position. For designing the PID controller first we
measured the response of tail planes’ yaw in the lab, without using any controller. Without
a controller, its response had a high overshoot value and the system was unable to achieve
its steady state. We used this experimental response for finding a transfer function and
used this transfer function with a PID controller to simulate the plane’s yaw in the Simulink
environment. Using the trial-and-error method, the best values of KP, KD and KI were found
which were able to minimize the system overshot and make its steady-state response
approach the input reference value. This PID controller was then implemented in the lab on
the actual model and obtained the plane’s yaw response. From the response, we observed
that by really implementing this PID the overshoot and settling time is reduced, and the
system reaches its reference value (input) at its steady state.
Keywords: tail-plane, yaw angle, PID controllers

Page 3 of 19
 CHAPTER 2: Introduction

In this complex engineering problem, we are required to develop the fundamental

understanding behind the Modelling and closed-loop yaw control of a one-degree-of-
freedom tailplane. Before we dive into the complications of this problem, we need to
understand how systems and controls engineering is related to it and an be used to solve
this problem. Systems engineering is a vast known field with applications in numerous
fields of engineering and especially control engineering.
The tailplane exhibits two degree of freedom (DOF) motion. The vertical and the lateral
dynamics: these movements in the plane terminology are more commonly known as yaw
and pitch. However, as mentioned earlier for this report we will be taking under
consideration one degree of freedom tailplane i.e., yaw. Yaw is basically the twisting, or
rotation of a plane or aircraft about the vertical axis. Any plane has three-dimensional
movement, and one of those is yaw, other two being roll and pitch. A sudden or abrupt
change in any of the dimensional movement, plane can become highly unstable as all three
contribute majorly to maintain balance and stability of plane above ground. For yaw
controlling, we have rudder, it is a primary flight control surface which controls rotation
about the vertical axis of an aircraft, movement referred to as "yaw". The rudder is a
movable surface that is mounted on the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer or fin.
For this problem we have a tailplane mounted in front of a wind tunnel, that is used for
varying air velocities. The whole rig setup is further aided with sensors that allow real time
data acquisition of both yaw and pitch in the computer. In addition, we can enable to
actuate the elevator and rudder via servomotors.
Before technological advancement were made in this area, pilots had invented yaw string,
also commonly known as slip string. It is basically a piece of yarn, which was carefully
fixed at the nose of the aircraft, so that it doesn’t compromise the view of pilot. It worked
on the simple methodology, in whichever direction the yarn blew, pilot had to apply more
pressure in that direction. Ideally speaking, yaw string should have been always at the
center. Recent developments in this field have introduced turn coordinator which helps the
pilot to know the rate of yaw directly from the display screen. Yaw damper is another
modern invention that is used to reduce undesirable tendencies of an aircraft to oscillate in
a repetitive rolling and yawning motion. Hence this decreases the workload of the pilot
drastically.

Page 4 of 19
 CHAPTER 3: Problem Statement

Now we are familiar how important Yaw parameter is for any kind of aircraft, thus for that
purpose we in this report are required to model and simulate the yaw control over a tail
plane. The benefit of this simulation will be that when we need to manufacture the ruddle,
we through iterations will exactly know the most optimized parameters for our aircraft
without actual experimentation.
The tail plane schematic shown in the figure _ below is used to mock the actual aircraft in
flight conditions. Wind turbine is used to provide air velocity, assisting experimentation for
rudder. Using tools on MATLAB/SIMULINK we will test experiment for different yawn
angles by changing servo motor input. Servo motor is responsible to operate both the
elevator, used for up and down elevation, and the rudder.

Figure 1: 2-DOF tailplane

The main objective for this complex engineering problem is to:

1. To develop detailed mathematical model for yaw position in time domain from the
provided experimental data.
2. To develop the transfer function between yaw angle and rudder deflection (input),
while ensuring system gain is modeled too.
3. To design closed loop controllers in MATLAB/Simulink simulation environment that
satisfies the following performance criteria:
a. Open loop and Closed-loop stability analysis.
b. Commanded reference signal tracking.
c. The controller must be able to reject the disturbance
d. Reasonably fast response as compared to open loop response without actuator
saturation or system becoming unstable.
e. Percentage overshoot of less than 30% and improved settling time as
compared to open loop response.
4. Finally, evaluate the real-time performance on test rig based on the tuned PID gains
satisfying desired performance criteria.

Page 5 of 19
 CHAPTER 4: Literature Review

Aircrafts are controlled via three of their main control surfaces called as rudders, elevators,
and ailerons for control of yaw, pitch and roll respectively. Thus, operating these using
some input source or signal gives off error in final output due to disturbances and errors
which are really sensitive in flights. Therefore, flight control systems have been introduced
to control all the movements with utmost precision using a PID controller.
The method starts with mathematical modelling of the system to determine parameters for
response of signal.
A literature by (Fossen, 2011) develops the mathematical models for both aircrafts and
satellites using vectorial notations for each of the forces. Three axes have been defined as
wind, stability, and body axis. Kinematic and kinetic equations were then incorporated. For
linearization Perturbation theory have been utilized. Decoupled systems have been
analyzed to find the overall aerodynamic coefficients. Stability models have been discussed
in the end. The same approach has been applied to satellites for the final mathematical
models.
In a research article by (Peyada, 2012), an experimental mathematical model has been
formulated using wind tunnel test rig system. A five-degree-of-freedom (DOF) rig system
has been used to simulate near free flight maneuvers inside the wind tunnel by exciting a
scaled down model aircraft through various types of control surface deflections. A
mathematical model that incorporates five DOF in aircraft motion has been developed. The
five DOF equations of motion of the rig system are formulated using a vector and matrix
approach. The simulated flight data, generated from a five DOF mathematical model, has
been used to estimate the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft. The maximum likelihood
method has been used to achieve close estimates of the parameters by minimizing the
error between simulated and computed response.
After evaluating the mathematical model, PID should be incorporated, designed and tuned
for performing of flight controls.
(Leal & Abeykoon, 2021) discusses the PID control for a quadcopter using fuzzy system
which means to predict the future movements specifically vibrational disturbances to act
before-hand eliminating the effect. The main objective is to study the behavior of different
controllers when the model is working under linear and/or non-linear conditions, and
therefore, to define the possible limitations of the controllers. Five different control
systems are proposed to improve the control performance, mainly the stability of the
system. Additionally, a path simulator was also developed with the intention of describing
the vehicle’s movements and hence to detect faults intuitively. The proposed PID and
Fuzzy-PD control systems showed promising responses to the tests carried out. The results
indicated the limits of the PID controller over non-linear conditions and the effectiveness of
the controllers was enhanced by the implementation of a genetic algorithm to autotune the
controllers in order to adapt to changing conditions.

Page 6 of 19
A comparison has been laid between using conventional control system vs using PID or any
other controller as Kalman in research by (Nilar Lwin, 2014). It has been found that PID
controller have better dynamic performance than the traditional controller in respect of
simpler design, higher precision, easier implement, etc. At the same time, the control effect
will be significantly improved. In addition, Kalman & PID control is superior in short
transition, good stability, anti-disturbance, good control and etc., it also fulfills the
requirement of real-time and accurate control.
There are various different methods for designing of the PID controller. There are three
main ways to tune a PID including heuristic tuning, rule-based tuning, and model-based
tuning. But, first a PID controller should be designed as per system requirements. Multiple
methods could be used for its design and determination of unknown parameters. A method
of hit and trial could be used know as Ziegler-Nichols method. The primary benefit of the
Ziegler-Nichols technique is that it gives a starting point for determining the PID controller.
The controller's contribution is gradually reduced or increased until the response wavers
indefinitely following a minor outside disturbing impact or step change (Patel, 2020).
Another method called as Oscillation Relay that uses linear oscillation which should be
detected at the controller output. In fact, the Ziegler - Nichols tuning scheme is also used,
where the controller gain is experimentally determined to just bring the plant to the brink
of instability is a form of model identification. This is known as the ultimate gain Ku. Relay-
based auto tuning is a simple way to tune PID controller that minimizes the possibility of
operating the plant close to the stability limit (Araújo, 2012).
The Root-Locus approach is a good and simple way to acquire the controller's settings. This
is because the Root-Locus approach is intended to demonstrate where the open poles and
zeros should be changed to get the desired outcome. In any event, the disadvantage of
using this method was that it required the use of a direct model, which was just an estimate
of the complicated features of the UAV (Jisha Shaji, 2015). The gains are resolved in terms
of two parameters: the time of the swaying that occurs at a definite addition and the
duration of the swaying that occurs at a definitive addition.

Page 7 of 19
 CHAPTER 5: Methodology

PID Analysis

The goal of this project was to solve a real-world problem: controlling a tailplane's yaw
angle. A rudder input of 15 degrees, i.e., a disturbance, was delivered at the wind tunnel's
specified speed, and the plane moved to its proper position. The system's reaction was
plotted here. Figure below shows that the system has a few issues, including overshoot, an
inaccuracy in the steady state value, and a delayed overall reaction. The goal was to create
a PID controller that would alleviate all of these issues by lowering the system's error.
We began by analyzing the system's plot response and creating a linear transfer function
for the nonlinear real-world situation. We constructed a PID controller after successfully
creating the system model by remaining within the defined limits that the output at the
controller does not exceed a certain limit. The input is given in the form of a PWM signal
that is then mapped to a corresponding angle through the reference of a look up table for
specific wind tunnel velocities. In our case 7.4 m/s. However, the transfer functions are
formed with a ratio degree/degree.

Figure 2: Output of the experimental data

Page 8 of 19
 Figure 3: Input of the experimental data in the form of PWM

Mathematical Modelling

Transfer Function

Figure 4: Experimental Yaw Response of Tail- Plane

From Figure 4, we obtain the following:

Peak angle: -16.61°
Steady state angle: -14.4°
Peak time: 20.6 – 18.7 = 1.9s

Page 9 of 19
 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 − 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 16.61 − (14.4)
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑡 = =
𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 14.4
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑡 = 0.153
−𝜋ζ
√1−ζ 2
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑡 = 𝑒
−𝜋ζ
√1−ζ 2
0.153 = 𝑒
−𝜋ζ
√1−ζ 2
ln (0.153) = ln (𝑒 )
−𝜋ζ
−1.877 = −
√1 − ζ2

(−1.877)2
ζ=√
(−1.877)2 + 𝜋 2

𝛇 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟏𝟑
Now to calculate natural frequency we use peak time = 1.9 s .
𝜋
𝑇=
ω𝑛 √1 − ζ2
𝜋
ω𝑛 =
(1.9)√1 − (0.513)2

𝛚𝒏 = 𝟏. 𝟗𝟐 𝒓𝒂𝒅/𝒔
For transfer function, the second order differential is:

𝜃̈ + 2𝜁ω𝑛 𝜃̇ + ω2𝑛 𝜃 = 𝑘 𝑢(𝑡) (1)

Where 𝜃 = Yaw Angle
Substituting values into the equation:

𝜃̈ + 1.97𝜃̇ + 3.68𝜃 = 𝑘 𝑢(𝑡) (2)

Applying Laplace transform,
U(s)𝑘
(𝑠 2 𝑌(𝑠) − 𝑠𝑦(0) − 𝑦̇ (0)) + 1.97(𝑠𝑌(𝑠) − 𝑦(0)) + 3.68𝑌(𝑠)) = (3)
𝑠

Assuming initial conditions:

𝑦(0) = 0,
𝑦̇ (0) = 0,

Page 10 of 19
Putting these values:
U(s)𝑘
𝑌(𝑠)(𝑠 2 + 1.97𝑠 + 3.68) = (4)
𝑠

Apply Final value Theorem:

𝜃( ∞ ) = lim(s → 0) 𝑠 𝑌(𝑠) (5)
Input= u(t) = 15° unit, whose Laplace is:
15
U(s) = 𝑠

𝜃 ss= 14.4°,
k 15
𝜃( ∞ ) = lim(s → 0) (𝑠)( )( )
(𝑠 2 + 1.97𝑠 + 3.68) 𝑠
So,
(3.68)(14.4) = 𝑘 (15)
𝒌 = 𝟑. 𝟓𝟑
Transfer function is given by eq 4:
𝑌(𝑠) 𝑘
= 2
𝑈(𝑠) 𝑠 + 2𝜁ω𝑛 𝑠 + ω2𝑛
𝑌(𝑠) 3.53
= 2
𝑈(𝑠) 𝑠 + 1.97𝑠 + 3.68
Steady State Error

EE(t) = Uref − Y(t)

With step input of:
Uref = 15° and applying Laplace transformation,
15 15(1.9)
E(s) = −
𝑠 s(s2 + 1.96s + 3.88)
15(𝑠2 + 1.96𝑠 + 3.88) − 3.53(15)𝑠
𝐸(𝑠) =
𝑠(𝑠2 + 1.96𝑠 + 3.88)
lim(s → 0) sE(s) = ess
15(3.88) − 15(3.53
ess =
3.88
𝐞𝐬𝐬 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟓°

Page 11 of 19
 Time Constant

Time constant is defined as the 63% of 𝑦ss.

63%×𝑦ss = 0.63×14.4 = 9.072 s
At 9.072 seconds from Figure 4, we obtain time constant τ
τ = 1.06 s
The settling time is 4 times the time constant:
τs = 4 ∗ τ = 4.24 sec
which is nearly same as we see from the Figure 2, τs = 4.7 sec
SIMULINK Model

Figure 5: Established SIMULINK Model

Figure 5 shows the PID controller model created on SIMULINK for the 1-DOF tailplane
Yaw pitch analysis. The model incorporates the mechanical aspect of the system by modelling
the transfer function through the use of the second order mass-damping equation. The
detailed derivation and calculations are shown in the mathematical modelling section of

Page 12 of 19
the report. With the inclusion of the mechanical system the model includes the PID
controller which provides a closed loop feedback output. The output of the model includes
the response of the open loop controller which is basically the step response passing
through transfer function, The disturbance which is a step input along with the yaw step
input. The output also includes the closed response with and without the disturbance.

Page 13 of 19
 CHAPTER 6: Results and Discussion

Validation of the Transfer Function Model

Figure 6: Trace of PID Response Over Experimental Output

The above plot shows the trace of the output of the transfer function closed loop model over the
output achieved through the experimental data. This result is the validation that the obtained
transfer function through the mathematical modelling is correct. The experimental output data was
taken at an angle of 15 degree and reaches the steady state in approximately five seconds. The
response of the PID controller reaches the steady states about a second earlier. This correlates with
the resemblance between the two output.

Figure 7: Scope Display of PID Controller Without Disturbance

Page 14 of 19
A step input of 15 degree is applied to the controller. The desired output is the input given
to the controller. The open loop response shows the steady-state being reached at 13.8
degree. Through the implementation of PID the output converges to with the step input
after approximately six seconds. The values of the gains are as follows:
• Proportional gain = 2
• Integral gain= 1.0
• Derivative gain= 0.11

PID Controller with Disturbance

Disturbance is given to the controller as a step response. Disturbance is given with an

amplitude of 5 degree after the first 10 seconds of the response. It can be observed from
the figure above that the PID reacts to the disturbance. A reaction of 2 degrees is noticed at
the 10 second mark and reaches the steady state again at the 22 second mark almost after
7 seconds. The disturbance is very well dealt with through the closed loop feedback
mechanism after the controller reaches the steady state again as the disturbance is then
completely rejected.

Figure 8: Scope Display of PID Controller with Disturbance

Page 15 of 19
Implemented PID model

Figure 9: Scope Display of Implemented PID Model

The generated model is then implemented with multiple step responses given after a
specific time interval. The closed loop responds well to the increasing step inputs and
converges to the steady state within good time. The time taken to reach the steady state for
the open loop controller and the closed loop controller is nearly the same. However, due to
the implementation of the proportional gain the overshoot value is a bit high. Increasing
the derivative gain value and the proportional gain the input given to the PID controller
itself would have increased to more than 300 degrees.

Figure 10: Output of Implemented PID Controller at 2Hz

Page 16 of 19
 Figure 10: Output of Implemented PID Controller at 4Hz

The final part of the report involves the implementation of the model on to the practical
setup. The PID controller was implemented on two different actuator transfer functions at
2Hz and 4Hz respectively. The input responses were given at step inputs of 0, 10, -10, -5, 5
and then back to zero. The main overshoot is observed during the 10 to -10 degree change.
The actuator transfer function acts as a low pass filter. Increasing the frequency of the low
pass filter decreases the time to achieve steady-state as can be seen in the latter half of the
two responses.

Page 17 of 19
 CHAPTER 7: Conclusion

In this study, we simulated a tail plane’s yaw response by designing a PID controller for it,
to control its rudder position. First of we found the yaw’s response without any controller,
for this we used a tailplane mounted in front of a wind tunnel, that is used for varying air
velocities. At a fixed air speed, we changed its yaw position and checked its response,
optical encoders were mounted on the plane for this purpose. The response was having a
high overshoot and steady state error. This experimental response was used to find out a
transfer function of the tailplane system. This transfer function was used in Simulink to
simulate the yaw response of the plane. A PID controller was included, and closed loop
feedback system of plane was simulated in Simulink. By trial and error, we found the
optimized values of KP, KD and KI. At these gain values, the system was having low
overshoot of nearly 1°, low settling time of 7 seconds and the system achieved its reference
(input) angle at its steady state. Same PID controller was implemented in the lab, on the
same real model, and the plane’s yaw response was observed. The PID controller was
successfully tested for various angle inputs i.e 5° and 10°. We saw that the plane’s yaw
response for long range of angles got stable and reached its reference input at steady
states.

Page 18 of 19
 CHAPTER 8: References

[1] Araújo, M. S. (2012). Relay Methods and Process Reaction Curves: Practical
Applications, Introduction to PID Controllers - Theory, Tuning and Application to
Frontier Areas. Tiradentes University (UNIT), Aracaju, Brazil.
[2] Fossen, T. I. (2011). Mathematical models for control of aircrafts and satellites. NTNU.
[3] Jisha Shaji, A. R. (2015). Pitch Control of Flight System using Dynamic Inversion and
PID Controller. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH &
TECHNOLOGY (IJERT).
[4] Leal, I., & Abeykoon, C. (2021). Design, Simulation, Analysis and Optimization of PID
and Fuzzy based Control systems for a Quad Copter. Electronics.
[5] Nilar Lwin, H. M. (2014). Implementation Of Flight Control System Based.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH .
[6] Patel, V. (2020). Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Method. Springer.
[7] Peyada, N. K. (2012). Mathematical modelling, simulation, and estimation of aircraft
parameters using five degree-of-freedom dynamic test rig. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering.

Page 19 of 19

View publication stats