Proc.

of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

Tutorial for the application of Kanes Method to model a small-size helicopter

Luis A. Sandino1 , Manuel Bejar2 and Anibal Ollero1,3
1 University

of Seville, 2 University Pablo de Olavide, 3 Center for Advanced Aerospace Technologies Seville, SPAIN lsandino@us.es, mbejdom@upo.es, aollero@catec.aero

Abstract This paper presents a tutorial for applying Kanes method to derive a mechanical model of a small-size helicopter. Throughout this development main concepts underlying Kanes methodology are explained in detail. Furthermore, references to other approaches in the eld of classical mechanics are included to analyze the advantages provided by Kanes method when compared to other alternatives. Since this work considers the most general case of two rigid bodies, fuselage and main rotor, the resulting model will account for most signicant modelling issues in the mechanics behaviour of a small-size helicopter, such as gyroscopic effects. Finally it is emphasized that the adopted pedagogical approach should contribute to illustrate the method to beginners.

Keywords: UAS, Helicopter, Mechanical modelling, Kanes method

INTRODUCTION

The various approaches to obtain equations of motion for mechanical systems can be classied as either vector approaches based on the direct use of DAlemberts or Jourdains principles such as Newton-Euler equations or Kanes equations, or scalar approaches based on Hamiltons or Gauss variational principles such as Lagranges equations or the Gibbs-Appell equations [3]. Although the equations obtained using the various approaches are equivalent in the sense that they generate the same numerical results in simulation, Kanes method holds some unique advantages. Both Lagranges equations and Kanes equations use generalized coordinates and thus embed conguration constraints. Therefore, multibody mechanisms yet possess few degrees of freedom, are better served by either one of these methods than by standard application of Newton-Euler equations. Kanes method, because it uses generalized coordinates yet is based on a vector approach, is sometimes referred to as Lagranges form of DAlemberts Principle. But Kanes method also uses generalized speeds, which allows motion constraints to be embedded. So Kanes method has been compared to the Jourdains Principle [10] and Kanes equations have been likened to the Gibbs-Appell equations [2, 9] and Maggis equations [4]. The use of generalized speeds in Kanes method enables the selection 1

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

162

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

of an independent set of motion variables for non-holonomic constrained systems which allows to obtain a model in rst order differential equations form. In Lagrangian approach, where only generalized velocities are available, the method of Undetermined Multipliers should be used to handle motion constraints. As mentioned above, the use of generalized speeds can lead to more compact equations of motion. Indeed, a convenient choice of generalized speeds can result in equations that are diagonal in the generalized speed derivatives; that is, uncoupled dynamical equations. A further advantage of Kanes method over Lagranges method derives from its membership in the vector approach classication. The projection of constraint forces which are known to be non-working forces, allows such forces to be disregarded from the outset of the analysis, which leads to savings in the operations required during formulation. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces variables used in Kanes equations for deriving a kinematic model, and compares them to those used in Lagranges equations. After this, an application example given by the kinematic model of a small-size helicopter is presented according to the pedagogical nature of this work. In section 3, dynamics corresponding to Kanes equations for a generic mechanical system are presented, highlighting the relationship with the projection of Newton-Eulers equations into a space tangent to the conguration space. Again, these general concepts are better illustrated by presenting their application to a small-size helicopter. Finally, section 4 is devoted to the conclusions.

DERIVATION OF KINEMATICS AND REFERENCES TO LAGRANGES APPROACH

Let S be a mechanical system with n degrees of freedom moving in an inertial reference frame N subjected to m motion constraints. For the sake of generality, the system consists of Pl (l = 1, , ) particles (points possessing application on rigid bodies Bk are denoted by Pf ( f = 1, , ). Thus, the union of the former reference points is Pj ( j = 1, , ) = Pl BO k Pf where = + + . The rst step in order to build a kinematic model for S is the denition of a set of conguration variables that mass) and Bk (k = 1, , ) rigid bodies which centres of mass are denoted by BO k . Points of external force

describe location of reference points Pj = Pl BO k and orientation of reference frames xed within each body Bk . ration variables. Generalized coordinates specify point locations and reference frame orientations as relative to each other rather than all relative to inertial reference frame N . In this way, they describe only the allowed con-

In Kanes method as well as in Lagranges method, generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, , n) are used as congu-

gurations for S and therefore encapsulate some conguration constraints. For example, if a revolute joint connects two bodies, only the joint angle is needed to describe the orientation of the second body if orientation of the rst is known. In general, instead of the set of 3 + 6 variables that species the location and orientation of all components of S when dening them relative to a common origin in N , a set of generalized coordinates only consists of n = 3 + 6 c independent variables, where c is the number of conguration constraints encapsulated. In order to characterize motion of S, an additional set of variables called motion variables is also required. In Lagranges equations these are given by the generalized coordinate derivatives, also called generalized velocities q i (i = 1, , n). However, motion variables in Kanes method are dened as functions generally linear 2

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

163

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

in the generalized coordinate derivatives and non-linear in the generalized coordinates. The use of such functions, called generalized speeds ur (r = 1, , n), provides signicantly more compact and thus computationally efcient equations:
u1 un
T

= Ynn

q 1

q n

+ Zn1

(1)

where matrices Y and Z are functions of generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, , n) and possibly of time t . The reciprocal expressions of the generalized coordinate derivatives in terms of the generalized speeds are called kinematic differential equations:
q 1 q n
T

= Wnn

u1

un

+ Xn1

(2)

where W = Y1 and X = Y1 Z. In Kanes method, in the same way that conguration constraints are encapsulated within the denition of a set of generalized coordinates, any motion constraint of the system that may arise for physical reasons (e.g., rolling constraints) can be fully embedded by a wise choice of generalized speeds. This will lead to manageable rst order dynamical differential equations when describing the entire motion of the system. Additionally, it is often convenient the consideration of differentiated conguration constraints also as motion constraints1 . In contrast to Kanes method, if motion constraints are present when applying Lagrangian approach, they must be carried along as part of the system description and handled using Lagranges Method of Undetermined Multipliers [2]. Concerning the steps required to embed motion constraints, rstly they should be expressed as linear relationships among the generalized speeds [5]:
A u1 un
T

+B = 0

(3)

where matrices A and B are functions of generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, , n) and possibly of time t . Given m motion constraints, there will be m dependent generalized speeds in the set ur (r = 1, , n) that can be expressed in terms of the remaining p = n m independent generalized speeds. After selecting these p independent motion variables, equation (3) can be transformed into the following expression between dependent and independent generalized speeds:
u p+1 un
T

= C

u1

up

+D

(4)

Thus, the embedding process is achieved substituting (4) into every kinematic expression containing dependent generalized speeds before formulating dynamical equations. As pointed out before, the denition of the generalized speeds, that is up to the analyst, can have a considerable impact on the compactness of motion equations. However these effects will not become evident until dynamical equations are formulated in a subsequent section of this paper. This section concludes with Table 1 summarizing the differences between Kanes and Lagranges methods when deriving a kinematic model for the general system previously analyzed.
1 The

terms conguration constraint and motion constraint have been used in favour of the roughly equivalent terms holonomic constraint

and non-holonomic constraint so that a differentiated holonomic constraint, which is still properly referred to as a holonomic constraint, can be grouped with non-holonomic constraints. In simple words, conguration constraints are expressed as equations involving only conguration variables and motion constraints are expressed as equations involving both motion and conguration variables.

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

164

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

Lagranges method generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, , n) generalized velocities q i (i = 1, , n) Constraints encapsulated Constraint equations c m

Kanes method generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, , n) generalized speeds ur (r = 1, , p) c+m -

Conguration variables

Motion variables

Table 1: Summary of differences between Kanes and Lagranges method when dening a kinematic model

Application example for tutorial purposes: small-size helicopter As advanced in the beginning, this paper intends to improve the understanding of Kanes methodology by presenting an application example: a small-size helicopter. The system is depicted in Fig. 1 and consists of 3 components: fuselage, main rotor and tail rotor. As pointed out in [7, 8], for most commercially available smallsize helicopters the inertial effects of the main rotor (gyroscopic effects) become the main component inuencing the rotational dynamics of the whole mechanical system whereas the tail rotor inertial inuence is negligible. This means that main rotor and fuselage will be considered as rigid solids ( = 2) and tail rotor will only act as an application point of force on the fuselage ( = 1). Since there are no particles in the system, can be considered nil.

Figure 1: Helicopter description: reference frames, centres of mass and dimensions of interest for modelling purposes

Helicopter motion will be described in an inertial reference frame N where a dextral set of orthogonal unit vectors ni (i = 1, 2, 3) is xed. Fuselage is denoted by F , whereas its mass and centre of mass are given by mF and F O respectively. A dextral set of orthogonal unit vectors fi (i = 1, 2, 3) is xed in F and then the central inertia dyadic of fuselage can be expressed as IF /F = IF 11 f1 f1 + IF 22 f2 f2 + IF 33 f3 f3 . Main rotor is denoted by MR and is modelled as a thin solid disk with constant angular speed MR . The same nomenclature criterion for fuselage stands for this case, that is mass and centre of mass are denoted respectively by mMR and MRO . A dextral set of orthogonal unit vectors mri (i = 1, 2, 3) is also xed in MR, which allows the denition of the central inertia
O

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

165

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

rotation axis. Scalar constants IF 11 , IF 22 , IF 33 and IMR11 are the principal moments of inertia of the corresponding bodies. An additional reference point O xed in F is used to describe the location of F O , MRO and tail rotor T RO by means of the corresponding dimensions dened in Fig. 1:
pOF = dOF O ,3 f3
O

dyadic of main rotor as IMR/MR = IMR11 mr1 mr1 + IMR11 mr2 mr2 + 2 IMR11 mr3 mr3 with mr3 = f3 being the

pOMR = dOMRO ,3 f3

pOT R = dOT RO ,1 f1

(5)

Assumption that F O is located on the rotation axis of the main rotor will be achieved in the real system by an appropriate placement of the equipment on the fuselage. Under all these denitions and assumptions, the centre of mass H O of the whole system relative to O is given by:
pOH =
O O O mF dOF O ,3 + mMR dOMRO ,3 mF pOF + mMR pOMR = f3 = dOH O ,3 f3 mF + mMR mF + mMR

(6)

Once system geometry and mass distribution have been specied, next step is the denition of the generalized coordinates that have been introduced previously. Since rotation axis and centre of mass position for MR are totally xed in F for simplicity (mr3 = f3 and pOMR = dOMRO ,3 f3 ), orientation of MR relative to F can be described by only one generalized coordinate. Therefore the two rigid solid compound that models the small-size helicopter possesses c = 5 conguration constraints and consequently the number of degrees of freedom is given by n = 6 c = 7. The position of centre of mass H O in the inertial reference frame N is described by generalized coordinates qi (i = 1, 2, 3):
pN
O H O

= q1 n1 + q2 n2 + q3 n3

(7)

Generalized coordinates qi (i = 4, 5, 6) are the Euler-angles (roll, pitch and yaw) corresponding to successive rotations (body123 order, see [6]) that describe the orientation of F in the inertial reference frame N . Furthermore, generalized coordinate q7 is the angle corresponding to the rotation of MR relative to F . Thus, unit vectors ni , fi and mri are geometrically related by the direction cosine matrices shown in Table 2.
f1 n1 n2 n3 c5 c6 c4 s6 + s4 s5 c6 s4 s6 c4 s5 c6 f2 c5 s6 c4 c6 s4 s5 s6 s4 c6 + c4 s5 s6 f3 s5 s4 c5 c4 c5 f1 f2 f3 mr1 c7 s7 0 mr2 s7 c7 0 mr3 0 0 1

where si = sin(qi ) and ci = cos(qi ). Table 2: Direction cosine matrices

Once generalized coordinates are dened, kinematic equations can be formulated as follows:
N HO

N d pOH O

dt f1
N df 2

=q 1 n1 + q 2 n2 + q 3 n3
N df 3

(8) f2 (9) (10)

dt

f3 + f2

dt

f1 + f3

N df 1

dt

= (s6 q 5 + c5 c6 q 4 )f1 + (c6 q 5 s6 c5 q 4 )f2 + (q 6 + s5 q 4 )f3

F

MR = q 7 f3

Generalized speeds ui (i = 1, , 7) are dened in such a way that (8), (9) and (10) can be written in a more

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

166

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

compact way:
ui u4 u5 u6 q i (i = 1, 2, 3) s6 q 5 + c5 c6 q 4 c6 q 5 s6 c5 q 4 q 6 + s5 q 4 u7 q 7
N vH O

= u1 n1 + u2 n2 + u3 n3

(11)

NF

= u4 f1 + u5 f2 + u6 f3

(12)

F MR

= u7 f3

(13)

The former leads to the following kinematic differential equations:

q i = ui (i = 1, 2, 3)

q 4 = (s6 u5 c6 u4 ) /c5 q 5 = s6 u4 + c6 u5 q 6 = u6 + s5 (s6 u5 c6 u4 ) /c5 q 7 = u7 (14)

As was explained before, conguration constraints are embedded in the denition of generalized coordinates itself. In contrast, in order to embed motion constrains, their mathematical formulation and subsequent replacement into equations of motion is required. In this case, the only motion constraint is given by the fact that the main rotor is assumed to be rotating with constant angular speed MR :
u7 = MR (15)

Hence, last equation from (14) can be removed from the analysis and the remaining six equations constitute the kinematical differential equations and form the rst half of the equations of motion for the system under study.

Therefore, there is m = 1 dependent generalized speeds and p = n m = 6 independent generalized speeds.

DERIVATION OF DYNAMICS AND REFERENCES TO NEWTON-EULERS APPROACH

After deriving a kinematic model that describes the conguration and motion of the target system, next step in Kanes method is the denition of some auxiliary kinetic expressions: partial velocities, partial angular velocities, generalized active forces, and generalized inertia forces. Subsequently these variables will be related to each other by applying mechanics principles to obtain the nal dynamic model.

3.1

Partial velocities and partial angular velocities

Position of reference points Pj ( j = 1, , ) with respect to N are given by vectors pPj = p(q1 , , qn , t ). An expression for the velocity vector N vPj in terms of q i (i = 1, , n) is obtained by applying the chain rule to these vector functions:
N Pj

v =

N d pPj

dt

N pP j

q1

N pP j

qn

q 1

q n

N pPj

( j = 1, , )
N pPj

(16)

where the left superscript indicates that differentiation is performed in frame N . Substituting (2) into (16) yields:
N Pj v

N pP j

q1

N pP j

qn

u1

un

N pPj

q1

N pPj

qn

X+

(17)

Finally, (4) must be used to remove dependent generalized speeds from (17). Once this last replacement is N vPj P P done, the r-th partial velocity vr j of Pj is then dened as the coefcient for ur (r = 1, , p), i.e., vr j = u , r 6

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

167

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

in the resultant expression. The portion of N vPj not containing any ur is denoted by vt j and called the velocity remainder of Pj in N . Rewriting (17) according to this nomenclature yields:
N Pj

v =

v1 j

v pj

u1

up

+ vt j

(18)

By a similar reasoning, the angular velocity of rigid bodies Bk (k = 1, ) can always be expressed in terms of the independent generalized speeds [5]:
N

Bk =

1k
B

pk

u1

up

+ t k

(19)

where the r-th partial angular velocity r k of Bk is again dened as the coefcient for ur (r = 1, , p), i.e.,
B
N B

k N Bk k r k = ur . The portion of not containing any ur is denoted t and called the angular velocity remainder

of Bk in N . Partial velocities will be dened only for those points Pj subjected to applied forces and/or possessing mass, whereas partial angular velocities will be dened only for those rigid bodies Bk subjected to applied torques and/or possessing inertia. Application example for tutorial purposes: small-size helicopter (continuation 1) Considering (11), (12), (13) and using the expressions:
N Fi

= =

N HO

+ N F pH

O F i

MR

F + F MR

(20)

where Fi is any point xed in F , Table 3 with partial velocities and partial angular velocities for points Pj ( j = F O , MRO , T RO ) and rigid bodies Bk (k = F, MR) of the system under study can be constructed by inspection.
r vr
FO

1 n1 n1 n1 0 0

2 n2 n2 n2 0 0

3 n3 n3 n3 0 0

4 (dOH O ,3 dOF O ,3 )f2 (dOH O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )f2 dOH O ,3 f2 f1 f1

5 (dOF O ,3 dOH O ,3 )f1 (dOMRO ,3 dOH O ,3 )f1 dOH O ,3 f1 dOT RO ,1 f3 f2 f2

6 0 0 dOT RO ,1 f2 f3 f3

O vMR r

RO vT r

F r MR r

Table 3: partial velocities and partial angular velocities

3.2

Generalized active forces and generalized inertia forces

According to [5], generalized active forces are dened as dot product of partial velocities and active (i.e. applied) forces and dot product of partial angular velocities and active torques. Then, for each reference point Pj subjected to applied forces and for each rigid body Bk subjected to applied torques, generalized active forces are given by:
(Fr )Pj
P vr j

vr j RPj

(Fr )Bk

r k TBk

(r = 1, , p)
B Pj , r k

(21)

where is the r-th partial velocity of Pj , RPj is the resultant of all active forces acting on is the r-th partial angular velocity of Bk and TBk is the resultant of all active torques acting on Bk . The r-th generalized active force Fr can then be determined by summing the results over all reference points Pj and all rigid bodies Bk :
Fr =
j=1

(Fr )Pj + (Fr )Bk

k=1

(r = 1, , p)

(22)

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

168

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

Inertia force R Pj and inertia torque TBk are dened by [5] as:

R Pj T Bk
N d N vPj

mPj N aPj
O

IBk /Bk N Bk N Bk IBk /Bk N Bk

(23)
Bk /BO k

where mPj is the mass of Pj , N aPj

d k N Bk is the angular velocity of B in N and N Bk its centre of mass BO k k (i.e. the central inertia dyadic), dt is the angular acceleration of Bk in N . Note that RPj is equal to the time derivative in N of linear momentum Bk /Bk N Bk LPj = mPj N vPj of Pj and T of Bk , Bk is equal the time derivative in N of angular momentum HBk = I both with negative sign. Therefore, generalized inertia forces are dened as dot product of partial velocities and inertia forces and dot product of partial angular velocities and inertia torques. Then, for each reference point Pj possessing mass and for each rigid body Bk possessing inertia, generalized inertia forces are given by:
O

dt

is the acceleration of Pj in N , I

is the inertia dyadic of Bk about

N N B

(Fr )Pj

the results over all points Pj and all rigid bodies Bk :

Fr =
j=1

P Bk where vr j is the r-th partial velocity of Pj , R Pj is the inertia force for Pj , r is the r -th partial angular velocity of Bk and T Bk is the inertia torque of Bk . The r -th generalized inertia force Fr can then be determined by summing

vr j R Pj

(Fr )Bk

r k T Bk

(r = 1, , p)

(24)

(Fr )Pj + (Fr )Bk

k=1

(r = 1, , p)

(25)

Application example for tutorial purposes: small-size helicopter (continuation 2) Concerning forces and torques applied to the system (See Fig. 2), main rotor generates a force FMR = fMR,3 f3 applied at point MRO and torques MMR,i = tMR,i fi (i = 1, 2, 3) applied to MR, whereas tail rotor generates a force FT R = fT R,2 f2 applied at point T RO and a torque MF = tT R,2 f2 applied to F . Force of gravity W j = m j gn3 ( j = F, MR) applied at centres of mass F O and MRO is also considered, where g is the acceleration of gravity.

Figure 2: Forces and torques applied to the helicopter

Now, using equations (21) and (22) the generalized active forces for the rst and fourth partial velocities can be obtained as follows:
MR R MR F1 = vF RMRO + vT RT RO + F 1 RF O + v1 1 1 TF + 1 TMR
O O O

= n1 WF + n1 (FMR + WMR ) + n1 FT R + 0 MF + 0 MMR,i

i=1

= fMR,3 s5 fT R,2 c5 s6
O O

MR R MR F4 = vF RMRO + vT RT RO + F 4 RF O + v4 4 4 TF + 4 TMR

= (dOH O ,3 dOF O ,3 )f2 WF + (dOH O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )f2 (FMR + WMR )+ + dOH O ,3 f2 FT R + f1 MF + f1 MMR,i = tMR,1 + dOH O ,3 fT R,2
i=1 3

(26)

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

169

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

Following the same procedure, the remaining generalized active forces are given by:
F2 = fT R,2 (c4 c6 s4 s5 s6 ) fMR,3 s4 c5 F3 = fMR,3 c4 c5 + fT R,2 (s4 c6 + c4 s5 s6 ) (mF + mMR )g F5 = tMR,2 + tT R,2 F6 = tMR,3 + dOT RO ,1 fT R,2 (27)

Regarding generalized inertia forces for the rst and fourth partial velocities, using equations (23) to (25) yields:
MR MR F1 = vF R + F 1 RF O + v1 1 TF + 1 TMR MRO
O O O O O O

= n1 (mF N aF ) + n1 (mMR N aMR ) + 0 (IF /F N F N F IF /F N F )+ F4

O = vF 4

+ 0 (I

MR/MRO

R FO

O + vMR 4

N MR N MR I R MRO + F 4 T F
O

MR/MRO

N MR ) = (mF + mMR )u 1
O

+ MR 4 TMR

= (dOH O ,3 dOF O ,3 )f2 (mF N aF ) + (dOH O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )f2 (mMR N aMR )+

O O O

+ f1 (IF /F N F N F IF /F N F ) + f1 (IMR/MR N MR N MR IMR/MR N MR ) = K456 u5 u6 K4 p4 u 4 + K45 u5 (28)

Following the same procedure, the remaining generalized inertia forces are given by:
F2 = (mF + mMR )u 2 F3 = (mF + mMR )u 3 F5 = K546 u4 u6 K5 p5 u 5 + K54 u4 F6 = K645 u4 u5 K6 p6 u 6 (29)

where parameters Kxxx have the following values:

K456 = IF 22 IF 33 IMR11 + K4 p4 = IF 11 + IMR11 + K45 = 2IMR11 MR K546 = IF 33 IF 11 + IMR11 K5 p5 = IF 22 + IMR11 + K54 = 2IMR11 MR K645 = IF 11 IF 22 K6 p6 = IF 33 + 2 IMR11 (30) mF mMR (dOF O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )2 mF + mMR

mF mMR (dOF O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )2 mF + mMR

mF mMR (dOF O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )2 mF + mMR

mF mMR (dOF O ,3 dOMRO ,3 )2 mF + mMR

Note that all operations in (26) and (28) are performed after expressing all vectors in the reference frame N using the corresponding relationships of Table 2.

3.3

Equations of motion

Classical Newton-Eulers equations for each reference point Pj and each rigid body Bk of system S can be expressed as: where RPj is the resultant of forces acting on Pj , LPj is the linear momentum of Pj , TBk is the resultant of all torques acting on Bk and HBk is the angular momentum of Bk . Projecting the rst and the second equations in 9
P = 0; RPj L j B =0 TBk H k (31)

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

170

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

(31) into the vector space formed by vr j and r k respectively (which is, in fact, equivalent to apply Jourdains principle) and summing both results over all bodies of system S yields:
j=1

P ) + r k (H B )=0 vr j RPj + r k TBk + vr j (L j k

B B k=1 j=1 k=1

(r = 1, p)

(32)

Thus, comparing (32) with equations (21) to (25) leads to:

Fr + Fr = 0 (r = 1, , p) (33)

which are known as Kanes equations. This set of rst order differential equations in the generalized speeds is called dynamical differential equations and constitutes the second half of the equations of motion of system S. These equations together with the kinematic differential equations in (2) will govern the behaviour of system S. Application example for tutorial purposes: small-size helicopter (continuation 3) Finally, equation (33) is applied to obtain the dynamical differential equations, resulting in:
(mF + mMR )u 1 = fMR,3 s5 fT R,2 c5 s6 (mF + mMR )u 2 = fT R,2 (c4 c6 s4 s5 s6 ) fMR,3 s4 c5 (mF + mMR )u 3 = fMR,3 c4 c5 + fT R,2 (s4 c6 + c4 s5 s6 ) (mF + mMR )g K4 p4 u 4 = tMR,1 + dOH O ,3 fT R,2 + (K456 u6 + K45 ) u5 K5 p5 u 5 = tMR,2 + tT R,2 + (K546 u6 + K54 ) u4 K6 p6 u 6 = tMR,3 + dOT RO ,1 fT R,2 + K645 u4 u5 (34)

where parameters Kxxx are those listed in (30). Equations (14) together with (34) form the equations of motion for the helicopter. It is remarkable that these equations are uncoupled in the generalized speed derivatives thank to the choice of generalized speeds made in (11), (12) and (13). This fact makes the model suitable for numerical integration. Note also that constraint forces and torques (i.e. interaction forces and torques between main rotor and fuselage) were not present during the formulation. The reason is that the vector space used to project NewtonEulers equations to derive Kanes equations is orthogonal to those forces and torques, which allows to disregard them from the outset of the analysis.

3.4

Comparison of computational efciency between Kanes and Newton-Eulers methods

The procedure presented in this paper to obtain the equations of motion of a small-size helicopter can be easily performed with the help of MotionGenesis software [1], a symbolic manipulator for the analysis of mechanical systems that implements Kanes method. In order to compare computational efciency between Kanes and Newton-Eulers methods, equations (14)-(34) and the model corresponding to direct application of NewtonEulers equations (31) were generated using Autolev2 scripts. Each script was executed several times in a laptop with an Intel Core i5 M480 processor at 2.67 GHz. The average CPU time was 1.58 seconds for the script corresponding to Kanes method and 2.35 seconds for the one corresponding to Newton-Eulers method. The size of MATLAB code generated by Autolev was 16 kBytes in the rst case and 24 kBytes in the second one. This code
2 version

4 of MotionGenesis software.

10

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

171

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

was used to implement the helicopter model together with the controller proposed by [8] in MATLAB-Simulink with a sample time of 0.01 seconds. The resulting system was executed in a PC/104 Single Board Computer with MATLAB-Simulinks xPC real-time operating system. The simulation consisted of the application of a sequence of reference step signals to the variables q1 , q2 , q3 and q6 during 60 seconds. The average Task Execution Time (TET)3 was 2.24 104 seconds for the model obtained with Kanes method and 4.85 104 seconds for the model obtained with Newton-Eulers method. These results are summarized in Table 4a. Regarding accuracy, Table 4b shows the maximum absolute difference between variables qr (r = 1, 6) of both models during real-time simulation. As can be seen the difference between the two models is very small and the computational efciency of the Kanes method is better.
r Newton-Eulers method Average CPU time (Autolev scripts) 3 Generated MATLAB code size Average TET (Model real-time execution) 24 kB 16 kB 4 5 4.85 104 s 2.24 104 s 6 Kanes method 1 2.35 s 1.58 s 2
E | max |qKane qN r r

3.3398 104 3.3527 104 4.2196 105 3.9635 105 4.0048 105 2.4435 106 (b) Accuracy

(a) Computational efciency Table 4: Comparison between Kanes and Newton-Eulers methods

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a pedagogical development of Kanes method through its application to model a small-size helicopter. To this end, the formulation of the equations of motion emphasizes the interpretation of the concepts underlying in Kanes methodology in order to ease its understanding for beginners. Concerning the model itself, this work considers the general case of two rigid bodies, fuselage and main rotor. Hence, the resulting modelling structure accounts for most signicant modelling issues in the mechanics behaviour of small-size helicopters. The method has proved to hold some unique advantages when compared to other traditional approaches. On the one hand, the use of generalized coordinates allows to embed conguration constraints. On the other hand, the adoption of generalized speeds enables the derivation of a compact model in rst order differential equations form. Indeed, an adequate choice for generalized speeds can result in equations that are uncoupled in the generalized speed derivatives. Another remarkable advantage is that constraint forces are disregarded from the outset of the analysis. Finally it should be also noted that equations of motion generated by Kanes method are characterized by their easy implementation and computational efciency. This efciency is two-fold: on the one hand, equations are
3 This

value is the measured CPU time to run the model equations and post outputs during each sample interval.

11

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

172

Proc. of the 1 st Workshop on Research, Development and Education on Unmanned Aerial Systems (RED-UAS 2011) Seville, Spain, Nov 30th - Dec 1 st , 2011

obtained with the fewest symbolic operations, on the other hand, obtained equations require the fewest numerical calculations for their solution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work have been partially supported by Junta de Andalucia excellence project P09-TEP-5120 and European Commission projects PLANET (FP7-ICT-2009-5) and CONET (FP7-ICT-2007-7).

References
[1] Motiongenesis Kane 5.x. http://www.motiongenesis.com/, 2011. [2] H. Baruh. Analytical Dynamics. McGraw Hill, 1998. [3] H. Baruh. Another look at the describing equations of dynamics. Journal of the Chinese Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Series C/Chung-Kuo Chi Hsueh Kung Cheng Hsuebo Pao, 21(1):1523, 2000. [4] M. Borri, C. Bottasso, and P. Mantegazza. Equivalence of kanes and maggis equations. Meccanica, 25(4):272274, 1990. [5] T. R. Kane and D. A. Levinson. Dynamics, Theory and Applications. McGraw Hill, 1985. [6] T. R. Kane, P. W. Likins, and D. A. Levinson. Spacecraft Dynamics. McGraw Hill, 1983. [7] K. Kondak, M. Bernard, N. Losse, and G. Hommel. Elaborated modeling and control for autonomous small size helicopters. VDI Berichte, (1956):207, 2006. [8] K. Kondak, M. Bernard, N. Meyer, and G. Hommel. Autonomously ying vtol-robots: Modeling and control. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 736741, 2007. [9] J.G. Papastavridis. A panoramic overview of the principles and equations of motion of advanced engineering dynamics. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 51(4):239265, 1998. [10] J. Piedboeuf. Kanes equations or jourdains principle? Systems, volume 2, pages 14711474, 1993. In IEEE Midwest Symposium on Circuits and

12

ISBN-978-84-615-6269-5

173