Identification of Helicopter Dynamics based on Flight Data using
Nature Inspired Techniques
S.N. Omkar1, Dheevatsa Mudigere2, Senthilnath J1, M. Vijaya Kumar3
1

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science-Bangalore, 560 012, KA, India
Lehrsthul für Scientific Computing in Computer Science, Informatik Department, TUM, München – 85478.
3
Rotary Wing Research and Design Center, HAL, Bangalore – 560017.
Email:omkar@aero.iisc.ernet.in

2

Abstract— The complexity of helicopter flight dynamics makes modeling and helicopter system identification
a very difficult task. Most of the traditional techniques require a model structure to be defined a priori and in
case of helicopter dynamics, this is difficult due to its complexity and the interplay between various subsystems.
To overcome this difficulty, non-parametric approaches are commonly adopted for helicopter system
identification. Artificial Neural Network are a widely used class of algorithms for non-parametric system
identification, among them, the Nonlinear Auto Regressive eXogeneous input network (NARX) model is very
popular, but it also necessitates some in-depth knowledge regarding the system being modelled. There have been
many approaches proposed to circumvent this and yet still retain the advantageous characteristics. In this paper
we carry out an extensive study of one such newly proposed approach - using a modified NARX model with a
two-tiered, externally driven recurrent neural network architecture. This is coupled with an outer optimization
routine for evolving the order of the system. This generic architecture is comprehensively explored to ascertain
its usability and critically asses it’s potential. Different instantiations of this architecture, based on nature
inspired computational techniques (Artificial Bee Colony, Artificial Immune System and Particle Swarm
Optimization) are evaluated and critically compared in this paper. Simulations have been carried out for
identifying the longitudinally uncoupled dynamics. Results of identification indicate a quite close correlation
between the actual and the predicted response of the helicopter for all the models.
Keywords: System identification, Helicopter dynamics, Nonlinear Auto Regressive eXogenous model, Artificial
Bee Colony, Artificial Immune System, Particle Swarm Optimization.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Helicopter system identification is the extraction of system characteristics/dynamics from
measured flight test data (Maine, R. E., & Iliff, K. W., 1985; Anon, 1991). The complexity of
helicopter flight dynamics makes, modelling and helicopter system identification a very challenging
task. Unlike fixed-wing aircrafts, the helicopters exhibits a high degree of inter-axis coupling,
highly unstable, non-minimum phase dynamic characteristics and large response variations with
flight condition. These characteristics of the helicopter make it a highly non-linear and a complex
dynamical system. Further, the prediction of aeromechanical forces, loads on the rotor system and
main rotor wake interferences with the empennage and tail rotor require wind tunnel experiments
and flight tests. But the wind tunnel experimental data suffers from scale effects and model
deficiencies. Therefore, a key tool for helicopter flight/ground test correlation is provided by system
identification using flight data.
Identification of a system requires picking a function (or model) so as to approximate the inputoutput behaviour of the system (the helicopter in this case) in the “best” possible manner. There has
been considerable amount of work carried out in this regard, exploring the various methods
available for identification of dynamical systems (Miller, W. T., Sutton, R. S., & Werbos, P.J. 1990;

Narendra K. S. & Parthasarathy, K., 1989; Narendra K. S. & Parthasarathy, K., 1990; Narendra K.
S. & Parthasarathy, K., 1991; Ichikawa. Y & Sawa. T, 1992; Sastry, P. S., Santharam G. &
Unnikrishnan K. P., 1994; Chen, S., Billings, S. A., & Grant, P. M., 1990; Hoskins, D. A., Hwang,
J. N., & Vagners J., 1992). Identification of nonlinear physical models continues to be a challenge
since both the structure and parameters of the physical model must be determined. Many existing
system identification methods are based on parametric identification. Structure determination is
based on expert knowledge of the underlying physics, lacking which often trial and error approach
to test candidate model structures is employed. Possible structures are deduced from engineering
knowledge of the system and the parameters of these models are estimated. But in the case of a
helicopter, defining an a priori model is difficult due to interaction between the various subsystems
like the rotor, fuselage, power plant, tail rotor and transmission systems (Tischler, M. B., 1996) the
dynamics are of relatively higher order, and it is difficult to know how many states to include and
which states are important. Also, increase in the nonlinearity, uncertainty and complexities of the
model together with the stringent specifications of accuracy limits to be maintained renders
modelling helicopter systems a daunting task. This initiated an interest among researchers to
identify the system characteristics using nonparametric methods.
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) have found widespread application in nonlinear dynamic
system identification as universal approximators (Miller, W. T., Sutton, R. S., & Werbos, P.J. 1990;
Narendra K. S. & Parthasarathy, K., 1989; Narendra K. S. & Parthasarathy, K., 1990; Narendra K.
S. & Parthasarathy, K., 1991; Ichikawa. Y & Sawa. T, 1992; Sastry, P. S., Santharam G. &
Unnikrishnan K. P., 1994; Chen, S., Billings, S. A., & Grant, P. M., 1990; Hoskins, D. A., Hwang,
J. N., & Vagners J., 1992). ANNs have also been used for helicopter system identification, Vijaya
Kumar et.al. (2003) have explored the different Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) for the
identification of helicopter dynamics and based on the results, the practical utility, advantages and
limitations, the models have been critically appraised. The authors after a comprehensive study of
the three popular RNN architecture – Nonlinear Auto Regressive eXogenous (NARX) input model,
Memory Neuron Network (MNN) model and Recurrent Multi-Layer Perceptron (RMLP) model,
concluded that the NARX model is most suitable for the identification of helicopter dynamics
(Vijay Kumar, M. et. al. 2003). The NARX model, proposed by Narendra (1989, 1990 & 1991)
uses Tapped-Delay-Lines (TDL) and the Multi-Layer Perceptron neural network architecture
(MLP) for non-linear system identification. The NARX model is trained using the Back
Propagation (BP) algorithm. Although NARX model is popular and widely used, it has certain
drawbacks. NARX model requires the necessary past inputs and outputs of the system being
modelled, to be fed as explicit inputs to the network; this necessitates a fairly in-depth knowledge
of the system. But, as previously discussed, in case of helicopters this is challenging ask. While, in
principle, we can always feed a “sufficient” number of past values to the network, in practice, all
reported applications assume that the exact order is known. Both from aesthetics and practicality,
learning transformations in this manner may not lead to versatile dynamical models (Sastry, P. S.,
Santharam G. & Unnikrishnan K. P., 1994). This can be overcome by using alternatives such as the
memory neuron networks (MNN) (Sastry, P. S., Santharam G. & Unnikrishnan K. P., 1994) etc...
But The NARX model has been proven to have far superior stability characteristics when compared

to MNN and the other models (Vijay Kumar, M. et. al. 2003). This makes the NARX model a very
popular choice for identification and adaptive control of dynamical systems even with its set of
limitations. Mudigere, D., et.al (2008) have proposed a PSO (particular the particle swarm
optimization) (Eberchart, R., & Kennedy, J., 1995) Driven Recurrent Neural Network (PSONARX) Model, for circumventing this draw-back of the conventional NARX model. This model
employs a PSO based algorithm for evolving the order (and relative degree) of the system, coupled
with the (NARX-like) multi-layer perceptron recurrent neural network with tapped delay lines,
trained by a PSO based learning algorithm, for the identification of the dynamical system. This
model employs a generic II-Tier architecture, which offers a great deal of flexibility and allows for
using a host of different algorithm combinations for evolving the order and training the system.
The objective of the current work is to further develop this concept by comprehensively
exploring this generic II-Tier architecture with different combinations of nature inspired techniques
for evolving the order and training the network. In order to exploit the inherit flexibility of this
architecture to develop an efficient and accurate model for identification of non-linear dynamical
systems. In this paper we consider algorithms inspired from nature to achieve the above objective –
in particular the particle swarm optimization (PSO) (Eberchart, R., & Kennedy, J., 1995), Artificial
Bee Colony (ABC) (Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B., 2008; Karaboga, D., Akay, B., & Ozturk, C.,
2007) and Artificial Immune System (AIS) (De Castro, L. N., & Von Zuben, F. J., 2000; Dasgupta
D., 1999) are considered. This results in three different variants of this model for nonlinear
dynamical system identification, which do not necessitate any apriori information about the system
and the favourable characteristics (stability) of the popular NARX model. Further the proposed
models are successfully employed for the identification of helicopter dynamics using flight test
data. These different models are critically appraised and compared.
II.

NATURE INSPIRED TECHNIQUES

Nature inspired technique is the field of research that works with computational techniques
inspired in part by nature and natural systems. These nature inspired techniques provide a more
robust and efficient approach for solving complex real-world problems (Bäck, T., & Schwefel, H.
P., 1993). Many nature inspired techniques such as Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) (Karaboga, D., &
Basturk, B., 2008), Artificial Immune System (AIS) (De Castro, L. N., & Von Zuben, F. J., 2000),
Artificial Neural Network (Haykin, S., 1994), Genetic Algorithm (GA) (Goldberg, D. E., 1989),
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) (Eberchart, R., & Kennedy, J., 1995) etc.. have been proposed.
Since they are heuristic and stochastic in nature, they are less likely to get stuck in local minimum,
and they are based on populations made up of individuals with a specified behavior similar to
biological phenomenon. These characteristics led to the development of nature inspired
computation as it is increasingly applied in various domains (Engineering problems). Presently, it is
one of the important areas of research.
A. Artificial Bee Colony
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) (Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B., 2008) is a class of optimizing
numerical problem based on swarm intelligence, investigating the foraging behaviour of bees. In

ABC algorithm, the colony of artificial bees contains three groups of bees which include scout bees,
employed bees and onlookers. A bee carrying out random search is called a scout. A bee waiting on
the dance area for making decision to choose a food source is called an onlooker and a bee going to
the food source visited by itself previously is named an employed bee.
At the first step, create a population of ‘n’ artificial bees placed randomly in the search space
representing the food source position. After initialization, the population of the positions (solutions)
is subjected to repeated iteration of the search processes of the employed bees, the onlooker bees
and scout bees.
For each solution xij, where i = 1, 2...n and j is dimensional vector. The scout bees explore a new
food source with xi. This operation can be defined as in (1)
j
j
j
xij  xmin
 ( xmax
 xmin
)* rand( 0 ,1 )

(1)

The population spread is restricted within the search space S i.e xij  S and in the equation (1) xmin
and xmax are the lower and upper limit respectively of the search scope along each dimension;
The bees which have explored the food source are selected as employed bees. Which results in a
modification on the position (solution) in those candidate bees’ memory, as a function of the local
information and tests the nectar amount (fitness value) of the new source. After all the employed
bees complete the search process; they communicate the nectar information of the food sources and
their position information with the onlooker bees in the dance area. An onlooker bee evaluates the
nectar information taken from all employed bees and chooses a food source with better nectar
amount.
An artificial onlooker bee chooses a food source depending on the new positions, using the
equation (2).
 v , if ( f ( x i )  f ( v i ))
P  i
x , if ( f ( x )  f ( v ))
i
i
i
 i

(2)

In order to select the better nectar position found by an onlooker, Ob is defined as
O

b

 arg min f ( Pi ), 1  i  n

(3)

Pi

Where Pi is the best fitness value of the solution i which is proportional to the nectar amount of the
food source in the position i and n is the number of food sources.
In order to produce a candidate food position from the old one in memory, the ABC uses the
following equation (4):
v

ij

 x

ij

( x

ij

x

kj

)

(4)

where k=1, 2,..., n and j = 1, 2,...,D are randomly chosen indices. Although k is determined
randomly, it has to be different from i.  is an adaptively generated random number which controls
the learning/adoption rate.

B. Artificial Immune System
As described by De Castro, et.al (2002), Artificial Immune Systems (AIS) are adaptive systems
inspired by theoretical immunology and observed immune functions, principles and models which
are applied to problem solving.
Much of the early work carried out in the development of AIS has been similar to genetic and
evolutionary computation techniques. The main distinction between the field of genetic algorithms
and AIS is the nature of population development. In a genetic algorithm the population is evolved
using crossover and mutation (McCall, J., 2005). However in the AIS, as in evolutionary strategies
reproduction is asexual (cloning), each child produced by a cell is an exact copy of its parent. Both
systems then use mutation to alter the progeny of the cells and introduce genetic variation. We
make use of a variant of AIS called the Clonal selection algorithm for optimization.
Clonal Selection Principle (De Castro, L. N., & Von Zuben, F. J., 2000) is one of the inspiring
methodologies employed in AIS for multi objective optimization problems (Coello Coello, C.A., &
Cruz Cortes, N., 2002). Based on the clonal selection principle - an algorithm is developed in which
various immune system aspects are taken into account such as: maintenance of the memory cells,
selection and cloning of the most stimulated cells, death of non-stimulated cells and re-selection of
the clones with higher affinity and generation and maintenance of diversity.
The clonal selection algorithm works with an initial repertoire of antibodies. When an antigen is
presented to it, the antibodies that are more effective in neutralizing the threat are allowed to
proliferate. The least effective ones are eliminated. Among the ones selected to multiply, some
amount of mutation is introduced to in the hope of finding antibodies that might perform better.
However the mutation rate is lesser in antibodies with better fitness although it has a higher number
of clones.
C. Particle Swarm Optimization
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a swarm intelligence algorithm proposed by Kennedy and
Eberhart in the mid 1990s. In the proposed algorithm, an agent of the swarm, called a particle,
learns from the best position that it has occupied and also the best position that any particle of the
swarm might have encountered. These positions are retained in memory of every particle and
constantly updated to direct the swarm to the global best position. The best position of a particle is
called cognitive index - pBest, and the best of the swarm the social index - gBest. The equations that
govern the change in positions of a particle are:
V( i 1)  w  Vi  {C p  r1  ( pBest i  X i )}  {C g  r2  ( gBest  X i )}

(5)

X ( i 1)  X i  V( i 1)

(6)

Since each particle is constantly moving, there is a velocity vector associated with each particle
that governs its motion. This is denoted by Vi and Xi is its position. pBesti is the best position of
particle i. gBest is the global best position of the swarm. Cp is the Cognitive learning rate and Cg is

the Social learning rate. The factors r1 and r2 are randomly generated within the range (0, 1) and w
is the inertia factor.
III.

HELICOPTER SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION – PROBLEM FORMULATION

Conventional system identification methods can be broadly classified into time-domain and
frequency domain methods. In time-domain system identification, techniques such as least square
estimation (Astrom, K. J., & Eykhoff, P. E., 1987), quasi-linearization (Kalaba, R., & Spingarn, K.,
1982), and stochastic modelling (Kuzta, B., 1983), have been successfully used. In these methods,
the model structure must be defined apriori to estimate all the required system parameters. These
methods are extensively used in helicopter system identification for linear models and the
approaches can be extended to nonlinear regions as well. Although time domain methods have been
more frequently used, frequency domain approach is also used successfully in rotorcraft
identification (Tischler, M. B., & Cauffman, M. G., 1992; Fu, K.H., & Marchand, M., 1983 & Fu,
K. H., & Kaletka, J., 1990).
Modeling helicopter dynamics is a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) problem with a high
degree of interaction between all the inputs and outputs.
The objective of system identification is then to construct a suitable model, such that the inputoutput behavior ( u (k )  yˆ (k ) ) of the model approximates, in some sense, the input-output behavior
( u (k )  y (k ) ) of the helicopter system, i.e. for some specified small positive constant ( ).
y(k )  yˆ (k )    k  0

(7)

Hence, the input-output model for helicopter dynamics is described as

yi (k  d)  Fi u (k),..u(k  n1 1), y(k 1),..y(k  n1 1),

i  1,2...,p

(8)

where n1 is the order (or equivalent delay) of the system, d is the relative degree and the function
Fi(.) is smooth and continuous.
IV.

FLIGHT DATA ACQUISITION

Flight test is carried out in calm wind conditions on a helicopter having a soft in-plane fourbladed hinge-less main rotor and a four bladed tail rotor with conventional mechanical controls.
The helicopter is instrumented to measure pitch (q), roll (p) and yaw (r) rates, longitudinal (ax),
lateral (ay) and normal accelerations (nz), pitch attitude () and roll attitude (), indicated airspeed
(V), barometric altitude (H) and sideslip (). The four-control displacements namely, longitudinal
cyclic (δlong), lateral cyclic (δlat), collective (δcol) and pedal input (δdir) are also measured. However,
for the present study, ax, ay, V, H and  are not used for simulation.
The helicopter is trimmed in straight and the pilots maintain level flight conditions at two
different airspeeds of 120 Kmph and 230 Kmph. Inputs are provided manually and no automatic
signal generators are used. The flight test engineer briefs pilots at the start of each flight and before
carrying out each test point. For example, while giving an input manually to δlat, pilot has been
briefed to adjust the other control surfaces (δlong, δdir, δcol) appropriately to maintain the flight

condition in off-axis. Flight data for the response of the helicopter for 5 to 10% of step/doublet
inputs has been recorded for a minimum of 20 sec duration.
V.

METHODOLOGY

The model proposed in this paper, is capable of identifying a nonlinear dynamical system given
just a set of input-output pairs of the system under study. It does not necessitate any a priori
knowledge about the system.
This model is based on the NARX model. This model employs the MLP architecture in
combination with TDLs for identifying dynamical systems. As in the NARX model here also, the
past values of outputs and inputs are fed back using tapped-delay-lines (TDL). The MLP
approximates the nonlinear function and TDL introduces the dynamics into the model. But the
distinction here is that, the order and relative degree of the system need not be known beforehand,
as this model is developed to evolve by itself the order and relative degree of the system being
identified. The model determines the necessary past inputs and outputs of the system being
modelled that need to be fed as explicit inputs to the network. Further, the network so identified is
trained using a stochastic learning algorithm based nature inspired techniques, instead of backpropagation as in the conventional NARX model. Schematic representations of the models are
given in Fig. 1.

Fig.1. Schematic representation of the proposed modeling approach

The helicopter dynamic identification is handled in a two-tier approach. First, the order and the
relative degree of the system has to be evolved i.e. the number of history values the inputs/outputs
that influences the current output of the system. This determines the configuration of network as
this defines the total number of parameters to be fed as explicit inputs (node in the input layer) to
the network. The second step would be to train the network so identified. In this paper we employ
the II-Tier architecture proposed by Mudigere, D., et.al (2008). In this paper three different nature
inspired methods – ABC, AIS and PSO are used. Further 3 model variants, with different
combinations of these algorithm are proposed - ABC-ABC, with I-tier ABC for determining the

order of the system and a learning algorithm based on ABC for training the identified network and
similarly AIS-PSO and the PSO-NARX model which used PSO based algorithms for both the tiers.
These varaints use the NARX model as the basic substrate with an external ABC, PSO and AIS
shell for evolving the order of the system. The generic implementation (three of the algorithm(s)
used) of the above-described architecture is described below.
A. Tier I
Tier I is for evolving the order of the system. This is to determine the number of parameters to be
fed as explicit inputs to the network. Hence the decision variables in this case are the number of
past values of each input and number of past values of each output – that influences the current
output of the system.
Number of past values of each input is represented by, U [u1, u2, u3…ui] and the number of past
values of each output is given by, Y [y1, y2, y3…yj], where i and j are the number of inputs and
outputs of the system under consideration. Since the dynamics of the helicopter is represented by a
MIMO system (as discussed earlier), the number of history states for each input and output has to
be determined. In this module the solution-space is the various combinations of [u1, u2, u3…ui, y1,
y2, y3…yj] that could possibly be the order of the system under consideration. Where ui is the
number of past values of the input i and yj is the number past values of output j that influences the
system under consideration.
The dimensionality of an algorithm used for the I-Tier, when identifying a MIMO system with minputs and n-outputs would be (m + n). A swarm of particles (PSO), bee particles (ABC) and
antibody population (AIS) are employed to search all possible combination of [U, Y] and identify
the order and relative degree of the system. For each order, the network is trained and the model is
checked for how well it conforms to the actual system. The mean square error (MSE) is used as the
fitness value to check the extent of conformance of the different combinations obtained. The swarm
particles (PSO), bee particles (ABC) and antibody population (AIS) are updated such that this value
is minimized. This way the different network configurations are evaluated and finally the swarm
particles, bee particles and antibody population converge on to the combination that results in the
least MSE and which would indicate the order and relative degree of the helicopter system under
consideration.
For a MIMO dynamical system with m-inputs and n-outputs,
A possible solution: [u1, u2, u3…ui, y1, y2, y3…yj]
U [u1, u2, u3…ui],

ui ui  Z  where

i= [1…m]

- number of past history states of each input which has to be included.
Y [y1, y2, y3…yj],

y j y j  Z 

where j= [1…n]

-number of past history states of each output which has to be included.

Hence the total number of parameters that has to be given as explicit inputs to the network is given
by ii 1m, ,j j1n ( u i  y j ) . ii 1mu i - order of the dynamical system and  jj 1n y j is its relative degree.
This forms the first stage of proposed model wherein the structure of the system is identified,
determining all the necessary past inputs and outputs of the system being modelled needed to be fed
as explicit inputs to the network.
B. Tier II
This module is to train the network identified by Tier I. Here we use a stochastic training
algorithm based on PSO/ABC for training the MLP network with TDLs. As indicated earlier these
stochastic algorithms have been extensively used for training ANNs and proved to be more efficient
than many other gradient based training algorithms (Engelbrecht, P., & Ismail, A., 1999). This can
be mainly attributed to stochastic nature of the algorithm which makes it very robust and flexible.
In Tier II, the optimum weights are evolved for each network configuration determined by Tier I.
The network structure determined by the first level serves as the starting point for the II-Tier.
In this stage, the variable is the weight matrix of the identified network. When applied to
Feedforward Neural Network (FNN) training, each particle represents a possible FNN
configuration, i.e., its weights. Therefore, each vector has a dimension equal to the number of
weights in the FNN.
The unique feature of the current training algorithm, which distinguishes it from the various other
similar training algorithms, is the variable/dynamic dimensionality. The dimensionality of the
algorithm used for Tier II keeps changing at each iteration, as it depends on the network
configuration determined by the outer-tier. Based on the fitness value used, the weights are
modified so that the training error is minimized. Hence, finally arriving at a set of weights, that
result in the least error for a given network configuration. But from each time to time the number of
weights changes as the network configuration changes.
In our study, we use the root mean sum of squared residuals (error) in the training data as the
fitness values of the Tier – II PSO/ABC, this serves as a qualitative performance measure of the
network learning.
rmse 

1
 ( y (k )  yˆ (k )) 2
N1 N

(9)

1

where

y( k )

is the time value of the output, and

ŷ ( k )

is the estimated output of the recurrent

neural network. N1 is the number of data points used in the training set. In our case,

y( k )

is the

response of helicopter obtained from the flight test. Our objective is to minimize this fitness value
and drive it to zero, which then indicates the evolve model to accurately interpolate the data.
The inner loop forms the fitness function evaluation in the outer loop. This is executed every time
the fitness function is evaluated in the outer loop. Thus increasing the complexity of the model and
making it computationally intensive.

A. Artificial Bee Colony – Artificial Bee Colony
The model handles helicopter dynamics identification in a two tier architecture using ABC. The
first tier ABC is used for evolving the order of the dynamical system under consideration. The
second tier ABC is used with the first tier ABC to evolve the optimum weight matrix for the
network identified.
In two tier architecture of ABC, the number of bees (n) is initialized. At each time step the
randomness amplitude and speed of convergence of each employed and onlooker bees is changed
towards its food source (nectar). The random factor prevents the bees getting stuck in local minimae
and speed of convergence is used to identify the rate at which employed and onlooker bees exploit a
solution. For each of these bees, fitness is evaluated. Our objective is to minimize the fitness value.
The Tier II ABC is executed every time the fitness function is evaluated in Tier I ABC.
The selection of the ABC parameters plays an important role in the optimization as the
performance of the ABC is quite sensitive to control parameter choices (Karaboga, D., & Basturk,
B., 2008). In the current work, there is two tier ABC algorithms being employed, each with
different configurations of parameters. The final optimal ABC parameters have been selected after
extensive numerical simulations with various combinations. For both cases, optimal refers to the set
of ABC parameters which results in fastest convergence along with the most accurate identification
of the considered dynamical system. A number of different configurations of parameters have been
experimented with trying to achieve a balance between the computational time and the
performance. The final optimal set of ABC-ABC parameters for both I and II tier algorithms have
been listed in Table 1.

ABC Parameters

Tier – I ABC

Tier – II ABC

N = 30

N = 40

Randomness amplitude

 = 0.45

 = 0.45

Speed of convergence

 = 0.85

 = 0.85

 = [0.5,….,1]

 = [0.5,…,1]

50

5000

Number of Bees

Learning rate is adaptively generated for each iteration
Maximum number of iterations

Table 1. The ABC Parameters

B. Artificial Immune System – Particle Swarm Optimization
In this model, the order and the relative degree of the system are evolved using AIS in the Tier 1.
PSO based learning algorithm is used to train the identified network.
The AIS forms the first stage of the algorithm where in the structure of the system are identified.
This network structure serves as starting point of the PSO in the second stage of the algorithm. The
antibody (Ab) population is randomly initialized for the AIS. For each of these Ab, fitness is
evaluated. The PSO in the Tier II is executed every time the fitness function is evaluated in Tier I

AIS. The dimensionality of PSO keeps changing at each iteration, as it depends on the network
configuration determined by the AIS.
After the fitness evaluation of Ab population, various AIS steps of cloning, mutation and reselection are done to obtain improved set of population. Fitness of this improved population is reevaluated and new random Ab particles are added to this population for subsequent iteration.
As with the PSO, in the case of AIS also, the parameters play an important role in the
optimization as performances of these algorithms are quite sensitive to control parameter choices.
The final optimal parameters have been selected after extensive numerical simulations with various
combinations. A number of different configurations of parameters have been experimented with
trying to achieve a balance between the computational time and the performance. The final set of
parameters used for both AIS and PSO are listed in Table 2.
AIS-PSO Parameters

Tier – I AIS

Tier – II PSO

n=4

-

pm = 0.05

-

P=4

-

Max_it = 10

-

Cognitive Learning Rate

-

CP = 2.0

Social Learning Rate

-

Cg = 2.0

Inertia factor

-

w = 0.9

Number of Swarm Particles

-

N = 10

Maximum number of iterations

-

300

End Condition

-

300 iterations

Number of clones per antibody
Hypermutation probability
Number of Antibodies
Maximum number of iterations

Table 2. The AIS - PSO Parameters

C. Particle Swarm Optimization
This variant, employs a PSO based external algorithm for evolving the order of the system and
also a PSO based learning algorithm for the training the evolved network. This model was proposed
by Mudigere, D., et.al (2008) and this paper provides a detailed description of the details and
characteristics of this model. This is a two-tier PSO architecture, I level PSO for evolving the order
of the dynamical system and the II level PSO to evolve the optimum weight matrix for the network
identified by the I level PSO.
This model uses the NARX model as the basic substrate with an external PSO shell for evolving
the order of the system. The dimensionality of the I-Tier PSO, when identifying a MIMO system
with m-inputs and n-outputs would be (m + n). A swarm of particles are employed to search all
possible combination of [U, Y] and identify the order and relative degree of the system. In II-Tier
PSO, the optimum weights are evolved for each network configuration determined by I-Tier PSO.
The network structure determined by the first level PSO serves as the starting point for the II-Tier

PSO. The unique feature of the current training algorithm, which distinguishes it from the various
other PSO-based ANN training algorithms, is the variable/dynamic dimensionality. The
dimensionality of the II-Tier PSO here keeps changing at each iteration, as it depends on the
network configuration determined by the outer-tier PSO.
The selection of these PSO parameters plays an important role in the optimization as the
performance of the PSO is quite sensitive to control parameter choices. The final optimal PSO
parameters have been selected by after extensive numerical simulation with various combinations.
For both cases optimal refers to the set of PSO parameters which results in fastest convergence
along with the most accurate identification of the considered dynamical system. A number of
different configurations of parameters have been experimented with trying to achieve a balance
between the computational time and the performance. The final optimal set of PSO parameters for
both for I and II tier algorithms have been listed in Table 3.
PSO Parameters

Tier – I PSO

Tier – I PSO

Cognitive Learning Rate

CP = 2

CP = 1.85

Social Learning Rate

Cg = 2

Cg =1.85

Inertia factor

w = 0.9

w = 0.9

N=5

N=8

100

1000

25 iterations

100 iterations

Number of Swarm Particles
Maximum number of iterations
End Condition
(number of iterations without update in the best values)

Table 3. The PSO - PSO Parameters

VI.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

To address the complexity of helicopter dynamics due to strong inter-axis coupling in this paper
the longitudinal and lateral states of the helicopter are decoupled and this decoupled model is used
for neural network based identification. For simulation purposes in this paper we only consider the
Longitudinal Uncoupled Dynamics.
The results of the helicopter dynamics identification is shown in Fig.2 depicting both the actual
helicopter response and the predicted response of the model using nature inspired techniques
(ABC/AIS/PSO). The actual system response and the predicted response of the system evolved
nature inspired techniques agree quite well over the entire range. The performance of the three
nature inspired techniques for longitudinal model as shown in Fig. 2. The solid line represents the
flight data and dotted line represents network output of nature inspired techniques (dotted blue
indicates PSO-NARX, dotted red indicates ABC-NARX and dotted green indicates AIS-NARX). It
can be observed that, for the highly nonlinear variation in q and , the ABC and PSO appear to give
better mapping than the AIS.

A comparison of the NARX model predicted response and the nature inspired techniques
predicted response could be seen in Fig.3. It can be seen both ABC and PSO models perform
comparatively over the entire range along NARX model. However AIS doesn’t give better result
for q and .

Fig.2. Predicted Response and Actual Response
for longitudinal cyclic doublet input.

Fig.3. Predicted Response of NARX model V/s
predicted response of PSO/ABC/AIS-NARX
model.

From Table 3, it can be clearly seen that in comparison with other model ABC-NARX evolved
model is more efficient and also the training error is significantly reduced. This indicates quite a
close correlation between the actual and the predicted response of the helicopter. More or less
consistently an order of {1,1} (number of past inputs) and a relative degree of the {1, 2, 0} (number
of past outputs) evolved over a number of simulations. But the evolved order and relative degree
was not very consistent between the models, a variation of ±1 past value for both the input and
output was observed. This could possibly be a short-coming, it has to be further looked into and
further means to control this inconsistency has to be introduced. But this variation in not
substantial, and more or less the evolved agree well with the actual physics of helicopter dynamics.
The evolved configuration can be accounted for as follows; it is quite evident that the third output normal acceleration (az), does not have a big influence on the response of the considered
longitudinally uncoupled helicopter system. For a longitudinally uncoupled helicopter system,
among the outputs the greatest influence on the system response is due to the pitch rate (q). This is
clearly identified by the PSO/ABC-NARX and reflected in the evolved configuration. Further, this
configuration for longitudinally uncoupled helicopter dynamical system agrees well with the ones
reported in literature and seems to be accurate from the aerodynamics/physics of the system.

Network parameters

# I/p nodes

# O/p nodes

# hidden nodes

Error

NARX

18

3

20

0.281

ABC - NARX

6

3

18

0.055

AIS - NARX

6

3

20

0.824

PSO - NARX

6

3

28

0.068

Table 3. Comparison of NARX and PSO/ABC/AIS-NARX model

VII.

CONCLUSIONS

The models proposed in this paper have successfully circumvented the major drawback of the
NARX model of having to know system information before hand retaining its other superior
characteristics. The use of nature inspired techniques for training the network effectively overcomes
the problems associated with back-propagation. Nature inspired techniques with their stochastic
means are less likely to get stuck in local minima, making them very robust and flexible. From the
results it can be seen the correlation between the predicted response and actual response is
satisfactorily accurate in case of ABC-NARX and PSO-NARX. Further in comparison with NARX,
PSO-NARX and AIS-NARX, ABC-NARX evolved model is more efficient and also the training
error is significantly reduced.
The proposed model is computationally quite resource intensive; this is because of the high
degree of complexity involved with the two tier architecture, with having to execute the entire
second tier for every objective evaluation of the first tier algorithm. Further work has to be directed
in adapting this model for a parallel environment and making it implementation more efficient.
Also, in the current work we have restricted the use of this model to identify only the longitudinally
uncoupled dynamics of a helicopter. In future work, this model can be used to identify the
helicopter dynamics more comprehensively by considering – the laterally uncoupled dynamics, and
coupled dynamics also. This would provide more information on the capabilities and limitations of
the model. Further these models can be used in varied applications such as flight simulators,
modeling, control etc...
VIII. REFERENCES
Maine, R. E., & Iliff, K. W. (1985). Identification of Dynamic Systems. AGARD AG-300, Vol. 2.
Anon (1991). Rotorcraft System Identification. AGARD-AR-280.
Miller, W. T., Sutton, R. S., & Werbos, P.J. (1990). Neural Networks for Control. Cambridge, MA.
MIT Press.
Narendra K. S. & Parthasarathy, K. (1989). Adaptive identification and control of dynamic systems,
using neural networks, in Proc. 28th CDC.
Narendra. K. S. & Parthasarathy, K. (1990). Identification and control of dynamical systems using
neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 1, no. 1.

Narendra. K. S. & Parthasarathy, K. (1991). Gradient methods for optimization of dynamical
systems containing neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. vol. 2, no. 2.
Ichikawa. Y and Sawa. T, (1992). Neural network application for direct feedback controllers. IEEE
Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 3,no. 2.
Sastry, P. S., Santharam G. & Unnikrishnan K. P., (1994). Memory Neuron Networks for
Identification and Control of Dynamical Systems. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 5,
no. 2.
Chen, S., Billings, S. A., & Grant, P. M., (1990). Non-linear system identification using neural
networks. International Journal of Controls, vol. 51, no. 6.
Hoskins, D. A., Hwang, J. N., & Vagners J., (1992). Iterative inversion of neural networks and its
application to adaptive control. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 3, no. 2.
Tischler, M. B., (1996). System Identification Methods for Aircraft Flight Control Development and
Validation. Advances in Aircraft Flight Control, London, pp. 35-69.
Vijaya Kumar, M., Omkar, S. N., Ranjan Ganguli, Prasad Sampath, & Suresh S., (2003).
Identification of Helicopter Dynamics using Recurrent Neural Networks and Flight Data. In proc
of 59th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Mudigere, D., Omkar, S. N., Vijay Kumar, M., (2008). Identification of helicopter dynamics using
a PSO based approach. In proc of 64th Annual Forum and Technology Display, American
Helicopter Society, Montreal, Canada.
Eberchart R, & Kennedy J, (1995). A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In Proc. Int. Sym.
Micro Machine and Human Science, Japan.
Eberchart, R., & Kennedy, J., (1995). Particle swarm optimization. In Proc.of IEEE Int. Conf.
Neural Networks, Perth, Australia.
Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B., (2008). On the performance of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm.
Applied Soft Computing 8 (1), pp. 687-697.
Karaboga, D., Akay, B., & Ozturk, C., (2007). Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) Optimization Algorithm
for Training Feed-Forward Neural Networks. Vol 4617. pp. 318-329.
De Castro, L. N., & Von Zuben, F. J., (2000). The clonal selection algorithm with engineering
applications, In: Workshop on Artificial Immune Systems and their Applications. GECCO, pp. 36–
37.
Dasgupta D., (1999). Artificial Immune Systems and their Application.Springer, Berlin (Education
series).

Bäck, T., & Schwefel, H. P., (1993). An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter
optimization. Evolutionary Computing. vol. 1, no. 1.
Haykin, S., (1994). Neural Networks – A Comprehensive Foundation. Second Edition. Macmillan
College, New York.
Goldberg, D. E., (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning.
Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
De Castro, L.N., Timmis, J., (2002). An artificial immune network for multimodal function
optimization. In: Proceedings of CEC 2002: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp.
699–704.
Forrest, S., & Perelson, A.S., (1991). Genetic Algorithms and the Immune System—Parallel
Problem Solving from Nature. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 496. Springer, Berlin, pp.
320–325.
McCall, J., (2005). Genetic algorithms for modelling and optimization. Journal of Computational
and Applied Mathematics. 184 (1), pp. 205–222.
Coello Coello, C.A., Cruz Cortes, N., (2002). An Approach to Solve Multiobjective Optimization
Problems Based on an Artificial Immune System. ICARIS’2002, pp. 212–221.
Astrom, K. J., & Eykhoff, P. E., (1987). System Identification- A Survey. Automatica, Vol. 7, 1987,
pp. 123-162.
Kalaba, R., & Spingarn, K., (1982). Control, Identification and Input Optimization. Plenum Press.
Kuzta, B., (1983). Modeling and Identification of Dynamic Systems. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company.
Tischler, M. B., & Cauffman, M. G., (1992). Frequency-Response Method for Rotorcraft System
Identification: Flight Applications to BO 105 Coupled Rotor/Fuselage Dynamics. Journal of the
American Helicopter Society, Vol. 37, (3), pp. 3-17.
Fu, K.H., & Marchand, M., (1983). Helicopter System Identification in the Frequency Domain. 9th
European Rotorcraft Forum, Stresa, Italy.
Fu, K. H., & Kaletka, J., (1990). Frequency-Domain Identification of BO 105: Derivatives Models
with Rotor Degrees of Freedom. 16th European Rotorcraft Forum, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Engelbrecht, P., & Ismail, A., (1999). Training product unit neural networks. Stability Control:
Theory Appl., vol. 2, no. 1–2.

