ARTICLES

Chinese Science Bulletin

2007

SCIENCE IN CHINA PRESS

submit stencil

Springer

Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Technologies

Agus Budiyono1
1

Smart Robot Center, Department of Aerospace Information Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea. Previously with
Center for Unmanned System Studies, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

The utilization of unmanned vehicles has become increasingly more popular today and been
successfully demonstrated for various civil and military applications. The unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have shown applications in different areas including crop yield prediction, land use
surveys in rural and urban regions, traffic surveillance and weather research. The unmanned small
scale helicopters are particularly suitable for demanding problems which requires accurate
low-speed maneuver and hovering capabilities such as detailed area mapping. Generally a certain
level of autonomous flight capability is required for the vehicle to achieve its mission. The basic
autonomy level is to maintain its stability following a desired path under embedded guidance, navigation and control algorithm. The UAV technology trends indicate that to cope with the more
stringent operation requirements, the UAVs should rely less and less on the skill of the ground
pilot and progressively more on the autonomous capabilities dictated by a reliable onboard
computer system. To systematically develop and enhance flight autonomy, a rotary wing UAV
(RUAV) or model helicopter has been proposed and used as a flying test-bed at various major
research centers. The ability of the helicopter to operate in the hovering mode makes it an ideal
platform for a step-by-step autonomous capability development. On the other hand, a small helicopter exhibits not only increased sensitivity to control inputs and disturbances, but also a much
richer dynamics compared to conventional unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The paper surveys
recent advances in modeling, control and navigation of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles.
Without loss of generality, an autonomous small scale helicopter research program is taken as a
case study. Approaches to modeling and control for such a vehicle are presented and discussed.
Future directions in the advancement of UAV technologies are identified and key barriers highlighted.
Unmanned aerial vehicle, model identification, control, navigation, trajectory generation

I.

Introduction

A widely used definition of UAV is an aerial vehicle (including fixed-wing, rotary-wing or airship platform) which
can sustain its flight along a prescribed path without an
on-board pilot. The UAV technology has proven applications in many areas such as environmental monitoring and
protection, meteorological surveillance and weather research, agriculture, mineral exploration and exploitation,
aerial target system, airborne surveillance for military land
operations, and reconnaissance missions. The unmanned
small scale helicopters enjoy no requirement for runway
and are particularly suitable for demanding problems such
www.scichina.com

www.springerlink.com

as traffic or volcanic areas surveillance, detailed area mapping, video footage recordings and crop dusting or spraying.
Table 1 lists applications of contemporary UAVs in different areas.
A recent progress in the supporting technologies has
enabled the development of semi to fully autonomous UAV.
This includes the availability of compact, lightweight, affordable motion detecting sensors essential to the flight
control system and compact lightweight low-cost computing power for autonomous flight control. A wide varieties
of autonomous UAV platforms have been developed and
flown ranging from fixed-wing to rotary wing platforms,
Chinese Science Bulletin | January 2007 | vol. 52 | no. 1 | 1-?

several minutes to hours/day in endurance and 100 grams

to 800 kg in weight. From all types of UAVs, the small
scale rotorcraft-based vehicle has been considered one that
exhibits the most complex dynamic properties. From the
perspective of control area, the RUAV demonstrates literally all challenges that have attracted enormous interests
from industry and academia alike. The challenging problems include higher bandwidth, hybrid modes,
non-holonomic, under-actuation, multi input multi output
(MIMO), and non-minimum phase. The paper discusses the
advances in UAV technologies from the perspective of
modeling and control of rotorcraft-based aerial vehicles.

II. Background: Science and Technology

A. Survey of UAVs
The viability of UAV as a multipurpose research vehicle
has driven great interest since recent decades. The basic
technology building blocks responsible for the current advances include airframes, propulsion systems, payloads,
safety or protection systems, launch and recovery, data
processor, ground control station, navigation and guidance,
and autonomous flight controllers. The following brief
survey is focused on the area of navigation, guidance and
control of UAVs. Various control design for UAVs has been
proposed ranging from linear to nonlinear synthesis, time
invariant to parameter varying, and conventional PID to
intelligent control approaches. The developed controllers
have been implemented for different aerial platforms: airship (blimp), fixed-wing UAV, small scale helicopter,
quad-rotors, and MAV.
The research on autonomous airship is reported in (Azinheira, 2008) where the authors proposed a nonlinear control
approach for the path-tracking of an autonomous underactuated airship. A backstepping controller is designed from
the airship nonlinear dynamic model including wind disturbances, and further enhanced to consider actuators saturation. The hover control using the same approach for such
a vehicle is presented in (Azinheira and Moutinho, 2008).
A number of investigations have been conducted for control and stabilization of quadrotor UAV. In (Raffo, 2008), a
robust control strategy to solve the path tracking problem
for such a vehicle was designed in consideration of external
disturbances like aerodynamic moments. A state parameter
control based on Euler angles and open loop positions state
observer was proposed by Mokhtari and Benallegue (2004).
The work was continued in (Mokhtari, 2005) in which a
mixed robust feedback linearization with linear GH controller was applied. An actuator saturation and constrain on
2

state space output are introduced to analyze the worst case

of control law design. A different approach was proposed in
(Madani, 2007) where a backstepping control running parallel with a sliding mode observer for a quadrotor vehicle.
The sliding mode observer works as an observer of the quadrotor velocities and estimator of the external disturbances
such as wind and parameter uncertainties. In (Escareno
et.al., 2008), the authors proposed a three-rotor configuration which incorporates certain structural advantages in
order to improve the attitude stabilization. The control
strategy is robust with respect to dynamic couplings and to
the adverse torques produced by the gyroscopic-effect and
propellers drag.
The research on autonomous flight using model helicopters
as a test-bed has been performed by a large number of
teams all over the world. The MIT UAV team successfully
developed an autonomous aerobatic helicopter in (Gravilets,
2003). The development relied on the modeling framework
of the miniature helicopter dynamics. A methodology for
designing model-based control strategies for autonomous
aerobatic maneuver was proposed and validated experimentally. Referring to previous work by Mettler (Mettler
et.al., 2002) at Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, the basis for a simplified modeling framework was considered to
stem from the fact that the dynamics of small-scale helicopters is dominated by the rotor response. The real-time
control system was developed using a Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) simulation system which allows
high fidelity representation of the signals time-dependence
in real time navigation scheme
At Georgia Tech, the Open Control Platform (OCP)a
new object-oriented real time operating software architecture has been used onboard the GTMAX UAV helicopter
to compensate for the simulated in-flight failure of a low
level flight control system. The viability of designing inexpensive architecture, along with a relatively simple processor, will pave the way for the extremely low-cost flight
control and guidance systems. Another novel contribution
was the use of Pseudo Control Hedging (PCH) in the adaptive flight control scheme for improving tracking performance of a small helicopter. Using this architecture, a consolidated reference command that includes position, velocity, attitude and angular rate may be provided to the control
system.
At UC Berkeley, the research on an autonomous helicopter
has been conducted as reported in Koo and Sastry(1998),
Koo et.al.(2001) and Kim et.al.(2003). A helicopter mathematical model is first established with the
lump-parameter approach. The control models of the

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Ja??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

The discussion on this paper is centered on model-based

control design and navigation system technology in the
framework of recent advances in UAVs elaborated in the
following order. In the section below (II), the system and
technology background of UAVs are presented including a
brief survey of contemporary UAVs, summary of lessons
from the research on RUAV modeling and controls, and
identification of trends in UAV technology. Section III
presents the review of modeling of RUAV using combined
first principle and time-domain identification. Nonlinear
dynamic modeling is presented based on first principle approach using X-cell 60 small scale helicopter as a test bed.
A method for linearization procedure is elaborated to provide an analytical model for the implementation of linear
control. Section IV is focused on discussion on simulation,
control and guidance for UAV. Some approaches for control synthesis are demonstrated for illustration. The last
section (V) identifies emerging technologies in the area of
aerial robotic. Concluding remarks on the challenges and
future directions are made in final section (VI).
B. Lessons learned from CentrUMS-ITB UAV Program
The research on RUAV at the Center for Unmanned Systems Studies (CentrUMS)-ITB was carried out by using a
fully instrumented X-cell 60 SE model helicopter similar to
one used by MIT team as shown in Fig. 1. The mini helicopter is characterized by a hinge-less rotor with a diameter
of 0.775 m and mass of 8 kg. The X-Cell blades both for
main and tail rotors use symmetric airfoils. The vehicle has
been used by a number of research centers as published in a
number of literatures (Gravilets,2003; Bogdanov,2003;
Bogdanov,2004). Therefore comparison and validation can
be achieved from the available published results.
Using the test bed, studies on modeling and control of
RUAV were conducted. A great deal of effort was focused
on developing nonlinear model based on first principle approach. The nonlinear model was implemented in Simulink/Matlab with parameters are measured independently or
obtained from literatures. Flight tests were conducted to
validate the model. Various control synthesis were studied
for performance comparison. The important lesson learnt
from the experience is that a small scale helicopter is a intricate and unstable platform; to utilize it for a useful re-

search test-bed there is a compelling need for development

of mathematical model that capture the key dynamics of
the vehicle with reasonable level of complexity for the
purpose of control design. A number of key results are presented in Section IV.

Figure 1: Instrumented X-Cell 60 SE- CentrUMS-ITB

C. Trends in UAV Research

More stringent mission requirements have driven the UAVs
to have a higher level of autonomy dictated by a reliable
onboard computer system. The metric for UAV level of
autonomy is given in Table 2 (Sholes, 2006). Some key
areas in current state-of-the-art aerial robotic technologies
are responsible for enabling AUVs to achieve its required
level of autonomy. Current status of UAV research activities in these areas can be summarized as the following:
1. State estimation algorithm. To achieve better performance, multiple sensors are typically fused together
using EKF in a sensor fusion algorithm. Propagated
IMU-data can be fused with discrete updates from
GPS and altimeter. Several design examples are provided in (Johnson and Kannan, 2002). Recent study
include the use of nonlinear adaptive observers for estimating speed of UAV from IMU measurements only
without the aid of GPS (Khadidja, 2007).
2.

Simultaneous Localization and Mapping. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is tasked to explore an
unknown environment and to map the features it finds,
but must do so without the use of infrastructure-based
localization systems such as GPS, or any a priori ter-

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Jan??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

ARTICLES

RUAVs are then derived by the application of a

time-domain parametric identification method to the flight
data of target RUAVs. The classical control theory and
modern linear robust control theory are applied to the identified model. The proposed controller are validated in a
nonlinear simulation environment and tested in a series of
test flights (Shim, 2000).

rain data. A statistical estimation technique allows for

the simultaneous estimation of the location of the
UAV as well as the location of the features it sees.
3.

4.

5.

TABLE I
UAV LEVEL OF AUTONOMY
Level Level D escrip to r
10 Fully A uto no m o us

Vision for guidance. Computer vision is used as a

feedback sensor in a control loop for an autonomous
flight system. (Amidi et.al, 1998). More recent example is precision targeting without using secondary
actuation or add-on gimbal system.

Know s intent o f self and others (friend ly

9 Battleship sw arm cog nizance

enviro nm ent; o n b oard tracking

8 Battleship sing le co gnizance

7.

Sho rt track aw areness - H isto ry and

7 Battleship kno w led g e

III. Modeling of RUAV

The requirement for successful navigation and guidance
task is stabilization of vehicle platform. Viewed as a multi-loop system, guidance and navigation is represented by
the outer-loop and control and stabilization the inner loop.
The design starts from the most inner loop outward. In this
context, to control small scale helicopter as unstable platform with complex dynamics require sufficiently accurate
model. This section elaborates the modeling technique and
the corresponding model-based control synthesis.

p redictive b attlesp ace d ata in lim ited range,

tim efram e, and num b ers; Lim ited inference
supp lem ented by offb o ard d ata
R ang ed aw areness - on b o ard sensing fo r

6 R eal tim e m ultivehicle co op eration

lo ng rang e, sup plem ented b y o ff-b o ard

d ata
Sensed aw areness - Lo cal senso rs to d etect

5 R eal tim e m ultivehicle co ordination external targ ets (friend ly and threat) fused

Integrated modeling. Linear model is obtained by using combination of first principle results and time or
frequency domain identification scheme.

Safety verification. Safety verification or reachability

analysis aims to show that starting at some initial
conditions, a systems cannot evolve to some unsafe
regions in the state space. Unsafe region for UAV application can be defined in the context of proximity to
obstacles, fuel availability (endurance), un-flyable
zone and/or communication range. A new concept
called barrier certificate is being used for safety verification of hybrid systems.

o thers (friendly and threat);

R ed uced d ep end ence o n o ff-b o ard d ata

The use of GPS as attitude sensor. The need for reduced complexity avionics system has driven the research on the use of single GPS for obtaining attitude
estimate (Kornfeld, 1998).

Trajectory generation using maneuver automaton. Vehicle motion is described by library of motion primitives (Frazzoly et.al, 2005). The trajectory between
two positions and vehicle states is found by searching
the sequence of motion primitives which will best satisfy an objective function. One important application
of guidance system is collision avoidance between
vehicle at its tight and structured environment or between vehicles operating in formation or multi agent
system.

and threat) in a co m plex/intense

Pro xim ity Inference - intent o f self and

w ith o ff-bo ard d ata

4 Fault/Event A d ap tive vehicle
3

6.

P ercep tio n /Situ atio n al A w aren ess

C o g nizant o f all w ithin b attlesp ace

R o b ust respo nse to real tim e

faults/event

2 C hang eab le m issio n

1 Execute p rep lanned m issio n
0 R em o tely Pilo ted V ehicle

O ff-bo ard A w areness - friend ly system s

co m m unicate d ata
H ealth/status histo ry and m o d els
H ealth/status senso rs
Prelo ad ed m issio n d ata; Flig ht C o ntrol and
N avig ation Sensing
Flight C o ntrol (attitud e, rates) sensing; O n
Bo ard C am era

.
A. Methods of Modeling
The approach to helicopter modeling can be in general divided into two distinct methods. The first approach is
known as first principle modeling based on direct physical
understanding of forces and moments balance of the vehicle. The challenge of this approach is the complexity of
the mathematical model involved along with the need for
rigorous validation. The method is primarily suitable for
one with a strong background in flight physics. The second
method based on system identification (Tischler and
Cauffman, 1992; Mettler et.al., 2002, Tischler and Remple,
2006) basically arises from the difficulty of the former approach. The frequency domain identification starts with the
estimation of frequency response from flight data recorder
from an instrumented flight-test vehicle. The parameterized
dynamic model can then be developed in the form of a linear state-space model using physical insight and frequency-response analysis. The identification can also be conducted in time-domain.
In what follows, the author argues that, any modeling
should start from adequate basis in first-principle. In practice, the above two methods can be used in an integrated
scheme for developing an accurate small scale rotorcraft
vehicle model for the purpose of control design. The modeling based on neural networks with appropriate structure
and training method can be viewed as a viable alternative.

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Ja??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

 X = m ( u rv + qw ) + mg sin
Y = m ( ru + v pw) mg sin cos

Z = m ( qu + pv w ) mg cos cos

B. Equation of Motion of RUAV

The motion of a vehicle in three-dimensional space can
be represented by the position of the center of mass and the
Euler angles for the vehicle rotation with respect to the
inertial frame of reference. The Euler-Newton equations
are derived from the law of conservation of linear and angular momentum. Assuming that vehicle mass is m and
inertial tensor I, the equations of motion are given by:

K
K
dV
m
=F
dt I
K d K
K
I
=M
dt I

ARTICLES

Meanwhile, a new modeling scheme based on Linear Parameter Varying (LPV) identification is attractive for
RUAV application.

L = I p ( I I ) qr
M = I q ( I I ) pr
N = I r ( I I ) pq
xx

yy

yy

zz

zz

(4)

zz

xx

xx

yy

The forces and moments components consist of contribution from main rotor, tail rotor, fuselage, horizontal fin
and vertical fin.
1) Main Rotor: The main rotor thrust equations are expressed as:

TMR = ( R)MR ( R2 ) CT MR
2

(5)

MR

(1)

K
where F = [ X Y Z ]T is the vector of external forces actK
ing on the helicopter center of gravity and M = [ L M N ]T is
the vector of external moments. For helicopter, the external
forces and moments consists of forces generated by the
main rotor, tail rotor; aerodynamics forces from fuselage,
horizontal fin and vertical fin and gravitational force. For
computational convenience, the Euler-Newton equations
describing the rigid-body dynamics of the helicopter is then
represented with respect to body coordinate system by using the kinematic principles of moving coordinate frame of
reference as the following:

K
K
K K
mV + m( V ) = F
K K
K
K
I  + ( I ) = M
K

where the thrust coefficient is given by

1
1
1 1 2
CT MR = aMR MR ( z MR 0MR ) + + MR
0
2
2
3 2

and the inflow ratio, advance ratio and normal airflow

component are respectively given by

0MR

Here the vector V = [u v w]T and K = [ p q r ]T are the

fuselage velocities and angular rates in the body coordinate system, respectively. For the helicopter moving in
six degrees of freedom, the above equations produce six
differential equations describing the vehicles translational motion and angular motion about its three reference axes.
From here, we can express the mathematical expression
for external forces and moments of the helicopter as a
function of the control inputs and the vehicle states.

wiMR

( R )MR

MR
Here

(2)

(6)

CT MR
2 w

+ ( 0MR z MR )

(7)

ua2 + va2

z MR

( R )MR

, a and w are

2
MR

wa

( R )MR

solidity ratio, lift curve slope

and coefficient of non-ideal wake contraction of the main

rotor. The above equations must be solved iteratively to
obtain the thrust. The main rotor torque can be approximated as a resultant of induced torque due to generated
thrust, and torque due to profile drag on the blade.

QMR = ( R )MR ( R 2 )
2

MR

RMR CQ MR

(8)

where the torque coefficient is given by

1
7 2
CQMR = MR 1 + MR
CD0 MR + ( 0MR z MR ) CT MR
8
3

(9)

and CD0 is the profile drag coefficient of the main rotor.

The representation of the main rotor tip path plane dynamics is given by

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Jan??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

 ea1s = a1s +

a1s
ua
a
wa
+ 1s
eq + ALo
MR ( R) MR z MR ( R) MR

eb1s = b1s
where a B

lat

b1s
va
e p + B Lat Lat
MR ( R ) MR

X VF = 0
(10)

and A steady-state lateral and longitulong

dinal gains from the cyclic inputs to the main rotor flap
angles; lat and long are the lateral and longitudinal cyclic control inputs;

e is the effective rotor time constant for

a rotor with the stabilizer bar.

2) Tail Rotor: The tail rotor thrust can be computed by
the following equation:

TTR = mY r r + mYv vTR

(11)

And the normal velocity component to the tail rotor is

vTR = va lTR r + hTR p

(12)

The tail rotor torque is computed using similar equations

for main rotor with tail rotor parameters substituted into the
main rotor parameter.
3) Fuselage: For hover and low speed forward flight,
the rotor downwash is deflected by the forward and side
velocity. This deflection creates a force opposing the
movement. The fuselage forces of the helicopter can be
expressed as
1
X fus = S x fusV ua
2
1
Yfus = S y fusV va
(13)
2
1
Z fus = S z fusV ( wa wiMR )
2
4) Horizontal tail: The horizontal tail generates lift and
a stabilizing pitching moment around the center of gravity.
This will also compensate the destabilizing effect of the
main rotor flapping due to vertical speed. The horizontal
tail fin forces and moments of the helicopter referenced to
body coordinate system are
X HF = 0

YHF = 0
1
Z HF = S HF ( CL HF ua + wHF ) wHF
2
1
2
Z HF = S HF ( ua2 + wHF
)
2

(14)

5) Vertical tail: The vertical tail forces can be approximated by the following expression

1
YVF = S VF ( CL VFV VF + vVF ) vVF
2
1
2
YVF = SVF (V2 VF + vVF
)
2

(15)

C. First Principle Model

The detailed equations of motion as presented previously
are the basis for first principle modeling. It is a bottom-up
physical modeling. A study by Weilenmann (1994) was an
attempt to use first-principle approach to model the helicopter dynamics. The modeling however was limited only
to hovering condition. Some simplified version of helicopter model existed including the Minimum-Complexity
Helicopter Simulation Math Model (Heffley and Mnich,
1988) spanning from the previous work by Heffley
et.al.(1979 and 1986). In 2003, Gavrilets (Gavrilets, 2003)
presented a nonlinear model helicopter based on first principle approach used for an aerobatic maneuver control. The
work however does not present workable procedures for
developing linear model for the purpose of control design.
The step-by-step development of linear model requires the
calculation of a trim condition around which the vehicle
motion will be linearized. The trim conditions for the helicopter are chosen operating points within which we solve
K
the equilibrium condition f ( xK , uK ) = 0 by first setting the
states to the values which characterize the corresponding
flight condition. For the case of RUAV, the solution of trim
condition is achieved through an iterative process. The notion of stability derivatives used in the modeling arises
from Taylors series expansion of external forces and moments around an equilibrium condition where only first
order effects are retained. The external forces and moments
are thus expressed in terms of product of derivatives and
the rigid-body vehicle states and control inputs. The linearized equations of motion can finally be expressed in the
form of state space readily usable for control synthesis. For
more detail explanation, the readers are referred to (Budiyono, 2007b). As needed, the first principle model can
also be refined by the system identification technique as
presented in the following section.
D. Identification Modeling
The first principle approach typically requires the detail
knowledge regarding the system behavior. The use of system identification modeling either in time or frequency
domain on the other hand is more practical. The system
identification approach requires experimental input-output
data collected from the flight tests of the vehicle. Thus the
flying test-bed must be outfitted with adequate instruments

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Ja??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

Given the time domain description of a system:

y (t ) = G ( q )u (t ) + H ( q )e(t )

(16)

and by observing the input (u) and output (y) data, the
error, e(t) can be computed as:

e(t ) = H 1 (q)[ y (t ) G (q)u (t )]

(17)

PEM uses optimization to minimize the cost function,

defined by:
N

V N (G , H ) = e (t )
2

(18)

t =1

The result of combined first principle and identification

modeling is illustrated in Fig. 2. The figure shows the forward velocity flight data (solid thick line) compared with
the first principle model (solid thin line) and identification
model (dashed line). The figure shows that the fitness ratio
of the flight data for first principle and identification model
is 19.87% and 24.34% respectively.

ARTICLES

to measure both state and control variables. To utilize experimental data to build a parameterized model however, a
model structure and decent initial conditions in the optimization scheme would be required to achieve convergence.
The model structure and its initial value in this case can be
provided by prediction of first principle calculation.
In structured parameterization scheme, Predication Error
Minimization (PEM) method can be utilized to estimate the
parameters. With the method, the parameters of a model are
chosen so that the difference between predicted output of
the model and the measured output is minimized with the
following process.

TABLE II
STABILITY DERIVATIVES COMPARISON BETWEEN FIRST PRINCIPLE
PREDICTION AND IDENTIFICATION

Yv
Yr
Yb1s
Lu
Lw
Lv
Lp
Lb1s
Nw
Nv
Np
Nr
Ba1s

First Principle Prediction

-0.3471
-16.5191
10.1395
-0.0106
0.1098
-0.2486
-40.8739
408.5485
1.0103
2.5045
0.1406
-0.9758

Identification
-0.8652
-16.286
134.74
-0.03
0.0703
-0.217
1.3026
320.53
1.3669
2.1817
-1.2065
-0.695

/ e

0.0656

Further comparison between the first principle prediction

and identification result is given in Table II.
E. Linear Parameter Varying Identification
All previous modeling schemes boil down to the development of linear model associated with a certain flight condition as shown in Fig. 3. The design of global nonlinear
control is then predicated on the notion of gain scheduling.
The drawback of this approach is that control designs based
on linearized dynamics might become deteriorated when it
is applied beyond the vicinity of equilibrium. In contrast,
LPV control technique explicitly takes into account the
change in performance due to real-time parameter variations. Therefore, this control technique gives a promising
potential in designing control systems which is robust over
the entire operating envelope.
RUAVsFLIGHTCONDITIONS

Piourette

Accelerate

Maneuvers

Hover
Cruise
Deccelerate

Ascend
Descend

Figure 2: Comparison of first principle and ID result

Figure 3: RUAVs flight conditions

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Jan??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

25
Estimated Response
Plant Response
20

u
(m/s)

15

10

-5

50

100

150

200

250

300

time
(seconds)

Figure 4: Result of LPV identification for forward speed

The LPV identification scheme employs recursive least

square technique implemented on the LPV system
represented by dynamics of helicopter during a transition.
The airspeed as the scheduling of parameter trajectory is
not assumed to vary slowly. The exclusion of slow parameter change requirement allows for the application of the
algorithm for aggressive maneuvering capability without
the need of expensive computation.
Fig. 4 shows the result of LPV identification for varying
forward speed. More detail account can be found in (Budiyono, 2008b).

IV. Simulation, Control and Guidance

To date various control techniques have been designed for
rotorcraft vehicles ranging from classical single-output-single-output PID controller (Shim, 2000) to
nonlinear (Koo, 1998; Boussios, 1998; Devasia, 1999;
Buskey et.al., 2001, Harbick, 2004) and from
non-aggressive flight (Corke et.al., 2000; Castillo et.al.,
2005) to aggressive flight (Gavrilets et.al., 2001). To cover
a wide region in the flight envelope, a gain schedule technique is typically employed as in Shamma and Athans
(1991). A control using state-dependent Riccati equation
was proposed by Bogdanov and Wan (2003) and Bogdanov
et.al.(2003). The scheme was implemented on X-Cell helicopter (Bogdanov et.al, 2004). A control synthesis based
on behavioral approach was suggested by Fagg et.al. (1993)
and Buskey et.al. (2002,2003). Fuzzy (Jang and Sun, 1995)
and adaptive control have been also synthesized for control
of RUAV (Hovakimyan et.al. 2000; Johnson and Kannan,
2002; Kannan and Johnson, 2002; Kim et.al., 2002; Kutay
et.al., 2002, Sanchez et.al., 2005). Bagnell and Schneider
(2001) proposed a control using reinforcement learning. A
Lyapunov control design was proposed by Mazenc et.al.
8

(2003).
Overall, there exists a tendency in the area of RUAVs that
more research has been done in control design methodologies than in developing dynamics model. The author argues
that modeling is prerequisite of good control design. In
order that a control system can be successfully designed
and implemented for a vehicle (system), the dynamics characteristics of the vehicle must be well-understood. In line
with this argument, Mettler (2003) viewed that the tendency to get around modeling efforts by searching for perfect
control methodology is not productive and can even lead to
inaccurate or misleading conclusions regarding the applicability or performance of certain control techniques. Flight
simulation based on the developed model can be used to
complement flight testing (Johnson et.al., 1996; Johnson
and DeBitetto, 1997; Munzinger, 1998; Perhinschi and
Prasad, 1998; Johnson and Fontaine, 2002; Johnson and
Mishra, 2002; Lee and Horn, 2005). Guidance can be
viewed as the most outer loop of multi-loop control system.
A. Simulation environment for UAV
Research in control engineering regularly produces new
theoretical insights and algorithms that promise substantial
improvement over the state of the practice. However, it is
only a small fraction of this research that ultimately sees
practical application (Samad et.al, 2004). The area of control for UAVs is not an exception. The need to close the gap
between theory and application of control to UAVs in real
operating conditions has been addressed by creating simulation environment where actual time-dependent signals are
taken into account. Implementation and testing of control
systems by a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation is increasingly being required for the design as it becomes a
very versatile tool in acquiring real data without taking a
risk of losing any expensive instrumented UAVs. HIL simulation is characterized by the operation of real components in connection with real-time simulated components.
Usually, the control system hardware and software is the
real system while the controlled plant can be either fully or
partially simulated. The high-confidence control can be
achieved by developing increasingly higher fidelity models
and simulations through successive improvements. It
should be ensured that the plant model is a sufficiently accurate approximation of reality and that assumptions about
disturbances and the operational environment are valid.
The implementation of HILS for various RUAVs at Smart
Robot Center (Konkuk University) is illustrated in Fig. 5.

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Ja??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

ARTICLES

Motiontable
long

IMU

IronBird
lat

,,

col

RTsimulink execution
Bidirectionalcommunication

HostPC

ped

xPC

Windows
RS232

FlightGear
Cockpitview

RS232

PC104
Flightcontrolexec
Sensorsignalprocessor
GCScommunication

Matlab/Simulink
6DOFheli nonlinearmdl
RTW/XPCTargetappl.

Healthmonitoring
Interactiveautopiloting
GroundcontrolGUI
Highlevelcontroller

HardwareIntheLoop(HIL)Simulator
Figure 5:Simulation environment for UAV control synthesis

B. Control Synthesis
Given the sufficiently accurate model, the control synthesis
of RUAV can be conducted and validated within real-time
simulation environment. Various control techniques have
been developed thus far in Budiyono (2005a, 2005b) and
Budiyono et.al. (2004, 2005, 2007a). Referring to the taxonomy of flight conditions of RUAV (Fig. 3), the control
design can be classified into the following different approaches:
1.

Classical control. Since the problem of RUAV control

is a MIMO problem, the design procedure of classical
approach is to be conducted in cascaded multi-loop
SISO system starting from the innermost loop outward. The cascaded multi-loop SISO approach however has limitations in its implementation. To implement this control approach for a small scale helicopter,
a pitch and roll attitude control system is often subordinated to a, respectively, longitudinal and lateral velocity control system in a nested architecture. The requirement for this technique to work is that the inner
attitude control loop must have a higher bandwidth
than the outer velocity control loop. While this is va-

lid for a relatively large unmanned helicopter such as

Yamaha R-50, for a class of high-performance helicopters, such as the X-Cell 60, or helicopters where
this bandwidth separation is not sufficient, a simultaneous design will be necessary (Mettler, 2003). The
simultaneous design is provided by modern control
synthesis.
2.

Modern MIMO control. To control a model helicopter

as a complex MIMO system, an approach that can
synthesize a control algorithm to make the helicopter
meet performance criteria while satisfying some
physical constraints is required. To address a MIMO
problem, LQR and H are the most popular control
design procedures. These methods however also have
drawbacks that can inhibit a practical implementation.
They include dealing with higher than necessary order
of controller, non-existence of formal parameter tuning and weight selection procedures, possible exclusion of good controllers, and difficulty in integrating
state variable constraints (Manabe, 2002).

3.

Algebraic control. The CDM is one of such approaches where control design process is based on

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Jan??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

coefficient diagram representing criteria of good design. The use CDM thus far has been limited to SISO
or SIMO applications. Some trial designs for MIMO
have been made (Manabe, 2002), but formal design
procedures to implement CDM for MIMO has not
been established yet. The typical approach in solving
MIMO problem thus far has been to decompose
MIMO problems into series of SISO or SIMO problems and proceed with design by standard CDM. The
first attempt that demonstrates a successful implementation of CDM-based LQR technique without the
need of decomposing a MIMO problem into a series
of SISO or SIMO problems was presented in (Budiyono, 2007). Fig. 6 shows the result of design for
step response of u and w subjected to 30% parameter
variation.

Speed w
25
20
15

ft/sec

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15

u (m/s)

0.6
0.4
nominal
-30% in xu,xa,mq
+30% in xu,xa,mq
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

50

60

70

80

90

t (s)

w (m/s)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

10

20

30

40
t (s)

Figure 6: CDM-LQR control design

10

20

25

30

LPV approach. The control design is performed

based on the model developed through LPV identification. Model Predictive Control (MPC) can
be a good candidate for such an approach.

A. Bio-inspired Technologies and Biorobotics

15

Issues pertaining to increased demand for higher performance and safety have pushed the UAV design beyond
conventional approaches. Some emerging technologies can
be summarized in the following paragraph.

0.8

-0.2

10

V. Emerging Technologies

1.2

Figure 7: Comparison of Switched Linear Control and LQR

Hybrid approach. In the hybrid approach, each linear

model in Fig. 3 can be considered as a hybrid automaton. To represent an RUAV flying over wider flight
envelope therefore, the approach leads to a switching
problem representing a change from one mode to
another. A synthesis of switched control systems for
model helicopter excited with external switches that
bring changes of dynamics from hover to cruise by
satisfying some constraint in the trajectories can thus
be performed. Piecewise quadratic Lyapunov-like
functions that leads to linear matrix inequalities
(LMIs) for performance analysis and controller synthesis can be considered. State jumps of the controller
responding to switched of plant dynamics are exploited to improve control performance (Sutarto et.al.,
2006). The result is illustrated in Fig. 7 showing
comparison between performance of LQR and
Switched Linear Control.

0.2

Time (Second)

5.
4.

LQR
Output SLC
State SLC

The emerging field of unmanned system technologies

largely relies on the ability of an onboard mechanism that
replaces or imitates a human operator. To successfully
design an unmanned system or vehicle therefore it is important to study the human intelligent at all levels: reasoning, perception, development and learning. Moreover, the
compelling need to learn from nature stems from the fact
that although the present conventional approach to engineering design may exceed nature in some regards, they are
not superior to many designs in nature. Using conventional
approach, present day UAVs can perform different control
functions including altitude and speed hold, obstacle
avoidance, terrain following navigation, and autonomous
landing. Flying insects can perform all those and beyond,
remarkably well using ingenious strategies for perception
and navigation in three dimensions. Insects infer distances
to potential obstacles and objects of interest from image
motion cues that result from their own motion in the environment. The angular motion of texture in images is denoted generally as optic or optical flow. Computationally, a
strategy based on optical flow is simpler than is stereosco-

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Ja??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

Recent studies also demonstrate that insects can perform

extreme maneuvering capabilities far beyond those
achieved by conventional UAVs. Flapping wing, morphing
wing, formation flight, neuro-control and swarming are just
a few examples of natural phenomena much related to
UAVs advanced design features. More research should be
consistently conducted for harvesting design principles
from nature that would extend present UAV technologies
out of its conventional boundaries.

fication. Future challenges for advancing aerial robotics

technology will be pivoted on exploitation of biomimetic
principles for achieving higher peformance and development of formal model and analysis tool to synthesize collaborative aerial robotics behavior.

References
1.

Amidi, O., Kanade, T., and Miller, J. R. (1998) : Vision-based autonomous helicopter research at Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute,
Proceedings of Heli Japan 98, Gifu, Japan, Paper No: T7-3.

2.

Azinheira, J.R et al. (2008), A backstepping controller for

path-tracking of an underactuated autonomous airship, Int. J. Robust

B. Multi UAV Systems

Nonlinear Control

One primary feature of high autonomy UAVs is their ability

to perform coordination and cooperation functions. This
capability is termed Level 5 and 6 in Table 2. Research in
this area (collaborative sensing and exploration, synchronized motion planning, and formation or cooperative control) has been gaining more interests in recent past as
shown for example in (Seiler, 2001) and Mot et al.
(2002a, 2002b). A particular class of tasks for such multi-agent UAV systems involve surveillance of a region and
tracking of targets cooperatively. Cooperative agents are
typically desired to handle a particular task with higher
robustness, higher performance (faster or more accurately)
or task simply otherwise unattainable by single agent.
UAVs formation control can be achieved through hierarchical (leader-follower) or non-hierarchical approach.
Cooperative multi-agents naturally lead to hybrid system
abstraction. The hybrid model would capture both UAV
dynamics and mode switching logic that supervises lower
level control switches. It will be desirable in this regards to
have a formal tool that can verify the performance and
safety of such a system where high fidelity simulation can
be conducted prior to flight tests. Future research direction
in multi UAVs system should address this need.

3.

Azinheira, J.R and Moutinho, A (2008), Hover Control of an UAVWith Backstepping Design Including Input Saturations, IEEE
Transactions On Control Systems Technology, Vol. 16, No. 3

4.

Bagnell, J. A. and Schneider, J. G. (2001) : Autonomous Helicopter

Control using Reinforcement Learning Policy Search Methods, Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2001, IEEE, pp. 1615-1620.

5.

Bogdanov, A. and Wan, E. (2003) : SDRE Control With Nonlinear

Feedforward Compensation for A Small Unmanned Helicopter,
AIAA, Paper No. : 2003-6512.

6.

Bogdanov, A., Wan, E. and Harvey G (2004) : SDRE Flight Control

For X-Cell and R-Max Autonomous Helicopters, Proceedings of the
43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas, pp. 1196- 1203.

7.

Bogdanov, A., Carlsson, M., Harvey, G., Hunt, J., Kieburtz, D.,
Merwe, R. V. D. and Wan, E. (2003) :

State-Dependent Riccati

Equation Control of A Small Unmanned Helicopter, Proceedings of

the AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, AIAA,
Austin, TX, pp. 1120-1126.
8.

Boussios, C. I. (1998) : An Approach for Nonlinear Control Design

via Approximate Dynamic Programming, PhD thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

9.

Budiyono, A. and Sutarto, H.Y. (2004) : Controller Design of a

VTOL Aircraft: A Case Study of Coefficient Diagram Method to a
Time-varying System, Regional Conference on Aeronautical Science,
Technology and Industry, Bandung, Indonesia.

VI. Concluding Remarks

The paper discussed recent progress in the technology for
unmanned aerial vehicles from the modeling, control and
guidance perspectives. Dynamics of rotorcraft-based unmanned aerial vehicle is presented to describe the underlying principle of modeling for the control synthesis. The
modeling based on first principle, system identification and
LPV identification is presented briefly for illustration. A
number of major trends in aerial robotics are discussed:
state estimation algorithm, SLAM, vision for guidance,
integrated modeling, maneuver automaton and safety veri-

10. Budiyono, A. (2005a) : Onboard Multivariable Controller Design for

a Small Scale Helicopter Using Coefficient Diagram Method, International Conference on Emerging System Technology, Seoul, Korea.
11. Budiyono, A. (2005b) : Design and Development of Autonomous
Uninhabited Air Vehicles at ITB: Challenges and Progress Status,
Aerospace Indonesia Meeting, Bandung, Indonesia.
12. Budiyono, A. and Wibowo, S.S. (2007a) : Optimal Tracking Controller Design for A Small Scale Helicopter, Journal of Bionic Engineering, Vol 4, December.
13. Budiyono, A. et.al. (2007b) : First Principle Approach to Modeling
of Small Scale Helicopter, in Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Unmanned Systems, Bali, Indonesia.

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Jan??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

11

ARTICLES

py for avoiding hazards and following terrain (Thakoor, S.

et.al. , 2003).

14. Budiyono, A. et.al (2008): Integrated Identification Modeling of

28. Harbick, K., Montgomery, J. F. and Sukhatme, G. S. (2004) : Planar

Rotorcraft-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, accepted for IEEE Ro-

Spline Trajectory Following for an Autonomous Helicopter, Journal

bio, Bangkok

of Advanced Computational Intelligence - Computational Intelli-

15. Budiyono, A and Sudiyanto, T (2008b): Linear Parameter Varying

gence in Robotics and Automation, 8, pp. 237-242.

Identification of Vertical-Longitudinal Dynamic of A Small Size

29. Heffley, R. K., Jewell, W. F., Lehman, J. M. and Winkle, R. A. V.

Helicopter (XCell 60) Model, International Symposium on Intelli-

(1979) : A Compilation and Analysis of Helicopter Handling Quali-

gent Unmanned System, Nanjing

ties Data, NASA Contractor Report 3144.

16. Buskey, G., Wyeth, G. and Roberts, J. (2001) : Autonomous Heli-

30. Heffley, R. K., Bourne, S. M., Curtiss Jr, H. C., Hindson, W. S. and

copter Hover Using an Artificial Neural Network, International

Hess, R. A. (1986) : Study of Helicopter Roll Control Effectiveness

Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA 2001), Seoul, Korea,

Criteria, NASA Contractor Report 177404.

pp. 1635-1640.

31. Heffley, R. K. and Mnich, M. A. (1988) : Minimum Complexity

17. Buskey, G., Roberts, J. and Wyeth, G. (2002) : Online Learning of

Autonomous Helicopter Control, Proceedings Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, Auckland, pp. 21-27.

Helicopter Simulation Math Model, NASA Contractor Report

177476.
32. Hovakimyan, N., Kim, N., and Calise, A. J. (2000) : Adaptive output

18. Buskey, G., Roberts, J. and Wyeth, G. (2003) : A helicopter named

feedback for high-bandwidth control of an unmanned helicopter,

Dolly - Behavioral cloning for autonomous helicopter control, Pro-

AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Paper No:

ceedings Astralasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, Bris-

AIAA-2000-4058.

bane, pp. 36-41.

33. Jang, J. R. and Sun, C. T. (1995) : Neuro-Fuzzy Modeling and Con-

19. Castillo, C., Alvis, W., Castillo, M.-Effen, Valavanis, K. and Moreno,

trol, Proceedings of The IEEE. pp. 378-406.

W. (2005) : Small Scale Helicopter Analysis and Controller Design

34. Johnson, E. N. and Mishra, S. (2002) : Flight Simulation for the

for Non-Aggressive Flights, Proceedings IEEE International Confe-

Development of an Experimental UAV, Proceedings of the AIAA

rence on SMC, Hawaii, pp. 3305- 3312.

Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit,

20. Corban, J. E., Calise, A. J., Prasad, J. V. R., Hur, J., and Kim, N.

Monterey, California, Paper No: AIAA 2002-4975.

(2002) : Flight evaluation of adaptive high bandwidth control me-

35. Johnson, E. and Kannan, S. (2002) : Adaptive flight control for an

thods for unmanned helicopters, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance,

autonomous unmanned helicopter, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and

Navigation and Control, American Institute of Aeronautics and As-

Control Conference, AIAA-2002-4439, Monterey, California, Paper

tronautics, pp. 645-651.

No: AIAA 2002-4439.

21. Corke, P., Sikka, P. and Roberts J. (2000) : Height Estimation for an
Autonomous Helicopter, International

Symposium on Experimen-

tal Robotics, pp. 101110.

36. Johnson, E. and Fontaine, S. (2001) : Use of flight simulation to

complement flight testing of low-cost UAVs, AIAA Modeling and
Simulation Technologies Conference, Paper No. : AIAA 2001-4059.

22. Devasia, S. (1999) : Approximated Stable Inversion for Nonlinear

37. Johnson, E., DeBitetto, P., Trott, C., and Bosse, M. (1996) : The

Systems with Nonhyperbolic Internal Dynamics, IEEE Transactions

1996 MIT/Boston University/Draper laboratory autonomous heli-

on Automatic Control, 44, pp. 1419-1425.

copter system, 15th AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics System Confe-

23. Escareno, J. et.al. (2008): Triple Tilting Rotor mini-UAV: Modeling

and Embedded Control of the Attitude, American Control Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA,June 11-13
24. Fagg, A. H., Lewis, M. A., Montgomery, J. F. and Bekey, G. A.

rence, 1, pp. 381-386.

38. Johnson, E. and DeBitetto, P. (1997) : Modeling and simulation for
small autonomous helicopter development, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Monterey, California.

(1993) : The USC Autonomous Flying Vehicle : An Experiment In

39. Kannan, S. and Johnson, E. (2002) : Adaptive Trajectory Based

Real-time Behavior-Based Control, Proceedings of the 1993

Control For Autonomous Helicopters, AIAA Digital Avionics Con-

IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1173-1180.

25. Frazzolli, E., Dahleh, M. A., and Feron, E. (2005) : Maneuver-Based
Motion Planning for Nonlinear Systems With Symmetries, IEEE
Transaction on Robotics, 21, pp. 10771091.
26. Gavrilets, V., Frazzoli, E., Mettler, B., Piedmonte, M., and Feron, E.
(2001) : Aggressive maneuvering of small autonomous helicopters: a
human-centered approach, International Journal of Robotics Research, pp. 795 - 807.

via Nonlinear Adaptive Observers, Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference
41. Kim, H. J., Shim, D. H. and Sastry, S. (2003) : A Flight Control
System for Aerial Robots : Algorithms and Experiments, Control
Engineering Practice, 11, pp. 1389-1400.
42. Kim, N., Calise, A. J., Hovakimyan, N., Prasad, J.V.R., and Corban,
E. (2002) : Adaptive Output Feedback for High Bandwidth Flight

27. Gavrilets, V. (2003) : Autonomous Aerobatic Maneuvering of Miniature Helicopter, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

ference, number 358, Irvine, CA, pp. 8.D.1-1 8.d.1-12.

40. Khadidja, et.al, (2007): Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Speed Estimation

Control, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 25(6),

pp. 993-1002.
43. Koo, T. J., Pappas, G. J. and Sastry, S. (2001) : Mode Switching
Synthesis for Reachability Specifications, Proceedings of the 4th In-

12

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Ja??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

57. Mot, J. D., Kulkarni, V., Gentry, S., Gavrilets, V. and Feron, E.
(2002a) : Coordinated Path Planning for a UAV Cluster, The First

pp. 333 346.

44. Koo, T. J. and Sastry, S. (1998) : Output Tracking Control Design of

AINS Symposium, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.

A Helicopter Model Based on Approximate Linearization, Proceed-

58. Mot, J. D., Kulkarni, V., Gentry, S. and Feron, E. (2002b) : Spatial

ings Of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Tampa,

Distribution Results for Efficient Multi-Agent Navigation. IEEE

FL, pp. 3635-3640.

Conference on Decision and. Control, 4, pp. 3776 3781.

45. Kornfeld, R. (1999) : The Impact of GPS Velocity Based Flight

59. Munzinger, C. (1998) : Development of A Real-Time Flight Simula-

Control on Flight Instrumentation Architecture, PhD thesis, Massa-

tor for An Experimental Model Helicopter, Diploma Thesis, Georgia

chusetts Institute of Technology.

Institute of Technology.

46. Kutay, A. T., Calise, A. J., Idan, M. and Hovakimyan, N. (2002) :

60. Perhinschi, M. G. and Prasad, J. V. R. (1998): A simulation model of

Experimental Results on Adaptive Output Feedback Control Using A

an autonomous helicopter, Proceedings of RPV/UAV Systems Bris-

Laboratory Model Helicopter, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance,

Navigation and Control Conference, pp. 196-202.
47. La Civita, M., Messner, W. C. and Kanade, T. (2002) : Modeling of
small-scale helicopters with integrated first-principles and system
identification techniques, Proceedings Of the 58th Forum of the
American Helicopter Society, Montreal, Canada, pp. 2505 - 2516.
48. Lee, D. and Horn, J. F. (2005) : Simulation of pilot workload for a
helicopter operating in a turbulent ship airwake, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers part G, 219, pp. 445-458.
49. Madani, T and Bennelague, A. (2007): Sliding Mode Observer and
Backstepping Control for a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
American Control Conference, New York, USA, June 11-13
50. Mahony, R. and Hamel, T. (2004) : Robust trajectory tracking for a
scale model autonomous helicopter, International Journal of Robust
and Nonlinear Control, 14, pp. 1035-1059.
51. Manabe, S. (2002) : Application of Coefficient Diagram Method to
MIMO Design in Aerospace, 15th Triennial World Congress, IFAC,
Barcelona, Spain, T-Tu-MO62.
52. Mazenc , F., Mahony, R. E. and Lozano, R. (2003) : Forwarding
control of scale model Autonomous helicopter: A Lyapunov control
design, Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control , Maui, Hawaii USA, pp. 3960- 3965.
53. Mettler, B. (2003): Identification modeling and characteristics of
miniature rotorcraft, Kluwer Academic Publisher

tol International Conference and Exhibit, pp. 36.1-36.13

61. Raffo, G.V. et al. (2008): Backstepping/Nonlinear H Control for
Path Tracking of a QuadRotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, American
Control Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 11-13
62. Samad, T. et.al. (2004): High-Confidence Control: Ensuring Reliability in High-Performance Real-Time Systems, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 19, 315326
63. Sanchez, E. N., Becerra, H. M. and Velez, C. M. (2005) : Combining
fuzzy and PID control for an unmanned helicopter, The 2005 North
American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Annual Conference,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
64. Seiler, P. J. (2001) : Coordinated Control of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
65. Shamma, J. S. and Athans, M. (1991) : Gain Scheduling : Potential
Hazards and Possible Remedies, American Control Conference,
Boston, MA.
66. Shim, D. (2000) : Hierarchical Control System Synthesis for Rotorcraft-Based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, PhD thesis, University of
California, Berkeley.
67. Sholes, Eric. (2006): Evolution of a UAV Autonomy Classification
Taxonomy, IEEEAC paper #1538, Version 3
68. Sutarto, H.Y., Budiyono A., Joelianto E., and Hiong, G. T. (2006) :
Switched Linear Control of a Model Helicopter, International Conference on Automation, Robotics, Control and Vision, Singapore.

54. Mettler, B., Tischler, M., and Kanade, T. (2002) : System identifica-

69. Thakoor, S. et.al (2003): Review: The Benefits and Applications of

tion modeling of a small-scale unmanned rotorcraft for flight control

Bioinspired Flight Capabilities, Journal of Robotic Systems 20(12),

design, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 47, pp. 50 63.

687706

55. Mokhtari, A and Bennelague, A (2004): Dynamic Feedback Control-

70. Tischler, M. B. and Cauffman, M. G. (1992) : Frequency-Response

ler of Euler Angles and Wind parameters estimation for a Quadrotor

Method for Rotorcraft System Identification : Flight Applications to

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Proceedings of IEEE International Con-

BO-105 Coupled Fuselage/Rotor Dynamics, Journal of the American

ference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA, USA

56. Mokhtari, A, Bennelague, A. and Daachi, B (2005) : Robust Feedback Linearization and GH Controller for a Quadrotor Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems

Helicopter Society, 37/3: p. 3-17.

71. Tischler, M. B. and Remple, R. K. (2006) : Aircraft and Rotorcraft
system Identification, AIAA Education Series.
72. Weillenmann, M. F. and Geering, H.P., (1994): Test Bench for Rotorcraft Hover Control, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamic, 17, pp. 729-736.
.

CHEN LiQun et al. Chinese Science Bulletin | Jan??? 2007 | vol. 52 | no. ? | ?-?

13

ARTICLES

ternational Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control,