Abstract

In this article, a robust attitude controller design for an uncommon quadrotor aerial vehicle is discussed. This aerial vehicle is designed to have two big rotors on the longitudinal axis to increase the lift capacity and flight endurance, and two small tilt rotors on the lateral axis to stabilize the attitude. Similar to other multirotors, linearization of the full nonlinear model and using an appropriate rotor mixing matrix give the approximate diagonal attitude model of this quadrotor around hover. However, this ideal model lacks sensor delays, uncertain parameters, flexible modes of a structure, and inexact decoupling dynamics. Therefore, using this model in the control design limits the achievable attitude control performance. Unlike most studies, a system identification method is applied to estimate a more accurate model and increase the resulting attitude control performance. The aim of this paper is to obtain a suitable nominal model with accompanying uncertainty using robust control criterion in the system identification. In this way, an uncertain model that gives high performance in the subsequent robust control design is obtained. The experimental results show that this combined identification and robust control procedure improves attitude control performance compared to existing classical controller design methods.

1 Introduction

Uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) have drawn a lot of interest in both academic research and commercial areas in the last decade. Among all UAVs, quadrotors have become the most common configuration due to their vertical takeoff and landing, hover in place, and maneuverability abilities. The reduction of cost and complexity has increased the use of quadrotors in various military and civil applications [1]. Apart from these favorable properties, quadrotors suffer from high energy consumption. Therefore, the capability of the power system has limited the usage of quadrotors in different applications.

Power source and efficiency of transferring that energy to the air via rotors both limit flight endurance and payload capacity. Typical small commercial quadrotors have less than 20-min flight endurances and payload sizes less than 1 kg [2,3]. This is due to the inadequate stored energy per unit mass of batteries to supply brushless DC motors. For multirotors, the weights of the vehicles are mostly determined by batteries [2]; thus, increasing battery sizes does not contribute much to flight duration since it also increases required power. Therefore, significant progress in flight endurance requires improvements to current battery technology. Since this is a slow process, other methods, such as using an alternative power source and increasing the efficiency of a lifting system, have been studied recently.

For a typical multirotor, the power requirement to maintain thrust over a rotor disc area changes exponentially with total weight and the inverse of the rotor disc area [3]. Consequently, quadrotors suffer from lower efficiency compared to helicopters because of the smaller rotor area in the given unit diameter footprint. On the other hand, the mechanically complex rotor assemblies of helicopters are fragile and require intensive maintenance. Therefore, combining simple and robust quadrotor structure and efficiency of helicopters has also been studied recently.

The triangular quadrotor (Fig. 1(a)) introduced in Ref. [3] uses large rotor in the center to provide lift and canted three small rotors for control and counter torque. Even if a 15% efficiency improvement is reported, this configuration gives degraded hover attitude control performance due to the uncompensated gyroscopic torque of the main rotor compared to a standard quadrotor. In Ref. [4], bi-copter with tilting rotors (Fig. 1(b)) is introduced, and its theoretical efficiency improvement over traditional configurations is reported. For that configuration, roll torque depends on the vertical distance between the center of gravity and the plane of the propellers. Therefore, the roll response of this vehicle is slow since limited torque can be obtained due to this small distance. In addition, roll transients cause linear movement in the y-direction [8]. Moreover, in bi-copter, thrust is obtained from rotors placed over tilt mechanisms. This may cause extra vibrations and resonance problems in the structure for larger bi-copter systems.

Fig. 1
Multicopter configurations: (a) triangular quadrotor [3], (b) bi-copter with tilting rotors [4], (c) quadrotor with a coaxial inverting thruster [5], (d) quadrotor with variable pitch rotors powered from a gasoline engine [6], and (e) quadrotor with four gasoline engines [7]
Fig. 1
Multicopter configurations: (a) triangular quadrotor [3], (b) bi-copter with tilting rotors [4], (c) quadrotor with a coaxial inverting thruster [5], (d) quadrotor with variable pitch rotors powered from a gasoline engine [6], and (e) quadrotor with four gasoline engines [7]
Close modal

Using hydrocarbon fuel as an alternative power source significantly outperforms the battery powered propulsion system, and it gives relatively large flight endurance. In Ref. [5], a coaxial inverting thruster using two gasoline engines is placed at the center of a standard quadrotor (Fig. 1(c)). In this case, gyroscopic and counter torques are compensated; however, coaxial rotors lose some of their efficiencies [9]. In Ref. [6], a quadrotor with variable pitch rotors that are powered from a gasoline engine (Fig. 1(d)) is reported. This configuration requires a complex drivetrain and four variable pitch rotors. In Ref. [7], a quadrotor based on four gasoline engines (Fig. 1(e)) is reported. This vehicle can carry large payloads, but the existence of four engines increases the cost dramatically.

In this study, inspired by these works, an uncommon quadrotor configuration illustrated in Fig. 2 is introduced to address the uncompensated gyroscopic torque problem for a single large rotor, the low efficiency problem for coaxial large rotors, the limited roll torque, possible vibrations, and resonance problems of bi-copter design. Therefore, two large rotors are placed on the longitudinal axis which are counter-rotating to minimize their gyroscopic and rotor drag torques. On the lateral axis, small counter-rotating rotors are used for attitude control. In addition, the distance between the small rotor and body is kept small to avoid a large vehicle horizontal width. In this configuration, large rotors carry a major portion of the vehicle weight. Alternate rotors are not counter-rotating to minimize rotor drag and gyroscopic torques in this configuration unlike a standard case. Therefore, small rotors are equipped with a tilt mechanism to gain the control of yaw motion. In addition, sufficient roll control performance can be obtained with this layout. Herein, main thrust sources are directly attached to the main frame which reduces the possible vibration and resonance problems. Therefore, this configuration is more suitable for larger scale compared to a bi-copter. Moreover, if one aims for longer flight duration, large propellers can easily be powered from gasoline engines. In this way, some drawbacks of the gasoline engine configurations discussed above can be eliminated. In this article, battery powered propulsion system is studied. Theoretical efficiency improvements and earlier flight tests of the proposed vehicle prototype are reported previously in Ref. [10].

Fig. 2
Proposed quadrotor configuration
Fig. 2
Proposed quadrotor configuration
Close modal

For multirotors, controllers are generally designed based on an ideal dynamic model derived from physical laws. Thrust and rotor drag coefficients are obtained from static thrust tests. Moreover, inertia matrices are obtained from pendulum tests [1, Ch. 6]. With measuring mass and distances between rotors and mass center, approximate linear model can easily be constructed. Based on this model, proportional-integral-derivative (PID) type controllers can be designed, and sufficient control performance around hover can be reached [1, Ch. 11]. An alternative way of using the ideal dynamic model directly is to assign uncertainties to parameters. From this perspective, robust adaptive [11] and nonlinear H attitude controllers [12] are applied to satisfy robustness against uncertainty in mass and inertia values. Similar studies can be added, but they all mainly aim for robustness against parametric uncertainties in ideal models.

If higher control performance is demanded, one needs to obtain a more accurate model using a system identification method. From the frequency response function (FRF), dynamic model can be obtained. In this way, the dynamics of the sensors, flexible modes of the airframe, and couplings of different axes due to an inaccurate rotor mixing matrix can be included in the model. In Ref. [13], model of the aircraft is estimated from FRF obtained by injecting multisine signals. Similarly, system identification of multirotors is studied in Refs. [14,15] previously. However, in these studies, perfect decoupling of axes is assumed, and only diagonal entries of the overall transfer matrix are computed. In this article, in addition to diagonal entries, coupling dynamics are also analyzed, and the FRF of the overall three-input three-output attitude model is estimated.

From a robust control point of view, nominal model and uncertainty structure selections are very important for high performance. It is possible to minimize the robust control criterion during identification of the nominal model and uncertainty if a specific dual-Youla–Kucera structure is used [16]. With this structure, control synthesis can be performed in a non-conservative manner, and similar high performance can be obtained for the entire model set. This method gives promising results in motion control applications [17,18]. Herein, this method is successfully applied for an attitude control problem for the first time.

In the robust control framework, nominal model should be accompanied by minimum uncertainty such that uncertain model and measured outputs from true system are consistent. In this study, the validation-based uncertainty modeling procedure introduced in Ref. [19] is used for that purpose. To the author’s knowledge, this study is the first implementation of this technique to UAV flight control problem. After that, the uncertain model and required robustness are determined. It is known that standard μ synthesis optimizes robustness and performance at the same time [20, Ch. 8]. Therefore, this method is not suitable when the required robustness is already known. Hence, uncommon skewed-μ synthesis is used for robust controller design.

1.1 Contribution and Outline of This Paper.

The main contribution of this paper is to apply the combined identification and robust control procedure for the attitude control problem. To the author’s knowledge, similar methods, which include identification of a multivariable attitude model, validation-based uncertainty quantification, and skewed-μ synthesis, are not investigated in the previous studies for UAV flight control problem. In this respect, this article contributes to the studies in this area and shows performance improvements compared to traditional methods.

The outline of this article is as follows. In Sec. 2, a nonlinear dynamic model of the proposed quadrotor configuration is obtained. This model is later used in Sec. 3 to find an approximate linear model around hover. In Sec. 4, robust-control-relevant identification and its main motivation are explained. In Sec. 5, skewed-μ synthesis and in Sec. 6, prototype of the vehicle are introduced. Then, in Sec. 7, several experimental results are illustrated, and the attitude control performances of robust and proportional-integral (PI) controllers are compared.

2 Dynamical Model

As in the standard case, the proposed quadrotor configuration can be viewed as a connection of five rigid bodies, quadrotor body B with four rotor groups Pi attached to it. However, the vehicle illustrated in Fig. 2 differs in that it consists of big rotors on the longitudinal axis (i = 1, 3) and small rotors equipped with tilting mechanisms on the lateral axis (i = 2, 4).

2.1 Preliminary Definitions.

Let FE:{OE;xE,yE,zE} be an earth inertial frame and FB:{OB;xB,yB,zB} be a quadrotor body frame attached to its center of gravity. Moreover, let fixed rotor frames FPi:{OPi;xPi,yPi,zPi},i=1,2,3,4, be aligned with each other and body frame. The orientation of second and forth rotors are changed by rotation around yPi axis by an angle of αi. This rotation creates a new frame for small rotors as shown in Fig. 2, and they are represented by FP¯i:{OP¯i;xP¯i,yP¯i,zP¯i},i=2,4.

To balance gyroscopic and counter torques in hover, rotating directions of similar type motors must be opposite. Therefore, rotors 1 and 2 revolve in clockwise direction, and rotors 3 and 4 revolve in counter clockwise direction.

Let the vector ξ=[xyz]T denote translational coordinates of OB relative to FE, η=[ϕθψ]T denote the orientation of the quadrotor determined by roll angle ϕ, pitch angle θ, and yaw angle ψ (ZYX Euler angles), RBE denote the overall rotation matrix from body frame to inertial frame, and RP¯iB denote the rotation matrix from rotating rotor frame FP¯i to body fixed frame FB [21].

2.2 Equations of Motion.

The motion equations of a rigid body are obtained using Newton-Euler formulation as
ξ¨=GE+1mRBETB
(1)
Ω˙=I1(Ω×IΩ+τB)
(2)
where GE = [0 0 − g]T is the gravity vector, TB=i=14FiB is the total thrust vector, m is the mass of the quadrotor, τB is the total torque applied to the center of mass, Ω = [p q r]T is the body frame angular rate, and I=diag(Ixx,Iyy,Izz) is the moments of inertia about the body-fixed frame FB of symmetric quadrotor structure. In Eq. (2), τB term consists of actuators torque τAB, gyroscopic torque τGB, and rotor drag torque τDB, i.e., (τB=τAB+τDBτGB). Herein, VE=ξ˙ is the translational velocity of the vehicle in the earth frame FE [21].

3 Motion Control for the Proposed Quadrotor

The full nonlinear model derived in Eqs. (1) and (2) is useful for simulation purpose despite some neglected aerodynamic effects. However, especially rotational motion equation is fairly complex for control purpose. Therefore, suitable reduced model is needed. First, it is assumed that bandwidth of rotor speed control is sufficiently high such that transients on rotor speed wi are neglected. Therefore, wi’s are considered as control inputs. For a quadrotor in slow flight conditions, the second-order inertial and gyroscopic terms are smaller than the forces and torques generated by propeller actuation. Therefore, these second-order terms are considered as disturbances that need to be canceled by the controller. Therefore, simplified rotational motion equation Ω˙=I1τB is used instead of Eq. (2) for controller design purpose where τB is now equal to τB=τAB+τDB.

3.1 Linearization of the Model in Hover.

Approximate linear model around hover is obtained using Eq. (1) and Ω˙=I1τB, relation between rates of Euler angles and body rates, manipulated variables u=[wTαT]T, and states x=[(VE)TηTΩT]T. Herein, w=[w12w22w32w42]T includes square of the rotor speeds and α=[α2α4]T includes tilt angles.

Linearized model around xeq and ueq is obtained by dropping all but first-order terms in the Taylor series expansion. Linearization is obtained around hover position where u=[wTαT]T=[weqT00]T and states x=[(VE)TηTΩT]T=[00000ψ000]T. Overall linearization procedure is not given here due to space limit, but one can investigate [22] for details. Similar to a common configuration, stabilization of the proposed quadrotor around hover requires control of translational motion in z-axis and rotational motions. Then, the following reduced equation can be obtained:
[δξ¯¨δΩ˙]=[m100I1]×[kfbkfskfbkfs000kfsls0kfslskdsweq2kdsweq4kfblb0kfblb0kfslshweq2kfslshweq4kdbkdskdbkdskfslsweq2kfslsweq4]B¯[δwδα2δα4]
(3)

Herein, kfb, kfs are the thrust factors, ls is the small arm length, lsh is the distance between mass center and small rotor along z-axis, kdb, kds are the rotor drag factors, and weqi is the square of the hover speed of the ith rotor. In addition, ξ¯=z and δ denotes the perturbation of the parameter from the equilibrium value. Then, nonlinear quadrotor model is approximated as x¯=x¯eq+δx¯ and u = ueq + δu where δx¯=[δz˙δΩT]T and δu=[δwTδαT]T.

3.2 Quadrotor Control.

A hierarchical control strategy commonly used for quadrotors is also applicable to the proposed configuration. At the lowest level, according to commands sent from the flight controller, rotor speeds and angles of the tilt mechanisms are controlled by related electronics. Generally, these loops have very high bandwidth, and their transients can be neglected. In the second level, attitude control loops exist to track desired angles. At the top level, position controllers exist that determine required angles according to desired position commands [1, Ch. 11]. This cascaded control structure, which includes these levels, is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
Control structure
In Eq. (3), axes of linearized model are coupled. Using pseudo-inverse-based input decoupling matrix (rotor mixing matrix) Tu=B¯T(B¯B¯T)1 and output decoupling matrix Ty = I4, ideal decoupled model in Eq. (4) can be obtained which facilitates the controller design where δu = Tuδu′ and δy=Tyδy=δy=[δz˙δΩT]T.
Pdecoupled(s):δuδy=diag(1ms,1Ixxs,1Iyys,1Izzs)
(4)

However, due to inexact decoupling, gyro sensor delay, and other negligible dynamics, the model differs from the ideal. In this article, a more accurate plant model will be obtained using a system identification procedure.

To control the attitude of quadrotors, the cascaded control structure in Fig. 4 is used. Therefore, the accuracy of the attitude control is mainly determined from inner rate control loop performance. Herein, designing high performance rate loop which minimizes the effects of neglected and nonlinear dynamics is the main motivation. Since model-based robust control technique will be used, the equivalent model Po in Fig. 4 for the inner loop is needed. This model will be obtained from flight tests when the quadrotor is stabilized by manually tuned PI rate and proportional (P) angle controllers.

Fig. 4
Cascaded control structure for attitude control
Fig. 4
Cascaded control structure for attitude control
Close modal

4 Combined Identification and Robust Control

4.1 Problem Formulation.

Optimization-based method is used to solve the attitude control problem systematically. Herein, P denotes the linear time invariant system to be controlled, and C denotes the feedback controller. Minimization of a control criterion J(P, C) for the actual plant Po, i.e., min CJ(Po, C), is the main goal of corresponding optimal control problem. Following criterion is used throughout the article:
J(P,C)=WT(P,C)V
(5)
where W = diag (Wy, Wu) and V = diag (V2, V1) are bistable weighting filters and transfer matrix T(P, C) is the mapping defined as Eq. (6) which corresponds to the closed loop in Fig. 5.
T(P,C):[r2r1][yu]=[PI](I+CP)1[CI]
(6)
Fig. 5
Feedback configuration
Fig. 5
Feedback configuration
Close modal

T(P, C) includes sensitivity, process sensitivity, control sensitivity, and complementary sensitivity functions. Compared to standard mixed sensitivity problems, this four-block problem eliminates unwanted pole/zero cancelations during controller synthesis. In addition, this problem also appears in H loop shaping method in Ref. [23] where the shaped plant is robustly stabilized with respect to coprime factor uncertainty [24]. Since similar design method and uncertainty structure are targeted, this four-block problem is used in this article.

4.2 Robust Control.

Direct minimization of Eq. (5) is not possible since the true system Po is unknown. An optimal controller based on a single approximate model P^
CNP=argminCJ(P^,C)
(7)
does not guarantee any performance bound for J(Po, CNP), and it may result in unbounded value due to instability. Therefore, an uncertain model set P which is structured using upper linear fractional transformation (LFT)
P={PP=Fu(H^,Δu),ΔuΔu}
(8)
is constructed using uncertainty Δu around the nominal model P^, and it includes the actual plant, i.e., PoP. H^ contains the nominal model P^ and the uncertainty structure. In addition, H-norm-bounded perturbation equation (9) is considered [16].
Δu={ΔuRHΔuγ,ω[0,2π)}
(9)
For the uncertain model set P, worst-case performance is defined as JWC(P,C)=supPPJ(P,C). Minimizing the worst-case performance, i.e.,
CRP=argminCJWC(P,C)
(10)
performance bound J(Po,CRP)JWC(P,CRP) for the true plant Po is guaranteed to hold. In other words, CRP stabilizes and gives certain level of performance for the true system Po after implementation [17].

4.3 System Identificiation for Robust Control.

When robust controller CRP is implemented, a certain performance bound is obtained. However, exact performance level, the value of JWC(P,CRP(P)), depends on the shape and size of P. Construction of the model set P that includes Po and leads to small performance bound is the aim of robust-control-relevant identification. However, minimization of JWC(P,CRP(P)) is not explicit due to complex dependency between CRP(P) with P. Therefore, the following identification criterion selection is reasonable:
minPJWC(P,Cexp)subjecttoPoP
(11)
where Cexp denotes the controller which stabilizes the quadrotor during identification experiment. Herein, selecting Cexp close to CRP(P) increases the accuracy of the approximation equation (11). This closeness can be obtained by iterations over Pk and CRPk(P), and using the robust controller of the last iteration as Cexpk+1=CRPk [16]. In this article, one iteration is performed, and Eq. (11) is only minimized for the initial PI controller Cexp1.
The uncertainty structure selection is important to simplify the minimization of Eq. (11). Control structure is obtained by adding weighting filters and Cexp to LFT representation of P as in Fig. 6. Then, Eq. (12) gives the worst-case performance where M^ is partitioned suitably.
JWC(P,Cexp)=supΔuΔuFu(M^,Δu)=supΔuΔuM^22+M^21Δu(IM^11Δu)1M^12
(12)
Fig. 6
General control structure for worst-case performance evaluation
Fig. 6
General control structure for worst-case performance evaluation
Close modal
Equation (12) can be simplified if the model set is composed of plants that are stabilized by Cexp, and bounded performance can be obtained. Coprime factorization-based dual-Youla–Kucera uncertainty structure (Eq. (13)) can be used for that purpose [16].
PDY={PP=(N^+DcΔu)(D^NcΔu)1,ΔuΔu}
(13)

Right coprime factorization (RCF) of P^ is denoted by the pair {N^,D^} if D^ is invertible, N^,D^RH, P^=N^D^1, and Xr,YrRH satisfying Bezout identity XrD^+YrN^=I. Similarly, it is assumed that the stabilizing controller Cexp has a RCF {Nc, Dc}. Then, using PDY in Fig. 6 gives the LFT representation (Eq. (14)).

formula
(14)
Therefore, worst-case performance (Eq. (12)) reduces to an affine function in Δu and becomes bounded.
JWC(PDY,Cexp)=supΔuΔuM^22+M^21ΔuM^12
(15)

Even if bounded performance is reached, the minimization of Eq. (15) is not clear due to frequency dependent M^21 and M^12 terms. Further simplification is explained in Sec. 4.5 by using specific coprime factorization of Cexp.

4.4 Nominal Model Identification.

Performances of the nominal model P^ and the true system Po can be related using the following triangle equality [25]:
J(Po,C)J(P^,C)+W(T(Po,C)T(P^,C))V
(16)
The first term on the right is related to model-based control design, whereas the second term corresponds to the worst-case performance degradation term since C is designed for P^, rather than for Po. Here, the performance degradation term is used to measure the control-relevance of the model. Hence, nominal model identification minimizes this term when it is evaluated for Cexp as Eq. (17).
minP^W(T(Po,Cexp)T(P^,Cexp))V
(17)
Dual-Youla–Kucera-based uncertainty structure requires coprime factors {N^,D^} instead of P^. Equation (17) can be converted to coprime identification case as follows. Let {N~e,D~e} be a left coprime factorization of [CexpV2V1] with a co-inner numerator, i.e., N~eN~e*=I, where N~e=[N~e,2N~e,1]. Then, let {N^,D^} be described by Eq. (18).
[ND]=[PI](D~e+N~e,2V21P)1
(18)
Then, criterion (17) can be written as coprime factor identification problem as
minN^,D^W([NoDo][N^D^])subjecttoN^,D^RH
(19)
where {No,Do} denotes the coprime factors of Po [16]. By using appropriate parametrization ρ for [N^T(ρ)D^T(ρ)]T, Lawson’s algorithm for L approximation and Sanathanan–Koerner (SK) iterations, Eq. (19) is recast as a linear least squares (LS) problem at a discrete frequency grid. During parametrization, specific orthonormal polynomials are used that gives optimal numerical conditioning of the corresponding LS problem. Accurate parametric coprime factors are obtained after subsequent SK and Gauss-Newton iterations [21]. Nonparametric estimate of {No,Do} can be obtained as
[N~oD~o]=T~(Po,Cexp)VN~e*
(20)
where T~(Po,Cexp) is the FRF obtained from flight tests.

4.5 Robust-Control-Relevant Model Set.

Robust-control-relevant identification requires (Wu, Wy)-normalized coprime factorization of Cexp satisfying Eq. (21) [16].
[WuNcWyDc]*[WuNcWyDc]=I
(21)
Then, starting from uncertainty structure (Eq. (13)), robust-control-relevant model set PRCR is constructed as
PRCR={PPPDY,{N^,D^}satisfiesEq.(18),{Nc,Dc}satisfiesEq.(21)}
(22)
The LFT representation in Eq. (14) is updated for these particular coprime factorizations as
formula
(23)
When the worst-case performance (Eq. (15)) is evaluated for PRCR, it gives
JWC(PRCR,Cexp)J(P^,Cexp)+γ
(24)

This shows that uncertainty bound γ directly affects the worst-case performance JWC(PRCR,Cexp). In other words, by minimizing γ separately with nominal model identification and quantification of model uncertainty Δu, a robust-control-relevant model set in terms of Eq. (11) is obtained [17].

5 Robust Controller Synthesis

The structure in Fig. 6 can be equally represented as in Fig. 7, and using dual-Youla–Kucera uncertainty structure, following generalized plant is obtained:
formula
(25)
Fig. 7
Equivalent representation of Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Equivalent representation of Fig. 6
Close modal
Herein, Wγ denotes the identified uncertainty bound which is embedded in Eq. (25) to normalize the uncertainty, i.e., σ¯(Δu)1. Standard μ synthesis optimizes robustness and performance at the same time. Therefore, it is not suitable for problems where the uncertainty and required robustness are already determined as in this case. Therefore, following skewed-μ definition is used:
μs,Δ¯=(min{σ¯(Δt)Δ¯Δ¯,det(IMΔ¯)=0})1
(26)
where Δ¯ is defined as below and Δt is a fictitious uncertainty block introduced for robust performance measure [20, Ch. 8].
Δ¯={diag(Δu,Δt)σ¯(Δu)1,ΔuΔu,ΔtΔt}
(27)
Therefore, robust controller is synthesized based on the following criterion:
CRP=argminCsupω[0,2π)μs(Fl(G(ejω),C(ejω)))
(28)

Solution technique of skewed-μ synthesis is DK iterations as in the standard μ case. However, the criterion of the DK iterations is slightly modified as minK,DDUM^D1 by introducing a new matrix U=diag(In,(1/μs)Inp) with appropriate dimensions that is updated at each iteration [20, Ch. 8].

6 Prototype of an Uncommon Quadrotor Configuration

Most of the electrical and mechanical parts of the first prototype are constructed using low-cost off-the-shelf devices available in the UAV laboratory of the METU EEE department. While two T-Motor KV400 motors driving 16 in. (40.6 cm) propellers are used for the large rotors, two T-Motor KV830 motors driving 9 in. (22.9 cm) propellers correspond to the small rotors. Two 3D printed tilt mechanisms together with two Savöx SA-1256 servo motors are used to tilt the small rotors as depicted in Fig. 8. A Hobbywing Quattro four-channel electronic speed controller (ESC) and a Gens ace 4S (14.8 V) Lipo battery are used to power the brushless motors. An Ublox Neo 7 GPS-Compass module, a 3DR 433 Mhz radio telemetry kit, and a Futaba 2.4 Ghz R2008SB receiver are also attached to the top frame. Moreover, a clone mRo Pixhawk flight controller board compatible with the Pixhawk/PX4 open source flight control software is mounted with a vibration damper in the middle of the top frame. This prototype given in Fig. 8 has a nominal mass of 2.7 kg. The desired motor speeds and tilt angles are regulated with pulse width modulation (PWM) signals sent to the ESC and servo motors. In this study, to reach a convenient solution, available PX4 flight control software is customized for this uncommon quadrotor configuration.

Fig. 8
Prototype of the uncommon quadrotor configuration
Fig. 8
Prototype of the uncommon quadrotor configuration
Close modal

7 Quadrotor Attitude Control: System Identification and Robust Control

In this section, the identification and control methods discussed above are applied to the quadrotor prototype. For attitude control, the cascaded control structure in Fig. 4 is used. Therefore, for accurate attitude control, a high performance rate loop is targeted, and control design is performed for three-input three-output subsystem corresponding to attitude rate control in Fig. 4. Herein, to be suitable with the PX4 flight control software, the normalized rotor mixing matrix Tu given in (29) is used
[δw1δw2δw3δw4δα2δα4]δu=[1.200.300.81001.200.300.810000010001]Tu[δTδτxδτyδτz]δu
(29)
where δT and δτ(.) denote perturbations of the thrust and torque commands. In this way, the yaw axis is controlled only by tilting the small rotors. This implementation also gives small couplings between the yaw and other axes that need to be compensated in the final control design. Euler angles and translational dynamics are controlled by PID and P controllers, which give sufficient performance. Since Po is unknown in the beginning, PI rate and P angle controllers are tuned manually in flight by investigating the command tracking performances. Gains of the controllers are adjusted, and the ones that give step responses with small overshoots and rise times are selected. Then, from flight tests data, estimate of Po is obtained. Next, coprime factors {N^,D^} and uncertainty bound Wγ are found. After that, a robust controller is designed, and its performance is compared with the PI controller having sufficient stability margins.

7.1 Frequency Response Function Identification.

Frequency response functions are derived by manipulating mapping equation (6) for the feedback configuration in Fig. 5. During identification tests, signals r2, u, and y are measured, and r2 excitation signal is applied and r1 is kept at zero. Therefore, the following equation is obtained where the discrete Fourier transforms (DFTs) of measured signals R2jC3×1, UjC3×1, and YjC3×1 on the DFT grid Υ are obtained where 〈j〉 represents the jth test. Performing three tests to span the required space leads to
[Y1Y2Y3U1U2U3]=[PoI](I+CexpPo)1Cexp[R21R22R23]
(30)
Then, the estimation of T(Po, Cexp) is obtained as
T~(Po,Cexp)=[Y1Y2Y3U1U2U3]×[R21R22R23]1[I(Cexp)1]
(31)
where Υid grid is defined as
Υid={ωωΥ,det([R21R22R23])0}
(32)
To obtain accurate estimates, multisine input signals
[r21(t)r22(t)r23(t)]=Ω¯ref+Qkaksin(ωkt+ϑk)
(33)
are used where ωk, ak, ϑk and index k denote corresponding frequency, amplitude, phase, and kth frequency, respectively. When Ω¯ref is constant and full rank Q is selected, ωkΥid is satisfied. Due to cascaded loops, Ω¯ref is not constant here, but Q = I gives approximately diagonal [R21R22R23], and ωkΥid is not violated. For identification experiments, Q = I corresponds to sequential excitation in the roll, pitch, and yaw axes of the quadrotor. Video of the excitation tests is available online.2 Finally, the estimate of Po is obtained by P~o=T~11T~211 on the Υid and depicted in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9
Identified frequency response function of P~o on Υid
Fig. 9
Identified frequency response function of P~o on Υid
Close modal
Diagonal elements of P~o illustrate that these dynamics include first order inertia line and time delay due to sensor and motor speed control. Moreover, due to inexact static input decoupling matrix Tu, small couplings between different axes can be observed in the off-diagonal elements. Especially in roll and pitch axes, these couplings are very small in low frequencies and around the crossover region compared to the diagonal elements. Therefore, their effects on the control design may be insignificant, and diagonal controller can give high performance in these axes. Around the crossover region, roll and yaw axes coupling and diagonal element can be in comparable magnitudes, reducing performance for a single-input single-output (SISO) controller. If higher performance is desired, a more advanced controller that decouples these dynamics is required. The robust controller discussed here can be used for that purpose. Then, nonparametric estimate of {No, Do} on Υid is obtained from Eq. (20). In this article, the data sets are obtained based on the following frequency grid Υid during identification tests:
Υid=2π{0.25,0.5,0.75,1,2,3,4,5,6,8,12,16,20}
(34)

The input signal is periodic with a period of 4 s. Moreover, the phases are selected according to Schröer rule [26, Ch. 4]. The identification tests take nearly 120 s which correspond to 30-period input excitation tests, which gives sufficiently accurate FRFs and covariance estimate of the disturbances for the model validation procedure [19].

7.1.1 Weight Determination.

In classical control theory, robustness is often specified by considering limits on gain margin (GM) and phase margin (PM). According to common rules of thumb, 2 < GM < 5 and 30 deg < PM < 60 deg are often aimed in practice [20, Ch. 2]. Previously, the PI rate controller was tuned manually in flight, and these margins were not known since the estimate of Po had not been available. Now, estimate P~o is found using identification, and using the diagonal entries of it and the PI controller, gain and phase margins are investigated. In roll axis, 2 Hz bandwidth, 37 deg PM, and 3.9 GM are obtained. In the pitch axis, 2.65 Hz bandwidth, 34 deg PM, and 2.6 GM are achieved. For yaw axis, approximately 0.28 Hz bandwidth and 2 GM are reached. Phase loss due to the finite bandwidth of motor speed control and gyro sensor delay does not allow any gain increase in the PI controller for roll and pitch axes to maintain sufficient margins. For the yaw axis, resonance around 20 Hz limits the achievable gain and bandwidth for a standard PI controller. Adding extra lead and lag filters is necessary to improve the performance, but it is not in the scope of this study. Hence, the PI rate controller that is available during the identification test is also used in the performance evaluation part. This diagonal controller which gives stability margins above is denoted by Cexp in this section.

The main motivation is to reach approximately 3 Hz bandwidth in the roll and pitch axes and 0.5 Hz bandwidth in the yaw axis to increase the disturbance rejection performance. It is assumed that coupling effects between different axes are small in the low-frequency range. Therefore, both P and C are approximately diagonal which leads to three different bandwidths definition corresponding to each axis. In this study, three different bandwidths froll, fpitch, and fyaw refer to crossover frequencies in the corresponding axes satisfying |PrrCrr(2πfroll)| = 1, |PppCpp(2πfpitch)| = 1, and |PyyCyy(2πfyaw)| = 1 where Prr, Ppp, Pyy and Crr, Cpp, Cyy terms indicate the diagonal elements of P and C for the roll, pitch, and yaw axes, respectively. In addition, to use similar formulation, the notation fbw is used which may represent froll, fpitch, or fyaw according to axis selection.

In this article, weighting functions are selected to shape the loop similar to the method in Ref. [23]. These weighting filters are designed such that W2P W1 has desired open loop shape of PC. Since P^ is not found yet, the estimate P~o can be used directly. In this study, W1 is selected to have an integrator for good disturbance rejection, and its cutoff is at fbw/3 as shown in Fig. 10 where fbw = 3 Hz for the roll and pitch axes and fbw = 0.5 for the yaw axis. W2 is selected to satisfy 0 slope around fbw such that desired open loop shape has −1 slope in this region for sufficient robustness. Moreover, high frequency roll-off beyond 4fbw is also enforced with W2. Finally, W2 and shaped open loop W2P W1 are depicted in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10
(a) Singular values of weighting filters: W1 (solid blue) and W2 (dashed red). (b) Singular values of FRF estimate P~o (solid blue) and shaped system W2P~oW1 (dashed red).
Fig. 10
(a) Singular values of weighting filters: W1 (solid blue) and W2 (dashed red). (b) Singular values of FRF estimate P~o (solid blue) and shaped system W2P~oW1 (dashed red).
Close modal

The two-block problem considered in Ref. [23] is equivalent to four-block problem considered in this article in terms of control criterion if the weighting filters are selected as W=diag(Wy,Wu)=diag(W2,W11) and V=diag(V2,V1)=diag(W21,W1) in Eq. (5). In this article, this method is followed.

7.1.2 Coprime Factorization.

Nonparametric frequency response functions of N~o and D~o are obtained using Eq. (20). The following parametrization is introduced for {N^,D^} [16]:
[N^(ρ)D^(ρ)]=[B(ρ)A(ρ)](D~eA(ρ)+N~e,2V21B(ρ))1
(35)
where BR3×3[z] and AR3×3[z] are polynomial matrices defined as
B(ρ)=[B3]z3+[B2]z2+[B1]z+[B0]
(36)
A(ρ)=[100010001]z4+[A3]z3+[A2]z2+[A1]z+[A0]
(37)
with B0,B1,B2,B3,A0,A1,A2,A3R3×3 and discrete time forward shift operator z. The detailed procedure for estimating coprime factors {N^,D^} is not in the scope of this paper, and it is discussed in the separate study [21]. The results therein show that the estimated coprime factors are appropriate for subsequent robust control synthesis.

7.2 Construction of the Model Set.

The identified coprime factorization is used to construct the robust-control-relevant model set PRCR in Eq. (22). The consistency of the uncertain model with the measured data is checked by applying validation-based uncertainty modeling [19] for the structure in Fig. 6. Due to space limit, some details are omitted here, and one can investigate [27, Ch. 11] for further details. New data sets are collected from sequential excitation tests using the same multisine signal in Eq. (33) as in the identification. Summation of the signals obtained in the three tests is used to quantify the uncertainty for different battery levels. Different norm-bounds γ~(ωi)=σ¯(Δu(ωi)), Δu(ωi)C3×3, ωiΥid are shown in Fig. 11 for different battery levels. Then, model uncertainty bound is obtained as
γ=supωiΥidγ~(ωi)=0.564
(38)
Fig. 11
Resulting model uncertainty norm bound γ~(ωi) on the identification grid: data set obtained with: (1) 100% battery level (blue ×), (2) 80% battery level (red ○), (3) 60% battery level (green □), and parametric overbound Wγ (solid black)
Fig. 11
Resulting model uncertainty norm bound γ~(ωi) on the identification grid: data set obtained with: (1) 100% battery level (blue ×), (2) 80% battery level (red ○), (3) 60% battery level (green □), and parametric overbound Wγ (solid black)
Close modal
Here, γ is calculated on the discrete frequency grid. Since a continuous uncertainty bound is essential for robust control design, a dynamic overbound Wγ is obtained and illustrated in Fig. 11. This dynamic bound also reduces possible conservatism compared to static overbound γ during controller synthesis. To see this, two model sets are constructed using static overbound γ and dynamic overbound Wγ as
Psta={PPRCRΔuγ}
(39)
Pdyn={PPRCRΔuWγ11}
(40)

Herein, although the performance bound in (24) is not affected with tight dynamic overbound Wγ, possible conservatism during controller synthesis can be reduced since PdynPsta is satisfied. These model sets are visualized using the method introduced in Ref. [28], and elementwise singular values are depicted in Fig. 12. It shows that Pdyn is narrower in the frequency domain compared to Psta, reducing possible conservatism. In addition, both uncertain model sets get narrower around the crossover region which is very essential for high robust performance. Conversely, model sets are uncertain in both low and high frequency regions since they are relatively large there.

Fig. 12
Magnitudes of nonparametric estimate P~o (blue dots), nominal model P^ (solid red), model set Pdyn (yellow shaded), and Psta (cyan shaded)
Fig. 12
Magnitudes of nonparametric estimate P~o (blue dots), nominal model P^ (solid red), model set Pdyn (yellow shaded), and Psta (cyan shaded)
Close modal

7.3 Controller Design and Implementation.

The uncertain model set Pdyn is used to synthesize a robust controller. Gains of the resulting robust controller CRP and PI controller Cexp are illustrated in Fig. 13 where the input of the controller is error ε=r2y, and the output of the controller is control signal u when r1 is zero. In Fig. 13, controllers are mostly single variate in roll and pitch axes since off-diagonal elements are relatively small compared to diagonal entries in large frequency interval. However, in yaw axis, CRP shows multivariable characteristics. This may improve the performance in this axis. In addition, better disturbance rejection capability can be expected from CRP due to larger controller gains in the low frequencies compared to Cexp. Next, nominal and worst-case performances of these controllers for Pdyn are given in Table 1. It shows that CRP gives improved performance compared to Cexp. Herein, smaller performance criterion indicates that achieved bandwidth is closer to the desired one. As reported in Ref. [23], J(P, C) < 4 is an indicator of successful loop shape. Therefore, CRP has closer properties to desired loop shape. Table 1 also indicates that all candidate models in the uncertain model set give similar high performance for CRP since J and JWC are almost equal in this case. Therefore, Pdyn is indeed robust control relevant. In other words, this tight model set shown in Fig. 12 enables non-conservative controller synthesis as expected.

Fig. 13
Bode magnitude diagrams of Cexp (solid blue) and CRP (dashed red)
Fig. 13
Bode magnitude diagrams of Cexp (solid blue) and CRP (dashed red)
Close modal
Table 1

Robust control relevant identification and robust control synthesis results

ControllerMinimized criterionJ(P^,C)frollfpitchfyawJWC(Pdyn,C)
CexpNone (PI)18.872.02.650.2818.88
CRPJWC(Pdyn,C)3.042.422.310.353.06
ControllerMinimized criterionJ(P^,C)frollfpitchfyawJWC(Pdyn,C)
CexpNone (PI)18.872.02.650.2818.88
CRPJWC(Pdyn,C)3.042.422.310.353.06

Main duties of the designed attitude rate controllers are to follow angular rate references from the angle controller and to attenuate exogenous disturbances such as wind. Since attitude error is an important performance indicator, effects of these controllers to attitude error is investigated instead of angular rate. During hovering, small attitude reference signals are generated from the outer local velocity controller. Therefore, reference tracking problem is considered where the performance variable ε=r2y denotes the attitude error. When the vehicle is stabilized around hover, attitude errors are obtained for the two controllers. In Fig. 14, attitude errors in roll, pitch, and yaw axes are depicted. It shows that attitude errors are attenuated with CRP due to higher controller gains in the low-frequency region for roll and pitch axes and higher achieved bandwidth for yaw axis. More importantly, CRP handles the roll and yaw axis coupling more accurately, thanks to its multivariable structure. Therefore, as depicted in Fig. 14, CRP gives smaller attitude errors in all channels compared to Cexp. Standard deviations of the attitude errors in hover are given in Table 2. It shows that CRP improves the attitude tracking performances around 40% in the roll, 55% in the pitch, and 62% in the yaw axes relative to the PI controller (Cexp) baseline. Moreover, good disturbance rejection capability is also essential. Therefore, to analyze the disturbance rejection performance, a signal is injected at the plant input for each axis. This torque disturbance corresponds to 1/3 of the maximum available torque, i.e., τd = τmax/3, for each axis. In Fig. 15, attitude errors and torque disturbance injection points are illustrated, and standard deviations of the attitude errors are given in Table 3. These results show that disturbance rejection performances are improved around 57% in the roll, 56% in the pitch, and 35% in the yaw axes over the baseline. In view of these findings, attitude control performance is significantly improved with the robust rate controller CRP compared to the PI rate controller Cexp around hover.

Fig. 14
Hover test: attitude errors in roll (left), pitch (center), and yaw (right): Cexp (solid blue) and CRP (dashed red). Video is available online.3
Fig. 14
Hover test: attitude errors in roll (left), pitch (center), and yaw (right): Cexp (solid blue) and CRP (dashed red). Video is available online.3
Close modal
Fig. 15
Disturbance rejection test: attitude errors in roll (left), pitch (center), and yaw (right): Cexp (solid blue) and CRP (dashed red). Video is available online.4
Fig. 15
Disturbance rejection test: attitude errors in roll (left), pitch (center), and yaw (right): Cexp (solid blue) and CRP (dashed red). Video is available online.4
Close modal
Table 2

Hover test: standard deviations of the attitude errors ε in degree and improvements

RollPitchYaw
Controllerσroll%σpitch%σyaw%
Cexp1.021.13.55
CRP0.57400.49551.3462
RollPitchYaw
Controllerσroll%σpitch%σyaw%
Cexp1.021.13.55
CRP0.57400.49551.3462
Table 3

Disturbance rejection test: standard deviations of the attitude errors ε in degree and improvements

RollPitchYaw
Controllerσroll%σpitch%σyaw%
Cexp6.513.2712.56
CRP2.76571.42568.0735
RollPitchYaw
Controllerσroll%σpitch%σyaw%
Cexp6.513.2712.56
CRP2.76571.42568.0735

8 Conclusions

In this article, an uncommon efficient quadrotor configuration is proposed. An uncertain model set of this vehicle which facilitates subsequent high performance robust control is constructed, and a robust controller is designed with skewed-μ synthesis. First, the proposed vehicle is stabilized using PID type controllers with sufficient attitude control performance. Second, performance improvement is studied with the robust controller. Results of several flight experiments illustrate that the proposed control method significantly outperforms the classical method. Both command following and disturbance rejection performances are improved with the proposed design. In conclusion, the proposed quadrotor configuration can be very useful over the conventional configuration, and it is worthy of further research. In addition, the robust control technique can be helpful to improve the performance achieved with common control methods. Some parts of this study can be improved with further research. Experimental efficiency of this vehicle can be calculated. Alternatively, large rotors that are powered from gasoline engines can be used to improve the flight endurance. Rotor speed and tilt angle control dynamics can be added to the ideal model. Larger deviations from hover position can also be considered as future works.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The authors attest that all data for this study are included in the paper.

References

1.
Quan
,
Q.
,
2017
,
Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control
,
Springer
,
Singapore
.
2.
Mulgaonkar
,
Y.
,
Whitzer
,
M.
,
Morgan
,
B.
,
Kroninger
,
C. M.
,
Harrington
,
A. M.
, and
Kumar
,
V.
,
2014
, “
Power and Weight Considerations in Small, Agile Quadrotors
,”
SPIE Defense + Security
,
Baltimore, MD
.
3.
Driessens
,
S.
, and
Pounds
,
P.
,
2015
, “
The Triangular Quadrotor: A More Efficient Quadrotor Configuration
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob.
,
31
(
6
), pp.
1517
1526
.
4.
Qin
,
Y.
,
Xu
,
W.
,
Lee
,
A.
, and
Zhang
,
F.
,
2020
, “
Gemini: A Compact Yet Efficient Bi-Copter UAV for Indoor Applications
,”
IEEE Rob. Autom. Lett.
,
5
(
2
), pp.
3213
3220
.
5.
Kim
,
T.
, and
Hong
,
S.
,
2017
, “
Control System Design and Experimental Validation of Hybrid Multicopter for Endurance Enhancement
,”
Asia-Pacific J. Model. Simul. Mech. Syst. Des. Anal.
,
2
(
1
), pp.
15
20
.
6.
Pang
,
T.
,
Peng
,
K.
,
Lin
,
F.
, and
Chen
,
B. M.
,
2016
, “
Towards Long-Endurance Flight: Design and Implementation of a Variable-Pitch Gasoline-Engine Quadrotor
,”
2016 12th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA)
,
Kathmandu, Nepal
,
June 1–3
, IEEE, pp.
767
772
.
7.
Haus
,
T.
,
Orsag
,
M.
, and
Bogdan
,
S.
,
2016
, “
Design Considerations for a Large Quadrotor Wmoving Mass Control
,”
2016 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS)
,
Arlington, VA
,
June 7–10
, IEEE, pp.
1327
1334
.
8.
Zhang
,
Q.
,
Liu
,
Z.
,
Zhao
,
J.
, and
Zhang
,
S.
,
2016
, “
Modeling and Attitude Control of Bi-Copter
,”
2016 IEEE International Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS)
,
Beijing, China
,
Oct. 10–12
, IEEE, pp.
172
176
.
9.
Bondyra
,
A.
,
Gardecki
,
S.
,
Gasior
,
P.
, and
Giernacki
,
W.
,
2016
, “
Performance of Coaxial Propulsion in Design of Multi-Rotor UAVS
,”
International Conference on Automation
,
Warsaw, Poland
,
May 20–21
, Springer, pp.
523
531
.
10.
Özdoğan
,
G.
, and
Leblebicioğlu
,
K.
,
2022
, “
Design, Modeling, and Control Allocation of a Heavy-Lift Aerial Vehicle Consisting of Large Fixed Rotors and Small Tiltrotors
,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.
,
27
(
5
), pp.
4011
4021
.
11.
Labbadi
,
M.
, and
Cherkaoui
,
M.
,
2019
, “
Robust Adaptive Backstepping Fast Terminal Sliding Mode Controller for Uncertain Quadrotor UAV
,”
Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
,
93
, p.
105306
.
12.
Raffo
,
G. V.
,
Ortega
,
M. G.
, and
Rubio
,
F. R.
,
2010
, “
An Integral Predictive/Nonlinear h Control Structure for a Quadrotor Helicopter
,”
Automatica
,
46
(
1
), pp.
29
39
.
13.
Grauer
,
J. A.
, and
Boucher
,
M. J.
,
2020
, “
Aircraft System Identification From Multisine Inputs and Frequency Responses
,”
J. Guid. Control Dyn.
,
43
(
12
), pp.
2391
2398
.
14.
Wei
,
W.
,
Tischler
,
M. B.
, and
Cohen
,
K.
,
2017
, “
System Identification and Controller Optimization of a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Hover
,”
J. Am. Helicopter Soc.
,
62
(
4
), pp.
1
9
.
15.
Ivler
,
C. M.
,
Rowe
,
E. S.
,
Martin
,
J.
,
Lopez
,
M. J.
, and
Tischler
,
M. B.
,
2021
, “
System Identification Guidance for Multirotor Aircraft: Dynamic Scaling and Test Techniques
,”
J. Am. Helicopter Soc.
,
66
(
2
), pp.
1
16
.
16.
Oomen
,
T.
, and
Bosgra
,
O.
,
2012
, “
System Identification for Achieving Robust Performance
,”
Automatica
,
48
(
9
), pp.
1975
1987
.
17.
Oomen
,
T.
,
van Herpen
,
R.
,
Quist
,
S.
,
van de Wal
,
M.
,
Bosgra
,
O.
, and
Steinbuch
,
M.
,
2014
, “
Connecting System Identification and Robust Control for Next-Generation Motion Control of a Wafer Stage
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
22
(
1
), pp.
102
118
.
18.
Baskın
,
M.
, and
Leblebicioğlu
,
K.
,
2021
, “
Combined System Identification and Robust Control of a Gimbal Platform
,”
Turkish J. Elect. Eng. Comput. Sci.
,
29
(
4
), pp.
2247
2262
.
19.
Oomen
,
T.
, and
Bosgra
,
O.
,
2009
, “
Well-Posed Model Uncertainty Estimation by Design of Validation Experiments
,”
IFAC Proc. Vol.
,
42
(
10
), pp.
1199
1204
.
20.
Skogestad
,
S.
, and
Postlethwaite
,
I.
,
2007
,
Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design
, Vol. 2,
Wiley
,
New York
.
21.
Baskın
,
M.
, and
Leblebicioğlu
,
K.
,
2022
, “
Frequency-Domain Estimation of a Transfer Matrix of an Uncommon Quadrotor in Hover
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
, early access.
22.
Baskın
,
M.
, and
Leblebicioğlu
,
K.
,
2022
, “
Determining Allowable Parametric Uncertainty in an Uncommon Quadrotor Model for Closed Loop Stability
,”
Turkish J. Elect. Eng. Comput. Sci.
,
30
(
3
), pp.
695
712
.
23.
McFarlane
,
D.
, and
Glover
,
K.
,
1992
, “
A Loop-Shaping Design Procedure Using h Synthesis
,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr.
,
37
(
6
), pp.
759
769
.
24.
Van de Wal
,
M.
,
van Baars
,
G.
,
Sperling
,
F.
, and
Bosgra
,
O.
,
2002
, “
Multivariable h/μ Feedback Control Design for High-Precision Wafer Stage Motion
,”
Control Eng. Pract.
,
10
(
7
), pp.
739
755
.
25.
Van Den Hof
,
P. M.
, and
Schrama
,
R. J.
,
1995
, “
Identification and Control—Closed-Loop Issues
,”
Automatica
,
31
(
12
), pp.
1751
1770
.
26.
Pintelon
,
R.
, and
Schoukens
,
J.
,
2012
,
System Identification: A Frequency Domain Approach
,
Wiley-IEEE Press
,
New York
.
27.
Baskın
,
M.
,
2021
,
“Flight Control System Design of an Uncommon Quadrotor Aerial Vehicle
,” Ph.D. thesis,
Middle East Technical University
,
Ankara
.
28.
Oomen
,
T.
,
Quist
,
S.
,
van Herpen
,
R.
, and
Bosgra
,
O.
,
2010
, “
Identification and Visualization of Robust-Control-Relevant Model Sets With Application to an Industrial Wafer Stage
,”
49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)
,
Atlanta, GA
,
Dec. 15–17
, IEEE, pp.
5530
5535
.