Experimental constrained optimal attitude control of a quadrotor subject to wind disturbances

  • Kostas Alexis
  • George Nikolakopoulos
  • Anthony Tzes
Regular Papers Robotics and Automation


The design and experimental verification of a Constrained Finite Time Optimal Controller (CFTOC) for attitude maneuvers of an Unmanned Quadrotor operating under severe wind conditions is the subject of this article. The quadrotor’s nonlinear dynamics are linearized in various operating points resulting in a set of piecewise affine models. The CFTO-controller is designed for set-point maneuvers taking into account the switching between the linear models and the state and actuation constraints. The control scheme is applied on experimental studies on a prototype quadrotor operating both in absence and under presence of forcible atmospheric disturbances. Extended experimental results indicate that the proposed control approach attenuates the effects of induced wind-gusts while performing accurate attitude set-point maneuvers.


Constrained optimal control disturbance attenuation quadrotor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Ryan and J. Hedrick, “A mode-switching path planner for UAV-assisted search and rescue,” Proc. of 44th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, European Control Conf., Seville, Spain, pp. 1471–1476, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. Alexis, G. Nikolakopoulos, A. Tzes, and L. Dritsas, “Coordination of helicopter UAVs for aerial Forest-Fire surveillance,” in Applications of Intelligent Control to Engineering Systems, Springer Netherlands, pp. 169–193, June 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    N. Metni and T. Hamel, “A UAV for bridge inspection: Visual servoing control law with orientation limits,” Automation in Construction, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3–10, November 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. R. Herwitz, L. F. Johnson, S. E. Dunagan, R. G. Higgins, D. V. Sullivan, J. Zheng, B. M. Lobitz, J. G. Leung, B. A. Gallmeyer, M. Aoyagi, R. E. Slye, and J. A. Brass, “Imaging from an unmanned aerial vehicle: agricultural surveillance and decision support,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 49–61, July 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Kim and S. Sukkarieh, “Airborne simultaneous localisation and map building,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, 2003, pp. 406–411.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations, NAtinal Research Council, “Autonomous vehicles in support of naval operations,” in Naval Studies Board, Washington DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Girard, A. Howell, and J. Hedrick, “Border patrol and surveillance missions using multiple unmanned air vehicles,” Proc. of 43rd IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, vol. 1, pp. 620–625, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Bouabdallah, M. Becker, and R. Siegwart, “Autonomous miniature flying robots: coming soon! - research, development, and results,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 88–98, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Bouabdallah, A. Noth, and R. Siegwart, “PID vs LQ control techniques applied to an indoor micro quadrotor,” Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 3, pp. 2451–2456, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. M. Hoffmann, H. Huang, S. L. Waslander, and C. J. Tomlin, “Quadrotor helicopter flight dynamics and control: theory and experiment,” Proc. of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Benallegue, A. Mokhtari, and L. Fridman, “Feedback linearization and high order sliding mode observer for a quadrotor UAV,” Proc. of International Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, Alghero, Sardinia, pp. 365–372, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Bouabdallah and R. Siegwart, “Full control of a quadrotor,” Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 153–158, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Raffo, M. Ortega, and F. Rubio, “An integral predictive/nonlinear control structure for a quadrotor helicopter,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 29–39, 2010.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    K. Wenzel, P. Rosset, and A. Zell, “Low-cost visual tracking of a landing place and hovering flight control with a microcontroller,” J. Intell. Robotics Syst., vol. 57, pp. 297–311, 2010.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    N. Vitzilaios and N. Tsourveloudis, “An experimental test bed for small unmanned helicopters,” J. Intell. Robotics Syst., vol. 54, pp. 769–794, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    K. Alexis, G. Nikolakopoulos, and A. Tzes, “Design and experimental verification of a constrained finite time optimal control scheme for the attitude control of a quadrotor helicopter subject to wind gusts,” Proc. of Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, USA, pp. 1636–1641, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. Alexis, G. Nikolakopoulos, and A. Tzes, “Experimental model predictive attitude tracking control of a quadrotor helicopter subject to wind-gusts,” Proc. of Mediterranean Control Conference, Marrakesh, Morocco, pp. 1461–1466, 2010.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. F. Costelo, A Theory of the Analysis of Rotorcraft Operation in Atmospheric Turbulence, Ph.D. dissertation, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. G. Perhinschi, “A model of atmospheric turbulence for rotorcraft simulation and analysis of stability and performance,” in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Martini, F. Léonard, and G. Abba, “Dynamic modelling and stability analysis of model-scale helicopters under wind gust,” J. Intell. Robotics Syst., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 647–686, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Bouabdallah, Design and Control of Quadrotors with Application to Autonomous Flying, STI School of Engineering, EPFL, Lausanne, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    X. Yang, H. Pota, and M. Garrat, “Design of a gust-attenuation controller for landing operations of unmanned autonomous helicopters,” Proc of the 18th IEEE Int. Conf. on Control Applications, Saint Petersburg, Russia, pp. 1300–1305, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Kvasnica, P. Grieder, M. Baotic, and M. Morari, Multi-Parametric Toolbox (MPT), Automatic Control Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Techonology (ETH), 2004.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. Tayebi and S. McGilvray, “Attitude stabilization of a VTOL quadrotor aircraft,” IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 562–571, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    H. Huang, G. Hoffmann, S. L. Waslander, and C. J. Tomlin, “Aerodynamics and control of autonomous quadrotor helicopters in aggressive maneuvering,” Proc. of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Kobe, Japan, 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems and The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kostas Alexis
    • 1
  • George Nikolakopoulos
    • 2
  • Anthony Tzes
    • 1
  1. 1.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentUniversity of PatrasAchaiaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Computer, Electrical and Space EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations