Robust Adaptive Attitude Synchronization of Uncertain Rigid Bodies on Special Orthogonal Group with Communication Delays and Gyro Biases

  • Xuhui Lu
  • Yingmin JiaEmail author


The paper proposes an attitude synchronization algorithm of rigid bodies on Special Orthogonal Group SO(3), with parameter uncertainties, external disturbances, gyro biases and communication delays. A set of two-order linear filters are introduced to cope with discontinuous communication delays, and only attitude information is required to be exchanged between rigid bodies. Then a set of gyro bias estimators are constructed with exponential convergence rates in the constant bias case and can also deal with time-varying gyro biases. Besides, a novel attractive manifold control method is also proposed so that the parameter estimation error terms can converge to zeros independent of persistent excitation condition. The proposed attractive manifold control method can be also robust toward external disturbances. The obtained control inputs are continuous and ensure the control performance of the closed-loop system, in the presence of discontinuous communication delays, external disturbances, parameter uncertainties and gyro biases. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is verified in the numerical simulations.


Attitude synchronization of rigid bodies communication delays external disturbances gyro biases inertia uncertainties special orthogonal group 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



  1. [1]
    Y. Liu and Y. M. Jia, “Robust H consensus control of uncertain multi-agent systems with time delays,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1086–1094, 2011.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Egerstedt and X. Hu, “Formation constrained multiagent control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 947–951, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Y. Qu, S. Y. Xu, C. Song, Q. Ma, Y. M. Chu, and Y. Zou, “Finite-time dynamic coverage for mobile sensor networks in unknown environments using neural networks,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 351, no. 10, pp. 4838–4849, 2014.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Q. Hu, Y. Lv, J. Zhang, and G. F. Ma, “Input-to-state stable cooperative attitude regulation of spacecraft formation flying,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 350, no. 1, pp. 50–71, 2013.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    N. Zhou and Y. Q. Xia, “Distributed fault-tolerant control design for spacecraft finite-time attitude synchronization,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 2994–3017, 2016.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. B. Du and S. H. Li, “Attitude synchronization for flexible spacecraft with communication delays,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 3625–3630, 2016.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Zhou, Q. L. Hu, and M. Friswell, “Decentralized Finite Time Attitude Synchronization Control Of Satellite Formation Flying,” Journal of Guidance, Control And Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 185–195, 2013.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    H. T. Chen, S. M. Song, and Z. B. Zhu, “Robust finite-time attitude tracking control of rigid spacecraft under actuator saturation,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2018.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. Ren, “Distributed cooperative attitude synchronization and tracking for multiple rigid bodies,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 383–392, 2010.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. M. Zou and K. Kumar, “Neural-network-based distributed attitude coordination control for spacecraft formation flying with input saturation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1155–1162, 2012.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Bhat and D. Bernstein, “A topological obstruction to continuous global stabilization of rotational motion and the unwinding phenomenon,” System & Control Letters, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2000.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. H. Wu and T. Y. Lee, “Angular velocity observer for attitude tracking on SO(3) with the separation property,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1289–1298, 2016.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    K. Ghasemi, J. Ghaisari, and M. R. Pouryayevali, “Decentralised attitude synchronisation of multiple rigid bodies on lie group SO(3)” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 97–109, 2018.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. Song, Y. Tang, Y. G. Hong, and X. Hu, “Relative attitude formation control of multi-agent systems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol 27, no. 8, pp. 4457–4477, 2017.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. Weng, D. Yue, and T. Yang, “Coordinated attitude motion control of multiple rigid bodies on manifold SO(3),” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1984–1991, 2013.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Weng, D. Yue, X. Xie, and Y. Xue, “Distributed event-triggered cooperative attitude control of multiple groups of rigid bodies on manifold SO(3),” Information Sciences, vol. 370–371, no. 20, pp. 636–649, 2016.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    W. Wang and J. J. E. Slotine, “Contraction analysis of time-delayed communications and group cooperation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 712–717, 2006.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    H. Y. Yang, X. L. Zhu, and S. Y. Zhang, “Consensus of second-order delayed multi-agent systems with leader-following,” European Journal of Control, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 188–199, 2010.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Seuret, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. H. Johansson, “Consensus of double integrator multi-agents under communication delay,” Proc. of the 8th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems, Sinaia, Romania, pp. 376–381, 2009.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Sarlette, R. Sepulchre, and N. Leonard, “Autonomous rigid body attitude synchronization,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 572–577, 2009.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    H. L. Wang and Y. C. Xie, “On attitude synchronization of multiple rigid bodies with time delays,” Proc. of the 18th IFAC World Congress, Milano, Italy, pp. 8774–9779, 2011.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    T. Hatanaka, Y. Igarashi, M. Fujita, and M. Spong, “Passivity-based pose synchronization in three dimensions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 360–375, 2012.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Nazari and E. Butcher, “Decentralized consensus control of a rigid-body spacecraft formation with communication delay,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 838–851, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. Abdessameud, I. G. Polushin, and A. Tayebi, “Motion coordination of thrust-propelled underactuated vehicles with intermittent and delayed communications,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 15–22, 2015.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    G. H. Wen, Z. S. Duan, Z. K. Li, and G. R. Chen, “Consensus and its L2-gain performance of multi-agent systems with intermittent information transmissions,” International Journal of Control, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 384–396, 2012.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    R. Ghabcheloo, A. P. Aguiar, A. Pascoal, and C. Silvestre, “Synchronization in multi-agent systems with switching topologies and non-homogeneous communication delays,” Proc. of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 2327–2332, 2007.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    A. Sanyal, A. Fosbury, N. Chaturvedi, and D. Bernstein, “Inertia-free spacecraft attitude tracking with disturbance rejection and almost global stabilization,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1167–1178, 2009.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    I. Fadakar, B. Fidan, and J. Huissoon, “Robust adaptive attitude synchronisation of rigid body networks on SO(3),” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 52–61, 2014.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. Forbes, “Passivity-based attitude control on the special orthogonal group of rigid-body rotations,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1596–1605, 2013.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    T. Y. Lee, “Robust adaptive attitude tracking on SO(3) with an application to a quadrotor UAV,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1924–1930, 2013.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. Mahony, T. Hamel, and J. M. Pflimlin, “Nonlinear complementary filters on the special orthogonal group,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1203–1218, 2008.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    H. F. Grip, T. I. Fossen, T. A. Johansen, and A. Saberi, “Globally exponentially stable attitude and gyro bias estimation with application to GNSS/INS integration,” Automatica, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 158–166, 2015.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    P. Batista, C. Silvestre, and P. Oliveira, “Globally exponentially stable cascade observers for attitude estimation,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 148–155, 2012.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    S. Berkane, A. Abdessameud, and A. Tayebi, “Hybrid attitude and gyro-bias observer design on SO(3),” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 6044–6050, 2017.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    A. Khosravian and M. Namvar, “Rigid body attitude control using a single vector measurement and gyro,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol 57, no. 5, pp. 1273–1279, 2012.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    A. Benallegue, Y. Chitour, and A. Tayebi, “Adaptive attitude tracking control of rigid body systems with unknown inertia and gyro-bias,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 3986–3993, Nov. 2018.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    T. H. Mercker and M. R. Akella, “Rigid-body attitude tracking with vector measurements and unknown gyro bias,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1474–1484, 2011.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    D. Seo and M. Akella, “High-performance spacecraft adaptive attitude-tracking control through attracting-manifold design,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 884–891, 2008.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    K. Lee and S. Singh, “Noncertainty-equivalent adaptive missile control via immersion and invariance,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 655–665, 2010.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    J. Zhang, Q. Li, N. Cheng, and B. Liang, “Adaptive dynamic surface control for unmanned aerial vehicles based on attractive manifolds,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 36, no 6, pp. 1776–1782, 2013.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    L. Sun and Z. Zheng, “Nonlinear adaptive trajectory tracking control for a stratospheric airship with parametric uncertainty,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 1419–1430, 2015.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    O. N. Stamnes, O. M. Aamo, and G. O. Kaasa, “A constructive speed observer design for general Euler-Lagrange systems,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2233–2238, 2011.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    A. Sarlette, Geometry and Symmetries in Coordination Control, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Liĕge, Belgium, 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICROS, KIEE and Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seventh Research Division and the Center for Information and Control, School of Automation Science and Electrical EngineeringBeihang University (BUAA)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations