Design and Implementation of a Nonlinear Flight Control Law for the

Yaw Channel of a UAV Helicopter

Guowei Cai, Ben M. Chen, Kemao Peng, Miaobo Dong, Tong H. Lee
AbstractWe present in this paper a ight control system
design for the yaw channel of a UAV helicopter using a
newly developed composite nonlinear feedback (CNF) control
technique. From the actual ight tests on our UAV helicopter,
it has been found that the commonly used yaw dynamical
model for the UAV helicopter proposed in the literatures is
very rough and inaccurate. This motivates us to rst obtain
a comprehensive model for the yaw channel of our UAV
helicopter. The CNF control method is then utilized to design an
efcient control law, which gives excellent overall performance.
In particular, our design has achieved a Level 1 performance
according to the standards set for military rotorcraft. The
results are veried through actual ight tests.
I. INTRODUCTION
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have recently gained
much attention in the academic circle worldwide. They have
potential military and civil applications as well as scientic
signicance in the academic research. The UAV, in particular,
the unmanned helicopter, can serve as an excellent platform
for studying plants with maneuverability and versatility. Our
motivation in developing a UAV helicopter is to build a
test bed for implementing some newly developed linear
and nonlinear control techniques, particularly, the composite
nonlinear feedback (CNF) control, which has proven to be
capable of yielding a very fast transient response with no
or very minimal overshoot. We have recently constructed a
small-scale UAV helicopter platform, called HeLion, which
is upgraded from a radio-controlled hobby helicopter, Raptor
90. To realize automatic ight control [2] of the UAV,
we have designed and integrated an avionic system to the
bare helicopter. A linearized model which has a similar
structure as that proposed in [7] for hover or near hover
ight condition is obtained and an automatic control law
using the CNF control method has been implemented on
the actual UAV helicopter [3]. The implementation is quite
successful. However, performance on certain aspects is not
as good as expected. In particular, we have found that the
commonly used dynamical model for the yaw channel is
very rough and inaccurate, especially in the relative high
frequency region (above 4 Hz in HeLion), which is seldom
stimulated by manual control. Such inaccuracy causes the
helicopter to shake severely in many occasions during the
actual ight tests.
This work is supported by the Defence Science and Technology Agency
(DSTA) of Singapore.
G. Cai, B. M. Chen, M. Dong and T. H. Lee are with the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117576.
K. Peng is with Temasek Laboratories, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117508.
To improve the overall performance, we carry out in this
work a comprehensive modeling process to obtain a more
accurate dynamical model for the yaw channel. We have
found a mathematical model that gives a much more accurate
response. The CNF control technique is then utilized to
design a high performance ight control law with excellent
performance. In particular, our design has achieved a Level
1 performance according to the standards set for military
rotorcraft. The results have been veried through simulation
and actual ight tests.
II. COMPREHENSIVE MODELING OF UAV YAW
CHANNEL DYNAMICS
Yaw direction control is one of the most challenging jobs
in controlling small-scale UAV helicopters as the torque
associated with the yaw channel is relatively small and highly
sensitive. The dynamics of traditional hobby helicopters is
open-loop unstable, which makes manual hovering of a
helicopter extremely difcult. To overcome such a problem,
modern hobby helicopters are commonly equipped with a so-
called yaw channel governor, which consists of a low-cost
yaw rate gyro and a simple controller to stabilize the yaw
rate and/or heading angle. The block diagram of the control
conguration is depicted in Figure 1. The performance of
such a simple control scheme is generally acceptable for
manual control. It has problems, however, when it comes
to precise automatic control. To enhance the performance of
the yaw channel, a more accurate model characterizing the
input-output relationship of the channel is necessary.
In Figure 1,
ped
[1, 1] is the normalized input
to the yaw channel. is the yaw rate in rad/s, which
can be measured either by a yaw rate gyro or an inertial
measurement unit (IMU) and
z
is the output signal of the
embedded controller. Traditionally, the identication of this
model is based on two important assumptions (see, e.g., [7]):
1) the simplied bare yaw dynamics is a rst order system,
and 2) the embedded controller is characterized by a rst
order low-pass lter,

=
K

s +K
z
(1)
where K

and K
z
are the unknown parameters. For our
UAV helicopter, HeLion, we manage to identify a simplied
model in the state-space form and is given as
_


z
_
=
_
5.5561 36.6740
2.7492 11.1120
_ _

z
_
+
_
58.4053
0
_

ped
.
(2)
Proceedings of the
46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
New Orleans, LA, USA, Dec. 12-14, 2007
WePI25.9
1-4244-1498-9/07/$25.00 2007 IEEE. 1963
i - -

6
-
Bare Yaw Dynamics
Embedded Controller
Gyro

ped

z
Fig. 1. Conguration of the yaw channel of the UAV helicopter.
10
1
10
0
10
1
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
M
a
g
n
itu
d
e
(
d
B
)
10
1
10
0
10
1
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
P
h
a
s
e
(
D
e
g
r
e
e
)
Frequency (Hz)
Experimental
Simulation
Fig. 2. Frequency-domain verication of the conventional 2nd order model
for the yaw channel.
This model works pretty well for manual control and
its feasibility has been proved by manual ight tests and
automatic hovering tests in [3]. However, it is found that
the accuracy of such a model is not acceptable for high
bandwidth ight control. Figures 2 shows the frequency-
domain verications of the identied model together with
the actual response of the system. It can be clearly observed
that the traditional model yield a poor performance in the
high frequency region. This motivates us to carry out a
comprehensive modeling process to identify a more accurate
model for the yaw channel of our UAV helicopter.
To ensure the quality of data, ight experiment has to be
carefully designed. In [3], [7], [8], it has been veried that
for small-scale UAV helicopter the yaw channel dynamics
can be physically decoupled from other channels in hover
and near hover ight conditions. Thus, it is reasonable to
assume that the yaw channel dynamics is a SISO system.
The data collection experiment is performed in closed
loop, which means the extra feedback controller is included
to ensure the stabilization. To a system like the HeLion
UAV which is inherently unstable, closed loop experiment is
an ideal choice. The feasibility and identiability of closed
loop identication have been discussed in [6] in detail.
Compared with the open loop experiment which is conducted
under purely manual control, closed loop experiment has the
following two unique advantages: 1) With the extra feedback
controller, the stability of the identied system is guaranteed
and the augmented system can be fully excited by computer-
i - - -

6
Yaw Channel with
Embedded Controller
External Control Law

ped

ped
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of data collection in the closed loop setting.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
Time (s)

p
e
d
(
1
~
1
)
a. The resulting input to the yaw channel.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time (s)
Y
a
w
ra
te
(ra
d
/s
)
b. The resulting output of the yaw channel.
Fig. 4. Experimental data for system identication of the yaw channel.
generated input signal over the interested frequency range;
and 2) Since the designed controller is known, the closed
loop identication can be transferred to open loop identi-
cation. Then all of the identication algorithms which are
suitable for open loop identication can still be used.
The schematic diagram of data collection experiment in
the closed loop setting is shown in Figure 3. The bare
yaw dynamics augmented with the embedded controller
is regarded as a whole system. The additional feedback
controller is part of the automatic ight control law designed
to stabilize the overall helicopter at the hovering ight
condition. When automatic hovering is achieved, we inject a
set of sinusoidal signals generated by the onboard computer
system into
ped
. The resulting signals {
ped
, } shown
respectively in Figures 4.a and 4.b are then used for system
identication.
Black-box state space model is selected to represent the
SISO yaw channel dynamics. The prediction error method
(PEM), which is commonly used in system identication
area, is adopted as the identication algorithm. In PEM
the unknown parameter set is estimated by minimizing
the sum of squared prediction error at all sampled points.
46th IEEE CDC, New Orleans, USA, Dec. 12-14, 2007 WePI25.9
1964
10
1
10
0
10
1
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
M
a
g
n
itu
d
e
(
d
B
)
10
1
10
0
10
1
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
P
h
a
s
e
(
D
e
g
r
e
e
)
Frequency (Hz)
Experimental
Simulation
Fig. 5. Frequency-domain verication of the 4th order yaw channel model.
To achieve the optimized identied result, the state space
models with the order from 2 to 7 are identied and then
compared with the real measured frequency response. We
nd that a fourth order model given in (3) yields the best
agreement in frequency domain with the tness of 65.48%
and is nally selected as the identied model. The frequency-
domain verication between the identied 4th order model
and real measured data is presented in Figure 5. It is clear
that the identied model is very accurate for frequencies up
to 10 Hz.
_

_
x =
_

_
2.6571 21.9350 3.8290 6.0497
31.0290 3.5154 17.0990 3.0897
6.1059 6.9623 9.7553 96.3750
17.1690 25.7330 37.1760 33.0820
_

_x
+
_

_
0.6258
6.2175
29.1990
14.6430
_

_
ped
,
= [ 15.3190 10.3210 0.7307 4.7274] x,
(3)
Lastly the delity of the identied model is evaluated by
using ight data which is not used in identication procedure.
Two types of input signals are used. The rst one is the
automatic chirp signal which covers the frequency range
from 0.01 Hz to 10 Hz and the second one is manual step-
like signals with different input amplitudes. The verication
result presented in Figure 6 shows a perfect matching be-
tween the simulated yaw rate and the real measured data.
Such agreement indicates the identied model is accurate
enough for controller design.
III. CONTROL OF YAW CHANNEL USING CNF
TECHNIQUE
By examining the identied model of yaw channel dynam-
ics, we nd that the system is internally stable because of the
embedded controller. The closed loop poles of the system
with the embedded controller are located at 12.2507
j27.0777 and 12.2541 j57.4222. However, the actual
373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1

p
e
d
(

1
~
1
)
Time (s)
373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Y
a
w
r
a
te
(
r
a
d
/s
)
Experimental
Simulation
Fig. 6. Model validation using automatic chirp input signal.
performance is pretty bad. For this reason designing an
extra control law to improve the yaw channel performance
is necessary. We propose in this section to design a high
performance controller using a newly developed composite
nonlinear feedback (CNF) technique. The CNF control tech-
nique was rst introduced by Lin et al. [5] to improve the
tracking performance under state feedback laws for a class of
second-order systems subject to actuator saturation. Recently,
it has been fully developed to handle general systems with
input constraints and with measurement feedback (see, e.g.,
Chen et al. [4]).
To be more specic, we consider a linear continuous-time
system with an amplitude-constrained actuator character-
ized by
_
_
_
x = A x + B sat(u), x(0) = x
0
y = C
1
x
h = C
2
x
(4)
where x R
n
, u R, y R
p
and h R are, respectively,
the state, control input, measurement output and controlled
output of . A, B, C
1
and C
2
are appropriate dimensional
constant matrices, and sat: R R represents the actuator
saturation dened as
sat(u) = sgn(u) min{ u
max
, | u | } (5)
with u
max
being the saturation level of the input. The
following assumptions on the system matrices are required:
i) (A, B) is stabilizable, ii) (A, C
1
) is detectable, and iii)
(A, B, C
2
) is invertible and has no invariant zeros at s = 0.
The objective is to design a CNF control law that causes
the output to track a high-amplitude step input rapidly
without experiencing large overshoot and without the adverse
actuator saturation effects. This is done through the design
of a linear feedback law with a small closed loop damping
ratio and a nonlinear feedback law through an appropriate
Lyapunov function to cause the closed loop system to be
highly damped as the system output approaches the com-
mand input to reduce the overshoot.
46th IEEE CDC, New Orleans, USA, Dec. 12-14, 2007 WePI25.9
1965
In what follows, we recall from [4] the step-by-step proce-
dure of the CNF control design with full order measurement
feedback:
STEP 1: Design a linear feedback law,
u
L
= Fx + Gr (6)
where F is chosen such that 1) A+BF is an asymptotically
stable matrix, and 2) the closed loop system C
2
(sI A
BF)
1
B has certain desired properties, e.g., having a small
damping ratio. We note that such an F can be designed using
methods such as the H
2
and H

optimization approaches.
Furthermore, G is a scalar and is given by
G =
_
C
2
(A +BF)
1
B

1
(7)
and r is a command input. Here we note that G is well
dened because A+BF is stable, and the triple (A, B, C
2
)
is invertible and has no invariant zeros at s = 0.
STEP 2: Given a positive denite matrix W R
nn
, we
solve the following Lyapunov equation:
(A+ BF)

P + P(A+BF) = W (8)
for P > 0. Such a solution is always existent as A+BF is
asymptotically stable. The nonlinear feedback portion of the
enhanced CNF control law, u
N
, is given by
u
N
= (e)B

P(x x
e
) (9)
where (e), with e = h r being the tracking error, is a
smooth and nonpositive function of |e|. It is used to gradually
change the system closed loop damping ratio to yield a better
tracking performance. The choices of the design parameters,
(e) and W, will be discussed later. Next, we dene
G
e
:= (A+ BF)
1
BG and x
e
:= G
e
r (10)
If all the state variables of the system are available for
feedback, the CNF control law is given by
u = u
L
+ u
N
= Fx +Gr +(e)B

P(x x
e
) (11)
STEP 3: For the case when there is only a partial measure-
ment available, the state feedback CNF control law of (11)
should be replaced by the following measurement feedback
controller:
_
x
v
= (A +KC
1
)x
v
Ky + Bsat(u)
u = F(x
v
x
e
) +Hr + (e)B

P(x
v
x
e
)
(12)
where K is the full order observer gain matrix such that
A+ KC
1
is stable and
H = [1 F(A+BF)
1
B]G. (13)
The following result is due to [4].
Theorem 1: Given a positive denite matrix W R
nn
,
let P > 0 be the solution to the Lyapunov equation
(A+ BF)

P + P(A+BF) = W (14)
Given another positive denite matrix W
Q
R
nn
with
W
Q
> F

PW
1
PBF (15)
let Q > 0 be the solution to the Lyapunov equation
(A +KC
1
)

Q+Q(A +KC
1
) = W
Q
(16)
Note that such P and Q exist as A + BF and A + KC
1
are asymptotically stable. For any (0, 1), let c

be the
largest positive scalar such that for all
_
x
x
v
_
X
F
:=
_
_
x
x
v
_
:
_
x
x
v
_

_
P 0
0 Q
__
x
x
v
_
c

_
(17)
we have

[ F F ]
_
x
x
v
_

u
max
(1 ) (18)
Then, there exists a scalar

> 0 such that for any nonpos-

itive function (e), locally Lipschitz in e and |(e)|

,
the full order measurement CNF control law of (12) drives
the system controlled output h(t) to track asymptotically a
step command input of amplitude r from an initial state x
0
,
provided that x
0
, x
v0
= x
v
(0) and r satisfy:
|Hr| u
max
and
_
x
0
x
e
x
v0
x
0
_
X
F
(19)
We note that the freedom to choose the function in
the CNF design is used to tune the control laws so as
to improve the performance of the closed loop system as
the controlled output, h, approaches the set point, r. Since
the main purpose of adding the nonlinear part to the CNF
controller is to shorten the settling time, or equivalently to
contribute a signicant value to the control input when the
tracking error, e, is small. The nonlinear part, in general, is
set in action when the control signal is far away from its
saturation level, and thus it does not cause the control input
to hit its limits. The following nonlinear function proposed
in [4] meets such a requirement:
(e) =

exp(|e|) exp(|e(0)|)

, (20)
where and are tuning parameters that can be adjusted
to yield a desired performance.
In what follows, we adopt the above mentioned CNF
control technique to design the controller for yaw channel
dynamics that yields a top level performance specied by
the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command in
[1]. It follows from the previous section that the identied
fourth order yaw dynamical model can be written as that in
(4) with
A =
_

_
2.6571 21.9350 3.8290 6.0497
31.0290 3.5154 17.0990 3.0897
6.1059 6.9623 9.7553 96.3750
17.1690 25.7330 37.1760 33.0820
_

_,
B =
_

_
0.6258
6.2175
29.1990
14.6430
_

_,
(21)
and y = h = = C
1
x = C
2
x with
C
1
= C
2
= [ 15.3190 10.3210 0.7307 4.7274] .
(22)
46th IEEE CDC, New Orleans, USA, Dec. 12-14, 2007 WePI25.9
1966
For safety consideration, the maximal amplitude of the pedal
input is kept within 0.4. It is straightforward to verify
that (A, B) is controllable and (A, C
1
) is observable. Fur-
thermore, the triple (A, B, C
2
) is invertible with 3 unstable
invariant zeros respectively at 29.013j29.572 and 990.68.
This nonminimum-phase nature of the yaw channel gives lots
of troubles in designing a high performance controller.
Next, we proceed to design a CNF control law for this
system. Our main goal is to reduce the overshoot of the
time-domain response. Since the identied model of the yaw
channel with the embedded controller is stable with two pairs
of pole having very small damping ratios (0.47 and 0.22,
respectively), we can safely choose the state feedback gain
for the linear part of the CNF control law as F = 0, which
yields
G = [C
2
(A+ BF)
1
B]
1
= 0.2675 (23)
and
G
e
= (A+ BF)
1
BG =
_

_
0.0560
0.0217
0.0054
0.0785
_

_. (24)
Solution to Lyapunov equation A

P+PA = W is obtained
with W = I. For the full order, we choose an observer gain
matrix
K =
_

_
1.2016
4.0081
2.9073
5.4800
_

_, (25)
which places the observer poles, i.e., the eigenvalues of A+
KC
1
, at 24j14.6 and 26j14.6, respectively. Finally,
we obtain a full order measurement feedback CNF control
law,
x
v
=
_

_
15.7502 9.5333 4.7070 0.3693
30.3711 44.8830 20.0277 22.0376
38.4310 23.0439 11.8797 82.6310
101.1171 30.8261 41.1802 58.9882
_

_x
v

_
1.2016
4.0081
2.9073
5.4800
_

_ +
_

_
0.6258
6.2175
29.1990
14.6430
_

_sat(
ped
)
(26)
and

ped
= (e)
_
[ 0.5745 0.1570 0.5716 0.6469] x
v
+0.0183 r
_
+ 0.2675 r (27)
with
(e) = 9.6

exp(1.05|e|) 0.3679

. (28)
IV. SIMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS
We evaluate its performance through an intensive simu-
lation process. In order to compare the overall performance
of the yaw channel with and without the additional CNF
controller, we choose a step reference of 0.5 rad/s. The
simulation result is shown in Figure 7. It is clear that the
CNF control yields a better performance. In what follows, we
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Y
a
w
r
a
te
(
r
a
d
/s
)
Without CNF
CNF
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Time (s)

p
e
d
(

1
~
1
)
Fig. 7. Step responses of the yaw channel with and without CNF control.
proceed to examine a comprehensive performance analysis
for the overall system with the CNF controller on the actual
UAV helicopter. It is done by replacing the control law for
the yaw channel as given in [3] with the one given in (26) and
(27). The rest of the control system in [3] remains unchanged
throughout the whole experimental test.
We rst present the automatic hovering turn tests for
the yaw channel on the UAV system. Figure 8 shows the
results of actual responses of the yaw channel with and
without the additional CNF controller. In the actual ight
test, the setpoint is chosen to be 0.3 rad/s. We note that
the overshoot levels are slight different with the simulation
results. This is practically acceptable and it is mainly due
to mechanical friction and external environmental factors
such as the precision of the GPS measurement signals.
Nonetheless, the system with the additional CNF control
once again gives a much better performance compared to
that of the system with only the embedded controller. In
particular, the system with the CNF controller is capable of
tracking the setpoint in 0.4 s and keeping it there within 0.1
rad/s. On the other hand, the system with only the embedded
controller needs about 5 s to reach the steady state and is
only able to maintain in the target with a 0.2 rad/s accuracy.
The advantage of using an additional CNF control is obvious
in this regard.
Next, we carry out the performance evaluation of the
overall system. More specically, we follow the standard set
by the United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
in [1] to examine 1) the stabilization, and 2) the agility of
the overall ight control system.
1) Stabilization Test: The stabilization test examines the
hovering stability and the accuracy of heading-hold.
The performance is categorized by two levels [1],
namely, the desired performance and adequate perfor-
mance. The result of the actual automatic hovering
test for a duration of 35 s is shown in Figure 9. The
stabilization test results together with the standards are
summarized in Table I. It is once again clear that our
design is very successful in this category. We would
46th IEEE CDC, New Orleans, USA, Dec. 12-14, 2007 WePI25.9
1967
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Time(s)
Y
a
w
r
a
te
(
r
a
d
/s
)
585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Time(s)
Y
a
w
r
a
te
(
r
a
d
/s
)
Embedded controller
CNF controller
Fig. 8. System responses with and without the CNF controller.
485 490 495 500 505 510 515
1.5
2
2.5
3
X
p
o
s
itio
n
(
m
)
485 490 495 500 505 510 515
2.5
3
3.5
4
Y
p
o
s
itio
n
(
m
)
485 490 495 500 505 510 515
13
13.5
14
14.5
H
e
ig
h
t (
m
)
485 490 495 500 505 510 515
122
120
118
116
H
e
a
d
in
g
a
n
g
le
(
d
e
g
)
Time (s)
Experimental
Reference
Fig. 9. Flight test: Automatic hovering.
like to further note that the position errors in our actual
test results are mainly due to the inaccuracy of the GPS
signals received. The positioning accuracy of the GPS
receiver is 3 m.
TABLE I
HOVERING PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND ACTUAL TEST RESULTS
Desired
Performance
Adequate
Performance
HeLions
Performance
Stabilized Hover
Duration
> 30 s > 30 s > 35 s
Horizontal
Tolerance
3 ft 6 ft 3 ft
Altitude
Tolerance
2 ft 4 ft 3 ft
Heading Angle
Tolerance
5

10

3.7

2) Agility Test: In the agility test, the UAV helicopter

is required to perform a 360

self-rotation around its

main shaft with a required yaw rate. The performance
is categorized into three levels. The actual test results
are given in Figure 10, in which the yaw rate is
maintained at 0.5 rad/s, and summarized in Table II
with the specications set in [1]. Our HeLion has again
512 514 516 518 520 522 524
0.05
0
0.05

x
(
r
a
d
/s
)
512 514 516 518 520 522 524
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2

y
(
r
a
d
/s
)
512 514 516 518 520 522 524
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

z
(
r
a
d
/s
)
Time (s)
Fig. 10. Agility test: Angular rates.
achieved a Level 1 performance in this test.
TABLE II
AGILITY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS AND ACTUAL TEST RESULT
Level 1
Performance
Level 2 and 3
Performance
HeLions
Performance
Required Yaw Rate > 22 deg/s > 9.5 deg/s > 31 deg/s
V. CONCLUSION
We have carried out a comprehensive study on the yaw
channel of a UAV helicopter. Particularly, we have a fairly
accurate model for the channel with an embedded controller
and improved its performance by augmenting an additional
control law using a nonlinear control technique.
REFERENCES
[1] ADS-33E-PRF, Aeronautical Design Standard Performance Specica-
tion Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, United
States Army Aviation and Missile Command, 2000.
[2] G. Cai, K. Peng, B. M. Chen and T. H. Lee, Design and assembling
of a UAV helicopter system, Proceedings of the 5th International Con-
ference on Control and Automation, pp. 697-702, Budapest, Hungary,
2005.
[3] G. Cai, B. M. Chen, K. Peng, M. Dong and T. H. Lee, Modeling and
control system design for a UAV helicopter, Proceedings of the 14th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, pp. 600-606,
Ancona, Italy, 2006.
[4] B. M. Chen, T. H. Lee, K. Peng and V. Venkataramanan, Composite
nonlinear feedback control for linear systems with input saturation:
theory and an application, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 427-439, 2003.
[5] Z. Lin, M. Pachter, and S. Banda, Toward improvement of tracking
performance nonlinear feedback for linear systems, International
Journal of Control, vol. 70, pp. 111, 1998.
[6] L. Ljung, System Identication Theory For the User, 2nd Edn.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1999.
[7] B. Mettler, Identication Modeling and Characteristics of Miniature
Rotorcraft, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2003.
[8] D. H. Shim, H. J. Kim and S. Sastry, Control system design for
rotorcraft-based unmanned aerial vehicle using time-domain system
identication, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Conference on Control
Applications, pp. 808-813, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 2000.
46th IEEE CDC, New Orleans, USA, Dec. 12-14, 2007 WePI25.9
1968