ARTICLES

ISIUS 2008 -Nanjing

© 2008 KEYNOTE SPEECH

submit stencil

Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Technologies

Agus Budiyono1
1
Smart Robot Center, Department of Aerospace Information Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea. Previously with
Center for Unmanned System Studies, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

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

Unmanned aerial vehicle, model identification, control, navigation, trajectory generation

I. Introduction as traffic or volcanic areas surveillance, detailed area map-

A widely used definition of UAV is an aerial vehicle (in-
cluding fixed-wing, rotary-wing or airship platform) which
can sustain its flight along a prescribed path without an
on-board pilot. The UAV technology has proven applica-
tions in many areas such as environmental monitoring and
protection, meteorological surveillance and weather re-
search, agriculture, mineral exploration and exploitation,
aerial target system, airborne surveillance for military land
operations, and reconnaissance missions. The unmanned
small scale helicopters enjoy no requirement for runway
and are particularly suitable for demanding problems such
ping, video footage recordings and crop dusting or spraying.
Table 1 lists applications of contemporary UAVs in differ-
ent areas.
A recent progress in the supporting technologies has
enabled the development of semi to fully autonomous UAV.
This includes the availability of compact, lightweight, af-
fordable motion detecting sensors essential to the flight
control system and compact lightweight low-cost compu-
ting power for autonomous flight control. A wide varieties
of autonomous UAV platforms have been developed and
flown ranging from fixed-wing to rotary wing platforms,

International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008 |

several minutes to hours/day in endurance and 100 grams
to 800 kg in weight. From all types of UAVs, the small
scale rotorcraft-based vehicle has been considered one that
exhibits the most complex dynamic properties. From the
perspective of control area, the RUAV demonstrates liter-
ally all challenges that have attracted enormous interests
from industry and academia alike. The challenging prob-
lems include higher bandwidth, hybrid modes,
non-holonomic, under-actuation, multi input multi output
(MIMO), and non-minimum phase. The paper discusses the
advances in UAV technologies from the perspective of
modeling and control of rotorcraft-based aerial vehicles.
II. Background: Science and Technology
A. Survey of UAVs
The viability of UAV as a multipurpose research vehicle
has driven great interest since recent decades. The basic
technology building blocks responsible for the current ad-
vances include airframes, propulsion systems, payloads,
safety or protection systems, launch and recovery, data
processor, ground control station, navigation and guidance,
and autonomous flight controllers. The following brief
survey is focused on the area of navigation, guidance and
control of UAVs. Various control design for UAVs has been
proposed ranging from linear to nonlinear synthesis, time
invariant to parameter varying, and conventional PID to
intelligent control approaches. The developed controllers
have been implemented for different aerial platforms: air-
ship (blimp), fixed-wing UAV, small scale helicopter,
quad-rotors, and MAV.
The research on autonomous airship is reported in (Azin-
heira, 2008) where the authors proposed a nonlinear control
approach for the path-tracking of an autonomous underac-
tuated airship. A backstepping controller is designed from
the airship nonlinear dynamic model including wind dis-
turbances, and further enhanced to consider actuators satu-
ration. The hover control using the same approach for such
a vehicle is presented in (Azinheira and Moutinho, 2008).
A number of investigations have been conducted for con-
trol and stabilization of quadrotor UAV. In (Raffo, 2008), a
robust control strategy to solve the path tracking problem
for such a vehicle was designed in consideration of external
disturbances like aerodynamic moments. A state parameter
control based on Euler angles and open loop positions state
observer was proposed by Mokhtari and Benallegue (2004).
The work was continued in (Mokhtari, 2005) in which a
mixed robust feedback linearization with linear GH∞ con-
troller was applied. An actuator saturation and constrain on
2 Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
state space output are introduced to analyze the worst case
of control law design. A different approach was proposed in
(Madani, 2007) where a backstepping control running pa-
rallel with a sliding mode observer for a quadrotor vehicle.
The sliding mode observer works as an observer of the qu-
adrotor velocities and estimator of the external disturbances
such as wind and parameter uncertainties. In (Escareno
et.al., 2008), the authors proposed a three-rotor configura-
tion which incorporates certain structural advantages in
order to improve the attitude stabilization. The control
strategy is robust with respect to dynamic couplings and to
the adverse torques produced by the gyroscopic-effect and
propeller’s drag.
The research on autonomous flight using model helicopters
as a test-bed has been performed by a large number of
teams all over the world. The MIT UAV team successfully
developed an autonomous aerobatic helicopter in (Gravilets,
2003). The development relied on the modeling framework
of the miniature helicopter dynamics. A methodology for
designing model-based control strategies for autonomous
aerobatic maneuver was proposed and validated experi-
mentally. Referring to previous work by Mettler (Mettler
et.al., 2002) at Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, the ba-
sis for a simplified modeling framework was considered to
stem from the fact that the dynamics of small-scale heli-
copters is dominated by the rotor response. The real-time
control system was developed using a Hard-
ware-In-the-Loop (HIL) simulation system which allows
high fidelity representation of the signal’s time-dependence
in real time navigation scheme
At Georgia Tech, the Open Control Platform (OCP)—a
new object-oriented real time operating software architec-
ture— has been used onboard the GTMAX UAV helicopter
to compensate for the simulated in-flight failure of a low
level flight control system. The viability of designing in-
expensive architecture, along with a relatively simple pro-
cessor, will pave the way for the extremely low-cost flight
control and guidance systems. Another novel contribution
was the use of Pseudo Control Hedging (PCH) in the adap-
tive flight control scheme for improving tracking perfor-
mance of a small helicopter. Using this architecture, a con-
solidated reference command that includes position, veloc-
ity, attitude and angular rate may be provided to the control
system.
At UC Berkeley, the research on an autonomous helicopter
has been conducted as reported in Koo and Sastry(1998),
Koo et.al.(2001) and Kim et.al.(2003). A helicopter ma-
thematical model is first established with the
lump-parameter approach. The control models of the

RUAVs are then derived by the application of a
time-domain parametric identification method to the flight
data of target RUAVs. The classical control theory and
modern linear robust control theory are applied to the iden-
tified model. The proposed controller are validated in a
nonlinear simulation environment and tested in a series of
test flights (Shim, 2000).
ARTICLES
search test-bed there is a compelling need for development
of mathematical model that capture the key dynamics of
the vehicle with reasonable level of complexity for the
purpose of control design. A number of key results are pre-
sented in Section IV.

The discussion on this paper is centered on model-based

control design and navigation system technology in the
framework of recent advances in UAVs elaborated in the
following order. In the section below (II), the system and
technology background of UAVs are presented including a
brief survey of contemporary UAVs, summary of lessons
from the research on RUAV modeling and controls, and
identification of trends in UAV technology. Section III
presents the review of modeling of RUAV using combined
first principle and time-domain identification. Nonlinear
dynamic modeling is presented based on first principle ap-
proach using X-cell 60 small scale helicopter as a test bed.
A method for linearization procedure is elaborated to pro-
vide an analytical model for the implementation of linear
control. Section IV is focused on discussion on simulation,
control and guidance for UAV. Some approaches for con-
Figure 1: Instrumented X-Cell 60 SE- CentrUMS-ITB
trol synthesis are demonstrated for illustration. The last
section (V) identifies emerging technologies in the area of
aerial robotic. Concluding remarks on the challenges and C. Trends in UAV Research
future directions are made in final section (VI).
More stringent mission requirements have driven the UAVs
B. Lessons learned from CentrUMS-ITB UAV Program to have a higher level of autonomy dictated by a reliable
The research on RUAV at the Center for Unmanned Sys- onboard computer system. The metric for UAV level of
tems Studies (CentrUMS)-ITB was carried out by using a autonomy is given in Table 2 (Sholes, 2006). Some key
fully instrumented X-cell 60 SE model helicopter similar to areas in current state-of-the-art aerial robotic technologies
one used by MIT team as shown in Fig. 1. The mini heli- are responsible for enabling AUVs to achieve its required
copter is characterized by a hinge-less rotor with a diameter level of autonomy. Current status of UAV research activi-
of 0.775 m and mass of 8 kg. The X-Cell blades both for ties in these areas can be summarized as the following:
main and tail rotors use symmetric airfoils. The vehicle has
1. State estimation algorithm. To achieve better perfor-
been used by a number of research centers as published in a
mance, multiple sensors are typically fused together
number of literatures (Gravilets,2003; Bogdanov,2003;
using EKF in a sensor fusion algorithm. Propagated
Bogdanov,2004). Therefore comparison and validation can
IMU-data can be fused with discrete updates from
be achieved from the available published results.
GPS and altimeter. Several design examples are pro-
Using the test bed, studies on modeling and control of
vided in (Johnson and Kannan, 2002). Recent study
RUAV were conducted. A great deal of effort was focused
includes the use of nonlinear adaptive observers for es-
on developing nonlinear model based on first principle ap-
timating speed of UAV from IMU measurements only
proach. The nonlinear model was implemented in Simu-
without the aid of GPS (Khadidja, 2007).
link/Matlab with parameters are measured independently or
obtained from literatures. Flight tests were conducted to 2. Simultaneous Localization and Mapping. An un-
validate the model. Various control synthesis were studied manned aerial vehicle (UAV) is tasked to explore an
for performance comparison. The important lesson learnt unknown environment and to map the features it finds,
from the experience is that a small scale helicopter is a in- but must do so without the use of infrastructure-based
tricate and unstable platform; to utilize it for a useful re- localization systems such as GPS, or any a priori ter-

Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008 3
 rain data. A statistical estimation technique allows for
the simultaneous estimation of the location of the
UAV as well as the location of the features it sees.
3. Vision for guidance. Computer vision is used as a
feedback sensor in a control loop for an autonomous
flight system. (Amidi et.al, 1998). More recent exam-
ple is precision targeting without using secondary
actuation or add-on gimbal system.
4. The use of GPS as attitude sensor. The need for re-
duced complexity avionics system has driven the re-
search on the use of single GPS for obtaining attitude
estimate (Kornfeld, 1998).
5. Integrated modeling. Linear model is obtained by us-
ing combination of first principle results and time or
frequency domain identification scheme.
6. Trajectory generation using maneuver automaton. Ve-
hicle motion is described by library of motion primi-
tives (Frazzoly et.al, 2005). The trajectory between
two positions and vehicle states is found by searching
the sequence of motion primitives which will best sa-
tisfy an objective function. One important application
of guidance system is collision avoidance between
vehicle at its tight and structured environment or be-
tween vehicles operating in formation or multi agent
system.
7. Safety verification. Safety verification or reachability
analysis aims to show that starting at some initial
conditions, a systems cannot evolve to some unsafe
regions in the state space. Unsafe region for UAV ap-
plication can be defined in the context of proximity to
obstacles, fuel availability (endurance), un-flyable
zone and/or communication range. A new concept
called barrier certificate is being used for safety veri-
fication of hybrid systems.
III. Modeling of RUAV
The requirement for successful navigation and guidance
task is stabilization of vehicle platform. Viewed as a mul-
ti-loop system, guidance and navigation is represented by
the outer-loop and control and stabilization the inner loop.
The design starts from the most inner loop outward. In this
context, to control small scale helicopter as unstable plat-
form with complex dynamics require sufficiently accurate
model. This section elaborates the modeling technique and
the corresponding model-based control synthesis.
4 Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
TABLE I
UAV LEVEL OF AUTONOMY
Level Level D escrip to r P ercep tio n /Situ atio n al A w aren ess
10 Fully A uto no m o us C o g nizant o f all w ithin b attlesp ace
Know s intent o f self and others (friend ly
9 Battleship sw arm cog nizance and threat) in a co m plex/intense
enviro nm ent; o n b oard tracking
Pro xim ity Inference - intent o f self and
8 Battleship sing le co gnizance o thers (friendly and threat);
R ed uced d ep end ence o n o ff-b o ard d ata
Sho rt track aw areness - H isto ry and
p redictive b attlesp ace d ata in lim ited range,
7 Battleship kno w led g e
tim efram e, and num b ers; Lim ited inference
supp lem ented by offb o ard d ata
R ang ed aw areness - on b o ard sensing fo r
6 R eal tim e m ultivehicle co op eration lo ng rang e, sup plem ented b y o ff-b o ard
d ata
Sensed aw areness - Lo cal senso rs to d etect
5 R eal tim e m ultivehicle co ordination external targ ets (friend ly and threat) fused
w ith o ff-bo ard d ata
4 Fault/Event A d ap tive vehicle
O ff-bo ard A w areness - friend ly system s
co m m unicate d ata
R o b ust respo nse to real tim e
3 H ealth/status histo ry and m o d els
faults/event
2 C hang eab le m issio n H ealth/status senso rs
Prelo ad ed m issio n d ata; Flig ht C o ntrol and
1 Execute p rep lanned m issio n
N avig ation Sensing
0 R em o tely Pilo ted V ehicle
Flight C o ntrol (attitud e, rates) sensing; O n
Bo ard C am era
.
A. Methods of Modeling
The approach to helicopter modeling can be in general di-
vided into two distinct methods. The first approach is
known as first principle modeling based on direct physical
understanding of forces and moments balance of the ve-
hicle. The challenge of this approach is the complexity of
the mathematical model involved along with the need for
rigorous validation. The method is primarily suitable for
one with a strong background in flight physics. The second
method based on system identification (Tischler and
Cauffman, 1992; Mettler et.al., 2002, Tischler and Remple,
2006) basically arises from the difficulty of the former ap-
proach. The frequency domain identification starts with the
estimation of frequency response from flight data recorder
from an instrumented flight-test vehicle. The parameterized
dynamic model can then be developed in the form of a li-
near state-space model using physical insight and frequen-
cy-response analysis. The identification can also be con-
ducted in time-domain.
In what follows, the author argues that, any modeling
should start from adequate basis in first-principle. In prac-
tice, the above two methods can be used in an integrated
scheme for developing an accurate small scale rotorcraft
vehicle model for the purpose of control design. The mod-
eling based on neural networks with appropriate structure
and training method can be viewed as a viable alternative.
 ARTICLES
Meanwhile, a new modeling scheme based on Linear Pa-
rameter Varying (LPV) identification is attractive for ∑ X = m ( u − rv + qw ) + mg sin θ
RUAV application. ∑ Y = m ( ru + v − pw) − mg sin φ cosθ
B. Equation of Motion of RUAV ∑ Z = m ( −qu + pv − w ) − mg cos φ cosθ
∑ L = I p − ( I − I ) qr
(4)
The motion of a vehicle in three-dimensional space can xx yy zz

be represented by the position of the center of mass and the ∑ M = I q − ( I − I ) pr

yy zz xx
Euler angles for the vehicle rotation with respect to the
∑ N = I r − ( I − I ) pq
zz xx yy
inertial frame of reference. The Euler-Newton equations
are derived from the law of conservation of linear and an- The forces and moments components consist of contri-
bution from main rotor, tail rotor, fuselage, horizontal fin
gular momentum. Assuming that vehicle mass is m and
and vertical fin.
inertial tensor I, the equations of motion are given by: 1) Main Rotor: The main rotor thrust equations are ex-
K pressed as:
dV K
=F
TMR = ρ ( ΩR)MR (π R2 ) CT MR
m 2
dt I (5)
MR
K d ωK K (1)
I =M where the thrust coefficient is given by
dt I
1 ⎡1 ⎛1 1 2 ⎞
K
where F = [ X Y Z ]T is the vector of external forces act- CT MR = aMRσ MR ⎢ ( µz MR − λ0MR ) + ⎜ + µMR ⎟θ0 (6)
K
2 ⎣ 2 ⎝3 2 ⎠
ing on the helicopter center of gravity and M = [ L M N ]T is
the vector of external moments. For helicopter, the external and the inflow ratio, advance ratio and normal airflow
forces and moments consists of forces generated by the component are respectively given by
main rotor, tail rotor; aerodynamics forces from fuselage, wiMR CT MR
horizontal fin and vertical fin and gravitational force. For λ0MR ≡ =
computational convenience, the Euler-Newton equations ( ΩR )MR 2η w µ 2
MR + ( λ0MR − µ z MR )
2

describing the rigid-body dynamics of the helicopter is then (7)

ua2 + va2 wa
represented with respect to body coordinate system by us- µ MR ≡ µ z MR ≡
ing the kinematic principles of moving coordinate frame of ( ΩR )MR ( ΩR )MR
reference as the following:
Here σ , a and ηw are solidity ratio, lift curve slope
K K K K
mV + m(ω × V ) = F and coefficient of non-ideal wake contraction of the main
(2) rotor. The above equations must be solved iteratively to
K K K K
I ω + (ω × I ω ) = M obtain the thrust. The main rotor torque can be approx-
K imated as a resultant of induced torque due to generated
Here the vector V = [u v w]T and ωK = [ p q r ]T are the thrust, and torque due to profile drag on the blade.
fuselage velocities and angular rates in the body coordi-
QMR = ρ ( ΩR )MR (π R 2 )
2
nate system, respectively. For the helicopter moving in RMR CQ MR
MR (8)
six degrees of freedom, the above equations produce six where the torque coefficient is given by
differential equations describing the vehicle’s transla-
tional motion and angular motion about its three refer- 1 ⎛ 7 2 ⎞ (9)
CQMR = σ MR ⎜ 1 + µ MR ⎟ CD0 MR + ( λ0MR − µ z MR ) CT MR
ence axes. 8 ⎝ 3 ⎠
From here, we can express the mathematical expression
for external forces and moments of the helicopter as a and CD0 is the profile drag coefficient of the main rotor.
function of the control inputs and the vehicle states. The representation of the main rotor tip path plane dy-
namics is given by

Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008 5
 ∂a1s ua ∂a wa X VF = 0
τ ea1s = −a1s + + 1s −τ eq + AδLo
∂µMR ( ΩR) MR ∂µz MR ( ΩR) MR
YVF = − ρ S VF ( CLα VFV∞ VF + vVF ) vVF
1 (15)
(10)
∂b1s va 2
τ eb1s = −b1s − − τ e p + Bδ Lat δ Lat
∂µMR ( ΩR ) MR
YVF = ρ SVF (V∞2 VF + vVF )
1 2

2
where a Bδ and Aδ steady-state lateral and longitu-
lat long

dinal gains from the cyclic inputs to the main rotor flap C. First Principle Model
angles; δ lat and δ long are the lateral and longitudinal cyc- The detailed equations of motion as presented previously
lic control inputs; τ e is the effective rotor time constant for are the basis for first principle modeling. It is a bottom-up
physical modeling. A study by Weilenmann (1994) was an
a rotor with the stabilizer bar. attempt to use first-principle approach to model the heli-
2) Tail Rotor: The tail rotor thrust can be computed by copter dynamics. The modeling however was limited only
the following equation: to hovering condition. Some simplified version of helicop-
TTR = mYδ r δ r + mYv vTR (11)
ter model existed including the Minimum-Complexity
Helicopter Simulation Math Model (Heffley and Mnich,
And the normal velocity component to the tail rotor is 1988) spanning from the previous work by Heffley
et.al.(1979 and 1986). In 2003, Gavrilets (Gavrilets, 2003)
vTR = va − lTR r + hTR p (12) presented a nonlinear model helicopter based on first prin-
ciple approach used for an aerobatic maneuver control. The
The tail rotor torque is computed using similar equations
work however does not present workable procedures for
for main rotor with tail rotor parameters substituted into the
developing linear model for the purpose of control design.
main rotor parameter.
The step-by-step development of linear model requires the
3) Fuselage: For hover and low speed forward flight,
calculation of a trim condition around which the vehicle
the rotor downwash is deflected by the forward and side
motion will be linearized. The trim conditions for the heli-
velocity. This deflection creates a force opposing the
copter are chosen operating points within which we solve
movement. The fuselage forces of the helicopter can be K
expressed as the equilibrium condition f ( xK , uK ) = 0 by first setting the
1 states to the values which characterize the corresponding
X fus = − ρ S x fusV∞ ua flight condition. For the case of RUAV, the solution of trim
2
1 condition is achieved through an iterative process. The no-
Yfus = − ρ S y fusV∞ va (13) tion of stability derivatives used in the modeling arises
2
1 from Taylor’s series expansion of external forces and mo-
Z fus = − ρ S z fusV∞ ( wa − wiMR ) ments around an equilibrium condition where only first
2
4) Horizontal tail: The horizontal tail generates lift and order effects are retained. The external forces and moments
are thus expressed in terms of product of derivatives and
a stabilizing pitching moment around the center of gravity.
the rigid-body vehicle states and control inputs. The linea-
This will also compensate the destabilizing effect of the
rized equations of motion can finally be expressed in the
main rotor flapping due to vertical speed. The horizontal
form of state space readily usable for control synthesis. For
tail fin forces and moments of the helicopter referenced to
more detail explanation, the readers are referred to (Bu-
body coordinate system are
diyono, 2007b). As needed, the first principle model can
X HF = 0
also be refined by the system identification technique as
YHF = 0 presented in the following section.

Z HF = − ρ S HF ( CLα HF ua + wHF ) wHF

1
D. Identification Modeling
2
(14) The first principle approach typically requires the detail
Z HF = ρ S HF ( ua2 + wHF )
1 2

2 knowledge regarding the system behavior. The use of sys-

tem identification modeling either in time or frequency
5) Vertical tail: The vertical tail forces can be approx- domain on the other hand is more practical. The system
imated by the following expression identification approach requires experimental input-output
data collected from the flight tests of the vehicle. Thus the
flying test-bed must be outfitted with adequate instruments
6 Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
 ARTICLES
to measure both state and control variables. To utilize ex- TABLE II
perimental data to build a parameterized model however, a STABILITY DERIVATIVES COMPARISON BETWEEN FIRST PRINCIPLE
model structure and decent initial conditions in the optimi-
PREDICTION AND IDENTIFICATION
zation scheme would be required to achieve convergence.
First Principle Pre-
The model structure and its initial value in this case can be Identification
diction
provided by prediction of first principle calculation. Yv -0.3471 -0.8652
In structured parameterization scheme, Predication Error Yr -16.5191 -16.286
Minimization (PEM) method can be utilized to estimate the Yb1s 10.1395 134.74
parameters. With the method, the parameters of a model are Lu -0.0106 -0.03
Lw 0.1098 0.0703
chosen so that the difference between predicted output of Lv -0.2486 -0.217
the model and the measured output is minimized with the Lp -40.8739 1.3026
following process. Lb1s 408.5485 320.53
Nw 1.0103 1.3669
Given the time domain description of a system: Nv 2.5045 2.1817
y (t ) = G ( q )u (t ) + H ( q )e(t ) (16) Np 0.1406 -1.2065
Nr -0.9758 -0.695
and by observing the input (u) and output (y) data, the Ba1s
0 0.0656
/ τe
error, e(t) can be computed as:
e(t ) = H −1 (q)[ y (t ) − G (q)u (t )] (17)
Further comparison between the first principle prediction
PEM uses optimization to minimize the cost function, and identification result is given in Table II.
defined by:
N E. Linear Parameter Varying Identification
V N (G , H ) = ∑ e (t ) 2
(18) All previous modeling schemes boil down to the develop-
t =1
ment of linear model associated with a certain flight condi-
The result of combined first principle and identification tion as shown in Fig. 3. The design of global nonlinear
modeling is illustrated in Fig. 2. The figure shows the for- control is then predicated on the notion of gain scheduling.
ward velocity flight data (solid thick line) compared with The drawback of this approach is that control designs based
the first principle model (solid thin line) and identification on linearized dynamics might become deteriorated when it
model (dashed line). The figure shows that the fitness ratio is applied beyond the vicinity of equilibrium. In contrast,
of the flight data for first principle and identification model LPV control technique explicitly takes into account the
is 19.87% and 24.34% respectively. change in performance due to real-time parameter varia-
tions. Therefore, this control technique gives a promising
potential in designing control systems which is robust over
the entire operating envelope.

RUAVs FLIGHT CONDITIONS

Piourette
Accelerate
Maneuvers

Hover
Cruise

Deccelerate
Ascend
Descend

Figure 2: Comparison of first principle and ID result

Figure 3: RUAVs flight conditions

Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008 7

25
Estimated Response
Plant Response
20
15
(m/s)
10
u
5
0
-5
0 50 100 150 200 250
time
(seconds)
Figure 4: Result of LPV identification for forward speed
The LPV identification scheme employs recursive least
square technique implemented on the LPV system
represented by dynamics of helicopter during a transition.
The airspeed as the scheduling of parameter trajectory is
not assumed to vary slowly. The exclusion of slow para-
meter change requirement allows for the application of the
algorithm for aggressive maneuvering capability without
the need of expensive computation.
Fig. 4 shows the result of LPV identification for varying
forward speed. More detail account can be found in (Bu-
diyono, 2008b).
IV. Simulation, Control and Guidance
To date various control techniques have been designed for
rotorcraft vehicles ranging from classical sin-
gle-output-single-output PID controller (Shim, 2000) to
nonlinear (Koo, 1998; Boussios, 1998; Devasia, 1999;
Buskey et.al., 2001, Harbick, 2004) and from
non-aggressive flight (Corke et.al., 2000; Castillo et.al.,
2005) to aggressive flight (Gavrilets et.al., 2001). To cover
a wide region in the flight envelope, a gain schedule tech-
nique is typically employed as in Shamma and Athans
(1991). A control using state-dependent Riccati equation
was proposed by Bogdanov and Wan (2003) and Bogdanov
et.al.(2003). The scheme was implemented on X-Cell heli-
copter (Bogdanov et.al, 2004). A control synthesis based
on behavioral approach was suggested by Fagg et.al. (1993)
and Buskey et.al. (2002,2003). Fuzzy (Jang and Sun, 1995)
and adaptive control have been also synthesized for control
of RUAV (Hovakimyan et.al. 2000; Johnson and Kannan,
2002; Kannan and Johnson, 2002; Kim et.al., 2002; Kutay
et.al., 2002, Sanchez et.al., 2005). Bagnell and Schneider
(2001) proposed a control using reinforcement learning. A
Lyapunov control design was proposed by Mazenc et.al.
8 Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
(2003).
Overall, there exists a tendency in the area of RUAVs that
more research has been done in control design methodolo-
gies than in developing dynamics model. The author argues
that modeling is prerequisite of good control design. In
order that a control system can be successfully designed
and implemented for a vehicle (system), the dynamics cha-
racteristics of the vehicle must be well-understood. In line
with this argument, Mettler (2003) viewed that the tenden-
cy to get around modeling efforts by searching for perfect
control methodology is not productive and can even lead to
inaccurate or misleading conclusions regarding the appli-
300
cability or performance of certain control techniques. Flight
simulation based on the developed model can be used to
complement flight testing (Johnson et.al., 1996; Johnson
and DeBitetto, 1997; Munzinger, 1998; Perhinschi and
Prasad, 1998; Johnson and Fontaine, 2002; Johnson and
Mishra, 2002; Lee and Horn, 2005). Guidance can be
viewed as the most outer loop of multi-loop control sys-
tem.
A. Simulation environment for UAV
Research in control engineering regularly produces new
theoretical insights and algorithms that promise substantial
improvement over the state of the practice. However, it is
only a small fraction of this research that ultimately sees
practical application (Samad et.al, 2004). The area of con-
trol for UAVs is not an exception. The need to close the gap
between theory and application of control to UAVs in real
operating conditions has been addressed by creating simu-
lation environment where actual time-dependent signals are
taken into account. Implementation and testing of control
systems by a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation is in-
creasingly being required for the design as it becomes a
very versatile tool in acquiring ’real’ data without taking a
risk of losing any expensive instrumented UAVs. HIL si-
mulation is characterized by the operation of real compo-
nents in connection with real-time simulated components.
Usually, the control system hardware and software is the
real system while the controlled plant can be either fully or
partially simulated. The ‘high-confidence’ control can be
achieved by developing increasingly higher fidelity models
and simulations through successive improvements. It
should be ensured that the plant model is a sufficiently ac-
curate approximation of reality and that assumptions about
disturbances and the operational environment are valid.
The implementation of HILS for various RUAVs at Smart
Robot Center (Konkuk University) is illustrated in Fig. 5.

Motion table
IMU
φ,θ,ψ
RT simulink execution
Bidirectional communication
Host PC xPC
Windows
RS232 RS232
Flight Gear
Cockpit view
Matlab/Simulink
6 DOF heli nonlinear mdl
RTW/XPC Target appl.
Hardware In the Loop (HIL) Simulator
Figure 5:Simulation environment for UAV control synthesis
B. Control Synthesis
Given the sufficiently accurate model, the control synthesis
of RUAV can be conducted and validated within real-time
simulation environment. Various control techniques have
been developed thus far in Budiyono (2005a, 2005b) and
Budiyono et.al. (2004, 2005, 2007a). Referring to the tax-
onomy of flight conditions of RUAV (Fig. 3), the control
design can be classified into the following different ap-
proaches:
1. Classical control. Since the problem of RUAV control
is a MIMO problem, the design procedure of classical
approach is to be conducted in cascaded multi-loop
SISO system starting from the innermost loop out-
ward. The cascaded multi-loop SISO approach how-
ever has limitations in its implementation. To imple-
ment this control approach for a small scale helicopter,
a pitch and roll attitude control system is often subor-
dinated to a, respectively, longitudinal and lateral ve-
locity control system in a nested architecture. The re-
quirement for this technique to work is that the inner
attitude control loop must have a higher bandwidth
than the outer velocity control loop. While this is va-
Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
ARTICLES
δlong
Iron Bird
δ lat
δ col
δ ped
PC‐104
Flight control exec
Sensor signal processor
GCS communication Health monitoring
Interactive autopiloting
Ground control GUI
High level controller
lid for a relatively large unmanned helicopter such as
Yamaha R-50, for a class of high-performance heli-
copters, such as the X-Cell 60, or helicopters where
this bandwidth separation is not sufficient, a simulta-
neous design will be necessary (Mettler, 2003). The
simultaneous design is provided by modern control
synthesis.
2. Modern MIMO control. To control a model helicopter
as a complex MIMO system, an approach that can
synthesize a control algorithm to make the helicopter
meet performance criteria while satisfying some
physical constraints is required. To address a MIMO
problem, LQR and H ∞ are the most popular control
design procedures. These methods however also have
drawbacks that can inhibit a practical implementation.
They include dealing with higher than necessary order
of controller, non-existence of formal parameter tun-
ing and weight selection procedures, possible exclu-
sion of good controllers, and difficulty in integrating
state variable constraints (Manabe, 2002).
3. Algebraic control. The CDM is one of such ap-
proaches where control design process is based on
9
 coefficient diagram representing criteria of good de- Speed w
25
sign. The use CDM thus far has been limited to SISO
or SIMO applications. Some trial designs for MIMO 20

have been made (Manabe, 2002), but formal design 15

procedures to implement CDM for MIMO has not
10
been established yet. The typical approach in solving

ft/sec
MIMO problem thus far has been to decompose 5

MIMO problems into series of SISO or SIMO prob-

0
lems and proceed with design by standard CDM. The
first attempt that demonstrates a successful imple- -5
LQR
mentation of CDM-based LQR technique without the -10
Output SLC
State SLC
need of decomposing a MIMO problem into a series
-15
of SISO or SIMO problems was presented in (Bu- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

diyono, 2007). Fig. 6 shows the result of design for
step response of u and w subjected to 30% parameter
variation.
4. Hybrid approach. In the hybrid approach, each linear
model in Fig. 3 can be considered as a hybrid auto-
maton. To represent an RUAV flying over wider flight
envelope therefore, the approach leads to a switching
problem representing a change from one mode to
another. A synthesis of switched control systems for
model helicopter excited with external switches that
bring changes of dynamics from hover to cruise by
satisfying some constraint in the trajectories can thus
be performed. Piecewise quadratic Lyapunov-like
functions that leads to linear matrix inequalities
(LMIs) for performance analysis and controller syn-
thesis can be considered. State jumps of the controller
responding to switched of plant dynamics are ex-
ploited to improve control performance (Sutarto et.al.,
2006). The result is illustrated in Fig. 7 showing
comparison between performance of LQR and
Switched Linear Control.
1.2
1
0.8
Time (Second)
Figure 7: Comparison of Switched Linear Control and LQR
5. LPV approach. The control design is performed
based on the model developed through LPV iden-
tification. Model Predictive Control (MPC) can
be a good candidate for such an approach.
V. Emerging Technologies
Issues pertaining to increased demand for higher perfor-
mance and safety have pushed the UAV design beyond
conventional approaches. Some emerging technologies can
be summarized in the following paragraph.
A. Bio-inspired Technologies and Biorobotics
The emerging field of unmanned system technologies
largely relies on the ability of an onboard mechanism that
replaces or imitates a human operator. To successfully
design an unmanned system or vehicle therefore it is im-
portant to study the human intelligent at all levels: reason-
ing, perception, development and learning. Moreover, the
compelling need to learn from nature stems from the fact
that although the present conventional approach to engi-
neering design may exceed nature in some regards, they are

0.6 not superior to many designs in nature. Using conventional

u (m/s)

0.4

0.2 nominal
approach, present day UAVs can perform different control
0
-30% in xu,xa,mq
+30% in xu,xa,mq functions including altitude and speed hold, obstacle
-0.2
0 10 20 30 40
t (s)
50 60 70 80 90
avoidance, terrain following navigation, and autonomous
landing. Flying insects can perform all those and beyond,
1 remarkably well using ingenious strategies for perception
0.8

0.6
and navigation in three dimensions. Insects infer distances
w (m/s)

0.4 to potential obstacles and objects of interest from image

0.2

0
motion cues that result from their own motion in the envi-
-0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ronment. The angular motion of texture in images is de-
t (s)
noted generally as optic or optical flow. Computationally, a
strategy based on optical flow is simpler than is stereosco-
Figure 6: CDM-LQR control design

10 Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008

py for avoiding hazards and following terrain (Thakoor, S.
et.al. , 2003).
Recent studies also demonstrate that insects can perform
extreme maneuvering capabilities far beyond those
achieved by conventional UAVs. Flapping wing, morphing
wing, formation flight, neuro-control and swarming are just
a few examples of natural phenomena much related to
UAVs’ advanced design features. More research should be
consistently conducted for harvesting design principles
from nature that would extend present UAV technologies
out of its conventional boundaries.
B. Multi UAV Systems
One primary feature of high autonomy UAVs is their ability
to perform coordination and cooperation functions. This
capability is termed Level 5 and 6 in Table 2. Research in
this area (collaborative sensing and exploration, synchro-
nized motion planning, and formation or cooperative con-
trol) has been gaining more interests in recent past as
shown for example in (Seiler, 2001) and Mot et al.
(2002a, 2002b). A particular class of tasks for such mul-
ti-agent UAV systems involve surveillance of a region and
tracking of targets cooperatively. Cooperative agents are
typically desired to handle a particular task with higher
robustness, higher performance (faster or more accurately)
or task simply otherwise unattainable by single agent.
UAVs formation control can be achieved through hierar-
chical (leader-follower) or non-hierarchical approach.
Cooperative multi-agents naturally lead to hybrid system
abstraction. The hybrid model would capture both UAV
dynamics and mode switching logic that supervises lower
level control switches. It will be desirable in this regards to
have a formal tool that can verify the performance and
safety of such a system where high fidelity simulation can
be conducted prior to flight tests. Future research direction
in multi UAVs system should address this need.
VI. Concluding Remarks
The paper discussed recent progress in the technology for
unmanned aerial vehicles from the modeling, control and
guidance perspectives. Dynamics of rotorcraft-based un-
manned aerial vehicle is presented to describe the underly-
ing principle of modeling for the control synthesis. The
modeling based on first principle, system identification and
LPV identification is presented briefly for illustration. A
number of major trends in aerial robotics are discussed:
state estimation algorithm, SLAM, vision for guidance,
integrated modeling, maneuver automaton and safety veri-
Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
ARTICLES
fication. Future challenges for advancing aerial robotics
technology will be pivoted on exploitation of biomimetic
principles for achieving higher performance and develop-
ment of formal model and analysis tool to synthesize col-
laborative aerial robotics behavior.
References
1. Amidi, O., Kanade, T., and Miller, J. R. (1998) : Vision-based auto-
nomous helicopter research at Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute,
Proceedings of Heli Japan ’98, Gifu, Japan, Paper No: T7-3.
2. Azinheira, J.R et al. (2008), A backstepping controller for
path-tracking of an underactuated autonomous airship, Int. J. Robust
Nonlinear Control
3. Azinheira, J.R and Moutinho, A (2008), Hover Control of an UA-
VWith Backstepping Design Including Input Saturations, IEEE
Transactions On Control Systems Technology, Vol. 16, No. 3
4. Bagnell, J. A. and Schneider, J. G. (2001) : Autonomous Helicopter
Control using Reinforcement Learning Policy Search Methods, Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automa-
tion 2001, IEEE, pp. 1615-1620.
5. Bogdanov, A. and Wan, E. (2003) : SDRE Control With Nonlinear
Feedforward Compensation for A Small Unmanned Helicopter,
AIAA, Paper No. : 2003-6512.
6. Bogdanov, A., Wan, E. and Harvey G (2004) : SDRE Flight Control
For X-Cell and R-Max Autonomous Helicopters, Proceedings of the
43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, Atlantis, Pa-
radise Island, Bahamas, pp. 1196- 1203.
7. Bogdanov, A., Carlsson, M., Harvey, G., Hunt, J., Kieburtz, D.,
Merwe, R. V. D. and Wan, E. (2003) : State-Dependent Riccati
Equation Control of A Small Unmanned Helicopter, Proceedings of
the AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference, AIAA,
Austin, TX, pp. 1120-1126.
8. Boussios, C. I. (1998) : An Approach for Nonlinear Control Design
via Approximate Dynamic Programming, PhD thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
9. Budiyono, A. and Sutarto, H.Y. (2004) : Controller Design of a
VTOL Aircraft: A Case Study of Coefficient Diagram Method to a
Time-varying System, Regional Conference on Aeronautical Science,
Technology and Industry, Bandung, Indonesia.
10. Budiyono, A. (2005a) : Onboard Multivariable Controller Design for
a Small Scale Helicopter Using Coefficient Diagram Method, Inter-
national Conference on Emerging System Technology, Seoul, Korea.
11. Budiyono, A. (2005b) : Design and Development of Autonomous
Uninhabited Air Vehicles at ITB: Challenges and Progress Status,
Aerospace Indonesia Meeting, Bandung, Indonesia.
12. Budiyono, A. and Wibowo, S.S. (2007a) : Optimal Tracking Con-
troller Design for A Small Scale Helicopter, Journal of Bionic Engi-
neering, Vol 4, December.
13. Budiyono, A. et.al. (2007b) : First Principle Approach to Modeling
of Small Scale Helicopter, in Proceedings of International Confe-
rence on Intelligent Unmanned Systems, Bali, Indonesia.
11
14. Budiyono, A. et.al (2008): Integrated Identification Modeling of
Rotorcraft-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, accepted for IEEE Ro-
bio, Bangkok
15. Budiyono, A and Sudiyanto, T (2008b): Linear Parameter Varying
Identification of Vertical-Longitudinal Dynamic of A Small Size
Helicopter (XCell 60) Model, International Symposium on Intelli-
gent Unmanned System, Nanjing
16. Buskey, G., Wyeth, G. and Roberts, J. (2001) : Autonomous Heli-
copter Hover Using an Artificial Neural Network, International
Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA 2001), Seoul, Korea,
pp. 1635-1640.
17. Buskey, G., Roberts, J. and Wyeth, G. (2002) : Online Learning of
Autonomous Helicopter Control, Proceedings Australasian Confe-
rence on Robotics and Automation, Auckland, pp. 21-27.
18. Buskey, G., Roberts, J. and Wyeth, G. (2003) : A helicopter named
Dolly - Behavioral cloning for autonomous helicopter control, Pro-
ceedings Astralasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, Bris-
bane, pp. 36-41.
19. Castillo, C., Alvis, W., Castillo, M.-Effen, Valavanis, K. and Moreno,
W. (2005) : Small Scale Helicopter Analysis and Controller Design
for Non-Aggressive Flights, Proceedings IEEE International Confe-
rence on SMC, Hawaii, pp. 3305- 3312.
20. Corban, J. E., Calise, A. J., Prasad, J. V. R., Hur, J., and Kim, N.
(2002) : Flight evaluation of adaptive high bandwidth control me-
thods for unmanned helicopters, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance,
Navigation and Control, American Institute of Aeronautics and As-
tronautics, pp. 645-651.
21. Corke, P., Sikka, P. and Roberts J. (2000) : Height Estimation for an
Autonomous Helicopter, International Symposium on Experimen-
tal Robotics, pp. 101–110.
22. Devasia, S. (1999) : Approximated Stable Inversion for Nonlinear
Systems with Nonhyperbolic Internal Dynamics, IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 44, pp. 1419-1425.
23. Escareno, J. et.al. (2008): Triple Tilting Rotor mini-UAV: Modeling
and Embedded Control of the Attitude, American Control Confe-
rence, Seattle, Washington, USA,June 11-13
24. Fagg, A. H., Lewis, M. A., Montgomery, J. F. and Bekey, G. A.
(1993) : The USC Autonomous Flying Vehicle : An Experiment In
Real-time Behavior-Based Control, Proceedings of the 1993
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys-
tems, pp. 1173-1180.
25. Frazzolli, E., Dahleh, M. A., and Feron, E. (2005) : Maneuver-Based
Motion Planning for Nonlinear Systems With Symmetries, IEEE
Transaction on Robotics, 21, pp. 1077—1091.
26. Gavrilets, V., Frazzoli, E., Mettler, B., Piedmonte, M., and Feron, E.
(2001) : Aggressive maneuvering of small autonomous helicopters: a
human-centered approach, International Journal of Robotics Re-
search, pp. 795 - 807.
27. Gavrilets, V. (2003) : Autonomous Aerobatic Maneuvering of Mi-
niature Helicopter, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy.
12 Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
28. Harbick, K., Montgomery, J. F. and Sukhatme, G. S. (2004) : Planar
Spline Trajectory Following for an Autonomous Helicopter, Journal
of Advanced Computational Intelligence - Computational Intelli-
gence in Robotics and Automation, 8, pp. 237-242.
29. Heffley, R. K., Jewell, W. F., Lehman, J. M. and Winkle, R. A. V.
(1979) : A Compilation and Analysis of Helicopter Handling Quali-
ties Data, NASA Contractor Report 3144.
30. Heffley, R. K., Bourne, S. M., Curtiss Jr, H. C., Hindson, W. S. and
Hess, R. A. (1986) : Study of Helicopter Roll Control Effectiveness
Criteria, NASA Contractor Report 177404.
31. Heffley, R. K. and Mnich, M. A. (1988) : Minimum Complexity
Helicopter Simulation Math Model, NASA Contractor Report
177476.
32. Hovakimyan, N., Kim, N., and Calise, A. J. (2000) : Adaptive output
feedback for high-bandwidth control of an unmanned helicopter,
AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Paper No:
AIAA-2000-4058.
33. Jang, J. R. and Sun, C. T. (1995) : Neuro-Fuzzy Modeling and Con-
trol, Proceedings of The IEEE. pp. 378-406.
34. Johnson, E. N. and Mishra, S. (2002) : Flight Simulation for the
Development of an Experimental UAV, Proceedings of the AIAA
Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit,
Monterey, California, Paper No: AIAA 2002-4975.
35. Johnson, E. and Kannan, S. (2002) : Adaptive flight control for an
autonomous unmanned helicopter, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and
Control Conference, AIAA-2002-4439, Monterey, California, Paper
No: AIAA 2002-4439.
36. Johnson, E. and Fontaine, S. (2001) : Use of flight simulation to
complement flight testing of low-cost UAVs, AIAA Modeling and
Simulation Technologies Conference, Paper No. : AIAA 2001-4059.
37. Johnson, E., DeBitetto, P., Trott, C., and Bosse, M. (1996) : The
1996 MIT/Boston University/Draper laboratory autonomous heli-
copter system, 15th AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics System Confe-
rence, 1, pp. 381-386.
38. Johnson, E. and DeBitetto, P. (1997) : Modeling and simulation for
small autonomous helicopter development, AIAA Modeling and Si-
mulation Technologies Conference, Monterey, California.
39. Kannan, S. and Johnson, E. (2002) : Adaptive Trajectory Based
Control For Autonomous Helicopters, AIAA Digital Avionics Con-
ference, number 358, Irvine, CA, pp. 8.D.1-1 – 8.d.1-12.
40. Khadidja, et.al, (2007): Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Speed Estimation
via Nonlinear Adaptive Observers, Proceedings of the 2007 Ameri-
can Control Conference
41. Kim, H. J., Shim, D. H. and Sastry, S. (2003) : A Flight Control
System for Aerial Robots : Algorithms and Experiments, Control
Engineering Practice, 11, pp. 1389-1400.
42. Kim, N., Calise, A. J., Hovakimyan, N., Prasad, J.V.R., and Corban,
E. (2002) : Adaptive Output Feedback for High Bandwidth Flight
Control, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 25(6),
pp. 993-1002.
43. Koo, T. J., Pappas, G. J. and Sastry, S. (2001) : Mode Switching
Synthesis for Reachability Specifications, Proceedings of the 4th In-

ternational Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control,
pp. 333 – 346.
44. Koo, T. J. and Sastry, S. (1998) : Output Tracking Control Design of
A Helicopter Model Based on Approximate Linearization, Proceed-
ings Of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Tampa,
FL, pp. 3635-3640.
45. Kornfeld, R. (1999) : The Impact of GPS Velocity Based Flight
Control on Flight Instrumentation Architecture, PhD thesis, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology.
46. Kutay, A. T., Calise, A. J., Idan, M. and Hovakimyan, N. (2002) :
Experimental Results on Adaptive Output Feedback Control Using A
Laboratory Model Helicopter, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance,
Navigation and Control Conference, pp. 196-202.
47. La Civita, M., Messner, W. C. and Kanade, T. (2002) : Modeling of
small-scale helicopters with integrated first-principles and system
identification techniques, Proceedings Of the 58th Forum of the
American Helicopter Society, Montreal, Canada, pp. 2505 - 2516.
48. Lee, D. and Horn, J. F. (2005) : Simulation of pilot workload for a
helicopter operating in a turbulent ship airwake, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers part G, 219, pp. 445-458.
49. Madani, T and Bennelague, A. (2007): Sliding Mode Observer and
Backstepping Control for a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
American Control Conference, New York, USA, June 11-13
50. Mahony, R. and Hamel, T. (2004) : Robust trajectory tracking for a
scale model autonomous helicopter, International Journal of Robust
and Nonlinear Control, 14, pp. 1035-1059.
51. Manabe, S. (2002) : Application of Coefficient Diagram Method to
MIMO Design in Aerospace, 15th Triennial World Congress, IFAC,
Barcelona, Spain, T-Tu-MO62.
52. Mazenc , F., Mahony, R. E. and Lozano, R. (2003) : Forwarding
control of scale model Autonomous helicopter: A Lyapunov control
design, Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control , Maui, Hawaii USA, pp. 3960- 3965.
53. Mettler, B. (2003): Identification modeling and characteristics of
miniature rotorcraft, Kluwer Academic Publisher
54. Mettler, B., Tischler, M., and Kanade, T. (2002) : System identifica-
tion modeling of a small-scale unmanned rotorcraft for flight control
design, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 47, pp. 50 – 63.
55. Mokhtari, A and Bennelague, A (2004): Dynamic Feedback Control-
ler of Euler Angles and Wind parameters estimation for a Quadrotor
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Proceedings of IEEE International Con-
ference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA, USA
56. Mokhtari, A, Bennelague, A. and Daachi, B (2005) : Robust Feed-
back Linearization and GH∞ Controller for a Quadrotor Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems
Agus Budiyono International Symposium on Intelligent Unmanned System | October 15-18, 2008
ARTICLES
57. Mot, J. D., Kulkarni, V., Gentry, S., Gavrilets, V. and Feron, E.
(2002a) : Coordinated Path Planning for a UAV Cluster, The First
AINS Symposium, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
58. Mot, J. D., Kulkarni, V., Gentry, S. and Feron, E. (2002b) : Spatial
Distribution Results for Efficient Multi-Agent Navigation. IEEE
Conference on Decision and. Control, 4, pp. 3776 – 3781.
59. Munzinger, C. (1998) : Development of A Real-Time Flight Simula-
tor for An Experimental Model Helicopter, Diploma Thesis, Georgia
Institute of Technology.
60. Perhinschi, M. G. and Prasad, J. V. R. (1998): A simulation model of
an autonomous helicopter, Proceedings of RPV/UAV Systems Bris-
tol International Conference and Exhibit, pp. 36.1-36.13
61. Raffo, G.V. et al. (2008): Backstepping/Nonlinear H∞ Control for
Path Tracking of a QuadRotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, American
Control Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 11-13
62. Samad, T. et.al. (2004): High-Confidence Control: Ensuring Relia-
bility in High-Performance Real-Time Systems, International Jour-
nal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 19, 315–326
63. Sanchez, E. N., Becerra, H. M. and Velez, C. M. (2005) : Combining
fuzzy and PID control for an unmanned helicopter, The 2005 North
American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Annual Conference,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
64. Seiler, P. J. (2001) : Coordinated Control of Unmanned Aerial Ve-
hicles, PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
65. Shamma, J. S. and Athans, M. (1991) : Gain Scheduling : Potential
Hazards and Possible Remedies, American Control Conference,
Boston, MA.
66. Shim, D. (2000) : Hierarchical Control System Synthesis for Rotor-
craft-Based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, PhD thesis, University of
California, Berkeley.
67. Sholes, Eric. (2006): Evolution of a UAV Autonomy Classification
Taxonomy, IEEEAC paper #1538, Version 3
68. Sutarto, H.Y., Budiyono A., Joelianto E., and Hiong, G. T. (2006) :
Switched Linear Control of a Model Helicopter, International Con-
ference on Automation, Robotics, Control and Vision, Singapore.
69. Thakoor, S. et.al (2003): Review: The Benefits and Applications of
Bioinspired Flight Capabilities, Journal of Robotic Systems 20(12),
687–706
70. Tischler, M. B. and Cauffman, M. G. (1992) : Frequency-Response
Method for Rotorcraft System Identification : Flight Applications to
BO-105 Coupled Fuselage/Rotor Dynamics, Journal of the American
Helicopter Society, 37/3: p. 3-17.
71. Tischler, M. B. and Remple, R. K. (2006) : Aircraft and Rotorcraft
system Identification, AIAA Education Series.
72. Weillenmann, M. F. and Geering, H.P., (1994): Test Bench for Ro-
torcraft Hover Control, AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dy-
namic, 17, pp. 729-736.
.
13