2010 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications

Part of 2010 IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems and Control

Yokohama, Japan, September 8-10, 2010

A Trajectory Tracking Control Design for Fixed-wing

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Chang Boon Low
DSO National Laboratories
INFO Division, Manned-Unmanned Programme
27 Medical Drive, Singapore 117510
Email: lchangbo@dso.org.sg

Abstract— This paper presents a trajectory tracking control
design which provides the essential spatial-temporal feedback
control capability for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) to execute a time critical mission reliably. In this design,
a kinematic trajectory tracking control law and a control gain
selection method are developed to allow the control law to be
implemented on a fixed-wing UAV based on the platform’s
dynamic capability. The tracking control design assumes the
command references of the heading and airspeed control
systems are the accessible control inputs, and it does not impose
restrictive model assumptions on the UAV’s control systems.
The control design is validated using a high-fidelity nonlinear
six degrees of freedom (6DOF) model and the reported results
suggest that the proposed tracking control design is able to
track time-parameterized trajectories stably with robust control
performance.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Unmanned vehicles are currently used for various military
and civilian missions in the air, sea, space, and land. Some of
these applications are surveillance, search and rescue, target
tracking, detection and exploration. Recently, there is a spur
of interest in the area of cooperative control of multiple
UAVs. To achieve cooperation among a team of UAVs in
a given shared airspace, the ability to control the UAVs in
the spatial-temporal manner is critical in many missions. One
approach to achieve this spatial-temporal control capability
is by trajectory tracking control.
Trajectory tracking control problems have been formulated
and addressed by the mobile robots control community in the
past decades [1]- [5] [6]. Although several tracking control
algorithms have been proposed, these results are not readily
to apply to UAVs even though mobile robots and UAVs
possess similar kinematic nonholonomic constraints. To the
best of the author’s knowledge, there is no report indicates
that these tracking controllers have been applied to the UAVs
due to the differences in the envelope of operations, low-level
control system configurations and dynamics.
Recently, researchers have been looking into the trajectory
tracking control problem for fixed-wing UAVs [7]–[10]. In
[7], a tracking controller is designed based on the UAV
six degrees of freedom (6DOF) model where the assumed
accessible command inputs for the control laws are the
low-level control surfaces such as aileron, throttle, rudder,
and elevator of the aircraft. This assumption leads to two
limitations that impede its implementation to real physical
fixed-wing UAVs available in the market. First, these low-
level control inputs that interface with the tracking control
law are not readily accessible in most fixed-wing UAVs that
are available in the UAV industry without significant system
modifications. Second, the controller requires sufficiently
accurate UAV 6DOF model parameters, which are difficult
to be determined in practice. These limitations hinder the
implementation of the controller to many fixed-wing UAV
platforms. In [10], an adaptive control scheme is proposed
for the tracking control problem in the presence of parametric
uncertainties. Similarly, the solution assumed to have access
to the low-level control surfaces, which is not common in
the UAV industry.
In [8], a kinematic tracking controller is proposed for
fixed-wing UAVs. In this control design, the assumed control
inputs are the command references of the UAV’s 1) airspeed,
2) heading, and 3) altitude control systems. Although the
design assumes these commonly accessible control inputs,
the airspeed and heading control systems are modelled as 1st
order dynamic models; moreover, only the heading control
dynamic model is used in the control design. In practice,
the closed-loop airspeed and heading control systems seldom
follow 1st order dynamic models [13], and other practical
implementation issue such as control gain selection is not
discussed. In general, these tracking control gains have to be
carefully chosen so that the resultant closed-loop bandwidth
of the trajectory tracking control system is achievable by
the UAV limited maneuverability. Moreover, the system
needs to be implemented well on a digital computer with
a well chosen of control sample rate. Such practical issues
are critical to ensure that the tracking control laws can
be implemented successfully on the final physical UAV.
Additionally, other useful closed-loop properties such as
analytical tracking error convergence rate are not available.
In [9], the tracking control framework is extended to adaptive
scheme where the controller is redesigned to handle low-level
autopilot parametric uncertainties. Similarly, this extension
has the same above-mentioned limitations associated with
the approach proposed in [8].
In this paper, a trajectory tracking control design is pro-
posed for fixed-wing UAVs. The design provides useful in-
sights and guidelines that facilitates physical implementation
to wide-range of fixed-wing UAVs.

978-1-4244-5363-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 2118

 II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION For the trajectory tracking problem considered in this work,
the tracking error that we want to stabilize are defined as
follows [2].
    
xe cos ψ sin ψ 0 xr − x
 ye  =  − sin ψ cos ψ 0   yr − y  (8)
ψe 0 0 1 ψr − ψ
The physical meaning of the tracking error is shown
in Figure 1. xe represents the instantaneous longitudinal
tracking error, ye represents the lateral tracking error, and
ψe denotes the difference between the UAV heading angle
and the reference heading angle. With this definition, we
can state the tracking control problem as follows.

Fig. 1. Tracking Control Formulation
The objective of UAV trajectory tracking control is to
maneuver a fixed-wing UAV to follow a time-parameterized
reference trajectory stably using feedback control. Figure 1
depicts the fixed-wing UAV and the position of the reference
trajectory at a given time instant. Let (x, y) denotes the
inertial position of the UAV, ψ represents the heading angle,
Xb and Yb denote the UAV’s body axes, and V denotes
the airspeed of the UAV. (xr , yr ) denotes the instantaneous
reference point of the reference trajectory, Vr denotes the
reference velocity, ωr denotes the reference turning rate, and
ψr denotes the instantaneous reference heading angle of the
reference trajectory.
The UAV kinematic equations of motion is modelled as
Problem Statement
For small initial tracking error, determines the feedback
control law (Vc , ψc ) so that the tracking error [xe , ye , ψe ]
converges stably to a neighborhood about zero.

The problem stated here is to derive a feedback tracking
control law so that the tracking error is stabilized and
converge towards zero. In other words, the UAV position
converges stably towards the time-varying reference point. In
this control law design, the cascaded control strategy [11]
is adopted to develop the kinematic tracking control law.
First, the tracking control law is designed by assuming (V, ψ)
are the control inputs. Then, the control commands that are
computed by the tracking control law are implemented via
(Vc , ψc ). By selecting appropriate tracking control gains, the
airspeed and heading control systems are able to track the
commanded airspeed and heading signals well to achieve
the trajectory tracking control. The guideline of selecting
suitable tracking control gains are discussed in Section V.

ẋ = V cos ψ (1) III. T RACKING C ONTROL S YSTEM A RCHITECTURE

ẏ = V sin ψ, (2)
where the dynamic models of the airspeed and heading
autopilot control systems are modelled as
V (s) = Gv (s)Vc (s) (3)
ψ(s) = Gψ (s)ψc (s). (4)
(Vc , ψc ) denotes the airspeed and heading commands
where Gv (s) and Gψ (s) denote the transfer functions of Fig. 2. UAV Tracking Control System Implementation Architecture
V (s)/Vc (s) and ψ(s)/ψc (s).
Without lost of generality, we assume that the low-level This section briefly discusses the tracking control system.
control systems are n >= 1 order stable transfer functions. Figure 2 depicts the signal flow diagram and the essential
Note that the time-parameterized reference trajectory con- modules of the tracking control system. The essential mod-
sidered in this work satisfies the nonholonomic constraints ules are the 1) Trajectory Generator, 2) Tracking control
ẋr cos(ψr ) − ẏr sin(ψr ) = 0 at all times. This considera- law, and 3) Navigation module. At every control sample,
tion implies that the trajectory also satisfies the following the trajectory generator outputs instantaneous reference pose
kinematic equations [xr (t), yr (t), ψr (t)] to the tracking control law based on a
pre-planned trajectory. At every control sample, the nav-
ẋr = Vr cos ψr (5)
igation module provides instantaneous UAV position and
ẏr = Vr sin ψr (6) heading angle information to compute the corrective heading
ψ˙r = ωr . (7) and airspeed commands and fed them to the low-level control

2119
systems to track. This set-up provides an abstraction between 
the tracking control law layer and the low-level control
The developed tracking control law is a continuous, static
surface layer. As a result, this abstraction allows the tracking
control law. This simplicity facilitates implementation of
control system to be implemented across different types
the tracking control law onto a real physical fixed-wing
of fixed-wing UAVs that have different types the low-level
UAV. Note that the control law is a globally stable if the
control surfaces.
control inputs are not saturated. In practice, the envelope of
IV. C ONTROL L AW D ESIGN operation is limited; hence, the tracking control system can
only operate in a region about (xe , ye , ψe ) = (0, 0, 0) to
This section presents the tracking control law design. By
avoid physical saturation.
differentiating the tracking error equation (8), we obtain the
Proposition 1 shows the stability of the closed-loop track-
following tracking error model
    ing control system. However, it does not indicate the error
ẋe ωye − V + Vr cos ψe convergent rate of the closed-loop system. To estimate the
 ẏe  =  −ωxe + Vr sin ψe  . (9) convergent rate, we approximate the nonlinear terms sin ψe
ψ̇e ωr − ω as ψe and tan−1 (−ky ye ) as −ky ye . These approximations
lead the closed-loop equations (10)-(11) and (16)-(17) to
In this control design, the control inputs are first assumed to
be (V, ψ), therefore, we only need to consider the first two ẋe = ωye − kx xe (18)
equations of (9) in this design. ẏe = −ωxe − Vr ky ye , (19)
ẋe = ωye − V + Vr cos ψe (10) where the derivative of VL = 21 x2e + 12 ye2 becomes
ẏe = −ωxe + Vr sin ψe . (11)
V̇L = −kx x2e − k̄y ye2 (20)
By inspecting equations (10)-(11), we let ψe be an auxiliary
control input via input transformation ψe = ψr − ψ, where with k̄y = ky Vr . Note that (20) can be rewritten as V̇L ≤
ψe can be transformed back to the original control input ψ −2kVL , where k = min(kx , k̄y ). By invoking comparison
by ψ = ψr − ψe . First, let VL = 21 x2e + 21 ye2 . Its derivative lemma [12], we have
along (10)-(11) is
kχ(t)k ≤ kχ(t0 )ke−k(t−t0 ) (21)
V̇L = xe {ωye − V + Vr cos ψe }
where χ ,(xe , ye )T . This result can be stated as follows.
+ ye {−ωxe + Vr sin ψe }. (12) Proposition 2: For small initial tracking error
By choosing (xe (t0 ), ye (t0 )), the closed-loop system (18)-(19) and
(16)-(17) has an approximated error convergent rate of (21).
V = kx xe + Vr cos ψe (13) Proof: As shown above.
ψe = tan−1 (−ky ye ), (14) 
where kx > 0 and ky > 0, V̇ becomes Inequality (21) indicates that the tracking error (xe , ye )
ky ye2 converges to origin exponentially for small initial error.
V̇L = −kx x2e − p , (15) It can also be shown that ψe exponentially converges to
1 + ky ye2
zero since ψe ≈ −ky ye . This desirable error convergent
which is negative definite. By transforming the control law property suggests that the closed-loop system has good
(14) into the original control input ψ, the final tracking robustness property against acceptable measurement noise
control law is and unmodeled disturbances [12].
In this control design, we assume that (V, ψ) are the
V = kx xe + Vr cos ψe (16) control inputs; however, the actual implementing control
−1
ψ = ψr + tan (ky ye ). (17) inputs of the UAV are (Vc , ψc ). By applying the cascaded
control strategy, we can implement the control law as
The control performance of the tracking control law (16)-
(17) can be summarized into the following result. Vc = kx xe + Vr cos ψe (22)
Proposition 1: Suppose Vr > 0, then for any ini- ψc = ψr + tan−1 (ky ye ). (23)
tial condition (xe (t0 ), ye (t0 )), the tracking control error
[xe (t), ye (t), ψe (t)] of the closed-loop system (10)-(11) and Note that to achieve the stated closed-loop performances
(16)-(17) is uniformly bounded and converges to zero. via tracking control law (22)-(23) in the actual implemen-
Proof: VL is a positive definite function where it derivative tation, we need to design the tracking control gains so that
V̇L is a negative definite function. By applying Lyapunov the tracking control outer-loops are operating at a range of
stability theorem [12], we can conclude that (xe , ye ) is frequencies where the low-level (inner-loop) control systems
uniformly bounded and (xe , ye ) → 0 as t → ∞. Since are able to track the computed command signals. Section V
ψe = tan−1 (−ky ye ), ψe is also uniformly bounded, and presents a tracking control gain selection method to achieve
ye → 0 implies ψe → 0. This completes the proof. this objective.

2120
 V. T RACKING CONTROL SYSTEM I MPLEMENTATION
A. Tracking Control Gain Design
To implement the developed tracking control law on a
fixed-wing UAV, the tracking control gains must be selected
according to the bandwidth of the UAV’s low-level control
systems. In general, the bandwidth of a control system is a
measure of the speed of the control system. Here, we utilize
bandwidth as the attribute to characterize the performance
of the low-level control system for the purpose of tracking
control gain design.
Assuming that ω is small, which is usually the case for
fixed-wing UAVs, the closed-loop equations (10)-(11) and
(16)-(17) can be approximately decoupled into longitudinal
and lateral closed-loop tracking control systems.
Longitudinal tracking control subsystem
ẋe = −kx xe + xre
Lateral tracking control subsystem
ẏe = −Vr ky ye + yer
(xre , yer )
are the zero reference inputs to the decoupled
closed-loop tracking control subsystems (24) and (25).
Fig. 3. Longitudinal tracking subsystem signal flow diagram
We first consider the longitudinal tracking control system.
Figure 3 depicts the signal flow diagram of the outer-loop
longitudinal tracking control system. Note that the airspeed
control system Gv (s) is located along the forward path of the
closed-loop system to track the computed command signal
Vc that enters Gv (s). From equation (24), it is clear that the
outer-loop tracking system is a 1st order system. To achieve
V ≈ Vc , the 1st order tracking outer-loop must be slower
than the low-level (inner-loop) control system Gv (s). One
guideline to achieve this two-loop separation principle used
in the cascaded control strategy is to design the outer-loop
tracking control system such that τ2 > 5τ1 , where τ2 and
τ1 are the time constants of the outer-loop and inner-loop
control systems [11]. This inequality simply means that the
time response of the inner-loop is at least 5 times faster than
the time response of the outer-loop system.
Note that τ1 and τ2 are the time domain parameters of
the control systems. In general, the dynamic order of inner-
loop control systems is greater than 1. Therefore, it may
be inadequate to quantify the speed of a system using time
constant of a 1st-order dynamic model. Here, we utilize
bandwidth instead of using time constant.
To apply this concept using bandwidth, we let Bv be the
bandwidth of Gv (s). By inspecting the closed-loop equation
(24), the bandwidth of the outer-loop is kx . Hence, the
equivalent guideline of achieving two-loop separation can
be written as
0 < kx < Bv /5, (26)
where kx is a positive constant.
Fig. 4. Lateral tracking subsystem signal flow diagram
Now, we consider the lateral tracking control system.
Figure 4 depicts the signal flow diagram of the lateral
tracking subsystem. Similarly, the outer-loop tracking control
(24) system is a 1st-order system with a bandwidth of ky Vr . We
can achieve the two-loop separation by choosing ky to satisfy
Bψ
(25) 0 < ky < . (27)
5Vr
Bψ is the bandwidth of the heading control system Gψ (s).
Note that inequalities (26) and (27) are guidelines to
achieve good two-loop separation so that V ≈ Vc and
ψ ≈ ψc . From these guidelines, it is clear that the bandwidth
of the low-level control systems place upper bounds on the
feasible tracking control gains. In practice, we cannot achieve
arbitrary error convergence rate due to physical constraints of
the UAVs such as acceleration and turning rate limits. This
design framework provides a mean to design the tracking
control gains based on the dynamic performance of the
UAV’s control systems. With such a practical consideration,
the control design can be implemented accordingly on a
given fixed-wing UAV platform. Another salient feature of
this design method is that the bandwidths of the inner-
loop control systems can be estimated in practice. This
information can be computed either from an approximated
transfer function, or estimated directly from it time responses
[17].
From Figure 4, it can be observed that the signal ψr (t)
enters to the inner-loop heading autopilot Gψ (s). This signal
flow implies that besides ψe (t), ψr (t) is required to be
tracked well by the UAV’s heading control system. Assuming
that inequality (27) is satisfied, ψe can be tracked by the
heading control system since the bandwidth of the outer-loop
control system is much slower than the dynamic of Gψ (s).
As for ψr (t), it is necessary that the maximum frequency
component of ψr is less than Bψ for the heading control
system to track. This maximum frequency component can
be approximated by the maximum rate of change of ψr (t).
A better heading control system will lead to a better closed-
loop tracking performance.
B. Control Sample Rate
In Section IV, a nonlinear tracking control law is designed
to address the tracking control problem for the fixed-wing
2121
UAVs. In general, the concept of bandwidth readily applies
to linear designs but it is less commonly used in nonlinear
control designs. In this design method, the concept of band-
width is used for choosing suitable tracking control gains of
the nonlinear tracking control system. This subsection takes
the application of bandwidth one step further to guide the
selection of the system’s control sample rate.
In practice, tracking control law is implemented on a
digital computer where the navigation sensors usually pro-
vide discrete-time information. Therefore, it is essential
to determine what control sample rate should be chosen.
Ideally, the higher the sample rate, the better would be the
implementation of the nonlinear control law [16]. However,
there are slow update rate navigation sensors such as Global
Positioning System (GPS) that places an upper bound on the
feasible control sample rates. And also it may be too costly
or sometimes infeasible to deploy high-update rate sensors in
order to implement the control law at any unnecessarily high
sample rates. On the other hand, an under-sampled system
leads to instability.
To estimate suitable control sample rate, we determine
the highest closed-loop bandwidth of the two decoupled
control systems assuming that the tracking control gains
have been chosen to satisfy inequalities (26)-(27). Let the
highest closed-loop bandwidth Bh = max{kx , ky Vr }. Then
by applying the sample-rate selection guideline stated in [14],
the control sample rate fc for this tracking control system
should satisfy
2πfc ≥ 30Bh rad/sec. (28)
C. Real-time Trajectory Generator
The function of the trajectory generator module is to
generate instantaneous real-time reference pose (xr , yr , ψr )
at every control sample so that the tracking control law is
able to compute the necessary feedback control actions to
manoeuvre the UAV towards the moving reference pose.
Therefore, it is critical for the trajectory generator to generate
accurate reference pose according to the planned trajectory
at every control sample. This subsection describes an imple-
mentation method to implement this module.
Since the reference trajectory is meant for a nonholonomic
UAV to track, the real-time reference pose must obey the
nonholonomic constraint equation ẋr cos(ψr )− ẏr sin(ψr ) =
0, or equivalently satisfies equations (5)-(7).
To achieve this requirement, and assuming that the system
is to be implemented on a digital computer, one approach to
generate real-time reference pose is to integrate the nonlinear
ordinary differential equation (ODE) using fixed-step numer-
ical integrators (solver) such as Euler’s method (1st order),
Heun’s method (2nd order), or Runge-Kutta method (4th
order) [15]. Since equations (5)-(7) are non-stiff, these fixed-
step numerical integrators will suffice. The choice between
the integrators would depend on the desired accuracy and
the onboard computation power of the UAV.
Without loss of generality, a fixed-step numerical integra-
2122
tor can be written as
Xk+1 = f(Xk , uk , △t), (29)
where Xk denotes (xr (t), yr (t), ψr (t)) and uk denotes
(Vr (t), ωr (t)) at time t = tk . △t denotes the step-size
of the integrator, and the discrete time tk is defined as
tk , t0 + k△t where k is a positive integer.
Assuming that the planned trajectory is parameterized
by Vr (t), ωr (t) for a given planned time horizon [t0 tf ],
and given the initial reference pose (xr (t0 ), yr (t0 ), ψr (t0 ))
at time t0 , we can solve X sequentially by evaluating
equation (29). This information is then fed into the tracking
control law to compute the corrective feedback actions. This
computation is repeated iteratively to generate the real-time
reference pose for the tracking control till the end of the
planned horizon. From implementation perspective, it is clear
that the trajectory generator sample rate fs must be faster or
equal than the selected control sample rate of the tracking
1
system, i.e, fs ≥ fc where fs = △t , since the real-time
reference pose must be available for the tracking control law
to compute at every control sample.
It is also important to note that the choice of this solver
step should be small to maintain sufficient accuracy. And
for the reason of implementation convenience, the generator
sample rate fs should be chosen as a factor of the control
sample rate, i.e., fs /fc ∈ N where N denotes natural
numbers. This choice of fs is chosen so that the generated
reference pose is aligned accurately at every discrete control
sample.
VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this simulation, a high-fidelity nonlinear 6DOF model
of a fixed-wing UAV model is implemented with the pro-
posed tracking control design via MATLAB SIMULINK.
The UAV model is equipped with: 1) an airspeed control
system, 2) a heading control system, and 3) an altitude
control system. In this work, the trajectory tracking control
are performed in the (x, y) plane, where the altitude control
system regulates the UAV stably at an altitude. In this model,
the estimated bandwidths of the airspeed and heading control
systems are (0.3 Hz, 0.2Hz), and the UAV has an operating
airspeed envelope of 20m/sec ≤ V ≤ 35m/sec. By applying
inequalities (26)-(27), the selected tracking control gains are
(kx , ky ) = (0.54, 0.005), which leads to a bandwidth of
0.54 rad/sec for the longitudinal tracking control loop, and
a bandwidth of 0.125 rad/sec for the lateral tracking control
loop. Hence Bh = 0.54rad/sec, which needs a control sample
of rate of at least 2.5Hz. In this simulation, a control sample
rate of 5Hz is chosen for the implementation.
In this simulation run, sensor noises are injected in
the UAV’s pose measurement. The covariances of the in-
jected position and heading measurement noises are σx2 =
9m2 , σy2 = 9m2 , σψ2 = 0.01rad2. The reference trajectory
used in this simulation is parameterized by Vr =25m/sec,
ωr =0.05rad/sec for ∀t ≥ 0, which is a circle with a
turning radius of 500m. The instantaneous reference pose
of the trajectory is generated using Runge-Kutta method.
The initial tracking error is (xe , ye , ψe )=(20 m, 20 m, 0.1 high fidelity nonlinear 6DOF model. By introducing the
rad). Figure 5 depicts the tracking response of the run. The concept of cascaded control strategy in the trajectory tracking
control design, practical and effective kinematic tracking
control solution for fixed-wing UAVs is developed. The
xe ye
100 100 design also leads to many useful properties that facilitate
50 50 implementation. Advantages of this design method includes
applications to general fixed-wing UAVs that are equipped
m

m
0 0

−50 −50 with standard autopilot control systems where accessible

−100
0 100 200 300 400 500
−100
0 100 200 300 400 500
control inputs are the reference commands of the heading
sec
Orientation error ψ
sec
and airspeed autopilot control systems. The dynamic of these
e Airspeed
1 40 low-level control systems need not have to be assumed
0.5 m/s
30 as 1st order dynamic, and the design can be implemented
rad

0 accordingly to the UAV’s manoeuvrability. The use of this

20
−0.5
design method enables reliable spatial-temporal cooperative
−1 10
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 motion control of multiple UAVs in missions such as cooper-
sec sec
Heading angle ψ
ative surveillance, cooperative target tracking, and formation
4
flying.
2

R EFERENCES
rad

−2
[1] Y. F. Zheng, ”Recent trends in mobile robots,” World Scientific, 1993.
−4
0 100 200 300 400 500
[2] Z. P. Jiang, and H. Nijmeijer, ”Tracking control of mobile robots: a
sec case study in backstepping,” Automatica, Vol. 33, No. 7, Feb, 1997.
[3] D. W. Wang, and G. Y. Xu, ”Full-state tracking and internal dynamics
of wheeled mobile robots,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,
Vol. 8, No. 2, June, 2003.
Fig. 5. Tracking error and control inputs [4] Y. Kanayama, Y. Kimura, and F. Miyazaki, ”A stable tracking control
method for an autonomous mobile robot,” Proceedings of IEEE Inter-
simulation results indicate that the tracking error (xe , ye , ψe ) national Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, pp: 384-389,
May, 1990.
stably converges to a neighborhood about the origin with a [5] B. d’Andréa-Novel, G. Campion, and G. Bastin, ”Control of non-
maximum error of (3.9m,4.1m,0.012rad). In this run, perfect holonomic wheeled mobile robots by state feedback linearization,”
zero convergence is not achievable because the design is International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 14, pp: 543-559, 1995.
[6] C. B. Low, and D. W. Wang, ”GPS-based tracking control for a car-
based on the commonly used kinematic model and not the like wheeled mobile robot with skidding and slipping,” IEEE/ASME
high order 6DOF model used in the simulation. The initial Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp: 480-484, Aug, 2008.
actual and commanded airspeeds of the UAV is 25m/sec and [7] I. Kaminer, ”Trajectory tracking control for autonomous vehicles: an
integrated approach to guidance and control,” Journal of Guidance,
13.3m/sec. The dip in the airspeed during 0 ≤ t ≤ 10 sec is Control and Dynamics, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp: 29-38, May, 1998.
the transient response of Gv (s) before the airspeed converges [8] W. Ren, R. W. Beard, ”Trajectory tracking for unmanned air vehicles
to the commanded airspeed. This response is due to the with velocity and heading rate constraints,” IEEE Transactions on
Control Systems Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp: 706-716, Sep, 2004.
initial difference between the commanded and the actual [9] W. Ren, ”Trajectory tracking control for a miniature fixed-wing un-
airspeed, which can be minimized by activating the tracking manned air vehicle,” International Journal of Systems Science, Vol. 38,
controller at a lower initial tracking error, specifically xe . No. 4, pp: 361-368, April, 2007.
[10] L. Sonneveldt, E. R. van Oort, Q. P. Chu, and J. A. Mulder, ”Nonlinear
Despite the initial difference in the actual and commanded adaptive trajectory control applied to an F-16 model,” Journal of
control signals, the tracking error is still able to converge Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp: 26-39, Jan-Feb,
stably to zero once the actual control inputs converge to 2009.
[11] S. Skogestand, and I. Postlethwaite, ”Multivariable feedback control
the commanded control inputs. This response indicates that analysis and design ,” John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, pp: 422-426, 2nd Ed,
the tracking control system is robust against moderate in- 2005.
put disturbances induced by the low-level control systems’ [12] H. K. Khalil, ”Nonlinear systems,” Prentice Hall, 3rd Ed, 2002.
[13] B. L. Stevens, and F. L. Lewis, ”Aircraft control and simulation,” 2nd
tracking errors. The geometric interpretation of the control Ed, 2003.
action in this run is that the UAV is able to maintain its [14] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and A. E. Naeini, ”Feedback Control of
position within a bounded circle about the moving reference Dynamic Systems,” 4th Ed, Prentice Hall, 2001.
[15] M. T. Health, ”Scientific Computing,” McGraw-Hill, 2002.
position at all times. From this simulation, the results support [16] J. E. Slotine, and W. P. Li, ”Applied Nonlinear Control,” Prentice Hall,
the effectiveness of the tracking control design method. 1991.
More importantly, the results suggest that the developed [17] L. Ljung, ”System Identification: Theory for the user,” 2nd Ed,
Prentice Hall, 1999.
tracking control system has the desirable practical robustness
against moderate measurement noises, input disturbances,
and underlying dynamic uncertainties.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a trajectory tracking control design for
general fixed-wing UAVs is presented and evaluated via a

2123