4th International Conference on Advances in Control and

4th
4th International
International
Optimization Conference
Conference
of Dynamical on
on Advances
Advances in
Systems in Control
Control and
and
4th International
Optimization of Conference
Dynamical on Advances
Systems in Control and
Optimization
February 1-5,
Optimization of Dynamical
2016.
of NIT Systems Available
Tiruchirappalli,
Dynamical Systems India online at www.sciencedirect.com
February
February 1-5, 2016. NIT Tiruchirappalli, India
February 1-5,
1-5, 2016.
2016. NIT
NIT Tiruchirappalli,
Tiruchirappalli, India
India
ScienceDirect
IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-1 (2016) 284–289
Position
Position and
and Attitude
Attitude control
control of
of a
a
Position and Attitude
Quadrotor UAV using control
Super of a
Twisting
Quadrotor UAV
Quadrotor UAV using
using Super Twisting
Super Twisting
Sliding
Sliding Mode
Mode
Sliding Mode
H.J. Jayakrishnan
H.J.
H.J. Jayakrishnan
H.J. Jayakrishnan
Jayakrishnan
Department of Avionics, Indian Institute of Space Science and
Department
Department of
of Avionics,
Avionics, Indian Institute
Indian 695547, of
of Space
InstituteINDIA
Space Science
Science and
and
Technology,
Department of Trivandrum,
Avionics, Indian Institute of (e-mail:
Space Science and
Technology,
Technology, Trivandrum,
Trivandrum, 695547,
695547, INDIA
INDIA (e-mail:
(e-mail:
hjjkrishnan@gmail.com)
Technology, Trivandrum, 695547, INDIA (e-mail:
hjjkrishnan@gmail.com)
hjjkrishnan@gmail.com)
hjjkrishnan@gmail.com)
Abstract: This paper discusses a super twisting sliding mode controller designed for a quadrotor
Abstract:
Unmanned This
Abstract: This paper
paper discusses
discusses aa super twisting sliding mode controller
loop designed for aa quadrotor
Abstract: Aerial
This paper Vehicle
discusses a super
super twisting
by utilising a cascaded
twisting sliding mode
slidinginner
modeoutercontroller
controller designed
structure.
designed for a quadrotor
for The sliding
quadrotor
Unmanned
Unmanned Aerial
Aerial Vehicle
Vehicle by
by utilising
utilising a
a cascaded
cascaded inner
inner outer
outer loop
loop structure.
structure. The
The sliding
sliding
mode controller helps reject disturbances and model uncertainties,
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle by utilising a cascaded inner outer loop structure. The sliding whereas the super twisting
mode
mode controller
controller helps reject disturbances and model uncertainties, whereas the super twisting
algorithm
mode helps helps
controller reducereject
helps reject disturbances
the chattering
disturbances and
effect.
andThemodel
model uncertainties,
controller is tested
uncertainties, whereas
whereasagainstthethewindsuper
super twisting
turbulence
twisting
algorithm
algorithm helps
helps reduce
reduce the
the chattering
chattering effect.
effect. The
The controller
controller is
is tested
tested against
against wind
wind turbulence
turbulence
conditions helps
algorithm and modelling
reduce the uncertainties.
chattering effect. Results arecontroller
The comparediswith popularly
tested againstused windlinear LQR-
turbulence
conditions
conditions and
and modelling
modelling uncertainties.
feedbackResults
uncertainties. Results are
are compared with popularly used linear isLQR-
PD controller
conditions and and a non-linear
modelling uncertainties. Results are compared
linearization with
with popularly
based controller.
compared popularly used
used linear
It’s robustness linear LQR- also
LQR-
PD
PD controller
controller and
and aa non-linear
non-linear feedback
feedback linearization
linearization based
based controller.
controller. It’s
It’s robustness
robustness is
is also
also
compared against a conventional first order sliding mode controller
PD controller and a non-linear feedback linearization based controller. It’s robustness is also and the results are presented.
compared
compared against
against aa conventional first order sliding mode controller and
and the results are presented.
compared
© 2016, IFAC against a conventional
conventional
(International Federation
first
firstoforder
order sliding
sliding
Automatic
mode controller
mode Hosting
Control) controller by and
Elsevier
the results
theLtd.
results are
are presented.
All rights presented.
reserved.
Keywords: Sliding mode control, Nonlinear control, Robust stability, Lyapunov stability,
Keywords:
Keywords: Sliding
Sliding mode mode control,
control, Nonlinear control,
Nonlinear control, Robust
control, Robust stability,
Robust stability, Lyapunov
stability, Lyapunov stability,
Lyapunov stability,
stability,
Cascade
Keywords: control
Sliding mode control, Nonlinear
Cascade
Cascade control
control
Cascade control
1. INTRODUCTION the estimation turned out to be computationally expen-
1.
1. INTRODUCTION the estimation turned out to be computationally expen-
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION the
sive.estimation
the Waslander turned
estimation and Wang
turned out to
to be
out (2009) be computationally
also estimated theexpen-
computationally wind
expen-
sive.
sive. Waslander
Waslander
disturbances and
and
before Wang
Wang
adapting (2009)
(2009)
the also
also
linear estimated
estimated
controller. the
the wind
wind
Over the past two decades there has been a phenome- disturbances sive. Waslander and Wang (2009) also estimated the wind
Over the past two decades there has beenDespite
a phenome- disturbances before before adapting the
before adapting
adapting the
linear controller.
the linear
linear controller.
Over
Over the
the past
nal surge in the
past two decades
decadesonthere
tworesearch there has
has been
quadrotors. been aa phenome- being disturbances
phenome- The primary objective of the proposed
controller.
controller is to
nal surge in the research on quadrotors. Despite being
nal surge in the research on quadrotors. Despite being The primary objective of the proposed controller
nal
a surge
highly in the research
underactuated on
system, quadrotors.
quadrotors Despite
have being
found The
The
provide primary
primary
robustnessobjective
objective to of
of
real the
the
life proposed
proposed
disturbances. controller
Numerous
controller
is
is to
is to
to
aa highly
highly underactuated
underactuated system,
system, quadrotors
quadrotors have
have found
found provide robustness to real life disturbances. Numerous
atheir way underactuated
highly to numerous applications
system, quadrotors ranging have map- provide
from found work
provide on robustness
the implementation
robustness to
to real
real life
of
life disturbances.
conventional
disturbances. Numerous
sliding mode
Numerous
their way to numerous applications ranging from map-
their way
way to to numerous
ping environments,
their numerous applications
construction,
applications ranging
ranging from
transportation, map- work
map-
frommanip- work on
on
on the
controllers
work
the implementation
implementation
the(Slotine
implementationet al. (1991))
of
of conventional sliding
of conventional
have beensliding
conventional
mode
mode
extensively
sliding mode
ping
ping environments,
environments,
ulation, surveillance construction,
construction,
and cinematography. transportation,
transportation, manip-
manip-
Transportation controllers
controllers (Slotine
(Slotine et
et al.
al. (1991))
(1991)) have
have been
been extensively
extensively
ping environments, construction, transportation, manip- controllers discussed in literature,
(Slotine et but
al. as
(1991))a sidehave effect
been these systems
extensively
ulation, surveillance and cinematography. Transportation
ulation,
by quadrotors
ulation, surveillance
has taken
surveillance and
and acinematography.
great leap forward
cinematography. when Ama- discussed
Transportation
Transportation discussed in
in
become vulnerable
discussed
literature,
in literature,
but
but
but as
to oscillations
literature,
as aa side
as a side
side
effect
effect
of finite these
these systems
these systems
effectfrequency, pop-
systems
by
by quadrotors
quadrotors has
has taken
taken aa great
great leap
leap forward
forward when
when Ama-
Ama- become vulnerable to oscillations of finite frequency, pop-
zonquadrotors
by came up with has ataken
dronea delivery
great leap system.
forward To when Ama- become
accomplish ularly
become vulnerable
known
vulnerableas to
chattering.
to oscillations
Most
oscillations of the
of finite
finite frequency,
time the
frequency, pop-
actuator
pop-
zon came up with aa drone delivery system. To accomplish
zon
featscame
zon such up
came as with
up this or
with a drone
to capture
drone delivery
delivery aerial system.
videosTo
system. accomplish
Torequires
accomplishthat ularly
ularly
bandwidth
ularly
known
known
known
as
as
cannot
chattering. Most
as chattering.
cope withMost
chattering.
of
of the time
of the
the time
the chattering
Most
the
the actuator
the actuator
timefrequency and
actuator
feats
feats
the such
such
controller as
as this
this
is or
or
robust to
to capture
capture
to aerial
aerial
environmental videos
videos requires
requires
disturbances that
that
such bandwidth
bandwidth
even if they cannot
cannot
do, it cope
copeleads with
withto the
the
high chattering
chattering
wear and frequency
frequency
tear and andand
low
feats such as this or to capture aerial videos requires that bandwidth cannot cope with the chattering frequency and
the controller is robust to environmental disturbances such
the controller
as wind
the is
is robust
and physical
controller to
to environmental
robustparameter changesdisturbances
environmental such as variation
disturbances such even
such even
control if
if they
they
accuracy.do,
do, it
it leads
leads to
to high
high
even if they do, it leads to high wear and tear and low
wear
wear and
and tear
tear and
and low
low
as wind and physical parameter changes such as variation
as
to wind
as mass and
wind and physical
inertia. parameter
physical parameter changes changes such such as variation control
as variation control
control
accuracy.
accuracy.
In orderaccuracy.
to combat this, the concept of higher order sliding
to
to mass
mass and
and inertia.
inertia.
to mass and inertia. In order to combat this, the concept of higher Toorder sliding
A broad class of linear and non linear controllers have In In order to combat
order
mode wasto introduced
combat this,
this,by the concept
theLevant
concept(2005).of
of higher
higher order sliding
understand
order sliding
AA broad
broad class
class of
of linear
linear and
and non
non linear
linear controllers
controllers have
have mode
mode was
was introduced
introduced by
by Levant
Levant (2005).
(2005). To
To understand
understand
Abeen designed
broad class onof the quadrotor.
linear and nonRudin linearet controllers
al. (2011) intro- have mode this, let
was us define
introduced a smooth
by Levantdynamic (2005). function
To S closed
understand
been
duceddesigned
been a robuston
designed on the
the quadrotor.
which Rudinused a et al. (2011)control
intro- this, let us define aa smooth dynamic function S closed
been designed on the quadrotor.
controller,
quadrotor. Rudin
Rudin et
et al.
al. (2011)
(2011) intro-
time-delay intro- this,by
this, a let us
dynamic
let us define
discontinous
define a smooth
smooth dynamic
feedback
dynamic function
where
function the S
S closed
primary
closed
duced
duced aa robust controller, which used online
a time-delay
and ancontrol anti- by aa dynamicis to discontinous feedback
Then, where the primary
approach
duced a robust
robust controller,
to estimate
controller, which
which used
uncertainties used aa time-delay
time-delay control
control by a dynamic
objective
by dynamic discontinous
drive S to zero.
discontinous feedback
feedback where
provided
where the primary
the the com-
primary
approach
approach to
to estimate uncertainties online and an anti- objective is to drive S to zero. Then, provided the com-
approach to estimate
windup integrator estimate uncertainties
to deal with the online
uncertainties static and
online errorsan
and aninanti-
the objective
anti- puted time is to drive
derivatives S to
S =zero.
objective is to drive S to zero. Then, providedṠ = Then,
... = Sprovided
r−1
r−1 are the com-
continous
the com-
windup
windup integrator to deal with the static errors in the puted time derivatives S = Ṡ = ... = S r−1
are continous
attitude integrator
windup to
to deal
loop. Bouabdallah
integrator deal with et al.the
with static
the(2004)
statichas errors
errors in
in the
developed the puted
puted time
functions derivatives
timewhere the setS
derivatives SS= ==ṠṠ Ṡ=
==... =
... ...
== S r−1
S r−1 r−1
S r−1are
are =continous
0 is non
continous
attitude
attitude loop.
loop. Bouabdallah
Bouabdallah et
on ettheal.al. (2004)
(2004) has developed r−1
an LQ based
attitude loop. technique
Bouabdallah et (2004) has
al.linearized has developed
dynamics.
developed A functions
functions
empty and where
where
consists the
the of set
set S
S =
=
trajectories
functions where the set S = Ṡ = ... = S
Ṡ
Ṡ =
= in...
...
the =
= S
S r−1 = 0 is non
sense
r−1 of =
= 0 0 is
is non
Filippov.
non
an
an LQ
LQ based technique on thewith linearized
higher dynamics. A
an LQ based
feedback based technique
linearization
technique on
on the
approach the linearized
linearized dynamics.
order sliding
dynamics. A
A empty
empty
The
empty
and
and
motion
and
consists
consists
that
consists exists
of
of
of
trajectories
trajectories
on this
trajectories set
in
in
is
in
the
the
said
the
sense
sense
to be
sense
of
of
an
of
Filippov.
Filippov.
r
th
th
order
Filippov.
feedback
feedback linearization
linearization approach
approach with
with higher
higher order
order sliding
sliding The motion
motion that that exists
exists on this
this set
set is said
said to be
be an th
an r order
th order
mode observer
feedback was introduced
linearization approach bywith
Benallegue
higher et order sliding The
al. (2006). sliding mode. The rth
th on
this set is
derivative,
r
r
isSsaid is to be an rrth to
considered be
mode
mode observer
observer was
was introduced by Benallegue et al. (2006). The motion that exists th on
th derivative, S r
to order
Madani
mode observer was introduced
and Benallegueintroduced (2006) by
by Benallegue
presented aet
Benallegue al.
al. (2006).
et non sliding
sliding
linear discontinous
(2006). sliding
mode.
mode.
mode. or The
The
non
The
rrexistent.
r th derivative,The
derivative, S
super
S
r is considered to be
r istwisting
is considered
considered to
algorithm
to be
be
Madani
Madani and
and Benallegue (2006) presented a non linear
backstepping
Madani and Benallegue
design based
Benallegue (2006)
(2006) presented
on Lyapunov
presented theory. aa non linear
linear discontinous
non Altuğ discontinous
(Levant
discontinous (1993))or
or
or
non
non
is
non a existent.
existent.
second
existent.
The
The
order
The
super
super
sliding
super
twisting
twisting
mode,
twisting
algorithm
algorithm
which
algorithmcan
backstepping
backstepping design
design based on Lyapunov theory. Altuğ
design based
et al. (2002) developed
backstepping on
on Lyapunov
a feedback
based linearization
Lyapunov theory.
theory. and Altuğ
back- (Levant
Altuğ (Levant
(Levant
(1993)) is
attenuate(1993)) is
the effects
(1993))
a second order
is aa second order
of chattering
second
sliding mode,
order sliding
to a great
sliding mode,
mode,
which
which
which can
extent.
can
can
et
et al.
al. (2002) developed aa feedback linearization and back-
al. (2002)
stepping
et (2002) developed
controller
developed using a feedback linearization
visual feedback.
feedback linearization Bouadi and
and etback-
back-al. attenuate
attenuate
attenuate
the
the
the
effects
effects
effects
of
of
of
chattering
chattering
chattering
to
to
to
aa great
a great
great
extent.
extent.
extent.
stepping
stepping controller
controller using
usingand visual
visual feedback.
feedback. Bouadi
Bouadi et
et al.
al.
(2007) and
stepping Bouabdallah
controller using Siegwart
visual feedback.(2005) developed
Bouadi et al.a The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, the dynamic
(2007)
(2007) and
and
backstepping Bouabdallah
Bouabdallah
based slidingand
and Siegwart
Siegwart
mode (2005)
(2005)
controller developed
developed
but observed aa The
The
model
The
paper
paper
for
paper
is
is
the
organized as
is organized
quadrotor,
organized as follows: In
as follows:
is developed.
follows: In section 2,
In section The 2,
section
the
the
first
2, thetwo
dynamic
dynamic
parts
dynamic
(2007) and Bouabdallah and Siegwart (2005) developed a model for the quadrotor, is developed. The first two parts
backstepping
backstepping based
based sliding
sliding mode
mode controller
controller but
but observed
observed model
of section
model for
for 3the quadrotor,
describes
the quadrotor, brieflyis
is developed.
the controller
developed. The
The first
designs
first two
of
two parts
LQR-
parts
considerable amount of chattering. An integral sliding
backstepping based sliding mode controller but observed of section 3 describes briefly the controller designs of LQR-
considerable
considerable amount
amount of
of chattering.
chattering. An
An integral
integral sliding
sliding of
PD section
and 3 describes
feedback briefly
linearization the controller
controllers designs
against of LQR-
which
mode controller
considerable was also
amount developed by
of chattering. AnWaslander
integral slidinget al. of section 3 describes briefly the controller designs of LQR-
mode
mode controller was also developed by Waslander et al. PD PD and
and feedback linearization
and feedback linearization controllers against
is tested.controllers against which
againstthewhich
(2005) controller
mode to tackle non
controller was also
also developed
waslinear disturbances
developed by Waslander
by arising
Waslander et
et al.
in outdoor al. thePD proposed
the proposed
controller
feedback linearization
controller is tested.
Following them,
controllers
Following them, the
pro-
which
pro-
(2005)
(2005) to
to tackle
tackle non
non linear
linear disturbances
disturbances arising
arising in
in outdoor
outdoor the
posed proposed
super controller
twisting is
slidingtested.
mode Following
design isthem, the
presented. pro-
In
(2005) to tackle non linear disturbances arising in outdoor posed super twisting sliding mode design is presented.pro-
environments. Mellinger et al. (2011) designed a controller the proposed controller is tested. Following them, the
In
environments.
environments. Mellinger
Mellinger et
et al.
al. (2011)
(2011) designed
designed a
a controller
controller posed
section
posed super
4
superwe twisting
discuss
twisting insliding
detail
sliding mode
the
mode design
results
design ofis
is presented.
the simulation
presented. In
In
which estimates the inertial properties of the quadrotor
environments. Mellinger et al. (2011) designed a controller section 4 we discuss in detail the results of the simulation
which
which estimates
estimates the
the inertial
inertial properties
properties of
of the
the quadrotor
quadrotor section
of the 4
three we discuss
controllers in detail
during the
wind results of
turbulence the simulation
and model
in real estimates
which time during theaerial
inertialgrasping
properties and thenof the quadrotor section
compensates 4 we discuss in detail the results of the simulation
in
in real time during aerial grasping and then compensates of of the
the three
three controllers
controllers during
duringon wind
wind turbulence
turbulence and model
and sliding
model
forreal
in the time
real offset.during
time Although
during aerial
aerial theygrasping
showcased
grasping and then
then compensates
and good performance of
compensates uncertainties.
the three
uncertainties.
A brief result
controllers
A brief
during
result
wind
on
theturbulence
the
conventional
conventional
and model
sliding
for
for the
the offset.
offset. Although
Although they
they showcased
showcased good
good performance
performance uncertainties.
uncertainties. A
A brief
brief result
result on
on the
the conventional
conventional sliding
sliding
for the offset. Although they showcased good performance
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2016, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
2016 IFAC 284Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©
Copyright © 2016
2016 IFAC
IFAC 284
284
Copyright ©under
2016 responsibility
IFAC of International Federation of Automatic
284Control.
10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.03.067
 IFAC ACODS 2016
February 1-5, 2016. NIT Tiruchirappalli, India
H.J. Jayakrishnan et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-1 (2016) 284–289 285

gyroscopic moment. By varying thrusts T2 and T4 , pitch is

accomplished, varying T3 and T1 , roll is accomplished and
by varying the speeds of rotors 3 & 1 relative to rotors 2 &
4 yaw is accomplished. The thrust and the rotor torques
are related to the rotor speeds as,

     2
ΣT cT c T c T cT ω̄1
 τ2   0 dcT 0 −dcT   2
ω̄22 
 τ  = −dc  
3 T 0 dcT 0 ω̄3 
τ4 −cQ cQ −cQ cQ ω̄42
where, ω̄ is the speed of the rotor, cT and cQ are the
thrust and the reaction torque coefficients respectively. d
is the distance between the centre of mass of the quadrotor
and the rotor. From here on, we’ll represent, [ΣT τ2 τ3 τ4 ] as
[u1 u2 u3 u4 ].
Fig. 1. Quadrotor UAV
3. CONTROLLER DESIGNS
mode controller is also discussed. Section 5 concludes the
work.
Three controllers are designed under the assumption that
all the states are available for feedback and, − π2 < φ < π2
2. MODELING and − π2 < θ < π2 .
2.1 Quadrotor Model 3.1 Feedback Linearization

The dynamic model of the quadrotor is derived as in Ma-
hony et al. (2012). Referring Fig. 1. Let E = {xe , ye , ze }
be a right handed earth fixed frame and B, be the body
fixed frame on the quadrotor vehicle. The vector r =
(x, y, z) ∈ {E} denotes the position of the centre of mass
of the vehicle. Using euler angle parametrisation ((X, Y, Z)
sequence) the body fixed frame can be expressed in the
earth fixed frame {E} by a rotation R from {B} to {E},
with xb = Rxe , yb = Rye , zb = Rze where R ∈ SO(3)
is the special orthogonal group. To get to {B} from {E},
we first rotate xe by an angle φ, the roll angle, then rotate
the y axis of the resulting frame by an angle θ, the pitch
angle and then rotate the new z axis by an angle ψ, the
yaw angle.
Let v ∈ {E} denote the linear velocity of {B} with respect
to {E} expressed in {E}. let ω ∈ {B} denote the angular
velocity of {B} with respect to {E}, expressed in the body
axis frame, {B}.
The rigid body dynamics can be written down as,
ς˙ = v
mv̇ = −ze mg + RF
(1)
Ṙ = Rω̂
Iω̇ = −ω × Iω + τ
For brevity, the system dynamics presented in (1) can be
written as,
ẋ = f (x) + G(x)u
(2)
y = h(x)
where x ∈ 12×1 , u ∈ 4×1 , y ∈ 6×1 , f and h are smooth
vector fields and G is a 12 × 4 matrix whose columns are
smooth vector fields gi . Due to the singularity present in
G(x), the input vector u is dynamically extended (Isidori
et al. (1986)) yielding u∗ = [u¨1 , u2 , u3 , u4 ]T . As a result u1
and u˙1 are considered as extra states of the system. The
augmented state vector would now be x̄ = [x, u1 , u˙1 ] where
x̄ ∈ 14×1 . Being an underactuated system with 4 control
inputs and 6 degrees of freedom, a set of 4 differentially flat
variables (x, y, z, ψ) were chosen as the output vector. The
input output linearization can be performed to transform
the system into the Brunovsky form.
yiri = α(x) + β(x)u∗
where i=1,2,3,4. ri is the relative degree with r1 = r2 =
r3 = 4 and r4 = 2. u1 = 0 and,
 
Lg1 Lrf1 −1 h1 (x) ... Lg4 Lrf1 −1 h1 (x)
 
α(x) =  .. 
... . ...
Lg1 Lrf4 −1 h4 (x) ... Lg4 Lrf4 −1 h4 (x)

where m is the mass of the quadrotor vehicle, I ∈ 3×3  

Lrf1 h1 (x)
denotes the inertia matrix expressed in {B}. F, τ ∈ {B}
 .. 
denotes the principal non-conservative forces and moments β(x) =  . 
applied to the quadrotor by the aerodynamics of the Lrf4 h4 (x)
rotors.
The rotor aerodynamics plays a key role in the design where L is the Lie derivative defined by,
of the quadrotor. The thrust Ti of each motor can be n
∂h k k−1
modelled using momentum theory. For simplicity, only Lf h(x) = ∂xj fj (x) ; Lf h(x) = Lf (Lf h(x))
j=1
dominant aerodynamics are modelled in this paper. As 
in Fig. 1., rotors 2 & 4 rotate in anti-clockwise direction Since ri = 14 = degree of the augmented system, input
whereas 3 & 1 rotate in clockwise direction to nullify the state linearization with no internal dynamics (Slotine et al.

285
IFAC ACODS 2016
286 H.J. Jayakrishnan et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-1 (2016) 284–289
February 1-5, 2016. NIT Tiruchirappalli, India

(1991)) can be achieved. Thus the control law can be sx = (ẋd − ẋ) + λ1 (xd − x)
designed as,
sy = (ẏd − ẏ) + λ2 (yd − y)
u∗ = α−1 (x)[−β(x) + ν]
ν is chosen such that, the closed loop dynamics guarantees where λi > 0, xd and yd are the desired x and y trajectories
asymptotic stability. where, set by the high level trajectory planner.
ν1 = ηd4 + p1 η̃ 3 + p2 η̃ 2 + p3 η̃¨ + p4 η̃˙ The commanded accelerations are inverted to obtain the
˙ desired roll and pitch angles,
ν2 = ψ¨d + q1 ψ̃ + q2 ψ̃

where ν = [ν1, ν2]T , pi , qi are chosen such that the 1 des

φdes = (ẍ sin ψ d − ÿ des cos ψ d )
polynomial is Hurwitz. ηd is the vector of desired x, y and u1
z trajectories and η̃ is the vector of errors. 1 des
θdes = (ẍ cos ψ d − ÿ des sin ψ d )
u1
3.2 LQR-PD
To track the desired altitude of the vehicle (zd ), another
The LQR-PD controller is an optimal controller which sliding manifold sz is introduced,
requires a linear state model, linearized at a certain
operating point (x0 , u0 ). The optimal gains are obtained
by minimizing a quadratic cost function, sz = (żd − ż) + λ3 (zd − z)
ṡz = (z̈d − z̈) + λ3 (żd − ż)
 ∞
J= (xT Qx + uT Ru) dt The altitude controller is designed such that sz = 0 is
0 obtained in finite time,
where Q and R are positive definite matrices where the
entries Qii penalize the state variable xi compared to other m
u1 = (−z̈d + λ3 (z˙d − ż)
state variable and the entries Rii penalize actions in ui . cos θ cos φ
 t
1
It’s interesting to note that the LQR controller provides + k1z |sz | sign(sz ) + k2z
2
sign(sz (τ )) dτ + g)
an infinite gain margin and a phase margin of atleast 60 0
degrees thereby providing some amount of robustness to Where, kiz are the super twisting gains. The altitude
external disturbances. dynamics of the vehicle can be written in state space form
The control law is given by, as,

z˙1 = z2
u = u0 + Kx(t) u1
z˙2 = cosφcosθ − g + w(t)
where K is the optimal gain matrix of dimension 4 × 12, m
obtained from the Ricatti equation and u0 is the reference Where, w(t) is the bounded external perturbation. The
control input. closed loop dynamics of the resulting system is given by,
 t
3.3 Proposed STSM controller 1
ṡ = −k1z |sz | 2 sign(sz ) − k2z sign(sz (τ )) dτ + w(t),
0
In this paper a cascaded inner outer loop structure has Let us take,
been adopted for the design of the proposed super twisting
sliding mode controller. The inner loop controls the vehicle µ 1 = sz
 t
attitude and the outer loop controls the position along a
trajectory. µ2 = −k2z sign(sz (τ )) dτ + w(t)
0

Position Control The goal of the position controller is Writing in state space form,
1
to track a predefined trajectory whilst maintaining zero µ˙1 = −k1z |µ1 | 2 sign(µ1 ) + µ2
angular velocities. Since the pitch angle θ is coupled with µ˙2 = −k2z sign(µ1 ) + ρ(t, µ)
the x dynamics and the roll angle φ is coupled with the y
dynamics, the desired pitch and roll angles are computed where ρ(t) = ẇ(t), is uniformly bounded (|ρ| < δ). The
from the commanded x and y accelerations respectively. proof of convergence of (µ1 , µ2 ) to (0, 0) can be shown by
The commanded accelerations ẍdes and ÿ des are calculated using the following Lyapunov candidate as presented in
from the following super twisting expression, Moreno et al. (2009)
 t V = ζT P ζ (3)
1
des
ẍ = k1x |sx | sign(sx ) + k2x
2
sign(sx (τ )) dτ
1
0
 t
where ζ = [|µ1 | 2 sign(µ1 ), µ2 ] and P is positive definite
1
ÿ des = k1y |sy | 2 sign(sy ) + k2y sign(sy (τ )) dτ matrix. Note that V is continous but is not differentiable
0 at µ1 = 0. Also being positive definite and radially
Where kix and kiy are positive scalars chosen in accordance unbounded, it satisfies,
with the level of uncertainty. sx and sy are the sliding λmin {P }||ζ||22 ≤ V ≤ λmax {P }||ζ||22 (4)
manifolds for x and y respectively,

286
 IFAC ACODS 2016
February 1-5, 2016. NIT Tiruchirappalli, India
H.J. Jayakrishnan et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-1 (2016) 284–289 287

where ||ζ||22 = |z1 | + z22 represents the Euclidian norm of ζ. Table 1. Wind Turbulence σ
Under the assumption that the perturbation is uniformly State STSM LQR FL
bounded and satisfies 2|ρ(t, µ)| ≤ δ, the transformed x 0.8213 1.1327 1.5352
perturbation ρ̃(t, ζ) = |ζ1 |ρ(t, µ), will satisfy |ρ̃(t, ζ)| ≤ y 0.3904 0.6204 0.7392
δ|ζ1 |. As a result, ω̂(ρ̃, ζ) = −ρ̃2 (t, ζ) + δ 2 ζ12 ≥ 0. z 0.4027 0.5994 1.3792
φ 0.2549 0.2996 0.0423
As in Moreno et al. (2009), the positive definite matrix θ 0.2673 0.2495 0.0352
P is constructed by using the following Algebraic LMI ψ 0.0000 0.0082 0.0000
equation:
 T  Table 2. Model Uncertainty σ
A P + P A + P + δ 2 C T C P B
<0 (5)
BT P −1 State STSM LQR FL
where: x 0.0731 0.4827 0.2513
    y 0.0269 0.4912 0.2719
1 1
− k 1z 0 z 0.0063 24.985 0.7706
A= 2 2 ; B = ; C = [ 1 0] ;
−k2z 0 1 φ 0.0862 0.1327 0.0746
θ 0.0825 0.0078 0.0660
Now consider the Lyapunov candidate function as defined ψ 0.0000 0.0857 0.0000
in (3). It’s derivative along the trajectories of the per- The following control law is designed to attain [sφ , sθ , sψ ] =
turbed system is, 0 in finite time,

 T  T    
1 ζ A + PA PB ζ   |s | 21 sign(s )
V̇ (ζ) = K11 0 0 φ φ
ρ̃ B T
P 0 ρ̃  1 
|ζ1 | ui = I 0 K12 0  |sθ | 2 sign(sθ ) 
  T  T    0 0 K13 1
1 ζ A + PA PB ζ |sψ | 2 sign(sψ )
≤ + ω̂(ρ̃, ζ)    φ̇des − φ̇  φ̈d 
|ζ1 | ρ̃ BT P 0 ρ̃ λ11 0 0
 T  T   0 λ12 0  θ̇des − θ̇  +  θ̈d 
1 ζ A + P A + δ2 C T C P B ζ +
≤ 0 0 λ13 ψ̇ d − ψ̇ ψ̈ d
|ζ1 | ρ̃ BT P −1 ρ̃

 T  T   t   
1 ζ A + P A + P − P + δ 2 C T C P B ζ K21 0 0 sign(sφ(τ ) )
≤ T + 0 K22 0  sign(sθ(τ ) )  dτ
|ζ1 | ρ̃ B P −1 ρ̃
 T 0
0 0 K23 sign(sψ(τ ) )
≤− ζ Pζ
|ζ1 | 2
1
where i = 2, 3, 4, and K2j > δ, K1j > 4k2j , j = 1, 2, 3.
1 V 2 (ζ) The proof of convergence is identical to the one mentioned
From (4) we have, |z1 | ≤ ||ζ||2 ≤
2
1
2
λmin {P } in the previous section.
This shows that,
1 1
4. SIMULATION RESULTS
V̇ ≤ −λmin
2
{P }V 2 (ζ)
The FL, LQR-PD and the proposed STSM controllers
guaranteeing convergence of trajectories in finite time. were simulated against accurate wind turbulence models
Similarly convergence of x and y trajectories can also be and model uncertainties to judge their performance and
proven. For the LMI equation in (5) to be satisfied, the applicability in a real life scenario. Tables 1 and 2 discusses
transfer function G(s) = C(sI − A)−1 B has to satisfy the the standard deviation (σ) of the trajectory errors.
following bounded real lemma constraint,
1
max|G(jω)| < 4.1 Wind Turbulence
ω δ
It can be easily shown, if k1z > 4k2 z, max|G(jω)| = k12 z .
2
A light turbulence setting for altitudes < 1000 feet using
ω
Thus the following conditions can be deduced for the gains, the Dryden wind turbulence model described in Waslander
2 and Wang (2009), was used to ascertain the performance
k2z > δ, k1z > 4k2z
characteristics for a case of fixed point hover for the three
controllers. The position and attitude variations of the
controllers are plotted in Figs. 2 to 7. The standard de-
Attitude Control The attitude control is also accom- viation of the errors in position and attitude are depicted
plished via the super twisting control. The primary objec- in Table 1. Note that the drift in position in case of the
tive of the controller is the convergence of the euler angles STSM is considerably lesser than the LQR-PD and the
[φ, θ, ψ] to [φdes , θdes , ψd ] where ψd is the desired yaw angle FL controller. The FL controller experiences the maximum
set by the high level trajectory planner, drift and hence is the least desirable choice for fixed point
hover. However the attitude variations were least for the
sφ = (φ̇des − φ̇) + λ11 (φdes − φ) FL controller, followed by STSM and LQR-PD controllers
with almost similar variations. This is primarily because
sθ = (θ̇des − θ̇) + λ12 (θdes − θ) the STSM aggressively tries to manoeuvre the quadrotor
sψ = (ψ̇d − ψ̇) + λ13 (ψd − ψ) to the desired set point whereas the FL controller drifts

287
IFAC ACODS 2016
288 H.J. Jayakrishnan et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-1 (2016) 284–289
February 1-5, 2016. NIT Tiruchirappalli, India

Actual Actual
Desired Desired
1 4
0 0
x
0.5 y
φ, θ, ψ (rad)

-5

x, y, z (m)
2 z

z(m)

z(m)
-50
0 -10
φ 0 2
-100 1 -15
-0.5 θ 1 1
ψ 1 0 0
0 0 -1
-1 -2 -1 -1
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 y(m) -1 -2 y(m)
x(m) x(m)
T(secs) T(secs)

Fig. 8. LQR-PD modelling Fig. 9. FL modelling un-

uncertainty certainty
Fig. 2. LQR-PD attitude Fig. 3. LQR-PD position

Actual
1 2 Desired
x
0.5 1 y 0
φ, θ, ψ (rad)

x, y, z (m)

z
0 0 -5
φ

z(m)
-0.5 θ -1
ψ -10
-1 -2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
T(secs) T(secs) -15 1
1 0
0
-1 -1
Fig. 4. STSM attitude Fig. 5. STSM position x(m) y(m)

Fig. 10. STSM modelling uncertainty

0.1 5
x
y
φ, θ, ψ (rad)

x, y, z (m)

0 z 3 30
STSM STSM
0 CSM CSM

Thrust Input
φ 2 20
-0.1
z (m)

θ
ψ 1 10
-0.2 -5
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
0 0
T(secs) T(secs) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
T(secs) T(secs)

Fig. 6. FL attitude Fig. 7. FL position
with the wind gusts. During harsher turbulent conditions
the STSM controller would outperform the LQR-PD and
the FL controllers and maintain stability as well as posi-
tion and attitude due to its aggressive nature.
4.2 Model Uncertainty
After subjecting the quadrotor to bounded model uncer-
tainties in its physical parameters, the controller perfor-
mance was evaluated while tracking a pre-defined trajec-
tory. A 30% variation in the mass and inertia parameters
was added to the actual dynamic model and was simulated
to track following trajectory,
x = cos t y = sin t
The actual and desired trajectories of the three controllers
are plotted in Figs. 8 to 10. The standard deviation of the
errors in position and attitude are depicted in Table 2. The
STSM controller showcased the best performance with the
standard deviation of position error less than .08 m. This
is a reflection of the finite time convergence property of
the sliding mode controller amidst modelling uncertainties.
The worst performer for this scenario turned out to be the
LQR-PD controller which exhibited significant deviations
on x, y, and z tracking. The standard deviation error
of z came out to be as large as 24.98m and maximum
Fig. 11. z trajectory Fig. 12. Input Thrust
deviations turned out to be even higher. However, the FL
controller displayed a fairly reasonable (worse than STSM)
x, y tracking, but poor z tracking.
4.3 Conventional and Super Twisting sliding mode control
The primary reason the Super Twisting sliding (STSM)
mode control is preferred over the conventional sliding
mode control (CSM) is the significant reduction in the
chattering of the control input. To observe chattering, a
regulation problem with 30% uncertainty in its physical
parameters (mass & inertia) was simulated where the
quadrotor was expected to move from (0,0,0) to (1,2,2).
Both STSM and CSM was put to the task and the results
1 are shown in Figs. 11, 12.
z=− t
2 It can easily be seen that STSM provides superior char-
acteristics with respect to rise time, convergence and
control input chattering but at a some what increased
control effort. The CSM control successfully manoeuvres
the quadrotor to the desired position despite the model
uncertainties, but the significant amount of chattering in
the input makes it a less practical choice.
5. CONCLUSION
This work develops a new super twisting sliding mode
controller and emphasises its application in harsh real life

288
 IFAC ACODS 2016
February 1-5, 2016. NIT Tiruchirappalli, India
H.J. Jayakrishnan et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-1 (2016) 284–289 289
Fig. 13. 3-D visualization of the STSM controller during
wind turbulence. All the simulation visualizations are
uploaded to http://tinyurl.com/qc4vjmn
scenarios. Real life wind turbulence and model uncertainty
scenarios have been used to authenticate the robustness of
the proposed controller through simulations. The proposed
controller showed remarkable tracking characteristics with
respect to popularly used LQR-PD and feedback lineariza-
tion based controllers in a harsh environment setting. The
conventional sliding mode controller also proved to be less
practical choice due to high amounts of chattering. A 3D
visualizer is also developed that portrays the simulations
from a spatial perspective.
Planned future work and improvements include a compre-
hensive mathematical proof that accounts the robustness
against modelling uncertainty and a hardware realization
of the controller.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Prof. Priyadarshnam and Prof.
Harsha Simha for their valuable comments and suggestions
during the course of this research and I also extend my
gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their comments
on an earlier version of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Altuğ, E., Ostrowski, J.P., and Mahony, R. (2002). Control
of a quadrotor helicopter using visual feedback. In
Robotics and Automation, 2002. Proceedings. ICRA’02.
IEEE International Conference on, volume 1, 72–77.
IEEE.
Benallegue, A., Mokhtari, A., and Fridman, L. (2006).
Feedback linearization and high order sliding mode
observer for a quadrotor uav. In Variable Structure
Systems, 2006. VSS’06. International Workshop on,
365–372. doi:10.1109/VSS.2006.1644545.
Bouabdallah, S., Noth, A., and Siegwart, R. (2004). Pid
vs lq control techniques applied to an indoor micro
quadrotor. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.
(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ Interna-
tional Conference on, volume 3, 2451–2456 vol.3. doi:
10.1109/IROS.2004.1389776.
Bouabdallah, S. and Siegwart, R. (2005). Backstepping
and sliding-mode techniques applied to an indoor micro
quadrotor. In Robotics and Automation, 2005. ICRA
2005. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Con-
ference on, 2247–2252. IEEE.
Bouadi, H., Bouchoucha, M., and Tadjine, M. (2007).
Sliding mode control based on backstepping approach
289
for an uav type-quadrotor. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 26(5), 22–27.
Isidori, A., Moog, C., and De Luca, A. (1986). A suffi-
cient condition for full linearization via dynamic state
feedback. In Decision and Control, 1986 25th IEEE
Conference on, 203–208. IEEE.
Levant, A. (1993). Sliding order and sliding accuracy in
sliding mode control. International journal of control,
58(6), 1247–1263.
Levant, A. (2005). Quasi-continuous high-order sliding-
mode controllers. Automatic Control, IEEE Transac-
tions on, 50(11), 1812–1816.
Madani, T. and Benallegue, A. (2006). Backstepping
control for a quadrotor helicopter. In Intelligent Robots
and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on, 3255–3260. IEEE.
Mahony, R., Kumar, V., and Corke, P. (2012). Multirotor
aerial vehicles: Modeling, estimation, and control of
quadrotor. IEEE Robotics & amp amp Automation
Magazine, (19), 20–32.
Mellinger, D., Lindsey, Q., Shomin, M., and Kumar, V.
(2011). Design, modeling, estimation and control for
aerial grasping and manipulation. In Intelligent Robots
and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on, 2668–2673. IEEE.
Moreno, J. et al. (2009). A linear framework for the
robust stability analysis of a generalized super-twisting
algorithm. In Electrical Engineering, Computing Science
and Automatic Control, CCE, 2009 6th International
Conference on, 1–6. IEEE.
Rudin, K., Hua, M.D., Ducard, G., and Bouabdallah, S.
(2011). A robust attitude controller and its application
to quadrotor helicopters. 18th IFAC World Congress,
10379–10384.
Slotine, J.J.E., Li, W., et al. (1991). Applied nonlinear
control, volume 199. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Waslander, S.L., Hoffmann, G.M., Jang, J.S., and Tomlin,
C.J. (2005). Multi-agent quadrotor testbed control
design: Integral sliding mode vs. reinforcement learning.
In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005.(IROS 2005).
2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 3712–
3717. IEEE.
Waslander, S.L. and Wang, C. (2009). Wind disturbance
estimation and rejection for quadrotor position control.
AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace Conference and AIAA Un-
manned... Unlimited Conference, Seattle, WA.