2017 25th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED)
July 3-6, 2017. Valletta, Malta
Simple Adaptive Control of Quadrotor Attitude. Algorithms and
Experimental Results*
Stanislav I. Tomashevich1,2 , Alexander L. Fradkov1,2,3 , Boris Andrievsky1,2,3 ,
Anderey O. Belyavskyi1 , and Konstantin Amelin3
Abstract— In the paper the simple adaptive control approach
is employed to designing the adaptive controllers of quadrotor
angular motion. The adaptive controllers are synthesized based
on the Implicit Reference Model (IRM) design technique.
The “shunting method” (parallel feedforward compensation)
is used to cope with the unmodelled plant dynamics. Analytical
justification of system stability is made by employing the Passifi-
cation method. Quality of the closed-loop IRM adaptive control
system is studied and compared with that of the proportional-
derivative (PD) non-adaptive control system experimentally on
two degrees of freedom (2DOF) quadrotor testbed and in-flight
tests of the QuadRoy quadrotor for nominal and parametrically
perturbed cases.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the last decade, an interest significantly increased in
the use of mini and micro UAVs of the helicopter type
(multicopters, quadrocopters, etc.) in a variety of areas, such
as the surface monitoring, environmental inspection, road
traffic and atmospheric flows investigation, safeguarding,
cargo transportation, and many others. In many missions,
the UAV parameters are subjected to significant variations.
This takes place, for example, due to the load variation
from one flight to another, or may happen during the UAV
flight; presence of cranes or movable manipulators, which are
mounted on the UAV, also leads to a substantial change of the
UAV model parameters. As a consequence, a considerable
number of works devoted to the application of adaptation
methods for designing the helicopter-type mini-UAVs control
systems have appeared in the recent years.
In the series of papers, [1]–[4], the attitude command
system for R-50 helicopter model, based on the approach
of [1] for adaptive output feedback control, is designed
and experimentally tested by controlling the pitch axis of a
three degrees-of-freedom (DOF) helicopter model. A back-
stepping approach is used in [5] for quadrotor controller
design. The Lagrangian formulation is also used in [6] for
a 2DOF system, formed from a small-scale helicopter. The
controller is designed by a pole-placement techniques. The
theoretical consideration is experimentally validated. The
authors of [7] represent two kinds of nonlinear controllers for
*This work was performed in the IPME RAS and supported solely by
the Russian Science Foundation (grant 14-29-00142).
1 ITMO University, Saint Petersburg, Russia tomashevich.
stanislav@gmail.com, belyavskyi.a.o@gmail.com
2 Institute of Problems in Mechanical Engineering, the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia fradkov@mail.ru;
boris.andrievsky@gmail.com
3 Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg,
konstantinamelin@gmail.com
978-1-5090-4533-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
an autonomous quadrotor helicopter: feedback linearization
controller and an adaptive sliding mode controller using
input augmentation in order to account for the underactuated
property of the helicopter. It is demonstrated that the sliding
mode controller is efficient in the case of ground effects.
Designing a nonlinear controller for the helicopter vertical
motion is given in [8]. TThe proposed controller combines
adaptive output control and robust stabilization of systems in
feedforward form by means of saturated controlling actions.
In [9] two-input, two-output nonlinear adaptive model refer-
ence control of a 3-DOF tandem rotor model helicopter is
describedand the results of the real time implementation of
the control algorithms in a helicopter testbed are presented.
The aforementioned approaches mainly lead to rather com-
plex adaptive control laws. In the present work, the simple
adaptive control (SAC) method combined with “shunting”
(parallel feedforward compensation) is utilized for attitude
control of the quadroror. We deal with the ultralight UAV,
which is a part of the research complex QuadRoy (Swarm of
Quadrotors), see [10]–[12], which has been developed in the
IPME RAS. The UAV is supplied with autopilot Ardupilot
Mega 2.6, the Inertial Navigation System (including gy-
roscope, accelerometer, magnetometer, barometer), and the
GPS receiver.
The SAC approach is being intensively developed since
the 1970s, see [13]–[22], for mentioning a few. Among
the advantages of this method with respect to the habitual
model reference adaptive control (MRAC, [23]) technique
are the low order and computational simplicity of the control
algorithms and relaxation of the restrictions imposed by the
so-called matching (Erzberger) condition, see [23], [24]. The
SAC method has been successfully applied to the various
adaptive control problems, such as control of power systems
[25], robotic systems [26], [27], rigid and flexible spacecrafts
[28]–[33], atmospheric vehicles [14], [34]–[37], fault tolerant
control [38], [39], etc.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Firstly, the
SAC scheme based on the passification method is briefly
recalled in Sec. II. The SAC laws for control of quadrotor
attitude are derived in Sec. III. The experimental laboratoty
and in-flight results of testing the quadrotor attitude control
Russia system are given in Sec. IV. Concluding remarks and the
future work intentions finalize the paper.
933
 II. ADAPTIVE CONTROLLERS WITH IMPLICIT
REFERENCE MODEL
A simple design tool for SAC design is the Passification
method, see [13], [17], [40] for more details. The main con-
dition to use this method lies in the so-called hyper minimum
phase (HMP) property, imposed on the plant model: a linear
time invariant system ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), y(t) = Cx(t),
where x(t) ∈ Rn , u(t) ∈ Rm , y(t) ∈ Rm , A, B, C are
constant real matrices of appropriate dimensions, is called
 model (1).
sIn −A −B
HMP if the polynomial ϕ0 (s) = det (In
C 0
is (n×n) identity matrix) is Hurwitz and CB = (CB) > 0. T
Consider some particular cases.
A. Adaptive Stabilization of LTI SISO Plants
Let LTI SISO plant be modeled as
A(p)y(t) = B(p)u(t), t  0,
1 1
where u ∈ R , y ∈ R are input and output variables,
A(p) = pn +an−1 pn−1 +· · ·+a0 , B(p) = bm pm +· · ·+b0 are
polynomials in operator of differentiation on time p ≡ d/dt.
Define k as the relative degree of system (1), k = n−m > 0.
Plant (1) parameters ai , bj (i = 0,. . . , n − 1, j = 1, . . . , m)
are assumed to be unknown. Desired closed-loop system
behavior may be expressed by means of a “reference”
differential equation. In the classical MRAC this equation is
explicitly implemented in the adaptive controller in the form
of a “Reference Model”, cf. [23]. Introduce an adaptation
error signal σ(t) as
σ(t) = G(p)y(t),
l
where G(p) = p + gl−1 p + · · · + g0 is a given Hurwitz
l−1
polynomial in operator p ≡ d/dt. Coefficients gi are the
design parameters; they are chosen based on the desired
dynamics of the closed-loop system. Degree l of polynomial
G(p) is defined below. Assuming that the adaptation law
ensures tendency σ(t) to zero let us notice that as σ ≡ 0,
output y(t) satisfies the “reference equation” as
G(p)y(t) = 0.
(3) describes the reference model, but this model is not
implemented in the adaptive controller in the form of a
certain dynamical subsystem, but introduced implicitly via
its parameters gi (i = 0, 1, . . . , l − 1). Therefore it is called
the Implicit Reference Model (IRM).
Consider the following feedback control law:

l
 
u(t) = ki (t) pi y(t) ,
i=0
where ki (t) i = 0, . . . , l are adjustable controller parameters.
For the considered case the HMP property leads to the
following adaptation law, see [13]:
k̇i (t) = −γσ(t)pi y(t), ki (0) = ki0 ,
where γ > 0 is the adaptation gain, ki0
are given initial
values of the controller gains, i = 0, . . . , l. Introducing row
vector G = [g0 , g1 , . . . , 1] ∈ Rl+1 and plant (1) transfer
function W (s) from input u to output vector [y, ẏ, . . . y (l) ]T ∈
B(s)  T
Rl+1 as W (s) = 1, s, . . . , sl , s ∈ C in virtue of
A(s)
passification theorem [13], [17] with respect to transfer func-
tion GW (s) one may easily obtain the following stability
conditions of adaptive controller (4), (5):
1) polynomial B(s) is Hurwitz and b0 > 0;
2) l = k−1, where k = n−m is a relative degree of plant
Algorithm (5) usually ensures vanishing σ(t) essentially
faster than transients in the closed-loop. As a result, changing
the controller (4) gains is stopped and plant (1) output y(t)
obeys the IRM (3).
The following α-modification of (5) is often used
 
k̇i (t) = −γσ(t)pi y(t) − α ki (t) − ki0 , ki0 = ki (0), (6)
(1) where α  0 is the parametric feedback gain, for avoiding
unlimited growth of controller (4) gains in the presence of
external disturbances and measurement errors, [17], [41].
B. Adaptive Tracking Systems with IRM
Adaptive control law (4), (6) may be straightforwardly
extended to the solving the tracking problem with the desired
closed-loop system dynamics, see [17]. To this end let us
introduce reference signal r(t) and define adaptation error
signal σ(t) as
σ(t) = G(p)y(t) − D(p)r(t), (7)
where polynomial G(p) is defined above, and operator poly-
nomial D(p) has the form D(p) = dq pq + · · · + d1 p + d0 .
(2)
Evidently, if σ(t) ≡ 0, then closed-loop system is governed
by the following “reference model” equation:
G(p)y(t) = D(p)r(t), (8)
Therefore, (8) may be treated as the IRM for the tracking
system case and σ(t) may be treated as the discrepancy in
the equation and used for parameters adjustment.
By the analogy with (4) let us take the control action in
the form
(3)
   l
 
u(t) = kr (t) D(p)r(t) + ki (t) pi y(t) , (9)
i=0
where kr (t), ki (t) (i = 0, . . . , l) are tunable parameters, and
the adaptation law reads as
 
k̇r (t) = γσ(t)D(p)r(t)−α kr (t)−kr0 , kr0 = kr (0),
(10)
k̇i (t) = −γσ(t)pi y(t) − α ki (t) − ki0 , ki0 = ki (0),
where γ > 0, α  0 are design parameters; kr0 , ki0 are
(4) “guessed” initial controller gain values, i = 0, . . . , l. It worth
mentioning that both degree q of polynomial D(p) and its
coefficients may be chosen arbitrarily by the designer. One
can mention that an only one gain kr may be used despite
using the separate gains for the output y and each of its
derivatives. Potentially, the same may be applicable for r(t)
(5)
too, but this seems to be useless, because the closed-loop
system stability in the steady-state mode depends on ki , not
on k̇r .
934
C. Signal-Parametric Adaptive Controllers with IRM A. Quadrotor Model
In the present paper the following model of the quadrotor
Let the regulation goal lim x(t) = 0 for plant
t→∞ rotational motion dynamics is utilized, cf. [22]:
⎧
⎪
⎪ γ̇ = ωx + Sγ Tϑ ωz + Cγ Tϑ ωy ,
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), y(t) = Cx(t), (11) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ϑ̇ = Cγ ωz − Sγ ωy ,
⎪
⎨ S C
where x(t) ∈ Rn , u(t) ∈ Rm , y(t) ∈ Rm , A, B, C are ψ̇ = Cγ ωz + Cγ ωy , (15)
ϑ ϑ
⎪
⎪
constant real matrices of appropriate dimensions, be posed. ⎪ Ix ω̇x = (Iy − Iz )ωy ωz − Ir ωz ωr + τγ ,
⎪
⎪
⎪ I ω̇ = (Iz − Ix )ωx ωz + τψ ,
Following [17] introduce an auxiliary goal as ensuring the ⎪
⎩ y y
sliding mode motion along the predefined surface (line in the Iz ω̇z = (Ix − Iy )ωx ωy + Ir ωx ωr + τϑ ,
scalar control case), which is given by the equality σ(t) ≡ 0, where γ, ϑ, ψ denote the Euler angles (roll, pitch and
where σ(t) = Gy(t), G is a given (l × n)-matrix. Let us use yaw, respectively); ωx , ωy , ωz are angular rates in body-
the following control law axis frame, Sξ = sin(ξ), Cξ = cos(ξ), Tξ = tan(ξ); g is
the gravity acceleration; Ix , Iy , Iz are rotational moments
u = −γsign σ, σ = Gy, (12) of inertia. Rotating
 T torque with respect to CoG is a vector
τ = τγ , τϑ , τψ with components τγ = l(ω2 − ω4 ), τϑ =
where γ > 0 is a controller parameter. It may be proven l(ω1 −ω3 ), τψ = ar ωR , where ωR = ω1 −ω2 +ω3 −ω4 . Motor
that for system (11), (12) the posed control goal may be rotation velocity is as ω̇i = kl (ω̃i − ωi ), where kl is motor
achieved if there exist matrix P = P T > 0 and vector K∗ parameter, ω̃i input reference value. Rotation velocities are
s.t. P A∗ + A∗ T P < 0, P B = GC, A∗ = A + BK∗ T C. limited by inequalities: 0 < ωmin  ωi  ωmax . Since kl is
As follows from the passification theorem, the mentioned large, the engine inertia is omitted in the sequel.
 iff: transfer function GW (s) is HMP
conditions are fulfilled
B. Adaptive Control Laws for Quadrotor Attitude
(where W (s) = C λIn − A)−1 B); the sign of GCB is
known (we assume that it is positive). Under these conditions Assuming that angular velocities ωx , ωy , ωz are small one
the goal lim x(t) = 0 is achieved for sufficiently large may obtain the linearized model of quadrotor angular motion
t→∞
γ (with respect to the initial conditions and actual plant in the vicinity of zero. In this model the yaw motion may
parameters). be considered separately of the roll and pitch motions and
modeled by the following equation
The following “signal-parametric” (“combined”) control
law may be used instead of (12): ψ̈ = Iy−1 τψ , (16)
 T
or, in the state-space form with state vector x̃ψ = ψ, ψ̇
u = K T (t)y(t) − γ sign σ(y), σ(y) = G y(t)
as
K̇(t) = −σ(y)Γy(t) − α(K(t) − K0 ), K(0) = K0 , (13)      
0 1 0 1 0
x̃˙ ψ = x̃ψ + τ , ỹ = x̃ψ .
0 0 Iy−1 ψ ψ
0 1
(12) where Γ = ΓT > 0, γ > 0, α > 0 are the matrix (17)
and scalar adaptation gains, K0 is some “guessed” value Following the aforementioned IRM design technique, let us
 
of K (design parameters), avoiding dependence of closed- introduce vector Gψ as Gψ = 1, αψ where αψ > 0 is a
loop system stability on initial conditions and plant model design parameter. This leads to the following algorithm for
parameters. A rigorous justification of modification of (12) yaw control:
into (13) may be found in [17], [42].
σ(t) = ψ(t) − ψ ∗ (t) + αψ ψ̇(t),

For the case of scalar control input the following control

law, inspired by [43], [44], may be used instead of (13): uψ (t) = −kψ (t)σ(t)−γσ sign(σ(t))
σ(t)
, (18)
 

k̇ψ (t) = γk σ(t)2 −αk kψ (t)−kψ0 , kψ (0) = kψ0

u = −k(t)σ(y)−γσ sign(σ(y))
σ(y)
, σ(y) = Gy, where ψ ∗ (t) denotes the yaw reference signal.
k̇(t) = γk σ(t)2 . (14) To cope with unmodelled actuator dynamics the shunt
(parallel feedforward compensator) is added to the control
law (18), cf. [15], [45]. This leads to the following control
This law produces more smooth control action than the
law:
“relay” one.
σ(t) = ψ(t) − ψ ∗ (t) + αψ ψ̇(t) − v(t),

uψ (t) = −kψ (t)σ(t) − γσ sign(σ(t))

σ(t)
,
III. SIMPLE ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF   (19)
QUADROTOR ATTITUDE k̇ψ (t) = γk σ(t)2 − αk kψ (t) − kψ0 , kψ (0) = kψ0
v̇(t) = κu(t) − v(t) τ −1 ,
Let us apply the IRM technique for designing the adaptive where κ and τ are the auxiliary feedback gains and κ is
attitude control algorithms for quadrotor. sufficiently small, see [45] for rigorous statements.

935
 Linearized pitch (ϑ) and roll (γ) angular motion model angle has been used:
may be written in the following form:
σγ [n] = γ ∗ [n] − γ[n] − αγ ωx [n] − v[n],
⎡ ⎤
0 −Ir Ix−1 ωR 0 0 kγ [n + 1] = (γk σγ2 [n] − αk (kγ [n] − kγ0
))T0 + kγ [n],
⎢ Ir Ix−1 ωR (24)
0 0 0 ⎥ uγ [n] = kγ [n]σγ [n] − γσγ sign(σγ [n]) |σγ [n]|,
ỹ˙ γϑ = ⎢
⎣
⎥ ỹ
1 0 0 0 ⎦ γϑ vγ [n + 1] = (κuγ [n] − vγ [n])T0 τ −1 + vγ [n],
⎡ −10 ⎤ 1 0 0 where n = 0, 1, . . . is the step number, T0 denotes the
Ix 0   sampling time, γ ∗ is the roll reference signal, measured
⎢ 0 Ix−1 ⎥
+⎢ ⎥ τγ , output variables γ(t), ωx (t) are sampled at instants nT0 :
⎣ 0 0 ⎦ τϑ γ[n] = γ(nT0 ), ωx [n] = ωx (nT0 ), control action uγ (t),
0 0 zero-order extrapolation is used to form the actuating motor
ỹγϑ = [ωx , ωz , γ, ϑ]T . input signal: uγ (t) = uγ (nT0 ) as nT0  t < (n + 1)T0 . The
This model represents the MIMO system of fourth order similar discrete-time control law is implemented at the pitch
with two control inputs and two outputs. Mutual interaction control loop:
between motions on pitch and roll is caused by presence of σϑ [n] = ϑ∗ [n] − ϑ[n] − αϑ ωz [n] − v[n],
ωR and may considerably vary during the flight. kϑ [n + 1] = (ϑk σϑ2 [n] − αk (kϑ [n] − kϑ0
))T0 + kϑ [n],
Application of the aforementioned approach to the MIMO (25)
uϑ [n] = kϑ [n]σϑ [n] − γσϑ sign(σϑ [n]) |σϑ [n]|,
case, see [40], leads to the following adaptive control law vϑ [n + 1] = (κuϑ [n] − vϑ [n])T0 τ −1 + vϑ [n],
[22]:
where ϑ∗ is the pitch reference signal, ϑ[n] = ϑ(nT0 ),
σ(ỹ) = Gγϑ ỹ,  ωz [n] = ωz (nT0 ), uϑ (t) = uϑ (nT0 ) as nT0  t < (n+1)T0 .
ũ(t) = ξ T (t)ỹ(t) − γM sign (σ(ỹ)) |σ(ỹ)|, (20) Validity of discretized versions of the adaptive control algo-
ξ˙j = −(Gj ỹ)Γỹ − αM (ξj − ξj0 ), ξj0 = ξj (0), rithms with the parametric feedback follows from the method
  of continuous models: analysis of the hybrid nonlinear system
1 0 αγ 0 via analysis of its continuous-time approximate model [46].
with Gγϑ = and j is a number of the
0 1 0 αϑ
corresponding row or column of the matrices. Taking into IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
account an expression of matrix Gγϑ one could rewrite (20)
A series of experiments have been fulfilled for examining
componentwise:
the closed-loop adaptive control system performance. The
σγ (ỹ) = ωx + αγ γ, following parameters of adaptive controller (24) have been
σϑ (ỹ) = ωz + αϑ ϑ, taken: aφ = 0.3, γσ = 20, γk = 0.5, kψ0 = kγ0 = 30, ku =

ũγ (t) = kγT (t)ỹ(t) − γM sign (σγ (ỹ)) |σγ (ỹ)|, 0.05, αu = 10, κ = 0.05, τ = 10.
(21)
ũϑ (t) = kϑT (t)ỹ(t) − γM sign (σϑ (ỹ)) |σϑ (ỹ)|, A. Experiments on 2-DOF Quadrotor Testbed
ξ˙γ = −σγ (ỹ)Γγ ỹ − αM (kγ − kγ0 ), kγ = ξγ (0),
Several experiments have been accomplished with the help
k̇ϑ = −σϑ (ỹ)Γϑ ỹ − αM (kϑ − kϑ0 ), kϑ = kϑ (0). of the 2DOF Quadrotor Laboratory Setup, described in [22],
The transfer matrix has a form see also an accompanying paper [47] for more details.
1) Design of the setup.: The mechanical part of the 2DOF
Pγϑ (s) = Gγϑ Cγϑ(sI4 − Aγϑ )−1 Bγϑ  laboratory setup consists of two-axis gimbal suspension. The
1 Ix s2 +Ix αγ s −Ir ωR (s+αγ ) (22) square frame is supported by two pillars and freely rotates
= .
s(Ix2 s2 +Ir2 ωR
2
) Ir ωR (s+αϑ ) Ix s2 +Ix αϑ s around the horizontal axis. The pillars are fixed on the
Polynomial δ(s) reads as δ(s) = det (sI4 − Aγϑ ) = square base. The quadrotor is mounted on the bar inside
Ix (Ix s + Ir2 ωR
−2 2 3 2
s)s, threfore polynomial δ(s)detPγϑ = the frame, and may freely rotate on the pitch and roll
Ix (s + (αγ + αϑ )s + αϑ αγ ) is Hurwitz. Let us calculate angles. Quadrotor is based on DJI 450 frame and autopilot
−2 2

 −1  Ardupilot Mega 2.6 with inertial measuring unit (including

Ix 0 gyroscope, accelerometer, and barometer) and GPS satellite
ΓP = lim sPγϑ = GCB = −1 , (23)
|s|→∞ 0 Iy navigation unit. The actuators includes the brushless motors
with external rotor DJI 2213, speed controllers DJI 30A
which fulfills the required condition Γ = ΓT > 0, therefore Opto. The real-time data may be transmitted to the operator’s
matrix GW (s) is HMP and satisfies conditions of passifica- personal computer via the XBee modems.
tion theorem for the signal-parametric adaptive controller. 2) Experimental results on 2DOF Quadrotor setup.:
Experimental evaluation of the proposed adaptive control Experimentally obtained on the 2DOF Quadrotor Laboratory
laws on the laboratory setup is presented in the next Section. Setup performance of the system with adaptive controller
has been compared with that of the time invariant standard
C. Discrete-time adaptive control laws PD controller ui (t) = kp yi∗ (t) − yi (t) − kd ẏi (t), where
For implementation on the on-board controller of Arduino yi∗ , yi denote corresponding reference signal and quadrotor
autopilot, the following discrete-time control law for roll angular variable (i ∈ {ϑ, γ}). The controller gains was

936
calculated for the nominal case as kp = 40, kd = 10 s. planned to make more in-flight experiments for testing the
Time histories of tracking the piecewise constant reference quadrotor adaptive control system.
signal the controlled angles, the tracking errors and the
γ, deg
adaptation gain for nominal and parametrically disturbed
20
cases are plotted in Fig. 1 (the nominal case) and Fig. 2
0
(the perturbed case).
−20
ϑ , ϑ , ϑ*, deg
ad pd 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
50 ϑ, deg
20

0 10

ϑ ϑ ϑ* 0
ad pd
−50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 −10
Δϑ , Δϑ , deg
ad pd
40 −20
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
ψ, deg
20
0 300

−20
Δϑ Δϑ 0 250
−40 ad pd

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
t, s 200
kϑ
60 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
t, s

40 Fig. 3. Time histories of roll, pitch and yaw angles during the flight.
20

0 kγ
0 5 10 15 t, s 20 25 30 35
200
Fig. 1. Nominal case. Upper plot: pitch angle for adaptive – ϑad , non- 150
adaptive PD – ϑpd controllers and pitch reference signal ϑ∗ time histories. 100
Middle plot: pitch tracking error for adaptive – Δϑad , non-adaptive PD –
50
Δϑad controllers. Lower plot: adaptive controller gain kϑ time history.
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
kϑ
60

ϑad, ϑpd, ϑ*, deg

40
ϑad ϑpd ϑ*
100 20
50
0
0 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
t, s
−50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Fig. 4. Time histories of adaptive controller gains kγ (t), kϑ (t) during the
Δϑad, Δϑpd, deg flight.
50
0
−50
−100 V. CONCLUSION
Δϑad Δϑpd 0
−150
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Simple adaptive control technique based on the passifi-
k
ϑ cation method and the Implicit Reference Model approach
60
is used for design of the adaptive controller for quadrotor
40
attitude. The experimental study has been performed on the
20

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 t, s 35
Fig. 2. Parametrically perturbed case. Upper plot: pitch angle for adaptive
– ϑad , non-adaptive PD – ϑpd controllers and pitch reference signal ϑ∗
time histories. Middle plot: pitch tracking error for adaptive – Δϑad , non-
adaptive PD – Δϑad controllers. Lower plot: adaptive controller gain kϑ
time history.
B. In-Flight Quadrotor Experiments
In-Flight experiments have been carried out with the same
quadrotor which has been used on the laboratory setup
and the same adaptive controller parameters. The adaptive
attitude controller saved as an inner part (the attitude control
loop) of the non-adaptive controller for quadrotor position.
The desired flight path has been manually assigned on-line
by the operator. The corresponding time histories of the roll,
pitch and yaw angles, obtained from the quadrotor IMU
along with the time histories of the adaptive controller gains
kγ (t), kϑ (t) are depicted in Figs. 3, 4. In the future it is
laboratory setup, created in the IPME RAS. The experiments
40 45 50 55 60
demonstrate good performance quality and high adaptation
rate of the SAC system. In the future it is planned to extend
in-flight testing and the comparative analysis of the quadrotor
attitude control algorithms, to implement on-board adaptive
control of quadrotor position and to fulfill the experiments
with decentralized adaptive control of a group of quadrotors,
flying in the formation.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Calise, N. Hovakimyan, and M. Idan, “Adaptive output feedback
control of nonlinear systems using neural networks,” Automatica,
vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1201–1211, 2001.
[2] N. Hovakimyan, F. Nardi, A. Calise, and N. Kim, “Adaptive output
feedback control of uncertain nonlinear systems using single-hidden-
layer neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 13, no. 6,
pp. 1420–1431, 2002.
[3] A. Kutay, A. Calise, M. Idan, and N. Hovakimyan, “Experimental
results on adaptive output feedback control using a laboratory model
helicopter,” in Proc. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conf.,
Monterey, California, USA, August 5–8 2002.

937
 [4] ——, “Experimental results on adaptive output feedback control using
a laboratory model helicopter,” IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol.,
vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 196–202, 2005.
[5] A. Das, F. Lewis, and K. Subbarao, “Backstepping approach for
controlling a quadrotor using Lagrange form dynamics,” J. Intelligent
and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 56, no. 1–2, pp.
127–151, 2009.
[6] A. Dzul, R. Lozano, and P. Castillo, “Adaptive control for a radio-
controlled helicopter in a vertical flying stand,” Int. J. Adaptive Control
and Signal Processing, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 473–485, 2004.
[7] D. Lee, H. Kim, and S. Sastry, “Feedback linearization vs. adaptive
sliding mode control for a quadrotor helicopter,” Int. J. Control,
Automation and Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 419–428, 2009.
[8] A. Isidori, L. Marconi, and A. Serrani, “Robust nonlinear motion
control of a helicopter,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 48, no. 3,
pp. 413–426, 2003.
[9] M. Ishitobi, M. Nishi, and K. Nakasaki, “Nonlinear adaptive model
following control for a 3-dof tandem-rotor model helicopter,” Control
Engineering Practice, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 936 – 943, 2010.
[10] K. Amelin, S. Tomashevich, and B. Andrievsky, “Recursive identi-
fication of motion model parameters for ultralight UAV,” in IFAC
Proceedings Volumes (IFAC-PapersOnline). IFAC, 2015, pp. 7–12.
[11] S. Tomashevich and B. Andrievsky, “Stability and performance of
networked control of quadrocopters formation flight,” in Proc. 6th Int.
Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems
and Workshops (ICUMT 2014). St. Petersburg, Russia: IEEE Press,
October 6–8 2014, pp. 331–336.
[12] B. Andrievsky and S. Tomashevich, “Passification based signal-
parametric adaptive controller for agents in formation,” IFAC-
PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 222 – 226, 2015.
[13] A. Fradkov, “Synthesis of adaptive system of stabilization of linear
dynamic plants,” Automation and Remote Control, vol. 35, no. 12, pp.
1960–1966, 1974.
[14] K. Sobel, H. Kaufman, and I. Mabius, “Implicit adaptive control for a
class of MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 18,
pp. 576–589, 1982.
[15] I. Barkana, “Parallel feedforward and simplified adaptive control,” Int
J. Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 95–109,
1987.
[16] Z. Iwai and I. Mizumoto, “Robust and simple adaptive control sys-
tems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 55, pp. 1453–1470, 1992.
[17] B. R. Andrievskii and A. L. Fradkov, “Method of passification in
adaptive control, estimation, and synchronization,” Autom. Remote
Control, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 1699–1731, 2006.
[18] D. Peaucelle and A. Fradkov, “Robust adaptive l2 -gain control of
polytopic MIMO LTI systems – LMI results,” Systems & Control
Letters, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 881–887, 2008.
[19] A. Bobtsov, A. Pyrkin, and S. Kolyubin, “Simple output feedback
adaptive control based on passification principle,” Int J. Adaptive
Control and Signal Processing, vol. 28, no. 7–8, pp. 620–632, 2014.
[20] I. Barkana, “Adaptive control? but is so simple!: A tribute to the
efficiency, simplicity and beauty of adaptive control,” J. Intelligent
and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 83, no. 1, pp.
3–34, 2016.
[21] O. Borisov, A. Bobtsov, A. Pyrkin, and V. Gromov, “Simple adaptive
control for quadcopters with saturated actuators,” in AIP Conf. Proc.
World Congress: 11th Int. Conf. Mathematical Problems in Engineer-
ing, Aerospace and Sciences (ICNPAA 2016), La Rochelle, France,
July 5–8, 2016. Melville, NY, USA: AIP, 2017, pp. 020 031–10.
[22] S. Tomashevich, A. Belyavskyi, and B. Andrievsky, “Passification
based simple adaptive control of quadrotor attitude: algorithms and
testbed results,” in AIP Conf. Proc. World Congress: 11th Int. Conf.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Aerospace and Sciences (IC-
NPAA 2016), La Rochelle, France, July 5–8, 2016. Melville, NY,
USA: AIP, 2017, pp. 020 161–13.
[23] Y. D. Landau, Adaptive control: The model reference approach. New
York: Marcel Dekker, 1979.
[24] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
[25] S. Zhang and F. Luo, “An improved simple adaptive control applied to
power system stabilizer,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 369–375, 2009.
[26] B. Park, S. Yoo, J. Park, and Y. Choi, “A simple adaptive control
approach for trajectory tracking of electrically driven nonholonomic
mobile robots,” IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 18, no. 5, pp.
1199–1206, 2010.
938
[27] A. Pyrkin, A. Bobtsov, S. Kolyubin, M. Faronov, O. Borisov, V. Gro-
mov, S. Vlasov, and N. Nikolaev, “Simple robust and adaptive track-
ing control for mobile robots,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes (IFAC-
PapersOnline), vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 143–149, 2015.
[28] O. Egeland and J. Godhavn, “Passivity-based adaptive attitude control
of a rigid spacecraft,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 39, no. 4, pp.
842–846, 1994.
[29] S. Ulrich, J. Sasiadek, and I. Barkana, “Nonlinear adaptive output feed-
back control of flexible-joint space manipulators with joint stiffness
uncertainties,” J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp.
1961–1975, 2014.
[30] C. Pittet, A. Luzi, D. Peaucelle, J. Biannic, and J. Mignot, “In-flight
results of adaptive attitude control law for a microsatellite,” CEAS
Space Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 291–302, 2015.
[31] S. Ulrich, A. Saenz-Otero, and I. Barkana, “Passivity-based adaptive
control of robotic spacecraft for proximity operations under uncertain-
ties,” J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1441–
1450, 2016.
[32] I. Barkana, “Parallel feedforward and simple adaptive control of
flexible structures: First-order pole instead of collocated velocity
sensors?” J. Aerospace Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2, 2016.
[33] H. Leduc, D. Peaucelle, and C. Pittet-Mechin, “LMI-based design of
a robust direct adaptive attitude control for a satellite with uncertain
parameters,” in Proc. 20th IFAC Symposium on Automatic Control in
Aerospace (ACA 2016). Sherbrooke, Canada: IFAC, Aug. 2016.
[34] I. Yaesh and U. Shaked, “Simplified adaptive control via improved
robust positive real conditions,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 55,
pp. 1033–1040, 2006.
[35] A. Fradkov, B. Andrievsky, and D. Peaucelle, “Adaptive control design
and experiments for laas ”helicopter” benchmark,” European Journal
of Control, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 329–339, 2008.
[36] I. Rusnak, H. Weiss, and I. Barkana, “Improving the performance
of existing missile autopilot using simple adaptive control,” Int. J.
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 28, no. 7-8, pp. 732–
749, 2014.
[37] F. Chen, Q. Wu, B. Jiang, and G. Tao, “A reconfiguration scheme for
quadrotor helicopter via simple adaptive control and quantum logic,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 4328–4335, 2015.
[38] A. L. Fradkov, B. Andrievsky, and D. Peaucelle, “Adaptive
passification-based fault-tolerant flight control,” IFAC Proceedings
Volumes, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 715 – 720, 2007.
[39] Q. Lam and I. Barkana, “Direct adaptive control treatment to loss of
attitude control actuators,” in Proc. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference 2007, vol. 2, Hilton Head, SC, 2007, pp. 1319–
1332.
[40] A. L. Fradkov, “Passification of nonsquare linear systems and
Yakubovich-Kalman-Popov lemma,” Eur. J. Control, vol. 6, pp. 573–
582, 2003.
[41] P. Ioannou and P. Kokotovic, “Instability analysis and improvement of
robustness of adaptive control,” Automatica, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 583–
594, 1984.
[42] B. R. Andrievskii, A. N. Churilov, and A. L. Fradkov, “Feedback
Kalman–Yakubovich lemma and its applications to adaptive control,”
in Proc. 35th IEEE Conf. Dec. Control. Kobe, Japan: IEEE Press,
Dec. 11–13 1996, pp. 4537–4542.
[43] Y. Shtessel, C. Edwards, L. Fridman, and A. Levant, Sliding Mode
Control and Observation. Series: Control Engineering. New York,
Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London: Birkhäuser, 2012.
[44] A. Levant, A. Pridor, R. Gitizadeh, I. Yaesh, and J. Ben-Asher,
“Aircraft pitch control via second order sliding technique,” AIAA
Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 586–
594, 2000.
[45] A. Fradkov, “Adaptive stabilization of the minimum phase plants with
vector input without measuring the output derivatives,” Dokl. Rossisk.
Akad. Nauk, vol. 337, no. 5, pp. 592–594, 1994.
[46] D. P. Derevitsky and A. L. Fradkov, “Two models for analyzing
dynamics of adaptation algorithms,” Autom. Remote Control, vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 59–67, 1974.
[47] S. Tomashevich, A. Fradkov, B. Andrievsky, A. Belyavskyi, and
K. Amelin, “Simple adaptive control of quadrotor attitude. Algorithms
and experimental results,” in Proc. 25th Mediterranean Conf. on
Control and Automation (MED 2017), Valletta, Malta, 3–6 July 2017.