ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

A key problem in cooperative robotics is the maintenance of a geometric configuration during movement. As a solution for this, a multi-layered and distributed control system is proposed for the swarm of drones in the formation of hierarchical levels based on the leader–follower approach. The complexity of developing a large system can be reduced in this way. To ensure the tracking performance and response time of the ensemble system, nonlinear and linear control designs are presented; (a) Sliding Mode Control connected with Proportional-Derivative controller and (b) Linear Quadratic Regular with integral action respectively. The safe travel distance strategy for collision avoidance is introduced and integrated into the control designs for maintaining the hierarchical states in the formation. Both designs provide a rapid adoption with respect to their settling time without introducing oscillations for the dynamic flight movement of vehicles in the cases of (a) nominal, (b) plant-model mismatch, and (c) external disturbance inputs. Also, the nominal settling time of the swarm is improved by 44% on average when using the nonlinear method as compared to the linear method. Furthermore, the proposed methods are fully distributed so that each UAV autonomously performs the feedback laws in order to achieve better modularity and scalability.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received March 19, 2020, accepted March 30, 2020, date of publication April 20, 2020, date of current version June 3, 2020.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988773
Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods
for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical
Formation of UAVs
ANAM TAHIR 1, JARI M. BÖLING2, MOHAMMAD-HASHEM HAGHBAYAN 1, (Member, IEEE),
AND JUHA PLOSILA 1, (Member, IEEE)
1Autonomous Systems Laboratory, Department of Future Technologies, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
2Laboratory of Process and Systems Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, 20500 Turku, Finland
Corresponding author: Anam Tahir (anam.tahir@utu.fi)
This work was supported in part by the Academy of Finland, project no. 314048.
ABSTRACT A key problem in cooperative robotics is the maintenance of a geometric configuration during
movement. As a solution for this, a multi-layered and distributed control system is proposed for the swarm
of drones in the formation of hierarchical levels based on the leader–follower approach. The complexity
of developing a large system can be reduced in this way. To ensure the tracking performance and response
time of the ensemble system, nonlinear and linear control designs are presented; (a) Sliding Mode Control
connected with Proportional-Derivative controller and (b) Linear Quadratic Regular with integral action
respectively. The safe travel distance strategy for collision avoidance is introduced and integrated into
the control designs for maintaining the hierarchical states in the formation. Both designs provide a rapid
adoption with respect to their settling time without introducing oscillations for the dynamic flight movement
of vehicles in the cases of (a) nominal, (b) plant-model mismatch, and (c) external disturbance inputs. Also,
the nominal settling time of the swarm is improved by 44% on average when using the nonlinear method as
compared to the linear method. Furthermore, the proposed methods are fully distributed so that each UAV
autonomously performs the feedback laws in order to achieve better modularity and scalability.
INDEX TERMS Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), distributed control, hierarchical systems.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recently, the use of swarms/fleets of Unmanned Aerial Vehi-
cles (UAVs), or drones, have become increasingly popular;
attracting attention from researchers and industries represent-
ing miscellaneous disciplines [1]. Controlling the formation
of a swarm using either centralized or decentralized (i.e.
distributed) architecture is a demanding control problem.
Due to the lack of observability, each drone might have to
dynamically adjust its location w.r.t. the other drones.
Based on recent studies, the strategies to control the for-
mation of a drone swarm are generally divided into three
categories; (a) leader–follower [2]–[4], (b) virtual struc-
ture [5]–[7], and (c) behavioural [8]–[10] approaches. In a
leader–follower approach, one or more drones are given a
leading role, i.e. the responsibility to decide on the general
path of the swarm. The desired positions of the other drones,
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and
approving it for publication was Yilun Shang .
the followers, are defined relative to the actual states of
the associated leaders. A swarm can be further divided into
subgroups of leader–followers, building a hierarchy, which
improves the scalability of the approach. The main advantage
of this approach is that the path planning algorithm needs
to be executed only in the leaders’ workspace which signifi-
cantly reduces the overall computation time of path planning,
indicating fast decision making within the swarm. In a virtual
structure approach, a virtual moving structure, i.e. a forma-
tion, decides the pose reference of each element of the fleet.
Based on these pose references, the controller manipulates
the actuators to reduce the error as much as possible. In this
approach, each virtual vacant pose can be filled by any drone,
and therefore, an actual leader is not needed. In contrast to
the first two, in a behaviour-based approach, the actuation is
defined as several desired behaviours that are assigned to each
drone. The overall control is derived by assigning different
weights to behaviours in each drone to form the desired shape
of the swarm.
VOLUME 8, 2020 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 95667
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
One of the main problems in distributed control of the for-
mation is the lack of perception of the dynamics of the whole
swarm in each partially distributed controller that is being
executed in each drone of the swarm, i.e. top–down approach.
In most of the state-of-the-art focusing on distributed con-
trollers, the local controller of each drone, unaware of the
behaviour and constraints of the swarm’s higher levels of hier-
archy, only manipulates its actuators based on its observations
and local dynamic models of a subset of all nodes constituting
the swarm, i.e. bottom–up approach. These techniques try
to optimize and refine the partial behaviour of the system
that subsequently contributes to general emergent behaviour.
However, manipulating only the actuators in each node based
on partial dynamic models cannot guarantee optimal or even
near-optimal desired top-level behaviour of the system, which
is the final goal of such control design. Therefore, this work
aims to propose a strategy to reach this goal. In other words,
it addresses the problem based on the overall dynamics of the
whole swarm and the local dynamics of a node in order to
implement the partial controller of each drone.
The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as
follows:
Reducing the complexity of the large system of swarm-
ing drones by implementing the decentralized control
systems using leader–follower architecture in which the
goal is to form the hierarchical states for the swarm
of drones that keep the desired formation using set-
points/offsets to avoid collisions with each other.
Testing of distributed control designs based on Sliding
Mode Control (SMC) with Proportional-Derivative (PD)
and Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) with integral
action to guarantee the tracking performance in such
a way that the system’s settling time is reduced as
much as possible without introducing oscillations in the
response.
Presenting the side by side comparative analysis based
on setpoint tracking, response and settling time, collision
avoidance, and computational costs for the proposed dis-
tributed control systems. Also, the testing of plant-model
mismatch and external disturbance inputs are examined.
To do this, two well-known control methods, i.e. SMC
PD and LQR integral action, are adapted and integrated that
are applied to each drone of a hierarchical swarm forma-
tion. Both control methods are responsible to fulfil the high-
level expectation from the hierarchical swarm formation, e.g.
translational positioning, and to fulfil the low-level expecta-
tion, e.g. the stability of angular positioning. More precisely,
in LQR integral action, both are done using a single constant
state feedback law. While in SMC PD, the overall control
system of each drone in a swarm is composed of two main
parts, i.e. inner and outer feedback loops. The inner loop
is responsible for angular positions of the drone while the
outer loop is responsible for its translational positions. The
outer loop observes the current translational pose of the drone
and tries to eliminate the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical
distance errors and generates a reference for pitch, roll, and
yaw angles respectively to be tracked by the inner loop that
specifies engine propulsion. The parameters of the controllers
change based on the location of each drone in the swarm. This
provides a flexible reconfigurable grid of sub-functionalities
demonstrated by individual drones contributing to the gen-
eral behaviour of the swarm. Each of the sub-functionalities
can be adjusted according to the expected behaviour from
the located drone and via manipulating the controller’s
parameters.
This paper is divided into seven sections. The motivation
and problem formulation is stated in section I. Related work
is discussed in section II. The dynamics of the model for
the considered system is presented in section III. The control
designing for the swarm of drones in a hierarchical manner
is described in section IV. The simulation setup and the per-
formance analysis are elaborated in section Vand VI respec-
tively. Lastly, concluding remarks are given in section VII.
II. RELATED WORK
In [11], Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) control as the
inner loop and parametric weighted control as the outer loop
of the controller for a swarm of four identical drones are
investigated. By changing a few parameters in the paramet-
ric weighed controller using four control input drivers, it is
shown that the behaviour of UAVs can be rapidly changed
in-field testing. However, each node has its own histogram
of visited areas, and synchronized information does not get
shared to help the swarm as a whole. In [12], PID control for
the inner loop and extended nonlinear dynamic inversion con-
trol for the outer loop in the context of autonomous formation
flight of three drones are proposed. Regardless of ambiguity
in response time efficiency and error measurements of the
system, the scalability and top–down/bottom–up influence
of dynamics on the controller are not comprehensively con-
sidered. In [13], for hovering synchronization in horizontal
and vertical planes using three drones, PD control as the
inner loop and multi-agent-based consensus control as the
outer loop are presented. A Type 2 system is considered in
order to perform the simulation tests. In [14], experiments
have been conducted to study the flight test for a quadcopter
using a PD control architecture. Also, the swarm behaviour
through a coordinated flight path for a leader drone with four
follower drones is highlighted. In [15], an event-triggered
distributed Model Predictive Control (MPC) technique for
formation control of three drones is studied, where each drone
shares information with its neighbours. In [16], a fuzzy logic
approach for task assignment and controlling a swarm of
agents, representing UAVs, in a decentralized environment
is examined, and the results of collision attempts and com-
pletion times between the distributed and centralized strate-
gies through simulations are compared. The central control
design is based on finite state machines, and the proposed
solution is simulated using the Unity3D engine. Furthermore,
in [17], SMC and integral SMC for nonlinear second-order
multi-agent systems with unknown nonlinear interactions are
95668 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
presented. However, the method lacks scalability in case of
increasing number of drones. In [18] and [19], a performance
analysis is considered, in a centralized environment with three
drones, using SMC for the inner control loop combined with
LQR control for the outer control loop. However, in [18],
the results for the proposed architecture lack the fast response
time, and in [19], the controllability matrix related to the
linear dynamics of the position controller does not have the
full row rank. Hence, the given set of equations is not feasible
for designing position control of xand yusing the proposed
method due to the lack of information provided.
III. DYNAMIC MODEL OF A DRONE
In this section, the dynamic model of a leader–follower
swarm of drones is examined. This model serves as a case
study to demonstrate the idea of the proposed control designs.
In the system under consideration, the swarm consists of a
hierarchical organization of leader–follower drones that are
responsible for tracking the desired trajectories as well as
for hovering at desired positions for given time periods. The
trajectory of each follower is defined based on the orientation
and actions of its respective leader.
The model of each node in the swarm is based on the
model of a quadcopter, i.e. a drone that has four propellers
with fixed pitch mechanically movable blades, as shown
in Fig. 1.
FIGURE 1. Kinematics of the quadcopter.
The major forces acting on the quadcopter are the gravity g
and the thrust Ti,i {1,2,3,4}, of the propellers. In this
model, the inertial reference is the earth shown as (x,y,z)
that is the origin of the reference frame. The drone is assumed
to be a rigid body that has the constant mass symmetrically
distributed with respect to the planes (x,y), (y,z), and (x,z).
The two possible configurations, i.e. cross and plus, are used
for most of the quadcopter designs. The cross configuration
is considered as more suitable than the plus configuration
in case of aerial photography because it better keeps the
propellers out of the camera view.
The orientation of a quadcopter reference frame (x,y,z)
with respect to an inertial frame (x,y,z)0can be expressed
mathematically in a state variable form [20]–[22], where
translational and angular accelerations are given by
˙vx= vzwy+vywzgsin θ
˙vy= vxwz+vzwx+gcos θsin φ
˙vz= vywx+vxwy+gcos θcos φT
m
(1)
and
˙wx=1
Jx
(wywz(JzJy)+MxkwT
kMT
JmpMzwy)
˙wy=1
Jy
(wxwz(JxJz)+MykwT
kMT
JmpMzwx)
˙wz=Mz
Jz
(2)
respectively. The thrust produced by each propeller Tiis
translated into a total thrust Tand the reactive torques Mi,
i {x,y,z}, is affecting the rotations along the corresponding
axis. The Ji,i {x,y,z}, is known as the moment of inertia
along the corresponding axis, and Jmp is the moment of inertia
of a motor with propeller. The angular velocities of pro-
pellers are assumed to be proportional to thrusts of propellers,
i.e. wj=kwT Ti,j {x,y,z}. Similarly, the reactive moments
of propellers are assumed to be proportional to the thrust
of propellers, i.e. Mi=kMT Ti. Depending on the chosen
configuration, the propeller thrusts Tiwill generate different
thrust Tand torques Minamely
T
Mx
My
Mz
=
1 1 1 1
0`0`
`0`0
kMT kMT kMT kMT
T1
T2
T3
T4
(3)
for plus configuration and
T
Mx
My
Mz
=
1 1 1 1
2
2`2
2`2
2`2
2`
2
2`2
2`2
2`2
2`
kMT kMT kMT kMT
T1
T2
T3
T4
(4)
for cross configuration where `is a length of the fixed pitch
to mechanically movable blades [23]. The velocities corre-
sponding to Equations (1) and (2) are
˙x=vxcos ψcos θ+vy(sin ψcos φ+cos ψsin θ
sin φ)+vz(sin ψsin φ+cos ψsin θcos φ)
˙y=vxsin ψcos θ+vy(cos ψcos φ+sin ψsin θsin φ)
+vz(cos ψsin φ+sin ψsin θcos φ)
˙z=vxsin θvycos θsin φvzcos θcos φ
(5)
and
˙
θ=wycos φwzsin φ
˙
φ=wx+wysin φtan θ+wzcos φtan θ
˙
ψ=wy
sin φ
cos θ+wz
cos φ
cos θ
(6)
VOLUME 8, 2020 95669
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
respectively. The Equations (1)–(6) represent the complete
nonlinear model of a quadcopter, composed of 12 states,
4 inputs, and 12 outputs. More precisely,
x=vxvyvzwxwywzθ φ ψ x y z T(7)
is the state or system vector,
u=T MxMyMzT(8)
is the input or control vector,
y=x(9)
is the output (measured) vector. Furthermore, the reduced
state vector
xs=vxvyvzwxwywzT(10)
and the performance outputs
yp1 {x,y,z},(11)
yp2 {θ, φ, ψ},(12)
and
yp=x y z T(13)
are defined for future use.
Using standard linearization, nonlinear dynamic equations
can be converted into a set of standard linear equations to
examine the stability and controllability of the system as well
as to design an LQR integral control to compare with SMC
PD method. This yields,
˙
x=gθgφT
m
Mx
Jx
My
Jy
Mz
Jz
wywxwzvxvyvzT
(14)
y=x
that can further written into the standard state space form
˙
x=Ax+Bu
y=Cx+Du(15)
where A,B,C, and Dare known as the state or system
matrix, input or control matrix, output (measured) matrix, and
feedthrough matrix respectively. Correspondingly, x,u, and
yare known as the state or system vector, input or control
vector, and output (measured) vector as in Equations (7)–(9).
The system parameters are taken from [20] and illustrated
in Table 1.
TABLE 1. System parameters.
Refer to linear model Equation (15) and system param-
eters in Table 1, the system has 12 eigenvalues at the ori-
gin. Prior to any control design, the controllability matrix
B AB A2B. . . An1Bis calculated and found to be of
rank 12. Thus, all the 12 states are controllable.
IV. CONTROL DESIGNS FOR THE SWARM OF DRONES
A hierarchical swarm of drones consisting of ten quad-
copters is considered in a leader–follower operational con-
figuration, as presented in Fig. 2. The states/nodes can be
seen to form clusters at each level of the hierarchy. The
distance between any two neighbouring nodes pand qis
defined as dp,qwhere p,q {L,1–9}, and each node
is operated on its internal control system. The straight
arrows show the direction in which coordinate variables are
shared.
FIGURE 2. Organization of the considered swarm of drones.
The swarm in Fig. 2is composed of the main leader L
and multiple layers of sub-leaders forming interconnected
sub-clusters/swarms of different sizes. At any level of the
hierarchy, each drone is directly communicating with its
respective neighbours, i.e. with its immediate leader and fol-
lower, by providing its orientation information that results in
maintaining the distance between any two adjacent nodes in
the swarm [1]. The control architecture, in a swarm of drones,
is responsible for tracking the generated reference commands
in a stabilized manner while keeping a safe distance between
neighbouring drones to maintain the desired flight formation.
To form the swarm based on the partially distributed con-
troller on each node in such a system, the leader receives
known bounded reference commands,
r1 {xr,yr,zr}(16)
and
r=xryrzrT,(17)
that may or may not vary with time and the controller of
the follower node is dependent on its respective leader’s
orientation and movement. The translational positions xi,yi
and zi,i {L,1–9}, are fed to the respective follower(s) as a
reference. On top of that, all followers have their local offsets
in order to avoid collisions with each other.
Due to the hierarchical nature of the architecture as a
whole, the main problem in the adjustment of the controller’s
design parameters is the dependence of each drone’s location
95670 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
on the other drones’ locations in the swarm. In other words,
deviations in the control design parameters of a drone might
cause significant unwanted changes in the other drones’ loca-
tions, especially in the case of the follower nodes, which can
be observed as oscillations. The parameters of the controller
are determined through testing of the overall dynamics of
the swarm. The goal of the control system is to improve the
tracking performance in such a way that the system’s settling
time is reduced as much as possible without introducing
oscillations in the response. To accomplish this, a nonlinear
SMC PD and a linear LQR integral action control design
methods are proposed.
A. SMC PD CONTROL SYSTEM
An SMC PD control scheme from [24] and [25] has been
adapted for this study and tailored for the leader–follower
tightly coupled formation flight. This technique has been
selected because of its high flexibility and reconfigurability
for different formations. Another advantage of using SMC is
that the system is insensitive to disturbances when it enters the
sliding surface. However, it leads to a chattering phenomenon
that is reduced by using proper switching gains in the satura-
tion function. Fig. 3shows the decision-making process of
each drone that is split into two feedback control blocks, i.e
outer and inner feedback loops.
FIGURE 3. Block diagram of SMC PD control design.
In the control design depicted in Fig. 3, SMC is tied
to the PD structure and the parameters can be adjusted
based on the dynamics of the swarm. The outer feedback
loop, section IV-A1, is responsible for the drone’s trajectory,
i.e. translational positions x,y, and z, whereas the inner
feedback loop, section IV-A2, is manipulating the control
variables of actuator thrust Tand the torques Mi.
1) TRAJECTORY CONTROL DESIGN
The internal structure of each drone’s trajectory tracking
control block is illustrated in Fig. 4. The angular errors,
e2 {θe, φe, ψe}, are generated using three PD controllers
that are fed as inputs to the angular position stabilization
block.
FIGURE 4. The trajectory control structure.
From Fig. 4, the feedback law
e2=yp2(KP·(r1yp1)+KD
d
dt (r1yp1)) (18)
is obtained. The signals yp1and yp2are given in Equa-
tions (11) and (12) respectively. The parameters KPand KD
are the proportional and derivative gains respectively of the
PD controller.
To reduce the overshoots of translational trajectories x,y,
and z, a lead compensator is connected in series with the
PD control block. This compensation is included in level 2
(Fig. 2, nodes 1 and 2) for yposition, and in levels 3–4 (Fig. 2,
nodes 3–9) for xand ypositions. Mathematically, the transfer
function
G(s)=szz
szp
(19)
of the lead compensator, where zzis the zero, and zpis the pole
satisfying 0 <zz<zp. The parameters used in this study are
given in Appendix A.
2) ANGULAR POSITION CONTROL DESIGN
SMC control design is used for generating the actuator thrust
T, to drive each drone in a swarm formation at the desired
altitude, and the torques Mi, for the stabilization of the orien-
tation angles, as pictured in Fig. 5. This practice reduces the
order of the state equations and provides a quick response.
FIGURE 5. The angular position control structure.
Consider a time varying surface sa(t) in the state space Rn
by the scalar equation sa(x,t)=0. The sliding surface is
chosen as
sα=cαeα+ ˙eα(20)
where α {T,Mx,My,Mz},eαis the tracking error, and cα
is a strictly positive constant [26]. The four control laws have
been proposed here for thrust Tand torques Mi;Mx(along
x-axis, i.e. for roll φ), My(along y-axis, i.e. for pitch θ), and
Mz(along z-axis, i.e. for yaw ψ). The chattering free control
law is given by
uα= ˆuαKαsat( sα
βα
) (21)
where ˆuαand Kαare the control design parameters. The ˆuα
indicates the motion of the state trajectory along the sliding
surface sα, and Kαrepresents the maximum controller output.
The sat(·) is the saturation function defined as
sat( sα
βα
)=
sα
βα
,|sα
βα| 1
sgn( sα
βα
),otherwise (22)
where βαis a constant that defines the thickness of the bound-
ary layer. The saturation function is used to smooth out the
VOLUME 8, 2020 95671
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
control discontinuity in a thin boundary layer neighbouring
the switching surfaces. To accomplish a trade-off between
tracking precision and robustness to unmodeled dynamics,
this function allocates a low pass filter to the local dynamics
of the variable sα, thus eliminating chattering phenomena.
The control laws are much more efficient when the mini-
mum amount of boundary layer is introduced. The equivalent
control ˆuα,
ˆuT= mcT
cos θcos φ(vxsin θvycos θsin φvz
cos θcos φ)+m(vywx+vxwy
+gcos θcos φ)
ˆuMx= cxJx(wx+wysin φtan θ+wzcos φtan θ)
+wywz(JzJy)
ˆuMy= cyJy
cos φ(wycos φwzsin φ)+wxwz
(JxJz)
ˆuMz= czJz(wytan φ+wz),
(23)
is obtained using nonlinear model Equations (1)–(6). The
control law presented in Equation (21) ensure both the
reachability condition, sα˙sα<0, and the sliding condi-
tion, ˙
Vα=1
2d
dt s2
α, using Lyapunov’s stability analysis that is
described below.
Consider a positive definite scalar function for the thrust T
and torques Mias
Vα=1
2s2
α(24)
and its derivative leads to
˙
Vα=sα˙sα(25)
where ˙sα,
˙sT=cT(vxsin θvycos θsin φvzcos θcos φ)
(vywx+vxwy+gcos θcos φuT
m)
cos θcos φ
˙sMx=cx(wx+wysin φtan θ+wzcos φtan θ)
+1
Jx
(wywz(JzJy)+uMx)
˙sMy=cy(wycos φwzsin φ)+cos φ
Jy
(wxwz
(JxJz)+uMy)
˙sMz=cz(wy
sin φ
cos θ+wz
cos φ
cos θ)+uMz
Jz
cos φ
cos θ,
(26)
is obtained using nonlinear model Equations (1)–(6). Keeping
the control law from Equation (21) in Equation (25),
˙
V= η|sα|<0 (27)
is obtained where η=1, a strictly positive constant. It is
proved from Equation (27) that all the system trajectories
point towards the sliding surface sαin a finite time. To be
specific, once on the surface, the system trajectories stay
on the surface. In a nutshell, sliding condition makes the
surface an invariant set. Some dynamic disturbances can
be tolerated while still keeping the surface an invariant set.
The conditions are verified by sαand therefore the inner
closed-loop system is guaranteed to be stable. The outer PD
loop is not taken into account in the analysis, and it can affect
the stability of the whole system. However, a PD loop has
good stability properties, and SMC cancels to some extent
the nonlinearity of the system, so it is unlikely that the PD
will cause instability. The parameters used in this study are
given in Appendix A.
B. LQR INTEGRAL ACTION CONTROL SYSTEM
LQR is a simple control design method that can handle a
multivariable system and is known to provide good robust-
ness properties in the full state feedback case [27]. Therefore,
a standard LQR augmented with integral action is tested, sim-
ilar to what was done in [28] and [29], for the leader–follower
tightly coupled formation flight. Each drone has its control
system, with the setpoints coming from the above level. Based
on linear model Equation (15), LQR provides an optimal
full state feedback controller that is applied on the nonlinear
model Equations (1)–(6) for each quadcopter in the swarm
under consideration.
Considering the linear model Equation (15), the control
input uminimizes the quadratic cost function
J(u)=Z
0(˙
xT
aQ˙
xa+˙
uTR˙
u)dt (28)
where
xa=Zt
0
e(τ)TdτxTT
,(29)
the states xand the control vector uare defined in Equa-
tions (7) and (8) respectively. Qis a positive semi-definite
matrix that defines the weights on states, whereas Ris
a positive definite matrix that weights the control inputs.
Furthermore,
e=ryp(30)
is the error term, and rfrom Equation (17) is the reference
for ypthat is defined in Equation (13). To get the desired
response, the controller can be tuned by changing the (diag-
onal) entries in the Qand Rmatrices. The state feedback law
u=Ki
seKpx(31)
gives the four control inputs, i.e. thrust Tand torques Mi;Mx
(along x-axis, i.e. for roll φ), My(along y-axis, i.e. for pitch
θ), and Mz(along z-axis, i.e. for yaw ψ). The controller uses
two separate gain matrices Kpand Kiwhere Kpis the state
feedback gain, and Kiis the integral gain. The feedback law
is shown in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6. Block diagram of LQR integral control design.
The tuning parameters Q and R used in this study are given
in Appendix B.
95672 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
V. SIMULATION SETUP
The system architecture of the swarm based on a
leader–follower hierarchical formation that consists of four
levels of hierarchy in a rigid environment, as shown in Fig. 2,
is simulated in SimulinkrMATLAB. Level one consists of
the leader L, level two of the followers 1–2, level three of
the followers 3–7, and level four of the followers 8–9. The
control systems of each drone follow the reference commands
that are defined by the pre-specified formation and its respec-
tive leader. In the design of the MISO nonlinear SMC PD
control technique, different gain adjustments are performed
to reconfigure the controller based on the dynamics of the
fleet whereas in the design of the MIMO optimal control
using LQR integral action, the same weights are used in the
controllers of each drone. The initial launching position xof
each drone is set to 1m away from its respective neighbouring
drones, and the further data for simulation is shown in Table 2.
In all simulations, the sampling time of 0.01s is used for all
the figures.
TABLE 2. Initial positions (m) and offsets (m) of drones used in
simulation.
Three different scenarios are used to evaluate the pro-
posed distributed controller in case of similar movement of
the swarm of drones. The reference commands, specified
in Table 3, are given to the leader drone, and all the followers
track its position with safe distance strategy using offsets,
stated in Table 2, in order to avoid collisions with each other.
In the first scenario, the tracking performances of the swarm-
ing drones is examined using a step change reference, see
Fig. 7(a). In the second scenario, a circular reference based
on lemniscate of gerono equations, also known as 8 curve,
is used, and the results are displayed in Fig. 7(b). In the third
scenario, another circular reference based on Archimedean
spiral equations, also known as an arithmetic spiral, is tracked
in Fig. 7(c).
VI. RESULTS
The 3D response of the formation for all three reference
models, as presented in Fig. 7, depicts that the leader drone
tracks the reference signal and the followers track the output
of the associated leader in steady hierarchical manner while
keeping the desired distance with its neighbouring peer(s),
i.e. collision avoidance using offsets mentioned in Table 2.
The corresponding trajectory errors w.r.t. related reference
trajectories using both control designs, depicted in Fig. 8,
show the average of the error data points for the trajectories
of the swarm which is referred to as arithmetic mean. It is
understandable from the graphs that the performance of the
SMC PD control design is seen better in comparison to the
LQR integral action control strategy in most of the drones
due to its low average error.
Only the results for the step change reference model are
illustrated in Fig. 9for the sake of brevity. Fig. 9(a)–(e)
describe the control actions, thrust Tand torques Mi,
of drones in order to lift, fly, and track the given trajectory.
The performance outputs x,y, and z, in Fig. 9(f)–(h), have
rapid response and settling time w.r.t. their setpoints using
the SMC PD control design in contrast to the LQR integral
action strategy. Also in Fig. 9(i)–(l), the sliding surfaces of
the SMC PD control design converge to zero in a finite time
by driving the respective system states to reach their sliding
surfaces.
For all reference trajectories, the total kinetic energy KE
produced by the swarm due to its motion versus the total
stored potential energy PE is pictured in Fig. 10. Total energy
possessed and held is calculated as KE =0.5mv2and
PE =mgh respectively. These energies relate how much
work is conserved in the process of the swarm movement.
Each drone in the swarm depends fully on the variable speed
of the motors driving the propellers. This variation, along
with the rpm thrust and control in propeller/motor speed,
provides the quadcopter with all of the essential control
to fly. Flying with payload affects the control and the sta-
bility of a drone. The performance of the swarm in terms
of work done and energy stored w.r.t. time is calculated by
EKE =KEmax, LQR int KEmax, SMC PD
KEmax, LQR int +KEmax, SMC PD ×100% (32)
and
EPE =tPE, LQR int tPE, SMC PD
tPE, LQR int ×100% (33)
respectively, where EKE and EPE are defined as performance
indices of kinetic and potential energies respectively. The
KEmax is represented as the peak value of the kinetic energy
TABLE 3. Test sequences for simulations. The Tis defined as a ramp function with the slope of 1.
VOLUME 8, 2020 95673
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
FIGURE 7. Tracking performance of swarming drones, using SMC PD, for the reference models.
FIGURE 8. Mean value of Euclidean distance from setpoints for the two different control designs.
TABLE 4. Overall system performance indices, defined in Equations (32) and (33).
whereas tPE is the settling time of the potential energy. All
the obtained values, using MATLAB command stepinfo, are
given in Table 4. For the reference commands, the corre-
sponding settling time of the swarm is improved by 47.2%,
42.3%, and 42.8% respectively using the SMC PD control
design in comparison to the LQR integral action strategy. As a
consequence of this, the position and velocity errors converge
much quickly and smoothly. Hence, the work is performed
faster as the energy is transmitted or used in lesser time.
The distance between any two neighbouring nodes pand q
in Fig. 2is calculated by
dp,q=dq,p=q(qxpx)2+(qypy)2+(qzpz)2(34)
where its minimum distance dmin should be greater than
zero in order to hold the collision avoidance phenomenon.
The results of nominal and minimum distances, dnom and
dmin respectively, are presented in Tables 5–7. It is evident
from the results that both techniques fulfil the collision
avoidance constraint by maintaining the desired separations
from the respective nodes. There is a lower risk of drone’s
collisions using the SMC PD control design for all the
reference commands. On the other hand there is a high
risk of drone’s collisions using distance separation of 1m
between the respective neighbours with the LQR integral
action control strategy for spiral reference model. Therefore,
in this case, it is recommended to set the offset greater than
2m between any two neighbouring nodes in order to avoid
collisions with each other.
Using derivatives of Equation (28), the cost com-
putations that are minimized by control inputs uare
given in Table 8. From the cost computations of
proposed controllers, it is asserted that the overall
hierarchical swarm has a lower total cost with the
SMC PD control design, i.e. 2.73E+07, 1.52E+08, and
2.29E+08 for the corresponding references whereas with
the LQR integral action control strategy, the correspond-
ing total computations are 3.29E+07, 1.58E+08, and
2.58E+08.
A. PLANT-MODEL MISMATCH
In this section, the swarm of drones is implemented with a
plant-model mismatch to observe the impact on the proposed
control designs in the hierarchical levels of the swarm for
the parametric and input uncertainties. For better clarity,
the simulation is only conducted for the step change reference
commands.
95674 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
FIGURE 9. Results with the step change reference model.
In the case of parametric uncertainties, the mass m,
mL=0.9kg
mf1,f2 =1kg
mf3–f7 =1.1kg
mf8,f9 =1.2kg,
(35)
is set for the quadcopter(s) on each level of the swarm. This
is to be considered here that for the SMC PD control design,
the mass should be greater than 0.8kg for the stability of
its altitude. In the case of input uncertainties, the closed-
loop system of each quadcopter has different thrust input
Treal =T×K, where Tis the output of the controllers and
VOLUME 8, 2020 95675
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
TABLE 5. The nominal and minimum distances (m) between neighbouring drone(s) in the swarm, with step change.
TABLE 6. The nominal and minimum distances (m) between neighbouring drone(s) in the swarm, with 8 curve.
95676 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
TABLE 7. The nominal and minimum distances (m) between neighbouring drone(s) in the swarm, with arithmetic spiral.
TABLE 8. LQR cost, R˙
eTQe˙
edt +R˙
xTQx˙
xdt +R˙
uTR˙
udt, where Qeand Qxare diagonal matrices with corresponding weights from Q.
Treal is the actual thrust obtained, and the gain K,
KL=0.9
Kf1,f2 =0.8
Kf3–f7 =0.7
Kf8,f9 =0.6,
(36)
is set for the quadcopter(s) on each level of the swarm. It is
to be noted here that for the SMC PD control design, the gain
should be less than 1 for the stability of its altitude. Rest of
the data for both tests is given in Tables 1–3, and the acquired
results are shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. It is presented,
in Fig. 11(c) and Fig. 12(c) that when using the SMC PD
control design, the zpositions have undershoots in all the
levels of hierarchical formation compared to its nominal case.
Also in the altitudes, the acceptable tracking errors w.r.t. their
settling points exist and may increase with the increase in the
FIGURE 10. Kinetic vs. potential energies of the swarm.
mass of the quadcopter(s) whereas, the LQR integral action
control strategy is very much insensitive to such disturbances.
VOLUME 8, 2020 95677
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
FIGURE 11. Results with the step change reference model, parametric uncertainties.
FIGURE 12. Results with the step change reference model, input uncertainties.
FIGURE 13. Results with the step change reference model, external disturbance inputs.
B. EXTERNAL DISTURBANCE INPUTS
In this section, a step change in thrust, Treal =T+S,
S=0 1N, is added as an external disturbance
to the quadcopter(s). This is to be considered here that for
the SMC PD control design, the external disturbance should
be less than 0N for the stability of its altitude. On each
level of the swarm, the external disturbance is added at
time t= {15,20,25,30}s respectively, and the simula-
tion’s running time tis 40s. Rest of the data for this test is
given in Tables 1–3, and the obtained results are illustrated
in Fig. 13. The results exhibit that the proposed nonlinear
and linear, i.e. the SMC PD and the LQR integral action
respectively, control designs provide the efficient stability of
the closed-loop system and reject the disturbances quite well.
For a clear depiction, the zpositions, {zL,zf1,f2,zf3–f7,zf8,f9},
are plotted at the heights of {10,11,12,13}m respectively
in Fig. 13(c) although all setpoints are set to 10m. Similar
to section VI-A, the performance of the LQR integral action
control design is seen better due to the elimination of the
tracking errors w.r.t. their settling points in the altitudes. How-
ever, fast response time is achieved using the SMC PD control
strategy.
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, the model of a swarm of drones that are arranged
in the leader–follower architecture having hierarchical lev-
els for a tightly coupled formation flight is proposed. This
architecture is modular in the sense that it divides the overall
system into four layers forming a hierarchical swarm: top-
level leader drone, mid-level drones, and end-level followers.
95678 VOLUME 8, 2020
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
For the evaluation of the control architecture, the distributed
nonlinear and linear control methodologies comprising of
SMC PD and LQR integral action designs respectively are
applied on each drone. The control systems are tested for
the tracking of a step change, an 8 curve, and an arith-
metic spiral. The side by side comparative analysis based
on setpoint tracking, response and settling time, collision
avoidance, and computational costs is presented. It is evident
from the results that both the proposed control designs are
effective w.r.t. their nominal case, plant-model mismatch, and
external disturbance inputs. In the nominal case, the SMC
PD control design avoids a large deviation of the individual
drone from its optimal navigation track due to its optimized
transient behaviour in comparison to the LQR integral action
technique. Also, the nominal settling time of the swarm is
improved by 44% on average. Since a slight change in the
system’s dynamics can affect the overall system’s state due to
hierarchical and tightly coupled nature of the system, both the
proposed approaches are tested for the cases of plant-model
mismatch and external disturbance inputs. It is confirmed
from the results of these cases that the performance using the
LQR integral action control design is better than that using the
SMC PD control strategy w.r.t. their settling time. One reason
for the LQR to perform better in this case is that it includes
integral action that is good for the elimination of unknown
disturbances and model errors. Contrarily, the SMC uses the
model in the calculation of the feedback law and is thus
dependent on its PD structure while the LQR is a constant
feedback of the real states. Satisfactory performances are
achieved using both the proposed distributed control method-
ologies for the drones that are arranged in the leader–follower
architecture having hierarchical levels for a tightly cou-
pled formation flight. Both the approaches are scalable and
effective as well as develop the versatility for an emerging
area of UAVs.
APPENDIX
A. SMC PD CONTROL SYSTEM
Kα { m
cosθcosφ,Jx,Jy
cosφ,Jzcosθ
cosφ}
βα= {0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1}
cα= {0.25,4,8,0.5}
TABLE 9. Control gains for the PD blocks.
B. LQR INTEGRAL ACTION CONTROL SYSTEM
Gr= {Gxr,Gyr,Gzr}={1,1,1
0.57s+1}
Q=diag3,4.5,6000,1080,1080,1080,180,180,
180,0.5,0.75,1000,15,22.5,30000
R=I4
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank FinELib consortium, Finland
for the APC funding, and Prof. H. Toivonen, Laboratory of
Process and Systems Engineering, Åbo Akademi University,
Turku, Finland, for discussions related to this article.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Tahir, J. Böling, M.-H. Haghbayan, H. T. Toivonen, and J. Plosila,
‘‘Swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles—A survey,’’ J. Ind. Inf. Integr.,
vol. 16, Oct. 2019, Art. no. 100106.
[2] P. Wang and F. Hadaegh, ‘‘Coordination and control of multiple
microspacecraft moving in formation,’ J. Astron. Sci., vol. 44, no. 3,
p. 315–355, 1996.
[3] D. Galzi and Y. Shtessel, ‘‘UAV formations control using high order sliding
modes,’ in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., 2006, p. 4249.
[4] B. Yun, B. M. Chen, K. Y. Lum, and T. H. Lee, ‘‘Design and imple-
mentation of a leader-follower cooperative control system for unmanned
helicopters,’ J. Control Theory Appl., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 61–68, Feb. 2010.
[5] M. Lewis and K. Tan, ‘‘High precision formation control of mobile robots
using virtual structures,’ Auto. Robots, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 387–403, Oct. 1997.
[6] T. Paul, T. R. Krogstad, and J. T. Gravdahl, ‘‘Modelling of UAV formation
flight using 3D potential field,’ Simul. Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 16, no. 9,
pp. 1453–1462, Oct. 2008.
[7] Z. Chao, S.-L. Zhou, L. Ming, and W.-G. Zhang, ‘UAV formation flight
based on nonlinear model predictive control,’’ Math. Problems Eng.,
vol. 2012, pp. 1–15, Feb. 2012.
[8] T. Balch and R. C. Arkin, ‘Behavior-based formation control for mul-
tirobot teams,’ IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 926–939,
Dec. 1998.
[9] J. R. T. Lawton, R. W. Beard, and B. J. Young, ‘A decentralized approach
to formation maneuvers,’ IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., vol. 19, no. 6,
pp. 933–941, Dec. 2003.
[10] D. Bennet and C. McInnes, ‘‘Verifiable control of a swarm of unmanned
aerial vehicles,’ Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., G, J. Aerosp. Eng., vol. 223, no. 7,
p. 939–953, 2009.
[11] S. Engebraten, K. Glette, and O. Yakimenko, ‘‘Field-testing of high-level
decentralized controllers for a multi-function drone swarm,’ in Proc. IEEE
14th Int. Conf. Control Autom. (ICCA), Jun. 2018, p. 379.
[12] T. F. K. Cordeiro, H. C. Ferreira, and J. Y. Ishihara, ‘Non linear controller
and path planner algorithm for an autonomous variable shape formation
flight,’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Unmanned Aircr. Syst. (ICUAS), Jun. 2017,
p. 1493.
[13] B. Niemoczynski, S. Biswas, J. Kollmer, and F. Ferrese, ‘‘Hovering syn-
chronization of a fleet of quadcopters,’ in Proc. 7th Int. Symp. Resilient
Control Syst. (ISRCS), Aug. 2014, p. 1–5.
[14] S. Srigrarom, H. X. Lin, Z. Y. Saw, J. Zhang, and C. H. Lim, ‘‘Design
and build of swarm quadrotor UAVs at UGS,’ in Proc. 15th AIAA Aviation
Technol., Integr., Oper. Conf., Jun. 2015, p. 238.
[15] Z. Cai, H. Zhou, J. Zhao, K. Wu, and Y. Wang, ‘Formation control of
multiple unmanned aerial vehicles by event-triggered distributed model
predictive control,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 55614–55627, 2018.
[16] P. Lucas, K. Loayza, and E. Pelaez, ‘‘A distributed control of movements
and fuzzy logic-based task allocation for a swarm of autonomous agents,’
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy Syst. (FUZZ-IEEE), Jul. 2018, p. 1–8
[17] H. M. H. Abdoli, M. Najafi, I. Izadi, and F. Sheikholeslam, ‘Sliding
mode approach for formation control of multi-agent systems with unknown
nonlinear interactions,’ ISA Trans., vol. 80, pp. 65–72, Sep. 2018.
[18] K. Choutri, M. Lagha, L. Dala, and M. Lipatov, ‘Quadrotors UAVs swarm-
ing control under leader-followers formation,’’ in Proc. 22nd Int. Conf.
Syst. Theory, Control Comput. (ICSTCC), Oct. 2018, p. 794.
[19] K. A. Ghamry and Y. Zhang, ‘‘Formation control of multiple quadrotors
based on leader-follower method,’’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Unmanned Aircr.
Syst. (ICUAS), Jun. 2015, p. 1037.
VOLUME 8, 2020 95679
A. Tahir et al.: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Distributed Control of a Hierarchical Formation of UAVs
[20] F. Šolc, ‘Modelling and control of a quadrocopter,’ Adv. Mil. Technol.,
vol. 5, no. 2, p. 29–38, 2010.
[21] P. Gabrlik, V. Kriz, and L. Zalud, ‘‘Reconnaissance micro uav system,’
Acta Polytechnica CTU Proc., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 15–21, 2015.
[22] A. Basci, K. Can, K. Orman, and A. Derdiyok, ‘‘Trajectory tracking
control of a four rotor unmanned aerial vehicle based on continuous sliding
mode controller,’’ Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 12–19,
2017.
[23] Q. Quan, Introduction to Multicopter Design Control.Singapore: Springer,
2017.
[24] D. A. Mercado, R. Castro, and R. Lozano, ‘‘Quadrotors flight formation
control using a leader-follower approach,’’ in Proc. Eur. Control Conf.
(ECC), Jul. 2013, pp. 3858–3863.
[25] J. J. Castillo-Zamora, K. A. Camarillo-Gómez, G. I. Pérez-Soto, and
J. RodriGuez-ReséNdiz, ‘‘Comparison of PD, PID and sliding-mode posi-
tion controllers for V–Tail quadcopter stability,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 6,
pp. 38086–38096, 2018.
[26] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Appl. Nonlinear Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
USA: Prentice-Hall, 1991.
[27] M. Safonov and M. Athans, ‘‘Gain and phase margin for multiloop LQG
regulators,’ IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 173–179,
Apr. 1977.
[28] Q. Ali and S. Montenegro, ‘‘Explicit model following distributed con-
trol scheme for formation flying of mini UAVs,’ IEEE Access, vol. 4,
pp. 397–406, 2016.
[29] C. Masse, O. Gougeon, D.-T. Nguyen, and D. Saussie, ‘Modeling and
control of a quadcopter flying in a wind field: A comparison between LQR
and structured Hcontrol techniques,’ in Proc. Int. Conf. Unmanned
Aircr. Syst. (ICUAS), Jun. 2018, pp. 1408–1417.
ANAM TAHIR received the B.S. degree in com-
puter engineering, the M.S. degree in electrical
engineering (major: control systems) from COM-
SATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan, and the
Master of Engineering degree in autonomous mar-
itime operations from the NOVIA University of
Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland. She is currently
pursuing the Ph.D. degree with the Department
of Future Technologies, Faculty of Science and
Engineering, University of Turku, Finland. Her
research interests include autonomous systems, adaptive and nonlinear con-
trol, modeling, and simulation of dynamical systems.
JARI M. BÖLING received the M.Sc. degree in
chemical engineering and the Ph.D. degree in
control engineering from Åbo Akademi Univer-
sity, Turku, Finland, in 1994 and 2001, respec-
tively. From 2003 to 2004, he was a Postdoctoral
Researcher with the University of California Santa
Barbara, USA. Since 2005, he has been a Senior
Lecturer of control engineering with the Faculty
of Science and Engineering, Åbo Akademi Uni-
versity. His research interests include system iden-
tification, adaptive control, machine learning, modeling and simulation of
dynamical systems.
MOHAMMAD-HASHEM HAGHBAYAN
(Member, IEEE) received the B.A. degree in com-
puter engineering from the Ferdowsi University
of Mashhad, the M.S. degree in computer archi-
tecture from the University of Tehran, Iran, and
the Ph.D. degree (Hons.) from the University of
Turku, Finland. Since 2018, he has been a Post-
doctoral Researcher with the Department of Future
Technologies, Facultyof Science and Engineering,
University of Turku. His research interests include
machine learning, autonomous systems, high-performance energy-efficient
architectures, and on-chip/fog resource management.
JUHA PLOSILA (Member, IEEE) is currently a
Full Professor in autonomous systems and robotics
with the Department of Future Technologies, Fac-
ulty of Science and Engineering, University of
Turku (UTU), Finland, and the Ph.D. degree in
electronics and communication technology from
UTU, in 1999. He is the Head of the EIT Digital
Master Program in embedded systems with the
EIT Digital Master School, European Institute of
Innovation and Technology, and represents UTU
in the Node Strategy Committee of the EIT Digital Helsinki/Finland node.
He has a strong research background in adaptive multiprocessing systems
and platforms, and their design, including, specification, development and
verification of self-aware multiagent monitoring and control architectures for
massively parallel systems, machine learning and evolutionary computing-
based approaches, as well as application of heterogeneous energy efficient
architectures to new computational challenges in the cyber-physical systems
and internet-of-things domains, with a recent focus on fog/edge computing
(edge intelligence), and autonomous multidrone systems.
95680 VOLUME 8, 2020
... To address this problem, control approaches such as proportional-integral-derivative [5], linear-quadratic regulator [6], model predictive control [7], and feedback linearization [8] have been proposed under the assumption that the roll and pitch angles approach zero. However, linearized model-based methods exhibit low efficiencies in translational motion and are vulnerable to external disturbances due to their narrow operating ranges [9]. Nonlinear control methods using the hierarchical strategy have been studied to overcome the disadvantages of linear control methods. ...
... As a result, the compensating signals using RBFNNs can relax the constraints of the conventional CFB. The time derivative of (13) along with (2), (6), (9), and (12) is expressed as follows: ...
Article
Full-text available
This study is aimed at addressing the adaptive leader–follower safety formation control problem for multiple quadrotors with limited measurement range, unknown disturbances, and thrust saturation. We develop a novel state-transformation-based unified design strategy to solve the underactuation and nonlinear input coupling problems of quadrotors without dividing the outer and inner loop subsystems. First, the state transformation technique is introduced to extract virtual control variables from nonlinear coupled terms combined with the thrust input. Then, a unified formation error is designed to ensure safe formation tracking between the leader and followers with limited measurement range. In the design of a controller, compensating signals using radial basis function neural networks are introduced to compensate for unknown nonlinear terms and develop a modified command-filtered backstepping method. The proposed approach outperforms the existing hierarchical designs and can effectively avoid collisions between quadrotors, even in scenarios with thrust saturation and external disturbances. The Lyapunov stability theory is used to demonstrate that all the errors in the closed-loop system are bounded and can be arbitrarily reduced. Finally, comparative analyses are performed based on simulations to verify the effectiveness of the proposed theoretical approach.
... A considerable portion of the research revolves around the use of UAVs in formation. Studies have focused on controlling the formations of aircraft [1][2][3][4], and multirotor flying platforms [5][6][7]. The specific nature of formation flight addresses issues such as flight trajectory planning and optimization [3,8], collision avoidance [9,10] and cooperation between the UAVs [11][12][13][14], and the organization and maintenance of formations [15,16]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The development of hierarchical structures of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) increases the efficiency of unmanned aerial systems. The grouping of UAVs increases the region of recognition or force of assault. Achieving these requirements is possible through a UAV formation. The UAVs in the formation must be controlled and managed by a commander, but the commander cannot control individual UAVs. The UAVs within the formation have assigned specific individual tasks, so is possible to achieve the flight of the formation with minimum collisions between UAVs and maximized equipment utilization. This paper aims to present a method of formation control for multiple UAVs that allows dynamic changes in the constellations of UAVs. The article includes the results of tests and research conducted in real-world conditions involving a formation capable of adapting its configuration. The results are presented as an element of research for the autonomy swarm, which can be controlled by one pilot/operator. The control of a swarm consisting of many UAVs (several hundred) by one person is now a current problem. The article presents a fragment of research work on high-autonomy UAV swarms. Here is presented a field test that focuses on UAV constellation control.
... Finally, while MPC, adaptive control, and SMC each ofer unique strengths in predictive capability, adaptability, and robustness, DFTC stands out for its superior performance in achieving rapid convergence, decentralized operation, and stability enhancement in MG applications. Tese attributes position DFTC as a promising control strategy for future smart grid implementations [58][59][60][61]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Microgrids (MGs) play a crucial role in modern power distribution systems, particularly in ensuring reliable and efficient energy supply, integrating renewable energy sources, and enhancing grid resilience. Voltage and frequency stability are paramount for MG operation, necessitating advanced control frameworks to regulate key parameters effectively. This research introduces a multilayer interactive control framework tailored for MGs utilizing distributed energy resources (DERs). The framework comprises primary control layers, integrating internal voltage and current controller loops, and secondary layers employing distributed finite-time control (DFTC) strategies. Through simulation studies and comparative analyses with traditional proportional-integral (PI) controllers, the effectiveness of DFTC controllers in reducing initial oscillations and improving stability is demonstrated. Major findings include the superior performance of DFTC controllers in stabilizing voltage and frequency parameters, optimizing power output, and enhancing overall operational efficiency. Additionally, insights into the operational dynamics of MG systems highlight the significance of advanced control strategies in mitigating fluctuations and ensuring system stability. Furthermore, the proposed method demonstrates significant efficacy improvements over conventional approaches. Voltage stability is enhanced with oscillation amplitudes less than 0.01 pu, active power control achieves a stable level of 0.93 pu, and frequency fluctuations are reduced to 0.004 Hz and effectively recovered to 0.002 Hz. These improvements suggest that the proposed method enhances system stability and control precision by approximately 95% compared to conventional methods, as it achieves much tighter control over voltage, active power levels, and frequency fluctuations.
... This value is obtained using system torque = 72855 kNm in the corresponding simulations. The performance index[17] ...
Technical Report
The goal is to design the engine simulation model for the control system development using rated working conditions such as engine speed and electrical load. The first objective is to adapt the existing Wärtsilä Simulink Development Environment (WSDE) first-order dual fuel (DF) engine model. The proposed engine model is then translated into standard equations of a linear system. The closed-loop system of the proposed WSDE first-order DF engine model is obtained by using simulation models designed for the testing of the speed/load control functionality of the Wärtsilä 31 (W31DF) UNIC control system. To do this, two approaches are considered: (i) Testing before UNIC-WSDE pairing i.e. model-in-the-loop (MIL) method or the model-based-testing: The second objective is to design the proportional integral derivative (PID) control of the proposed WSDE first-order DF engine model, which evaluates the engine model and provides control loop performance. (ii) Testing with UNIC-WSDE pairing i.e. software-in-the-loop (SIL) method: The third objective is based on the formation of a pairing setup between Matlab-iii Simulink and the W31DF UNIC control system. So that the WSDE first-order DF engine model is running in the Simulink and the engine modes and speed/load modes are running in a virtual W31DF UNIC control system. The Wärtsilä's existing real references and PID map-based control parameters from the UNIC control system are taken into consideration. This approach utilises the UNIC control system for the virtual verification of the proposed WSDE first-order DF engine model which verifies the engine model in a simulation environment to improve its quality. In addition, the proposed engine simulation models are adaptable to other UNIC control functionalities. Recently, the SIL method was tested with an ongoing UNIC control functionality, which produced quite similar behaviour as an actual engine.
... Formation control is one of the key technologies of UAV cluster cooperative control. (5) Common formation control methods mainly include the leader-follower, (6) virtual structure, and behavior-based methods. With the development of the cooperative control of group systems, especially the development of consensus theory, (7,8) an increasing number of researchers have realized that consensus theory can be used to solve the formation control problem of group systems. ...
Article
Full-text available
Multi-agent systems (MAS) are composed of multiple autonomous agents that interact and collaborate to achieve common objectives. These systems are characterized by their decentralization, scalability, robustness, and the local perspectives of individual agents. In the realm of quadrotor applications, MAS can perform complex tasks such as formation flying, surveillance, search and rescue, and cooperative payload transport. The control of such systems often involves techniques like trajectory planning, consensus algorithms, formation control, and obstacle avoidance. This study introduces a multi-agent quadrotor system controlled using sliding mode backstepping control (SMBC), which combines the advantages of backstepping and sliding mode control to ensure stability and robustness. The novel aspect of this research is the transformation of the leader quadrotor into a fractional-order system (FOS) while maintaining the followers as integer-order systems, all controlled using the same SMBC method. MATLAB simulations validate that the fractional-order leader (FOL) achieves superior trajectory tracking compared to the integer-order leader. Furthermore, the followers tracking the fractional-order leader exhibit enhanced performance, with reduced tracking errors and quicker response times. These findings demonstrate the potential advantages of incorporating fractional-order dynamics into multi-agent control systems.
Article
This paper introduces pseudo-flocking, a bio-inspired hybridization scheme that profits from both characteristics of random path planning and birds flocking algorithms to produce multiple-unmanned-aerial-vehicle (multiple-UAV) mobility model (MM) for a superior tradeoff between the area coverage and the swarm’s connectivity. The designed path-based hybridization algorithm using the UAV’s path radius produces intrinsically hybrid movement patterns that respect surveillance application requirements, which implies delivering unpredictable movement patterns and efficiently dealing with the present conflict between the area coverage and the network connectivity in large-scale homogenous UAV deployments. A set of adaptations is provided for motion control concerning the UAV’s belief system and behaviors applied on a state-of-the-art surveillance-oriented MM to act as a reference. Extensive simulations tests are provided in this work to reveal the variation pattern of the delivered quality of service according to the UAV’s path radius along with the swarm density. The results confirmed that our proposed MM provides the best tradeoff among three competitors’ path-based MMs, where its highest impact touches more the network connectivity than the area coverage with an improvement that passes 20% compared with its reference MM.
Article
Full-text available
The unmanned aerial vehicles or drones come in a great diversity depending upon the basic frameworks with their particular specifications. The purpose of this study is to analyse the core characteristics of the swarming drones and measure the public awareness levels with respect to these swarms. To achieve these goals, the functionality, problems, and importance of drones are highlighted. The results of an experimental survey from a bunch of academic population are also presented, which demonstrate that the swarms of drones are fundamental future agenda and will be adopted with the passage of time.
Article
Full-text available
The paper proposes an event-triggered model predictive control (MPC) scheme for formation control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). A distributed MPC framework is designed in which each UAV only shares the information with its neighbors, and the obtained local finite-horizon optimal control problem (FHOCP) can be solved by swarm intelligent optimization algorithm. An event-triggered mechanism is proposed to reduce the computational burden for the distributed MPC scheme, which takes into consideration the predictive state errors as well as the convergence of cost function. Further, a safe-distance-based strategy for no-fly zone avoidance is developed and integrated into the local cost function for each FHOPC. Numerical simulations show that the proposed event-triggered distributed MPC is more computationally efficient to achieve formation control of multiple UAVs in comparison with the traditional distributed MPC method.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, a comparison of PD, PID and SMC position controllers for a V–tail quadcopter is presented. First, a customized design of a V–tail quadcopter is shown to know the parameters of this structure and compare them with the commonly × structure quadcopter used in most papers. Then, the dynamic analysis of the V–tail quadcopter using Newton–Euler formulation is presented. The main contribution of this paper remains in the design and Lyapunov stability analysis of the PD, PID and SMC position controllers for the V–tail quadcopter because the robot manipulator methodology was used, treating the V–tail quadcopter as a robot manipulator. The simulation results validate the proposed controllers and algorithms for the V–tail quadcopter when the three controllers reach the desired position. Also, a non–conventional variable is introduced to study the stability analysis of unmanned aerial vehicles when controlled by PID position controller. Finally, a comparison between the three designed controllers for a V–tail quadcopter is presented, where the differences between each can be appreciated. So that, for the first time, three controllers for the V–tail quadcopter designed using the robot manipulator theory is presented.
Conference Paper
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) swarming has took an important part of the recent researches since multiple robots offer many advantages when comparing to a single one such as reliability, time decreasing and multiple simultaneous interventions. This paper proposes a new scheme for the trajectory tracking of multiple quadrotors UAVs under a centralized leader-followers formation strategy. The swarm control is assured by a double loop control structure based on the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controller for the quadrotors attitude stability and position tracking, and an Sliding Mode Controller (SMC) to maintain the Leader-Followers formation shape. Finally, many scenarios are proposed within this work to proof the controller’s energy optimization and secure the swarm from any collisions.
Conference Paper
This article deals with the stationary flight control problem of an Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (UAV) flying in a wind field. The main objective is to develop a robust control law to stabilize the drone flying under real-life outdoor conditions while maintaining adequate flight performances. To do so, a generic nonlinear dynamic model of the quadcopter is firstly developed; this model is then completed with the modeling of the wind disturbances, which allows the simulation of the proposed control algorithms. Two approaches for the synthesis of the control laws are compared: the first one uses Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) synthesis and the second one uses structured H∞ synthesis. Simulations are conducted to evaluate the performances of both control laws when subjected to a nominal wind step input varying from 0 to 14 m/s. This particular input choice makes it possible to analyze the performance of the controllers in both transient (wind gust) and steady states (sustained wind). The results show that better performances are obtained with the structured H∞ synthesis using the robust control theory than with the LQR synthesis using the optimal control theory. Furthermore, it is shown that the simplicity of use of the Robust Control Toolbox of MATLAB favors the usage of more complex control architectures without impacting the workload of the control engineer.
Article
This paper proposes nonlinear control approaches to solve a leader-follower formation of multi-agent system with unknown nonlinear interactions. Two distributed sliding mode control approaches are suggested here to track a leader in a desired formation with compensating unknown nonlinear terms. The nonlinear interaction terms can appear in multi-agent systems due to physical connections or cooperation between agents. Also the uncertainty in coefficient of control input is considered. Super twist algorithm is suggested for investigating this problem. Some Lyapunov functions are modified and employed to prove maintaining the formation of group, using the proposed sliding mode controllers. A simulation result for slung load transporting with quad-rotors is presented to demonstrate the capability of the proposed approaches.
Book
This book is the first textbook specially on multicopter systems in the world. It provides a comprehensive overview of multicopter systems, rather than focusing on a single method or technique. The fifteen chapters are divided into five parts, covering the topics of multicopter design, modeling, state estimation, control, and decision-making. It differs from other books in the field in three major respects: it is basic and practical, offering self-contained content and presenting hands-on methods; it is comprehensive and systematic; and it is timely. It is also closely related to the autopilot that users often employ today and provides insights into the code employed. As such, it offers a valuable resource for anyone interested in multicopters, including students, teachers, researchers, and engineers.