Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wind Field
Nitin Sydney, Brendan Smyth, and Derek A. Paley
Abstract— We present a nonlinear, dynamic controller for a In this paper, we develop a dynamic 6DOF model for a
6DOF quadrotor operating in an estimated, spatially varying, quadrotor that includes rotor blade flapping, induced thrust
turbulent wind field. The quadrotor dynamics include the due to forward flight and climb, and aerodynamic drag.
aerodynamic effects of drag, rotor blade flapping, and induced
thrust due to translational velocity and external wind fields. To Unlike previous work, we allow the wind to vary from rotor
control the quadrotor we use a dynamic input/output feedback to rotor, which is especially important for flight in close
linearization controller that estimates a parametric model of proximity to another quadrotor. A single rotor may lose thrust
the wind field using a recursive Bayesian filter. Each rotor due to downwash impingement, causing a moment about the
experiences a possibly different wind field, which introduces center of mass that can undesirably pitch and/or roll the ve-
moments that are accounted for in the controller and allows
flight in wind fields that vary over the length of the vehicle. We hicle. The model described here can also address wind fields
add noise to the wind field in the form of Dryden turbulence in which the variation of the wind occurs at the length scale
to simulate the algorithm in two applications: autonomous ship of the quadrotor (∼0.5 m). We design a layered feedback
landing and quadrotor proximity flight. linearization controller to transform the quadrotor dynamics
to a linear system, at which point standard regulation/tracking
I. I NTRODUCTION algorithms are used. The controller uses a Bayesian estimator
that uses airspeed and position measurements (using, e.g.,
In the past decade there has been growing interest in the
GPS and pitot tubes) to determine the parameters of an
use of unmanned aerial vehicles for both government [1]
unknown wind field. The feedback linearization is split into
and commercial applications [2]. One of the concerns with
an inner loop, for which the feedback linearization is exact,
small unmanned aerial vehicles such as quadrotors is their
and an outer loop, for which we assume that the desired
susceptibility to wind fields and gusts, which can not only
pitch and roll angles of the vehicle are small. We validate the
degrade the performance of the vehicle but can also make
algorithm by simulating proximity flight of two quadrotors
them dangerous to operate in populated areas. Even without
and an autonomous ship landing, where the vehicle must
external wind gusts, quadrotors operating in proximity to one
travel in the turbulent air wake of a moving ship.
another are affected by the downwash from other quadrotors.
The contributions of this paper are (1) a 6DOF dynamic
In this paper, we present a strategy for controlling quadrotors
model for a quadrotor in wind that includes rotor blade
in proximity to one another and/or in the presence of an
flapping, induced thrust from translation, and aerodynamic
estimated wind field. We illustrate the utility of our control
drag; (2) a dynamic, feedback linearization controller that
strategy in two applications: autonomous control for landing
stabilizes a quadrotor in the presence of an unknown wind
on a ship and proximity flight of two quadrotors.
field. The controller incorporates a recursive Bayesian esti-
Many prior works in the area of quadrotor control, e.g.,
mator that uses measurements of ground and air speed to
[3], [4], approximate the quadrotor dynamics by a linear
provide an estimate of the wind field. One of the novel parts
system, for which standard linear controllers can be designed.
of the controller is that it treats the wind field on each rotor
More recent papers [5], [6], [7] use nonlinear control tech-
individually, so we can fly in wind fields that vary across
niques like feedback linearization, backstepping, and sliding
the length of the quadrotor. The controller and estimator
mode control. It is common for linear and nonlinear control
are validated in numerical simulations of reduced-order wind
techniques applied in the literature to use a six-degree-of-
models with added (unmodeled) turbulence. Because of the
freedom (6DOF) model for the quadrotor dynamics that
virtues of the nonlinear control and nonlinear estimator
neglects the effects of aerodynamic forces on the vehicle.
design, we expect the control framework to have a variety
Some notable exceptions ([8], [9]) model rotor effects such
applications to individual and multi-vehicle tasks in wind.
as blade flapping and induced thrust, which are important to
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
the results in this paper. Other papers ([10], [11]) account
discusses relevant background information, including feed-
for wind gust disturbances, but only as linear perturbations.
back linearization, parametric wind field modeling of (turbu-
lent) air wakes and rotor downwash, and recursive Bayesian
Nitin Sydney is a graduate student at the University of Maryland, College
Park, Department of Aerospace Engineering, estimation. Section III develops the 6DOF quadrotor dy-
Brendan Smyth is an undergraduate student at the University of Maryland, namics, derives the feedback linearization controller, and
College Park, Department of Aerospace Engineering presents the recursive Bayesian wind field estimator. Section
Derek Paley is an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland,
College Park, Department of Aerospace Engineering and Institute for IV presents simulation examples to demonstrate the control
Systems Research dpaley@umd.edu system. Section V summarizes the paper and ongoing work.
II. BACKGROUND I NFORMATION This flow is transformed to the physical domain, called the z-
A. Feedback Linearization domain, using a conformal mapping designed so that vortices
in the Z-domain are placed after sharp bends or in notches
In this paper we use input/ouput feedback linearization of in the z-domain. Note that without vortices, this technique
the nonlinear dynamics of the quadrotor [12]. Let x ∈ Rn would not produce separated flow in the z-domain.
be the state vector of the quadrotor, u ∈ Rm be the control, Locations in the Z-domain are represented in complex
and y ∈ Rm be the output. Consider (nonlinear) system coordinates as Z = X +iY . Adding the potential of a vortex
dynamics of the form pair and a uniform flow yields
m
(p + 1)2 + s2 Z − p + is
ẋ = f (x) +
X
gi (x)ui (1) U∞
Ω(Z) = Z −p−i log ,
i=1 2π 2s Z − p − is
y = [y1 , ..., ym ], (2) (5)
where p±is are the locations of the vortex centers. Since the
where f, g ∈ Rn . The feedback linearization technique vortices are of equal and opposite strength, there is a virtual
described next allows us to design u to linearize (2) using surface on the real line through which flow cannot pass. The
state feedback control. uniform flow represents the ambient flow and the vortex at
Let rk be the relative degree of the kth output, where p + is produces the separated flow in the z-domain.
k = 1, ..., m, and let Lkf (yi (x)) denote the kth Lie derivative Let z = F (Z) be a conformal map from the Z-domain
of yi (x) with respect to f [12]. A control that linearizes the to the z-domain. The mapping F (Z) takes the real line and
system (1)–(2) is [12] shapes it to whatever the physical domain looks like. For
example, for a backwards step, which is an approximation
u = ∆−1 (x)(ν − b(x)), (3) to the geometry of the deck of a ship suitable for landing an
where unmanned aerial system, the map F (Z) is [13]
h p p
∆ij (x) = Lgj Lrfi −1 yi (x), and bi (x) = Lrfi −1 yi (x). (4) z = { Z 2 − 1 + log[Z + Z 2 − 1]}. (6)
π
∆(x) is the decoupling matrix for the system and the (linear) From [13], we have that the magnitude q and direction θ of
control ν can be designed to achieve the desired closed-loop the flow at location Z are
behavior of the new system [12] ( " −1 #)
dΩ dF
r1
d y q = Re log (7)
dZ dZ
dtr1 ν1 ( "
. . −1 #)
. = . . dΩ dF
. . θ = −Im log . (8)
d rm y
νm dZ dZ
dtrm For the backwards step we get [13]
Note that u requires the inverse ∆−1 (x) of the decoupling √ √
dΩ (Z − 2p − 1) Z + 1 Z − 1
matrix, which means that ∆(x) must be invertible for all = . (9)
x ∈ Rn in order for (1) to be feedback linearizable. Since dz (Z − p + is)(Z − p − is)
our model quadrotor system does not meet this requirement, Using (7) and (9) the flow magnitude and direction are [13]
a two-layer feedback linearization approach is presented in s
Section III-B. (X − 2p − 1)2 + Y 2
q = ×
[(X − p) + (Y + s)2 ][(X − p)2 + (Y − s)2 ]
2
B. Wind Field Model 1/4
[(X + 1)2 + Y 2 ][(X − 1)2 + Y 2 ] (10)
One of the novel contributions of this paper is the in-
−1 Y +s −1 Y −s 1 −1 Y
clusion of aerodynamic effects in the feedback linearization θ = tan X−p + tan X−p − 2 tan X−1 +
controller, for which we need knowledge of any external
Y
wind fields or gusts. Since we may not know the precise −tan−1 X−2p−1 − 12 tan−1 X+1
Y
. (11)
wind field a priori, it is estimated online. In this section, we Figure 1 illustrates the flowfield in the z-domain generated
focus on parametric wind field models: first, a model for the by this transformation. Assuming that the complex plane
air wake behind a ship that is a hybrid between potential represents the horizontal (x) and vertical (z) directions, the
flow and statistical turbulence; and second, a model for the mean wind field is
downwash of a quadrotor helicopter. We estimate the wind
parameters online using methods described in Section II-C. wx,m = q cos θ (12)
We adopt an approach [13] to model a separated flow wy,m = 0 (13)
behind the ship using a complex potential in a simplified
wz,m = q sin θ. (14)
domain, called the Z-domain. The flow in the Z-domain
contains elementary potentials, such as uniform flows, to rep- For the application of proximity flight, we derive an
resent ambient motion and vortices to represent separation. expression for the downwash of a quadrotor based on [14]
5
4.5
3.5 valid only for proximity flight with separation greater than
3 1–2 rotor radii.
y (m)
2.5 Since the wind fields described above are smooth, which is
2 unrealistic for the air wake behind a ship or the downwash
1.5 of a quadrotor, we add frozen (spatially constant) Dryden
1
gust model to the mean wind field to simulate turbulence.
0.5
The turbulent component of w(·) is [16]
0
−2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 N p
X
x (m)
w(·),t = ∆ωΦ(ωn ) sin(ωn t + φ(·),n ), (17)
Fig. 1: Flowfield in the z-domain n=1
with output yin = [φ, θ, ψ, z]T , i.e., the attitude and alti-
x
y
0.2 z
Position (m)
tude of the vehicle, and then feedback linearize the planar
0
position. The first system represents the inner loop, whose
inputs are the desired attitude and altitude. In this case, the −0.2
relative degree for each output is two and the decoupling −0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
matrix ∆(x) is invertible everywhere except when φ = π/2 time (s)
or θ = π/2. The feedback linearized system is ÿin = νin . 10
Orientation (deg)
θ
and yaw, and outputs the desired pitch and roll values to be
−10
used by the inner loop. We seek planar position dynamics 0 5 10
time(s)
15 20 25
of the form ẍ = νout1 and ÿ = νout2 , where νout is the Fig. 6: Waypoint holding with (solid) and without (dashed) accounting for
outer loop control. Let φd = φd (νout1 , νout2 ) and θd = aerodynamic loads.
θd (νout1 , νout2 ). Assuming that the desired pitch θd and roll
φd are small, the desired mapping (using (29)) is
C. Bayesian Estimation of Wind
φd = (sin ψνout1 − cos ψνout2 + C2 )/C3 (37)
The control system described above allows us to stabilize
(cos ψνout1 + sin ψνout2 − C1 ) a quadrotor in the presence of a known wind field; however,
θd = . (38)
(C2 sin φd + C3 cos φd ) in general, this wind field will not be known. We now present
The full control architecture is shown in Figure 5. The a recursive Bayesian filter that produces an estimated wind
inputs to the closed-loop system are xd , yd , zd , and ψd . field for use in the controller. To implement the recursive
Given xd and yd we calculate νout , which are the (linear) filter developed in Section II-C, we need a likelihood func-
control for the outer loop. Then we use νout to calculate φd tion, which relates the measurements to the wind and vehicle
and θd according to (37)–(38), which are used along with state. Assume the wind field is parameterized by parameter
zd and ψd to calculate the linear control νin for the inner- set β, e.g. wind magnitude and direction for a uniform
tracking loop. wind. Assume the ground velocity v = ẋex + ẏey + żez
is available from GPS measurements (outdoors) or motion
xd , yd ⌫ out ✓d , d
capture (indoors) and air velocity vrel = ubx + vby + wbz
Linear Controller Eq. (37)-(38)
is measured by a pitot tube array (pitot tubes pointing along
all axes so relative wind can be determined in each direction).
Inner Loop zd , d (If the GPS updates are too slow for realtime control, a
combination of GPS and an IMU could be used to determine
position.) The expected air velocity measurement is
Linear Controller
1
b ue wx,m (β) − ẋ
x
vrel,e (β, v) , ve = I RB wy,m (β) − ẏ , (39)
⌫in
we wz,m (β) − ż
ẋ = f (x) + G(x)u 1
where we have used the observation that the vehicle ground
speed is the wind velocity plus the vehicle velocity relative
to the wind. We assume that the pitot tubes are mounted
Fig. 5: Two-layer feedback linearization control system for 6DOF quadrotor. orthogonally to the rotation of the vehicle such that vehicle
rotation does not induce a velocity in the sensors. Using (39),
we choose the following (Gaussian) likelihood function
The following two-vehicle simulation illustrates the benefit
p(zi (tk )|β) = exp −(vrel − vrel )T (vrel − vrel,e )/σ 2 ,
of accounting for the aerodynamics of the vehicle in the
feedback linearization. The vehicles are commanded using (40)
where zi (tk ) = [ẋ ẏ ż u v w]T and σ 2 represents B. Quadrotor Proximity Flight
measurement noise variance. This form for the likelihood In this application we show how the dynamic controller
function produces the desired behavior, namely that the in Section III can be used to fly one quadrotor directly un-
likelihood increases when the parameters are close to the derneath another, e.g., for formation flight. In the simulation,
true value, and decreases when they are not. one quadrotor is commanded to hover at (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 1)
As an example of using (40) and (20) to estimate a uniform and a second quadrotor is commanded to fly underneath it to
wind, Figure 7 shows the estimator performance for a single the origin. For comparison, we show a third (virtual) vehicle
quadrotor. In the simulation, the quadrotor is subjected to a that does not compensate for the aerodynamics, i.e., the flap
uniform wind of 1 m/s directed along the positive y axis (π/2 angles, drag coefficient, and climb velocity are all set to zero.
rad). Figure 7 shows the probability marginal distributions In this simulation, β is the induced velocity of the hovering
of wind speed (left) and direction (right) as measurements quadrotor. In addition, (frozen) Dryden turbulence affects all
are incorporated in time. The dashed white line indicates the three vehicles. The results of the simulation are shown in
maximum likelihood estimate, which converges to the correct Figure 9. The vehicle accounting for the aerodynamic loads
value, despite a noise level of σ = 0.1 m/s. settles at the appropriate location with no adverse affects,
while estimating the induced velocity and shaping parameters
of the downwash flowfield of the first vehicle (See Section II-
2
B). The probability density is flat for the first three seconds
Wind direction marginal (rad)
3
Wind speed marginal (m/s)
1.5 2.5 before the quadrotor enters the downwash, then converges
1
2 quickly once it enters the field. The third vehicle, however,
1.5
experiences a sharp decent rate once it hits the flowfield as it
0.5
1
has no knowledge of the wind (dashed lines in Figure 9(b)).
0
0.5
In reality, this would likely put the rotors in VRS, which is
−0.5 0
not modeled here, and would cause the vehicle to become
0 10
time (s)
20 30 0 10
time (s)
20 30
unstable.
Fig. 7: Estimation marginals of wind speed (left) and direction (right). V. C ONCLUSIONS AND O NGOING W ORK
This paper presents a control strategy for a 6DOF quadro-
IV. A PPLICATION E XAMPLES tor in an estimated, spatially varying, turbulent wind field.
The control strategy involves the use of a recursive Bayesian
In this section we apply the estimation and control tech- filter to estimate the wind field, which is incorporated into an
nique developed in Section III to an autonomous ship landing input/output feedback linearization controller that includes
and to quadrotor proximity flight. aerodynamic effects on the vehicle such as blade flapping
and drag. The novelty of the approach is that we formulate
A. Autonomous Ship Landing the dynamics to incorporate the effects of blade flapping,
The task of landing autonomously onboard a moving ship aerodynamic drag, and induced thrust in translation and due
is made challenging by the separated flow that occurs on the to external wind fields. We treat each rotor individually, so
deck of the ship, which can cause the autonomous vehicle that the external wind can vary from rotor to rotor. We
to pitch and roll undesirably. The geometry of this situation show that the inclusion of the flow compensation in the
is shown in Figure 8(a). Air flows over the forward section controller design improves the quadrotors ability to perform
of the ship and then passes a sharp corner, where the flow simple control objectives. We illustrate the dynamic control
separates and produces a vortex in the rear section of the ship strategy in two applications: autonomous ship landing and
where the quadrotor seeks to land. We use the potential flow proximity flight. The inclusion of the aerodynamics in the
methodology from Section II-B to generate the flowfield. control scheme enables the stabilization of a quadrotor in
The flowfield parameters β are the speed of the prevailing the downwash of another quadrotor, even in the presence
wind and the location of the vortex to determine the mean of unknown turbulence. In addition to the ongoing work
(nonuniform) wind field. As detailed in Section II-B, we mentioned in the paper, we are exploring more accurate
add frozen Dryden turbulence to the mean wind field to methods for modeling the quadrotor downwash, including
simulate random eddies and flow fluctuations with a range of the effects of flow diffusion that occur downstream of the
frequencies from 1-10 rad/s and randomly generated phase rotor and for motions other than hover and climb.
shifts.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the simulation, the vehicle is commanded to go from
(x, y, z) = (4, 0, 2) to a landing location of (xd , yd , zd ) = This material is based upon work supported by the U. S.
(2, 0, 0). Figure 8 shows the controller performance. The Army under Grant No. W911W6112072.
colormap on the far right shows the estimation result for R EFERENCES
the wind speed. Observe that the vehicle converges to the
[1] A. Girard, A. Howell, and J. Hedrick. Border patrol and surveillance
desired landing location despite the unknown turbulence and mission using multiple unmanned air vehicles. In Proc. of the 43rd
the time it takes for the the parameter estimates to converge. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, pages 620–625, December 2004.
4 0.07
1
x
3.5 y 0.9
0.06
z
0.8
3
0.05
0.7
Position (m)
0.6
0.04
2 0.5
0.03
0.4
1.5
0.3
0.02
1
0.2
0.5 0.01
0.1
0 0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t (s) t (s)
Fig. 8: Simulation of an autonomous ship landing with unknown turbulence. (a) The vehicle trajectory in 3D; (b) vehicle trajectories vs. time; (c) probability
marginal for prevailing wind speed estimation.
1.5 6
x
1 y
5.5 0.1
z
0.5
5
0.08
0
4.5
Position (m)
vi (m/s)
−0.5
0.06
4
−1
3.5
0.04
−1.5
3
−2
0.02
2.5
−2.5
−3 2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t (s) t (s)
Fig. 9: Simulation of quadrotor proximity flight with unknown turbulence. (a) The vehicle trajectories in 3D with the shaded vehicle representing the
quadrotor with no flow compensation; (b) vehicle trajectories vs. time; (c) probability marginal for induced velocity estimation.
[2] J.T.K. Ping, A. E. Ling, T. J. Quan, and C. Y. Dat. Generic unmanned In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Experimental Robotics, June 2012.
aerial vehicle (UAV) for civilian application-a feasibility assessment [10] K. Alexis, G. Nikolakopoulos, and A. Tzes. Experimental model
and market survey on civilian application for aerial imaging. In predictive attitude tracking control of a quadrotor helicopter subject
2012 IEEE Conf. on Sustainable Utilization and Development in to wind-gusts. In 18th Mediterranean Conf. on Control Automation
Engineering and Technology, pages 289 –294, oct. 2012. (MED), 2010, pages 1461 –1466, June 2010.
[3] M. Belkheiri, A. Rabhi, A. E. Hajjaji, and C. Pegard. Different [11] K. Alexis, G. Nikolakopoulos, and A. Tzes. Constrained-control
linearization control techniques for a quadrotor system. In 2nd
of a quadrotor helicopter for trajectory tracking under wind-gust
Int. Conf. on Communications, Computing and Control Applications
disturbances. In MELECON 2010, pages 1411 –1416, April 2010.
(CCCA), 2012, pages 1 –6, Dec. 2012.
[12] H. K. Khalil. Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2002.
[4] B. Zhu and W. Huo. Trajectory linearization control for a quadrotor
helicopter. In 8th IEEE Int. Conf. on Control and Automation (ICCA), [13] A. Verhoff. Two-dimensional potential flow solutions with separation.
2010, pages 34 –39, June 2010. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 657:238–264, 2010.
[14] J. Seddon and S. Newman. Basic Helicopter Aerodynamics. AIAA,
[5] D. Mellinger and V. Kumar. Minimum snap trajectory generation and
3rd edition, 2011.
control for quadrotors. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), 2011, pages 2520 –2525, may 2011. [15] J. G. Leishman. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2000.
[6] A. Benallegue, A. Mokhtari, and L. Fridman. Feedback linearization
and high order sliding mode observer for a quadrotor UAV. In Int. [16] F. Hoblit. Gust Loads on Aircraft: Concepts and Applications. AIAA
Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, 2006. VSS’06., pages 365 Education Series, 1998.
–372, June 2006. [17] N.J. Gordon, D. J. Salmond, and A.F. Smith. Novel approach to
nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian state estimation. In Radar and
[7] E. de Vries and K. Subbarao. Backstepping based nested multi-loop
Signal Processing, volume 140, pages 107–113, 1993.
control laws for a quadrotor. In 11th Int. Conf. on Control Automation
Robotics Vision (ICARCV), 2010, pages 1911 –1916, Dec. 2010. [18] H. Huang, G. M. Hoffmann, S. L. Waslander., and C. J. Tomlin.
Aerodynamics and control of autonomous quadrotor helicopters in ag-
[8] G. Hoffmann, H. Huang, S. Waslander, and C. Tomlin. Quadrotor
gressive maneuvering. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation,
Helicopter Flight Dynamics and Control: Theory and Experiment.
2009. ICRA ’09., pages 3277 –3282, May 2009.
AIAA, 2007.
[19] J. Kasdin and D. Paley. Engineering Dynamics: A Comprehensive
[9] C. Powers, D. Mellinger, A. Kushleyev, B. Kothmann, and V. Kumar.
Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2011.
Influence of aerodynamics and proximity effects in quadrotor flight.