Appendix

Fundamentals of Backstepping Control

This Appendix provides the fundamentals of the recursive backstepping control

method. The presented material is a summary of more detailed descriptions that may
be found in [43, 49]. Lyapunov-based controller design may be systematically tack-
led by a recursive design procedure called backstepping. Backstepping is suitable
for strict-feedback systems that are also known as “lower triangular”. An example
of a strict-feedback systems is:

ξ̇1 = f1 (ξ1 ) + g1 (ξ1 )ξ2

ξ̇2 = f2 (ξ1 , ξ2 ) + g2 (ξ1 , ξ2 )ξ3
..
. (A.1)
ξ̇r−1 = fr−1 (ξ1 , ξ2 , . . . , ξr−1 ) + gr−1 (ξ1 , ξ2 , . . . , ξr−1 )ξr
ξ̇r = fr (ξ1 , ξ2 , . . . , ξr ) + gr (ξ1 , ξ2 , . . . , ξr )u

where ξ1 , . . . , ξr ∈ R, u ∈ R is the control input and fi , gi for i = 1, . . . , r are

known functions. A typical feedback linearization approach in most cases leads to
cancellation of useful nonlinearities. The backstepping design exhibits more flexi-
bility compared to feedback linearization since it does not require that the resulting
input–output dynamics be linear. Cancellation of potentially useful nonlinearities
can be avoided resulting in less complex controllers. The main idea is to use some
of the state variables of (A.1) as “virtual controls” or “pseudo controls”, and de-
pending on the dynamics of each state, design intermediate control laws. The back-
stepping design is a recursive procedure where a Lyapunov function is derived for
the entire system. The recursive procedure can be easily expanded from the nominal
case of a system augmented by an integrator. This is also referred to as integra-
tor backstepping. Based on the design principles of the integrator backstepping, the
control design can be easily expanded for the case of strict-feedback systems given
by (A.1).
I.A. Raptis, K.P. Valavanis, Linear and Nonlinear Control of Small-Scale Unmanned 185
Helicopters, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering 45,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0023-9, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
186 A Fundamentals of Backstepping Control

A.1 Integrator Backstepping

The baseline design of the recursive procedure is the integrator backstepping. Con-
sider the system:

η̇ = f (η) + g(η)σ (A.2)

σ̇ = u (A.3)
where [η σ ]T ∈ Rn+1 is the state vector and u ∈ R is the control input. The ob-
jective is to design a state feedback control law such that η, σ → 0 as t → ∞. It
is assumed that both f and g are known. This system can be viewed as a cascade
connection of two subsystems. The first subsystem is (A.2) with σ as input and the
second subsystem is the integrator (A.3). The main design idea is to treat σ as a
virtual control input for the stabilization of η. Assume that there exists a smooth
state feedback control law σ = φ(η), with φ(0) = 0, such that the origin of:
η̇ = f (η) + g(η)φ(η) (A.4)
is asymptotically stable. Consider that for the choice of φ(η) a Lyapunov function
V (η) is known such that:
∂V
[f (η) + g(η)φ(η)] ≤ −W (η), ∀η ∈ Rn (A.5)
∂η
where W (η) is positive definite. By adding and subtracting g(η)φ(η) on the right
hand side of (A.2), one has:

η̇ = f (η) + g(η)φ(η) + g(η)[σ − φ(η)] (A.6)

σ̇ = u (A.7)
Denote by eσ the error between the state σ and the pseudo control φ(η), that is:
eσ = σ − φ(η) (A.8)
Writing the initial system in the (η, eσ ) coordinates, one has:

η̇ = [f (η) + g(η)φ(η)] + g(η)eσ (A.9)

ėσ = u − φ̇(η) (A.10)
Since f , g and φ are known, one of the advantages of the backstepping design is that
it does not require a differentiator. In particular, the derivative φ̇ can be computed
by using the expression:
∂φ
φ̇ = [f (η) + g(η)σ ] (A.11)
∂η
Setting u = v + φ̇, where v ∈ R is a nominal control input, the transformed system
takes the form:

η̇ = [f (η) + g(η)φ(η)] + g(η)eσ (A.12)

ėσ = v (A.13)
A.2 Example of a Recursive Backstepping Design 187

which is similar to the initial system, except that now the first component has an
asymptotically stable origin when the input is zero. Using this procedure, the pseudo
control φ(η) has been “back stepped” through the integrator from u = v + φ(η). The
knowledge of V (η) is exploited in the design of v for the stabilization of the overall
system. Using:
1
Vc (η, σ ) = V (η) + eσ2 (A.14)
2
as a Lyapunov function candidate, one obtains:
∂V ∂V
V̇c = [f (η) + g(η)φ(η)] + g(η)eσ + eσ v
∂η ∂η
∂V
≤ −W (η) + g(η)eσ + eσ v (A.15)
∂η
The control input v is chosen as:
∂V
v=− g(η) − keσ , k > 0 (A.16)
∂η
Substituting the above choice of v to (A.15), one has:
V̇c ≤ −W (η) − keσ2 (A.17)
which shows that the origin (η = 0, eσ = 0) is asymptotically stable. Since φ(0) =
0, and eσ → 0 as t → ∞; then, the, origin (η = 0, σ = 0) is asymptotically stable
as well. Substituting for v, eσ , and φ̇, the final form of the control law is:
∂φ ∂V
u= [f (η) + g(η)σ ] − g(η) − k[σ − φ(η)] (A.18)
∂η ∂η

A.2 Example of a Recursive Backstepping Design

This Section illustrates the implementation of the backstepping methodology to a
strict feedback system of high order. The construction of the controller for high or-
der systems is based on the recursive implementation of the integrator backstepping
methodology. An illustration of the backstepping procedure based on the generic
formulation of the strict feedback systems given in (A.1), would result in the deriva-
tion of tedious recursive formulas which are difficult to follow. In this Section, a sim-
ple third order strict feedback system is used instead. This approach provides a better
insight to the key features and potentials of the backstepping design. Consider the
following system:
ξ̇1 = f1 (ξ1 ) + ξ2
ξ̇2 = f2 (ξ2 ) + ξ3 (A.19)
ξ̇3 = u
where ξi ∈ R for i = 1, 2, 3 are the system states, u ∈ R is the control input and
fi (ξi ) : R → R are known functions. The objective is to design a state feedback
188 A Fundamentals of Backstepping Control

control law such that ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 → 0 as t → 0. Similarly to the integrator backstep-

ping case, the idea is to use the state variable ξ2 as an input for the stabilization
of ξ1 . Consider the Lyapunov function V1 = 12 ξ12 . The derivative of V1 along the
trajectory of ξ1 is computed as:
V̇1 = ξ1 (f1 (ξ1 ) + ξ2 ) (A.20)
The objective of this step is to find a control law φ2 (ξ1 ) with φ2 (0) = 0, such that
when ξ2 = φ2 (ξ1 ) then V̇1 (ξ1 ) ≤ −W1 (ξ1 ) where W1 is a positive definite function
for every ξ1 ∈ R. An obvious choice would be to remove the effect of the function
f1 (ξ1 ) and inject a stabilizing feedback term. Thus, we pick:
φ2 (ξ1 ) = −f1 (ξ1 ) − κ1 ξ1 (A.21)
where k1 is a positive gain. This choice yields V̇1 ≤ −k1 ξ12 . Denote the error e2 =
ξ2 − φ2 (ξ1 ). Using the new coordinate e2 the system given in (A.19) can be written
as:

ξ̇1 = −k1 ξ1 + e2
ė2 = −φ̇2 (ξ1 ) + f2 (ξ1 , e2 ) + ξ3 (A.22)
ξ̇3 = u
Similarly to Sect. A.1, the implementation of the derivative φ2 (ξ1 ) does not require
a differentiator since:
∂φ2
φ̇2 = [f1 (ξ1 ) + ξ2 ] (A.23)
∂ξ1
Let V2 (ξ1 , e2 ) = 12 ξ1 + 12 e22 . The goal of the second design step is to determine a
pseudo control φ3 (ξ1 , e2 ) with φ3 (0, 0) = 0 such that when ξ3 = φ3 (ξ1 , e2 ) then
V̇2 (ξ1 , e2 ) ≤ −W2 (ξ1 , e2 ) where W2 is a positive definite function for every ξ1 , e2 .
Consequently, the derivative of V2 along the solutions of ξ1 , e2 is:
V˙2 = −k1 ξ12 + e2 (ξ1 − φ̇2 (ξ1 ) + f2 (ξ1 , e2 ) + φ3 (ξ1 , e2 )) (A.24)
An obvious choice would be:
φ3 (ξ1 , e2 ) = −ξ1 + φ̇2 (ξ1 ) − f2 (ξ1 , e2 ) − k2 e2 (A.25)
where k2 is a positive constant. In this case V̇2 = −k1 ξ12 − k2 e22 . Using the change
of variables e3 = ξ3 − φ3 (ξ1 , e2 ) the system dynamics become:

ξ̇1 = −k1 ξ1 + e2
ė2 = −ξ1 − k2 e2 + e3 (A.26)
ė3 = −φ̇3 (ξ1 , e2 ) + u
Similarly to φ̇2 , the computation of φ̇3 does not require a differentiator. Using V3 =
V2 + 12 e32 as a candidate Lyapunov function one has:

V̇3 = −k1 ξ12 − k2 e22 + e3 (e2 − φ̇3 (ξ1 , e2 ) + u) (A.27)

A.2 Example of a Recursive Backstepping Design 189

The choice of u is:

u = −e2 + φ̇3 (ξ1 , e2 ) − k3 e3 (A.28)
where k3 is a positive constant. This choice yields:
V̇3 = −k1 e12 − k2 e22 − k3 e32 (A.29)
therefore the origin of the error system is globally asymptotically stable. Since
φ2 (0), φ3 (0, 0) = 0 then ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 → 0 as t → ∞. The final system dynamics have
the form:
    
ξ̇1 −k1 1 0 ξ1
ė1 = −1 −k2 1 e2 (A.30)
ė2 0 −1 −k3 e3
As indicated by [49], an important structural property of the above system is that the
system matrix is composed by the sum of a negative diagonal and a skew-symmetric
matrix. This is a typical structural pattern when the backstepping design is based on
a sequential construction of Lyapunov functions. The key feature of the backstep-
ping methodology is the fact that it provides significant design freedom. The choice
of the pseudo controls φ2 , φ3 and the control input u is not unique. For example, we
could have picked:

φ2 (ξ1 ) = −f1 (ξ1 ) − κ1 ξ1

φ3 (ξ1 , e2 ) = φ̇2 (ξ1 ) − f2 (ξ2 ) − k2 e2
u = φ̇3 (ξ1 , e2 ) − k3 e3
resulting to the system:
    
ξ̇1 −k1 1 0 ξ1
ė1 = 0 −k2 1 e2 (A.31)
ė2 0 0 −k3 e3
which is obviously asymptotically stable. Thus, the stabilization of the same sys-
tem can be achieved with a much more simpler design. This potential constitutes
the backstepping methodology as a powerful design tool for the development of
simplistic controllers for nonlinear systems.
References

1. P.P. Angelov, D.P. Filev, An approach to online identification of Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy mod-
els. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 34, 484–498
(2004)
2. N. Antequera, M. Santos, J.M. De la Cruz, A helicopter control based on eigenstructure
assignment, in IEEE Conference Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, 2006
3. J.S. Bay, Linear State Space Systems (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999)
4. M. Bejar, A. Isidori, L. Marconi, R. Naldi, Robust vertical/lateral/longitudinal control of a
helicopter with constant yaw-attitude, in 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
and 2005 European Control Conference, CDC-ECC, 2005
5. J.S. Bendat, A.J. Piersol, Random Data: Analysis & Measurement Procedures (Wiley–
Interscience, New York, 1971)
6. P. Bendotti, J.C. Morris, Robust hover control for a model helicopter, in Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, 1995
7. A.R.S. Bramwell, G. Done, D. Balmford, Bramwell’s Helicopter Dynamics (Butterworth
Heinemann, Stoneham, 2001)
8. A. Budiyonoa, S.S. Wibowob, Optimal tracking controller design for a small scale helicopter.
Journal of Bionic Engineering 4(4), 271–280 (2007)
9. C.I. Byrnes, F.D. Priscoli, A. Isidori (eds.), Output regulation of uncertain nonlinear systems
(Birkhäuser, Basel, 1997)
10. G. Cai, B.M. Chen, K. Peng, M. Dong, T.H. Lee, Modeling and control system design for a
UAV helicopter, in 14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, 2006
11. P. Castillo, R. Lozano, A.E. Dzul, Modelling and Control of Mini-Flying Machines (Springer,
Berlin, 2005)
12. P.C. Chandrasekharan, Robust Control of Linear Dynamical Systems (Academic Press, San
Diego, 1996)
13. R. Chen, Effects of primary rotor parameters on flapping dynamics, Technical report, TP-
1431, NASA, 1980
14. A.J. Prasad, J.V.R. Corban, J.E. Calise, Implementation of adaptive nonlinear control for
flight test on an unmanned helicopter, in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Deci-
sion and Control, vol. 4, December 1998, pp. 3641–3646
15. J.E. Corban, A.J. Calise, J.V.R. Prasad, J. Hur, N. Kim, Flight evaluation of adaptive high-
bandwidth control methods for unmanned helicopters, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, 2003
16. J.J. Craig, Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control (Prentice Hall, New York, 2004)
17. J.C. Doyle, B.A. Francis, A. Tannenbaum, Feedback Control Theory (Macmillan, New York,
1992)

I.A. Raptis, K.P. Valavanis, Linear and Nonlinear Control of Small-Scale Unmanned 191
Helicopters, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering 45,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0023-9, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
192 References

18. M.E. Dreier, Introduction to Helicopter and Tiltrotor Flight Simulation. AIAA Education
Series (AIAA, Washington, 2007)
19. D. Ernst, K. Valavanis, J. Craighead, Automated process for unmanned aerial systems con-
troller implementation using MATLAB, in 14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and
Automation, 2006, MED ’06, 2006
20. B. Etkin, Dynamics of Flight: Stability and Control (Wiley, New York, 1959)
21. I. Fantoni, R. Lozano, Nonlinear Control for Underactuated Mechanical Systems (Springer,
New York, 2001)
22. M. Fliess, J. Levine, P. Martin, P. Rouchon, Flatness and defect of nonlinear systems: Intro-
ductory theory and applications. International Journal of Control 61, 1327–1361 (1995)
23. G.F. Franklin, J.D. Powell, A. Emami-Naeini, Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems (Pren-
tice Hall, New York, 2002)
24. E. Frazzoli, M.A. Dahleh, E. Feron, Trajectory tracking control design for autonomous heli-
copters using a backstepping algorithm, in Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
vol. 6, 2000, pp. 4102–4107
25. D. Fujiwara, J. Shin, K. Hazawa, K. Nonami, H∞ hovering and guidance control for an
autonomous small-scale unmanned helicopter, in International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, 2004
26. J. Gadewadikar, F. Lewis, K. Subbarao, B. Chen, H∞ static output-feedback control for
rotorcraft. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 54, 629–646 (2008)
27. J. Gadewadikar, F. Lewis, K. Subbarao, B. Chen, Structured H∞ command and control-loop
design for unmanned helicopters. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 31, 1093–
1102 (2008)
28. J. Gadewadikar, F.L. Lewis, K. Subbarao, K. Peng, B.M. Chen, H∞ static output-feedback
control for rotorcraft, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit,
2006
29. V. Gavrilets, B. Mettler, E. Feron, Dynamical model for a miniature aerobatic helicopter,
Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001
30. V. Gavrilets, B. Mettler, E. Feron, Nonlinear model for a small-size acrobatic helicopter, in
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2001
31. D.T. Greenwood, Principles of Dynamics (Prentice Hall, New York, 1965)
32. N. Guenard, T. Hamel, V. Moreau, Dynamic modeling and intuitive control strategy for an
“X4-flyer”, in International Conference on Control and Automation, 2005, pp. 141–146
33. T. Hamel, R. Mahony, R. Lozano, J. Ostrowski, Dynamic modeling and configuration stabi-
lization for an X4-flyer, in 15th Triennial World Congress of IFAC, 2002
34. N. Hovakimyan, N. Kim, A.J. Calise, J.V.R. Prasad, N. Corban, Adaptive output feedback
for high-bandwidth control of an unmanned helicopter, in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, 2001
35. I.I. Hussein, M. Leok, A.K. Sanyal, A.M. Bloch, A discrete variational integrator for optimal
control problems on SO(3), in 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2006
36. A. Isidori, L. Marconi, A. Serrani, Robust Autonomous Guidance (Springer, Berlin, 2003)
37. A. Isidori, L. Marconi, A. Serrani, Robust nonlinear motion control of a helicopter. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 48, 413–426 (2003)
38. E.N. Johnson, S.K. Kannan, Adaptive flight control for an autonomous unmanned helicopter,
in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, 2002
39. E.N. Johnson, S.K. Kannan, Adaptive trajectory control for autonomous helicopters. Journal
of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 28, 524–538 (2005)
40. W. Johnson, Helicopter Theory (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980)
41. R.E. Kalman, R.S. Bucy, New results in linear filtering and prediction theory. Journal of
Basic Engineering 83, 95–108 (1961)
42. F. Kendoul, D. Lara, I. Fantoni-Coichot, R. Lozano, Real-time nonlinear embedded control
for an autonomous quadrotor helicopter. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 30,
1049–1061 (2007)
43. H.K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems (Prentice Hall, New York, 2002)
References 193

44. H.J. Kim, D.H. Shim, A flight control system for aerial robots: algorithms and experiments.
Control Engineering Practice 11, 1389–1400 (2003)
45. N. Kim, A.J. Calise, N. Hovakimyan, J.V.R. Prasad, E. Corban, Adaptive output feedback
for high-bandwidth flight control. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 25, 993–1002
(2002)
46. V. Klein, E.A. Moreli, Aircraft System Identification Theory and Practice, AIAA Education
Series (AIAA, Washington, 2006)
47. T.J. Koo, S. Sastry, Output tracking control design of a helicopter model based on approx-
imate linearization, in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
vol. 4, 1998, pp. 3635–3640
48. T.J. Koo, S. Sastry, Differential flatness based full authority helicopter control design, in
Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1999
49. M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, P.V. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design
(Wiley–Interscience, New York, 1995)
50. R. Kureemun, D.J. Walker, B. Manimala, M. Voskuijl, Helicopter flight control law design
using H∞ techniques, in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2005
51. M. La Civita, Integrated modeling and robust control for full envelope flight of robotic heli-
copters, PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002
52. M. La Civita, W.C. Messner, T. Kanade, Modeling of small-scale helicopters with integrated
first-principles and system identification techniques, in Proceedings of the 58th Forum of the
American Helicopter Society, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 2505–2516
53. M. La Civita, G. Papageorgiou, W. Messner, T. Kanade, Design and flight testing of a high-
bandwidth H∞ loop shaping controller for a robotic helicopter, in AIAA Guidance, Naviga-
tion, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2002
54. M. La Civita, G. Papageorgiou, W.C. Messner, T. Kanade, Integrated modeling and robust
control for full-envelope flight of robotic helicopters, in Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2003, pp. 552–557
55. M. La Civita, G. Papageorgiou, W.C. Messner, T. Kanade, Design and flight testing of an
H∞ controller for a robotic helicopter. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 485–
494 (2006)
56. E.H. Lee, H. Shim, L. Park, K. Lee, Design of hovering attitude controller for a model heli-
copter, in Proceedings of Society of Instrument and Control Engineers, 1993, pp. 1385–1390
57. T. Lee, N.H. McClamroch, M. Leok, Optimal control of a rigid body using geometrically
exact computations on SE(3), in 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2006
58. J.G. Leishman, Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 2000)
59. W. Levine, M. Athans, On the determination of the optimal constant output feedback gains
for linear multivariable systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 15, 44–48 (1970)
60. F.L. Lewis, V.L. Syrmos, Optimal Control (Wiley–Interscience, New York, 1995)
61. L. Ljung, System Identification (Prentice Hall, New York, 1987)
62. L. Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User (Prentice Hall, New York, 1999)
63. A. Loria, E. Panteley, Advanced Topics in Control Systems Theory: Lecture Notes from FAP
2004, chapter 2 (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 23–64
64. R. Mahony, T. Hamel, Robust trajectory tracking for a scale model autonomous helicopter.
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 14(12), 1035–1059 (2004)
65. R. Mahony, T. Hamel, A. Dzul, Hover control via Lyapunov control for an autonomous
model helicopter, in Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
vol. 4, 1999, pp. 3490–3495
66. L. Marconi, R. Naldi, Robust full degree-of-freedom tracking control of a helicopter. Auto-
matica 43, 1909–1920 (2007)
67. L. Marconi, R. Naldi, Aggressive control of helicopters in presence of parametric and dy-
namical uncertainties. Mechatronics 1, 381–389 (2008)
68. D. McFarlane, K. Glover, A loop-shaping design procedure using H∞ synthesis. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 37, 759–769 (1992)
194 References

69. J.M. Mendel, Lessons in estimation theory for signal processing, communications, and con-
trol (Prentice Hall PTR, New York, 1995)
70. B. Mettler, Identification Modeling and Characteristics of Miniature Rotorcraft (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, 2003)
71. B. Mettler, T. Kanade, M.B. Tischler, System identification modeling of a model-scale heli-
copter, Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000
72. B. Mettler, M.B. Tischler, T. Kanade, System identification of small-size unmanned heli-
copter dynamics, in Presented at the American Helicopter Society 55th Forum, May 1999
73. S.K. Mitra, Digital Signal Processing: A Computer-Based Approach (McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2006)
74. A. Moerder, D. Calise, Convergence of a numerical algorithm for calculating optimal output
feedback gains. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 30(9), 900–903 (1985)
75. R.M. Murray, L. Zexiang, S. Sastry, A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation
(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1994)
76. A.V. Oppenheim, R.W. Shafer, J.R. Buck, Discrete-Time Signal Processing (Prentice Hall,
New York, 1999)
77. A.V. Oppenheim, A.S. Willsky, I.T. Young, Signals and Systems (Prentice Hall, New York,
1983)
78. H. Ozbay, Introduction to Feedback Control Theory (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999)
79. G.D. Padfield, Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying Qualities
and Simulation Modeling, AIAA Education Series (Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1996)
80. G. Papageorgiou, K. Glover, H∞ loop-shaping: Why is it a sensible procedure for designing
robust flight controllers, in AIAA Conference on Guidance, Navigation and Control, 1999
81. K.M. Passino, S. Yurkovich, Fuzzy Control (Prentice Hall, New York, 1998)
82. S. Pieper, J.K. Baillie, K.R. Goheen, Linear-quadratic optimal model-following control of a
helicopter in hover, in American Control Conference, 1994
83. E. Prempain, I. Postlethwaite, Static H∞ loop shaping control of a fly-by-wire helicopter.
Automatica 41, 1517–1528 (2005)
84. R.W. Prouty, Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control (Krieger Publishing Company,
Melbourne, 1995)
85. I.A. Raptis, K.P. Valavanis, A. Kandel, W.A. Moreno, System identification for a miniature
helicopter at hover using fuzzy models. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 56, 345–
362 (2009)
86. E. Seckel, Stability and Control of Airplanes and Helicopters (Academic Press, San Diego,
1964)
87. J.S. Shamma, M. Athans, Analysis of gain scheduled control for nonlinear plants. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 35, 898–907 (1990)
88. H. Shim, T.J. Koo, F. Hoffmann, S. Sastry, A comprehensive study of control design for
an autonomous helicopter, in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, vol. 4, 1998, pp. 3653–3658
89. H.D. Shim, H.J. Kim, S. Sastry, Control system design for rotorcraft-based unmanned aerial
vehicles using time-domain system identification, in Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Control Applications, 2000, pp. 808–813
90. J. Shin, K. Nonami, D. Fujiwara, K. Hazawa, Model-based optimal attitude and positioning
control of small-scale unmanned helicopter. Robotica 23, 51–63 (2005)
91. H. Sira-Ramirez, M. Zribi, S. Ahmad, Dynamical sliding mode control approach for vertical
flight regulation in helicopters, Control Theory and Applications 141, 19–24 (1994)
92. S. Skogestad, I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control (Wiley, New York, 1996)
93. T. Soderstrom, P. Stoica, System Identification (Prentice Hall, New York, 1989)
94. E.D. Sontag, Remarks on stabilization and input-to-state stability, in Proceedings of the 28th
IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, 1989, pp. 1376–1378
95. M.W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, M. Vidyasagar, Robot Modeling and Control (Wiley, New York,
2005)
96. J.T. Spooner, K.M. Passino, Stable adaptive control using fuzzy systems and neural networks.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 4, 339–359 (1996)
References 195

97. X.D. Sun, T. Clarke, Application of hybrid μ/H∞ control to modern helicopters, in Interna-
tional Conference on Control, 1994
98. H.J. Sussmann, P.V. Kokotovic, The peaking phenomenon and the global stabilization of
nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 36, 424–440 (1991)
99. V.L. Syrmos, C. Abdallah, P. Dorato, Static output feedback: A survey, in 33rd Conference
on Decision and Control, 1994
100. V.L. Syrmos, C. Abdallah, P. Dorato, K. Grigoriadis, Static output feedback: A survey, Tech-
nical report, University of New Mexico, 1995
101. T. Takagi, M. Sugeno, Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and
control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 15, 116–132 (1985)
102. A.R. Teel, Global stabilization and restricted tracking for multiple integrators with bounded
controls. Systems & Control Letters 18, 165–171 (1992)
103. A.R. Teel, Using saturation to stabilize a class of single-input partially linear composite sys-
tems, in IFAC NOLCOS’92 Symposium, 1992, pp. 379–384
104. M.B. Tischler, M.G. Cauffman, Frequency-response method for rotorcraft system identifica-
tion: Flight applications to BO-105 coupled fuselage/rotor dynamics. Journal of the Ameri-
can Helicopter Society 3, 3–17 (1992)
105. M.B. Tischler, R.K. Remple, Aircraft and Rotorcraft System Identification, AIAA Education
Series (AIAA, Washington, 2006)
106. K.P. Valavanis (ed.), Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles State of the Art and the Road to
Autonomy, Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol. 33
(Springer, Berlin, 2007)
107. M.J. Van Nieuwstadt, Trajectory generation for nonlinear control systems, PhD thesis, Cali-
fornia Institute of Technology, 1997
108. D.J. Walker, I. Postlethwaite, Advanced helicopter flight control using two-degree-of-
freedom H∞ optimization. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 19, 461–468 (1996)
109. M.F. Weilenmann, U. Christen, H.P. Geering, Robust helicopter position control at hover, in
American Control Conference, 1999
110. M.F. Weilenmann, P. Hans, A test bench for rotorcraft hover control, in AIAA Guidance,
Navigation and Control Conference, 1993, pp. 1371–1382
111. J.H. Williams, Fundamentals of Applied Dynamics (Wiley, New York, 1996)
112. J. Zhao, I. Kanellakopoulos, Adaptive control of discrete-time strict-feedback nonlinear sys-
tems. Proceedings of the American Control Conference 1, 828–832 (1997)
113. K. Zhou, J.C. Doyle, K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control (Prentice Hall, New York,
1996)