Fault-Tolerant Lyapunov-Gain-Scheduled PID Control of A Quadrotor UAV
Fault-Tolerant Lyapunov-Gain-Scheduled PID Control of A Quadrotor UAV
Fault-Tolerant Lyapunov-Gain-Scheduled PID Control of A Quadrotor UAV
Abstract: The work has done in this paper concern the passive fault tolerant control. Based on Gain-Adaptive
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) using the approach from the theory of Lyapunov and their application to the
model vertical flying drone Quadrotor type, the PID controller with fixed parameters may fail to provide acceptable
control performance. To improve the PID control effect, new designs of the Lyapunov gain Scheduled PID controller
(LGSPID) were presented in this paper. The proposed techniques were applied to the Quadrotor, where adaptive PID
controllers were proposed for fault-tolerant control system in the presence of actuator faults. The parameters of PID
controller were adjusted by an adaptation algorithm gradient type, used to tune in real-time the controller gain, the
proposed adaptive PID controller was compared with the conventional PID. The obtained results confirm the
effectiveness of the proposed method.
Keywords: Adaptation algorithm gradient type; Gain-adaptive PID; LGSPID; Quadrotor model; PID control.
0
(7)
s 0 1 Where:
d
) e(t ), 0
n 1
s 2 c s 2 c s s c c 2 c c
2 2
s (t ) ( (15)
dt
J I s s c c 2 c s 2
xx
0
(8)
c 0 0 where: e(t ) yd (t ) y (t ) .
Choose the Lyapunov function:
C 1,1
C1, 2 C1, 3 0
1
C I xx ( c s 2 s c s c )
2
V s2 (16)
2 ,1
2
I xx s c s
C 2, 2
The derivative of (10) along paths (9) is bounded
C 2,3
I xx c (9) by:
I xx ( c s 2 c c 2 )
2
C V s
2
3,1 (17)
C I xx ( c c 2 s 2 )
3, 2 The derivative of the filtered error can be
C 3, 3
0 written as [24]
Y position (m)
It is assumed that a loss of control effectiveness 1.5 1.5
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
yaw ange (rad)
Z position (m)
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1 PID control
PID control
Desired 0.5 Desired
0.5
LGS-PID control LGS-PID control
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Time (s) Time (s)
0.1
0.1
PID control PID control
Figure 2 Synoptic scheme of the proposed control 0.05
LGS-PID control 0.08 LGS-PID control
pitch angle (rad)
strategy 0.06
0 0.04
Table 2 Synthesis parameters of the proposed
controller -0.05
0.02
0
Definition Parameter Value
-0.1 -0.02
PID (φ) Kp =4.5, Ki =1.5, Kd 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Kp, Ki, Kd
angle =1.5 Time (s) Time (s)
PID (θ) Kp =3.5, Ki =0.5, Kd Figure 3 Comparison between PID control and
Kp, Ki, Kd LGS-PID control
angle =2
α=20, ε=0.001, β=10,
Kp
υ=3, λ=5
LGS-PID α=10, ε=0.001, β=20,
Ki
Z position υ=4, λ=20
α=18, ε=0.001, β=2,
Kd
υ=0.5, λ=1
LGS-PID Kp α=22, ε=0.001, β=12,
U2 (N.m)
8
U4 (N.m)
3
2 2
1 5. Conclusion
0
0
-1 In this paper, we presented the Fault-Tolerant
-2
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Lyapunov-Gain-Scheduled PID Control of the full
Time (s) Time (s)
Quadrotor helicopter in the presence of the fault.
Figure 4 Commands u1, u2, u3 and u4 of PID control Firstly, we started by the development of the dy-
and LGS-PID control namic model of the Quadrotor taking into account
the different physics phenomena, after we are in-
100
60
15 terested in proposing the FTC controller based on
Kd gain of X position
Ki gain of X position
80
40
10
60
20 that the presented FTC had a satisfactory tracking
40 0 5
performance and was robust to the external dis-
20 -20 turbances.
0 -40 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
References
60 15
Ki gain of Y position
150
40
10 fault-tolerant control scheme for non-linear
100 20
discrete- time systems: Application to the
50 0
5 twin-rotor system”, In: Conf. Rec. 2010 IEEE Int.
-20
Conf. Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems (SysTol),
0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
0
0 20 40 60 80 pp.861–866, 2010.
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
100 150 16
[2] Ł.Dziekan, M.vWitczak and J. Korbicz, “Active
fault-tolerant control design for Takagi-Sugeno
Kd gain of Z position
Kp gain of Z position
Ki gain of Z position
80 14
100 fuzzy systems”, Bulletin of the polish academy of
60
50
12
sciences technical sciences, Vol.59, No.1, 2011.
40 10
0
[3] J. Chen, R. Patton and Z. Chen, “An LMI approach
20 8
to fault tolerant control of uncertain systems”, In:
0
0 20 40 60 80
-50
0 20 40 60 80
6
0 20 40 60 80 Conf. Rec. 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. Decision and
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Control, pp.175–180, 1998.
60 3.5
50
3 [4] Z. Qu, C. Ihlefeld, J. Yufang and A. Saengdeejing,
“Robust fault-tolerant self-recovering control of
Kp gain of roll angle
40 40 2.5
30 2
non-linear uncertain systems”, Automatica. Vol.39,
20 1.5
20
1
pp.1763–1771, 2003.
10
0 0.5
0
0
[5] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, “Optimum settings
-10
0 20 40 60 80
-20
0 20 40 60 80
-0.5
0 20 40 60 80
for automatic controllers”, ASME Trans. Vol.64, pp.
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) 759–768, 1942.
Figure 5 Gains Kp, Ki and Kd of LGS-PID control [6] T. C. T. Ng, F. H. F. Leung and P. K. S. Tam, “A
simple gain scheduled PID controller with stability
The time evolutions of the LGS-PID gains are consideration based on a grid-point concept”, In:
illustrated in Figure 5. Unlike those of the PID Conf. Rec. 1997 IEEE Int. Conf. Industrial Elec-