Back-stepping Control Strategy for Stabilization

of a Tilt-rotor UAV
Arindam Bhanja Chowdhury, Anil Kulhare and Gaurav Raina

Abstract—In today’s world, the study and applications of

Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) capable Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have increased vastly. A wide variety of
UAVs are currently being employed in both civilian and military
sectors. In this paper, our focus will be on the Tilt-rotor UAV.
The Tilt-rotor has a rotor on each side of its airframe, tilted
to provide both lift and forward thrust to the rotor-craft. We
develop a model that aims to enable the Tilt-rotor UAV to hover
in one specific position. Because of the under-actuated property
of the Tilt-rotor, we design a back-stepping based proportional-
derivative (PD) controller. The controller was able to achieve the
desired objective of stabilization.
Index Terms—tilt-rotor, Lagrangian, back-stepping PD con-
troller.

I. I NTRODUCTION
HERE are various places where, owing to dangerous or
T onerous conditions, UAVs have to replace humans. The
main uses of UAVs are surveillance and reconnaissance.
There are several types of UAV which are developed to
reach the above requirements, like fixed-wing UAV, flapping-
wing UAV and Quad-rotor UAV. Each of these has its own
merits and demerits. Our focus is to develop a UAV which
can take-off and land vertically as well as reach the disaster
site quickly. Hence a Tilt-rotor UAV is an excellent choice.
The Tilt-rotor has two rotors mounted on the two sides of its
airframe, which can be tilted to provide lift and forward thrust.
Some examples of Tilt-rotor aircraft are the Arizona State
University’s HARVee [1], Compigne University’s BIROTAN
[4], large scale versions like Boeing’s V22 Osprey [2] and
Bell’s Eagle Eye [1].
One clear advantage of the Tilt-rotor, with respect to other
multi-rotors, is that it requires only two motors, allowing a
reduction in weight, volume and energy consumption. More-
over, with the help of two rotors it can move faster than a
fixed-wing airplane. The two rotors (rotor 1 and 2 as shown in
Figure 1) rotate in opposite directions, canceling the reaction
torque which is generated due to their motion, and this keeps
the UAV stable.
The control aspects of a Tilt-rotor include altitude control,
forward motion and pitch control, lateral motion and roll
control and, yaw control. Altitude control is achieved by
varying the speed of both rotors simultaneously. Changing the
{Arindam Bhanja Chowdhury, Anil Kulhare} are with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600
036, India
{bhanja.abc.ind19, hereanil} @gmail.com
Gaurav Raina is with the faculty of the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India
gaurav@ee.iitm.ac.in
Figure 1. Tilt rotor showing the motor thrust and tilt angles of the two rotors
with reference and body frames [4].
speed of the rotors leads to roll control. Increasing the speed of
the right rotor (rotor 2) and decreasing the speed of left rotor
(rotor 1) will cause the UAV to left-roll and to move towards
the left. Doing the opposite will have the reverse effect. For
pitch control the rotors are tilted to the front simultaneously,
which also provides forward motion. Yaw is controlled by
changing the tilt angles αR and αL of the right and left rotors
in opposite directions.
In [5] the control strategy used for a Quad-Tilt-rotor in-
volves a Linear-Quadratic-Regulator (LQR) concept, where
the system model has been linearized about some operating
point. In this way a storage function is developed so that
the error between the desired and actual values of the states
goes to zero in finite time. But the linearized model assumes
that the system stays near the operating point, which may not
always be the case. In [4], the stabilization of the Tilt-rotor is
achieved by a non-linear control strategy, but its control law
design involves nested saturations. The control law we will
use here is also a non-linear one, but is much simpler to use,
and also does not involve linearization, thereby removing the
assumption considered in [5].
In [5] a back-stepping based Proportional-Integral-
Derivative (PID) strategy is used for a Quad-rotor, while
disregarding the constraint that the value of the expression
inside the parenthesis of sin−1 in equation (25) cannot go
beyond ±1. Under such circumstances the expression of φd
will become undefined. But this will not arise in our proposed

978-1-4577-2074-1/12/$26.00 2012
c IEEE 3475
controller. There is no translational force in the yb direction. So the
We use the Euler-Lagrange approach to develop the model body force vector (Fb ) is given as
of the Tilt-rotor UAV [6]. A back-stepping based Proportional-
Derivative (PD) control law is implemented to restore the Fb = [Fxb , 0, Fzb ]T (4)
system when disturbed from its desired hovering position. We
Torques applied to the body expressed in the E-frame for
have constructed a Lyapunov function to show that the error
changing φ, θ, ψ are given by τφ , τθ , τψ respectively. Their
in roll, pitch and yaw decreases monotonically.
expressions are
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
we outline the mathematical model of the Tilt-rotor aircraft. ⎡⎤ ⎡ ⎤
In Section III, we deal with the control law design. In Section τφ [fL cos(αL ) − fR cos(αR )]l
IV, we perform simulations which shows how the system τ = ⎣ τθ ⎦ = ⎣ [fL sin(αL ) + fR sin(αR )]h ⎦ ,
returns to its desired position when disturbed. In Section V, τψ [fL sin(αL ) − fR sin(αR )]l
we summarize our work. (5)
where l is the distance of each rotor from point O, and h is
II. M ATHEMATICAL M ODELING the vertical distance of the COG from O, as shown in Figure
1.
The dynamic model of the Tilt-rotor is derived using
the energy-based Euler-Lagrange approach. The modeling
involves two right-handed reference frames. We consider the C. Equations of motion
inertial frame (E-frame), represented by the variables x, y, The translational kinetic energy of the system is given as
z, and the body frame (B-frame), represented by xb , yb , zb .
1 1 1
The origin of the B-frame is attached to the point O on Ttrans = mẋ2 + mẏ 2 + mż 2 , (6)
the airframe. The positive xb -axis points to the front of the 2 2 2
airframe, the positive yb -axis points to the left rotor (rotor 1) where m is the mass of the system. The body angular velocity
and the positive zb -axis points upwards. Positive roll (φ), pitch [6] [ωφ , ωθ , ωψ ]T of the system is given by
(θ) and yaw (ψ) are obtained by right-handed rotation about ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ωφ (φ̇ − ψ̇sθ)
the positive x, y, and z axes respectively. ⎣ ωθ ⎦ = (RT Ṙ)∨ = ⎣ (θ̇cφ + ψ̇cθsφ) ⎦ ,
So, the generalized coordinates for representing the Tilt-
ωψ (ψ̇cθcφ − θ̇sφ)
rotor model are q = [x, y, z, φ, θ, ψ]T , where (x, y, z)
represents the position of the Center Of Gravity (COG), and where (..)∨ means converting the skew symmetric matrix
(φ, θ, ψ) represents the orientation of the rotor-craft relative RT Ṙ into vector form.
to the E-frame. The kinetic energy due to rotation is given as

A. Rotation matrix 1 1
Trot = Ixx (φ̇ − ψ̇sθ)2 + Iyy (θ̇cφ + ψ̇cθsφ)2
Any vector vb in the B-frame can be transformed into a 2 2
1
vector v in the E-frame by the relation + Izz (ψ̇cθcφ − θ̇sφ)2 , (7)
2
v = Rvb , where Ixx , Iyy , Izz are the moments of inertia about the xb ,
where R is the Rotation matrix of the B-frame relative to the yb , zb axes respectively.
E-frame. The expression of R is The total potential energy of the system is defined as
⎡ ⎤ U = mgz. (8)
cψcθ cψsθsφ − sψcφ cψsθcφ + sψsφ
R = ⎣ sψcθ sψsθsφ + cψcφ sψsθcφ − sφcψ ⎦ , (1) Now with the potential and kinetic energy expressions, we find
−sθ cθsφ cθcφ out the Lagrangian L = Ttrans + Trot − U for the system.
where cθ and sθ are the abbreviated forms for cos θ and sin θ Expression for the Lagrangian using (6), (7) and (8) is
respectively.
1 1 1
L = mẋ2 + mẏ 2 + mż 2
B. Body forces and torques 2 2 2
1 1
The forces acting on the Tilt-rotor include the forward thrust + Ixx (φ̇ − ψ̇sθ) + Iyy (θ̇cφ + ψ̇cθsφ)2
2

along the positive xb axis (Fxb ) and the vertical thrust acting 2 2
1
along the positive zb axis (Fzb ). They are expressed as + Izz (ψ̇cθcφ − θ̇sφ)2 − mgz. (9)
2
Fxb = fR sin(αR ) + fL sin(αL ), (2) The Euler-Lagrange equation describing the model is
Fzb = fR cos(αR ) + fL cos(αL ), (3) d δL δL
− = F, (10)
where fR , fL are the thrust exerted by the right and left rotors dt δ q̇ δq
and αR and αL are their respective tilt angles with the positive where F = [Fe , τ ]T is a column vector consisting of the E-
zb axis. frame forces Fe = [Fx , Fy , Fz ]T and torques τ . Fx , Fy , Fz

3476 2012 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC)

are the forces along x, y and z axes respectively, and the where ζ3 are given by
torque τ is already given in (5).
The relation between the B-frame forces given in (4) and ζ3 = −Kpz (z − zd ) − Kvz (ż − z˙d ) + z¨d . (19)
the E-frame forces is given as
⎡ ⎤ Here Kpz is the positive proportionality constant, Kvz is the
(cψcθ)Fxb + (cψsθcφ + sψsφ)Fzb positive derivative constant and zd , z˙d and z¨d are the desired
Fe = RFb = ⎣ (sψcθ)Fxb + (sψsθcφ − sφcψ)Fzb ⎦ . values of position, linear velocity and acceleration respectively
−sθFxb + (cθcφ)Fzb for motion in z direction.
(11) 2) Converting the equation of motion in x direction to PD
So, we get the translational equation of motion as form: The equation of motion in x direction is given by (13)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ as
ẍ 0
m ⎣ ÿ ⎦ = Fe + ⎣ 0 ⎦ , (12) mẍ = (cψcθ)Fxb + (cψsθcφ + sψsφ)Fzb . (20)
z̈ −mg
Here Fxb , being an external input, can be given any form
which on expanding takes the form
we require. Change in x direction is always associated with
change in θ and vice-versa. So together with Fxb we also fix an
mẍ = (cψcθ)Fxb + (cψsθcφ + sψsφ)Fzb , (13) expression for the desired θ so that the motion in x direction
mÿ = (sψcθ)Fxb + (sψsθcφ − sφcψ)Fzb , (14) stabilizes. Fxb is given as
mz̈ = −sθFxb + (cθcφ)Fzb − mg. (15) mζ1
Fxb = , (21)
Rotational motion equations can be obtained in the form cψcθ
where ζ1 is the desired PD expression for motion control in
M1 (Θ)Θ̈ + C1 (Θ, Θ̇)Θ̇ = τ, (16) the x direction and is given by
where Θ = [φ, θ, ψ]T , M1 (Θ) is the 3 × 3 inertia matrix [6],
ζ1 = −Kpx (x − xd ) − Kvx (ẋ − x˙d ) + x¨d , (22)
C1 (Θ, Θ̇) is another 3 × 3 matrix composed of gyroscopic and
centrifugal force terms associated with φ, θ, ψ [6] and τ is with Kpx and Kvx as the positive proportional and derivative
the torque vector, given by (5). constants and xd , x˙d and x¨d being the desired position, linear
velocity and acceleration in the x direction.
III. C ONTROL L AW D ESIGN The expression of θd (desired θ) is taken as
The Tilt-rotor is a highly unstable system with a complex  
sφsψ
set of non-linear equations. So to control it, we need to design θd = arcsin − . (23)
a controller which can stabilize it at any desired hovering cφcψ
position. We have chosen a back-stepping based non-linear If this value of desired θ is plugged into (20), with the
PD controller for this purpose. The Tilt-rotor has altogether 6 expression of Fxb given by (21), then we have the equation of
degrees of freedom but only five inputs Fxb , Fzb , τφ , τθ , τψ motion in the x direction, in our desired PD form. Substitution
to control it, given by (2), (3) and (5). Of them, τφ , τθ , τψ are of θ and Fxb nullifies the second term of (20). So the equation
used to control φ, θ, ψ respectively. So, Fxb and Fzb alone remains independent of the value of Fzb , as obtained from
cannot be used to control all the three position variables x, y, (18). Hence, the substitution of Fzb from (18) into (20) is not
z. Thus for the complete position control we consider φ and θ shown unnecessarily.
to be control inputs also. Suitable expressions for the desired To ensure that the expression of θd never goes undefined,
φ and θ will be derived in the following subsection. we define a function σsr (p) such that
⎧ ⎫
A. Position control ⎨ s if p>r ⎬
σsr (p) = p if −r  p  r . (24)
For position control we need to convert the set of non-linear ⎩ ⎭
−s if p < −r
equations (12) into linear proportional-derivative form, so that
the UAV always resumes its desired position when disturbed. Using (24) we can modify the desired expressions for θd as
1) Converting the equations of motion in the z direction to   
PD form: The equation of motion in z direction is given by 1 sφsψ
θd = arcsin σ1 − . (25)
(15) as cφcψ
3) Converting the equation of motion in the y direction to
mz̈ = −sθFxb + (cθcφ)Fzb − mg. (17) PD form: The expression of θd and Fxb , given by (25) and
Fzb in this equation is an external input. Therefore, its form (21), if substituted in (14), will give
can be decided according to our requirements. mζ1
mÿ = (sψcθd ) − (sψsθd cφ + sφcψ) Fzb . (26)
So we choose Fzb as cψcθd
mg + mζ3 + sθFxb Considering the general case when σsr (p) = p, this expression
Fzb = , (18) can be simplified as
cφcθ

2012 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC) 3477

    
sφsψ V˙1 = w1 w˙1 = w1 K1 e˙φ = w1 K1 (φ̇ − φ˙d ). (34)
mÿ = mζ1 − sψ cφ + sφcψ Fzb ,
cφcψ
  Here it is important to mention that, φ˙d is not the desired φ̇.
sφsψ 2 It is simply the first derivative of the expression of φd .
= mζ1 − + sφcψ Fzb ,
cψ To ensure that the error eφ in (31) decreases monotonically,
 
sφ(1 − cψ 2 ) the time derivative of V1 should be negative. So we choose
= mζ1 − + sφcψ Fzb ,
cψ φ˙d2 (the desired value of φ̇), to be
and the final equation will take the form
˙ = φ̇d − c1 w1 .
φd2 (35)
sφ K1
mÿ = mζ1 − Fzb . (27)
cψ Here c1 is a positive constant. The larger the value of c1 , the
From this we can derive the expression for φd (so as to convert faster will be the convergence of V˙1 .
the equation of motion in y direction into our desired PD form) ˙ from
It can be seen that, if we replace φ̇ in (34) by φd2
as ˙
(35), V1 becomes negative and the system becomes stable.
  Using equation (35), we can rewrite equation (34) as
cψ
φd = arcsin (mζ1 − mζ2 ) . (28) c1 w1
Fzb V˙1 = w1 K1 (φ̇ − (φ˙d2 + )),
K1
When this value of desired φ is plugged into (27), we convert or,
the equation of motion in the y direction, into our desired
linear PD form. ˙ ).
V˙1 = −c1 w12 + w1 K1 (φ̇ − φd2 (36)
We modify this expression so as to ensure that the φd never
goes undefined. The modified expression for φd is Now to make the V˙1 negative in equation (36) we have to
   eliminate or nullify the term w1 K1 (φ̇ − φ˙d2 ) for which we
cψ
φd = arcsin σ11 (mζ1 − mζ2 ) , (29) take a new Lyapunov function V2 such that
Fzb
1
where ζ2 is the desired PD expression for motion control in y V2 = V1 + w22 , (37)
direction and is given by 2
where
ζ2 = −Kpy (y − yd ) − Kvy (ẏ − y˙d ) + y¨d , (30) ˙ .
w2 = φ̇ − φd2 (38)
with Kpy and Kvy being the positive proportional and deriva- The derivative of equation (37) will be
tive constant and yd , y˙d and y¨d being the desired position,
linear velocity and acceleration in the y direction. V˙2 = V˙1 + w2 w˙2 . (39)
In [5] also, the expression of φd involves the sin−1 term.
In situations where the value of the expression inside the By equation (36) and (38), equation (39) can be expanded as
parenthesis of sin−1 exceeds ±1, φd will become undefined.
But the method followed in this paper ensures that under
no circumstances can φd go undefined. The function σsr (p) V˙2 = −c1 w12 + w1 K1 (φ̇ − φ˙d2 ) + w2 w˙2 ,
ensures this. This is where our method is effective. = −c1 w2 + w1 K1 w2 + w2 (φ̈ − φ¨d2 ).
1 (40)

Again, it should be noted that, φ¨d2 is not the desired φ̈. It is

B. Rotational control
The rotational motions of the UAV are controlled by
τφ , τθ , τψ given in equation (5).
Let the roll tracking error be defined as
eφ = φ − φd .
simply the first derivative of the expression of φ˙d2 .
For having a stable system, the desirable derivative V˙2
should be negative. So if we substitute φ̈ by γ1 where
γ1 = φ¨d2 − K1 w1 , (41)
(31)
then our objective is satisfied. 1 is therefore the desired value
The error considered in back-stepping PD design is of φ̈.
Expanding (41) using (38) and (35) we have the expression
w1 = K1 eφ , (32)
c1 w˙1
where K1 is an arbitrary positive constant for gain tuning. Let γ1 = φ¨d − − K1 w1 ,
us consider a Lyapunov function V1 as K1
c1 K1 (φ̇ − φ˙d )
1 2 = φ¨d − − K1 (K1 (φ − φd )),
V1 = w . (33) K1
2 1 c1
Its time derivative is given by = −K12 (φ − φd ) − (φ̇ − φ˙d ) + φ¨d .
K1

3478 2012 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC)

We replace K12 = Kpφ and K c1
1
= Kvφ as the proportional and D. Expressions for fL , fR , αL and αR
derivative constants, both of which are positive. So the final
Having found the expressions for Fxb , Fzb , τφ , τθ , τψ , using
PD expression for φ̈ becomes
the equations (2), (3) and (5), we can determine fL , fR , αL
and αR . They are:
γ1 = −Kpφ (φ − φd ) − Kvφ (φ̇ − φ˙d ) + φ¨d . (42)
For pitch control, the PD expression is given by 
1 τψ 2  τφ 2
fL = Fxb + + Fzb − ,
γ2 = −Kpθ (θ − θd ) − Kvθ (θ̇ − θ˙d ) + θ¨d , (43) 2
 l l
1 τψ 2  τφ 2
where Kpθ and Kvθ are respectively the positive proportional fR = 2 Fxb − + Fzb + . (47)
and derivative constants for controlling the pitch, and θd is the l l
desired value of θ that will be supplied as a user input like
xd , yd and zd .  τψ 
For yaw motion, the corresponding expression, derived Fxb +
αL = arctan l
τφ ,
likewise, is Fzb − l
 τψ 
Fxb −
γ3 = −Kpψ (ψ − ψd ) − Kvψ (ψ̇ − ψ˙d ) + ψ¨d , (44) αR = arctan l
τφ . (48)
Fzb + l
where Kpψ and Kvψ are positive proportional and derivative
constants for yaw control and ψd is the desired value of ψ IV. S IMULATIONS
that will be supplied as a user input like xd , yd and zd .
Now equation (16) can be written as The system is simulated by MATLAB. The different system
parameters of the Tilt-rotor are summarized in Table I.
Θ̈ = M1 (Θ)−1 (τ − C1 (Θ, Θ̇)Θ̇),
expanding which we have Parameters Symbol Value
Mass of Tilt-rotor m 0.46 kg
⎡ ⎤ ⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎞ Wing span w 0.5 m
φ̈ τφ φ̇ Fuselage length l 0.55 m
⎣ θ̈ ⎦ = M1 (Θ)−1 ⎝⎣ τθ ⎦ − C1 (Θ, Θ̇) ⎣ θ̇ ⎦⎠ . (45) Moment-of-inertia of Tilt-rotor about x-axis Ixx 0.0096 kg.m2
Moment-of-inertia of Tilt-rotor about y-axis Iyy 0.0116 kg.m2
ψ̈ τψ ψ̇ Moment-of-inertia of Tilt-rotor about z-axis Izz 0.0218 kg.m2

In equation (45), we select input τ = [τφ , τθ , τψ ]T in such a Table I

S YSTEM PARAMETERS OF THE T ILT- ROTOR UAV.
way that it cancels the non-linear part and introduces the PD
controller expressions for the pitch roll and yaw as given in
(42), (43) and (44). So τ is selected to be
The initial conditions are x = 10.5 m, y = 20.4 m, z =
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ 29.7 m, φ = 45◦ , θ = 35◦ , ψ = 30◦ . The desired inputs to the
τφ γ1 φ̇ controllers are x˙d = y˙d = 0 m/s, xd = 10 m, yd = 20 m,
τ = ⎣ τθ ⎦ = M1 (Θ) ⎣ γ2 ⎦ + C1 (Θ, Θ̇) ⎣ θ̇ ⎦ . (46) zd = 30 m, and ψd = 60◦ .
τψ γ3 ψ̇
Clearly, if this expression of τ is substituted in (45), we will
10.5 1
dx/dt (m/s)

have the rotational equations of motion in our desired PD form.

x (m)

10 0

C. Final working expression of the states 9.5 −1

0 10 20 0 10 20
So the final expressions for the states obtained after substi- Time (s) Time (s)
tuting all the derived expressions for Fxb , Fzb , τφ , τθ , τψ and 20.5 0.5
dy/dt (m/s)
y (m)

(25) and (29), are 20 0

19.5 −0.5
ẍ = ζ1 = −Kpx (x − xd ) − Kvx (ẋ − x˙d ) + x¨d , 0 10
Time (s)
20 0 10
Time (s)
20

ÿ = ζ2 = −Kpy (y − yd ) − Kvy (ẏ − y˙d ) + y¨d , 30.5 0.5

dz/dt (m/s)

= ζ3 = −Kpz (z − zd ) − Kvz (ż − z˙d ) + z¨d ,

z (m)

z̈ 30 0
φ̈ = γ1 = −Kpφ (φ − φd ) − Kvφ (φ̇ − φ˙d ) + φ¨d , 29.5 −0.5
θ̈ = γ2 = −Kpθ (θ − θd ) − Kvθ (θ̇ − θ˙d ) + θ¨d , 0 10
Time (s)
20 0 10
Time (s)
20

ψ̈ = γ3 = −Kpψ (ψ − ψd ) − Kvψ (ψ̇ − ψ˙d ) + ψ¨d .

We now have full rotation control over the dynamics of the Figure 2. Linear position and velocity variation of the Tilt-rotor UAV while
vehicle. hovering at the desired position.

2012 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC) 3479

 dφ/dt (deg/s)
50 100 4 4

φ (deg)
0 0 3.5 3.5

fR (Nm)
fL (Nm)
−50 −100 3 3
0 10 20 0 10 20
Time (s) Time (s) 2.5 2.5

dθ/dt (deg/s)
50 100
2 2
θ (deg)

0 10 20 0 10 20
0 0 Time (s) Time (s)
−50 −100 10 20
0 10 20 0 10 20
Time (s) Time (s) 10

αR (deg)
αL (deg)
0

dψ/dt (deg/s)
100 50
ψ (deg)

0
50 0 −10
−10
0 −50
0 10 20 0 10 20 −20 −20
Time (s) Time (s) 0 10 20 0 10 20
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 3. Orientation and angular rate of the Tilt-rotor UAV while hovering Figure 5. Motor thrusts and tilt angles of the Tilt-rotor UAV for stabilizing
at the desired position. it at the desired hovering position.

Figures 2 and 3 show the response of the non-linear con-

troller while stabilizing the Tilt-rotor at hovering position. We desired position when disturbed. The main contributions of
see that all the position and orientation variables along with our work can be summarized as follows:
their derivatives are reaching their desired values with time, • The entire model of the system has been developed in
thereby stabilizing the system. the inertial frame. All the state variables x, y, z, φ, θ, ψ
The forces Fxb , Fzb , τφ , τθ and τψ as applied for the are defined in the E-frame.
−1
required movements of the rotor-craft are shown in Figure • Presence of sin terms in (23) and (28) makes the
4. expressions of φd and θd liable to go out of bounds. This
is undesirable. Therefore we define the function σsr (p),
which ensures that the values of φd and θd never become
2 8
undefined.
Fxb (N)

Fzb (N)

0 6 Future work with this UAV may involve modifying the back-
−2 4 stepping algorithm so as to avoid the occurrence of sin−1 in
0 10 20 0 10 20 the above expressions. A logical extension of our work would
Time (s) Time (s)
0.05 0.1 be to develop an algorithm to track discontinuous trajectories.
τφ (Nm)

τθ (Nm)

0 0
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
−0.05 −0.1 We are grateful to Tony White for help with the text.
0 10 20 0 10 20
Time (s) Time (s)
0.1 R EFERENCES
τ (Nm)

0 [1] Bell Eagle Eye UAS, (2008, September 13). Available:

ψ

−0.1
0 10 20
Time (s)
Figure 4. Forces and torques acting on the Tilt-rotor UAV while hovering
at the desired position.
The variations in fL , fR , αL and αR as calculated from
the previous variations in Fxb , Fzb , τφ , τθ and τψ as obtained
from equations (47) and (48) are shown in Figure 5.
V. C ONTRIBUTIONS
In this paper, we developed a detailed model of a Tilt-rotor
UAV using the Euler-Lagrange approach. A back-stepping
based PD control is implemented to stabilize the system.
Simulations show that the rotor-craft was able to recover its
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellEagleEye.cfm.
[2] Boeing, V-22 Osprey, (2008, September 13). Available:
http://www.Boeing.com/rotor-craft/military/v22/index.htm.
[3] J. J. Dickerson, D. Miles, O. Cifdaloz, Wells, V. L. Rodriguez, “Ro-
bust LPV H Gain-Scheduled Hover-to-Cruise Conversion for a Tilt-
Wing Rotor-craft in the Presence of CG Variations”, American Control
Conference, 2007.
[4] F. Kendoul, I. Fantoni, R. Lozano, “Modeling and control of a small
autonomous aircraft having two tilting rotors”, 44th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, and the European Control Conference 2005.
[5] A. A. Mian, W. Daobo, “Non-linear Flight Control Strategy for an
Underactuated Quad-rotor Aerial Robot”, IEEE International Conference
on Networking, Sensing and Control, 2008.
[6] R. M. Murray, Z. Li, S. S. Sastry, A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic
Manipulation, CRC Press 1994.
[7] K. T. Oner, E. Cetinsoy, M. Unel, M. F. Aksit, I. Kandemir, K. Gulez,
“Dynamic model and control of a new quad-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle
with tilt-wing mechanism”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 45, 2008.

3480 2012 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC)