See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334497907

Design and Trajectory Control of Universal Drone System

Article  in  Measurement · July 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.07.062

CITATIONS READS

3 394

3 authors:

Sahin YILDIRIM Nihat Çabuk

Erciyes Üniversitesi Aksaray Üniversitesi
153 PUBLICATIONS   924 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Veli Bakırcıoğlu
Aksaray Üniversitesi
17 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Article Experimental analysis of frictional power loss of hydrostatic slipper bearings View project

Dört Ayaklı Robotlar İçin Hidrolik Tahrikli Bir Bacak Geliştirilmesi - Development Of a Hydraulically Actuated Leg for Quadruped Robots View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sahin YILDIRIM on 16 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Measurement 147 (2019) 106834

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Design and trajectory control of universal drone system

Sß ahin Yıldırım a,⇑, Nihat Çabuk b, Veli Bakırcıoğlu b
a
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Erciyes University, 38039 Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey
b
Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Aksaray University, Bahçesaray Mh., 68100 Aksaray, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a new universal drone design is proposed to be used in different applications. The drone
Received 22 April 2019 system has a variable number of rotors from four to twelve with portable arms. As a comparative study,
Received in revised form 29 May 2019 a conventional eight rotors (Octocopter) and independently controlled twelve rotors (Dodecacopter) con-
Accepted 14 July 2019
figures are chosen for the proposed universal drone simulations to benchmark the trajectory perfor-
Available online 16 July 2019
mance. Besides, since the arm lengths can be changed in this drone system, the effect of different arm
lengths on this performance is also examined. The comparisons are performed on both systems in five
Keywords:
different working condition, such as without disturbance, with periodic disturbances and non-periodic
Multirotor UAV
Design and control
disturbances. In the simulations, when the amplitude was increased by 100% under periodic disturbing
Dynamic modeling effect, an increase of 69.7% and 47.6% was observed in the root mean square of the position errors of
Simulation the Octocopter and Dodecacopter systems, respectively. Similarly, for non-periodic disturbances, an
increase of %13 and %7 was observed for both systems, respectively. According to the obtained results,
the octocopter system is partially more stable without disturbing effect while the dodecacopter system
is more stable flight than octocopter systems as the disturbance effect increases.
Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction movement from rotational movements is caused by the difference

In recent years, multirotor air vehicles have been interested in
academic studies due to increased use and simple manufacturing.
They can be manufactured in many different structures from low
load capacity multicopter for recreational purposes to high load
capacity for military and agricultural purposes. In generally, multi-
rotor air vehicles have 4, 6 and 8 rotors and the rotor numbers of
these vehicles affect both flight capability and load capacity. They
can move both rotationally and translationally by changing the
angular velocity of the rotors. These movements are controlled
either by manual or autonomously. A multicopter hardware mainly
consists of motor, propeller, battery, electronic speed controller
(ESC), frame, controller, sensors. Of these, controllers and sensors
are the components that directly affect the vehicle’s flight perfor-
mance, while other components are directly affect load capacity.
In addition to these basic components, other components may be
added depending on the intended use and specific requirements.
The design of a multicopter starts with the determination of the
its mass and the total mass it can carry. According to this mass,
the optimum values of components are calculated or selected.
Fig. 1 shows a multicopter design process. Multicopter can make
two types of movements as rotational and translational. The yaw
⇑ Corresponding author.
ß . Yıldırım).
E-mail address: sahiny@erciyes.edu.tr (S
in angular velocity between rotating motors in opposite directions.
Pitch and roll movements are caused by angular velocity differ-
ences of mutually positioned rotors. This movements causes trans-
lational motion in the horizontal plane (xy plane). The movement
in the vertical axis (z) is related to the total thrust generated by
the rotors.
In the literature, generally, design criteria such as rotor number,
arm length and total load carrying capacity of the system are deter-
mined by considering the working conditions and usage areas of
the system [1–4]. In general, while multicopter with four rotors
is sufficient for simple imaging [5–7], the number of rotors should
be increased in cases where the load carrying capacity is more
important such as professional imaging, agricultural spraying and
cargo [8,9]. However, an approach to the realization of a universal
and independent system that can be adapted to different working
conditions is rarely adopted [10,11].
The most important contribution of the new design realized in
this study is the creation of a model which can be reconfigured
according to different usage purposes via changing number of
rotors and arm length. Besides, for educational purposes, it is
possible to test the models with different configurations on the
same vehicle. Furthermore, the number of rotors up to twelve that
can be controlled independently can perform a more stable flight,
especially in the case of bad weather conditions and rotor(s)
failure.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.07.062
0263-2241/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834
Nomenclature
M mass of drone, kg
T thrust, N
Te experimental thrust, N
s torque, Nm
sr reaction torque, Nm
2
kf thrust constant, Ns2 =rad
2
km torque constant, Nms2 =rad
X rotor angular speed, rad=s
Xe experimental rotor angular speed, rad=s
l1 long arm length, mm
h1 long arm angle, deg
l2 short arm length, mm
h2 short arm angle, deg
2. State of the art
In literature, there have been studies about control on quadro-
tor, hexarotor and octorotor, which are standardized designs
according to rotor number in multicopter [3,12–18]. Apart from
standardized configuration designs, different studies have been
made [8–11,19–23]. Niemiec et al. [10] proposed a model with
interchangeable rotor structure between 4 and 10 rotors. The
rotors added in the proposed model are in the same plane. The
number of rotors is increased by adding more than one rotor to
one arm. In the study, the 10-rotors model comparison in terms
of power requirement to others is worse for the hover position,
but they have expressed better results for forward motion.
Differences in design can lead to differences in the vehicle per-
formance. The modeling of the vehicle is primarily related to the
expected performance from the vehicle. Therefore, in the design
phase, a precise model of the vehicle is required to obtain the
expected performance in the end. As it is known, air vehicles are
able to fly based on aerodynamic principles [24,25]. However, it
is almost impossible to obtain the aerodynamic model perfectly.
For this reason, the effects that do not significantly affect the
movement of the vehicle or which are very difficult to model math-
ematically are often ignored. Similarly, with the same justifica-
tions, similar assumptions are made for the geometrical structure
of the vehicle or the mechanical properties of the materials used
in the vehicles. Therefore, the vehicles are considered to be rigid
and symmetrical.
The aforementioned assumptions were preserved for the novel
drone system. One of the most unique aspects of the proposed uni-
versal drone system was the independent controllable 12-rotors
dodecacopter design. Within the full knowledge of the authors,
Fig. 1. Design process representation of multirotor drone systems.
xb vehicle body angular speed, rad=s
xg vehicle body angular speed according to ground frame,
rad=s
Vb vehicle body translational speed, m=s
VG vehicle body translational speed according to ground
frame, m=s
Fb force affecting on drone body, N
Mb moment affecting on drone body, Nm
sgyr gyroscopic torque, Nm
Fd disturbance force, N
BRG rotation matrix body to ground
nr number of rotors
Ud desired system input vector
there is only one study on a multicopter with 12-rotors that are
controlled independently in the literature. Zabunov and Mardiros-
sian [22] studied on a model consisting of 12 rotors mounted under
the vehicle body. The 12 rotors used were placed in the reverse in
the first model under the body. In the second model, the rotors are
placed on the body in the same plane. They compared the mass
ðgÞ power ðWÞ ratio between the first model and the second
model. They concluded that the first model had a higher g  W
ratio. Brischetto et al. [11] have proposed a drone model that can
be changed between 3 and eight in modular structure. They stated
that the structural components of this model can be produced with
3D printer.
In this novel design, the arm lengths are interchangeable so that
the propellers mounted on the rotors can be used in various sizes.
In the literature, research has been done to investigate the effect of
arm length in multicopter. Xiu et al. [26] modified the distance of
the rotors from the vehicle center by changing the angles of the
arms to which the rotors were connected. They compared the
maneuverability and stabilization. According to their results, they
stated that the model with the longest arm lengths gives better
results.
In this study, the main reason for the determination of up to 12
independent rotors configurations is that the vehicle is expected to
provide more stable flight compared to the model with less motor
in case of malfunction of the rotors [27–30] or any disturbing
effects such as wind [31]. Many solutions have been proposed by
using both software and hardware methods in order to reduce
the impact of such negative situations in multicopter [32–37].
Kuric et al. [34] proposed a new technique based Recursive Least
Squares (RLS) to detection and isolation of propulsion system faults
in octorotor. According to the results, they observed notable
 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834 3

body allows the arm length to be changed. Arm length of the center
of the rotor from the center of the vehicle can be changed between
660 mm and 810 mm and the number of rotors can be decreased
by canceling the desired mutual arm pairs.

4. Modeling and control of the universal drone system

The mathematical model expression of the system is obtained

in the next section. There is no specific study on the control
method of the system, since it is not one of the priorities of this
Fig. 2. Solid model of the universal drone system. study. Initially, simulation was carried out by applying PID control,
which is one of the traditional control methods.

tracking performance. McKay et al. [37] examined the performance
of the hexacopter in case of a single rotor failure by changing the
air vehicle configuration. According to the results obtained, the
configuration they suggested improved the performance of the
hexacopter. There are many control methods used in the control
of air vehicles in literature. In addition, there are studies conducted
on the comparison of these methods in the literature [38,39]. The
most common of these is the Proportional-Integral-Derivative
(PID) control method. As a variant of this method, cascade i.e.
nested PID was preferred in this study [40,41].
3. Mechanical design of the universal drone system
The solid model of the whole system is given in Fig. 2. As can be
seen from the figure, some of the rotors are placed in the lower
plane and some of them in the upper plane.
In this study, the proposed of the system was designed accord-
ing to the following objectives.
 The system consists of up to 12 rotors which can be controlled
independently.
 Eight of the rotors are in the upper plane and four in the lower
plane.
 The number of rotors can be changed according to the purpose
of the system.
 Arm lengths can be changed according to the needs of the
system.
4.1. Modeling of the system
The dynamic behavior of the universal drone system can be
expressed mathematically. The mathematical model including
dynamic variables and constants has been developed with refer-
ence to the Newton – Euler method. To obtain the mathematical
model of the vehicle, reference coordinate systems are needed to
define the movements of the drone system. Thrust forces and reac-
tion torques produced by the rotors and propellers cause move-
ment of the vehicle. The thrust forces depend on structural
properties of propellers. The thrust forces produced by the pro-
pellers are proportional to the angular velocity of the rotors, rela-
tionship between the angular velocity of the rotors and the
thrust forces produced by the propellers can be parameterized
with a determined thrust constant. In addition, motion of the pro-
pellers and the rotors cause the reaction torque, which is opposite
to the direction of rotation of the rotor. These reaction-torques
cause yaw motion of the vehicle and can be parameterized with
a torque constant in same manner as the thrust forces. Both of
these mentioned constants can be determined experimentally. In
this design, KDE Direct’s KDE4215XF-465 brushless motors are
used. The graph of the thrust force T e , and the reaction-torque sr
values obtained from the experiments is given in Fig. 5. Measured
thrust force T e , and measured reaction-torque sr ratios to the
square of the angular velocity are the thrust constant, kf , and the
torque constant km values, respectively. The angular velocity rela-
tionships with the thrust force and the reaction torque are param-
eterized as kf ¼ XT e2 and km ¼ Xsr2 , respectively. In this experiment, kf
e e

The physical specifications of the designed drone are given in and km were calculated as 1:0412104 ðrad=sÞ
N
2 and
Table 1. In there, while l1 is the arm length of rotors on upper 4:052210 6 Nm
, respectively.
ðrad=sÞ2
plane, l2 is the arm length of rotors on lower plane as seen Fig. 3
The mathematical model was obtained in this study only for the
(a). While h1 is connection angle to body for upper plane arm, h2
dodecacopter, since the mathematical model of octocopter can be
is for lower plane. In this design, the values of which is 22.5 and
created in a similar way with the mathematical model of the dode-
45 degrees, respectively as seen Fig. 3(b). According to the values
cacopter system. Relationship between angular velocities of the
given in Table 1, solid model of the designed system is shown in
motors and the body forces can be formed by a matrix C as in
Fig. 3(a). The figure shows the rotational directions of the rotors,
Eq. (1), while angular velocities of the dodecacopter system
the roll – pitch – yaw motions, the angles of the arms and arm
defined by a vector X. The desired reaction torque and thrust
lengths. Fig. 3(b) shows the three-dimensional view and direction
forces of the rotors and the torque caused by these forces are indi-
of movement of the vehicle.
cated by the U d vector.
It is another feature of this design that the arm lengths can be
changed as well as the number of rotors can be changed. As can Ud ¼ C  X ð1Þ
be seen from the Fig. 4, the connection point of the arms to the

2 3
kf kf kf kf kf kf kf kf kf kf kf kf
6K K D K K D D D C C C C 7
6 7
C¼6 7 ð2Þ
4D D K D D K K K C C C C 5
km km km km km km km km km km km km
4 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834

Table 1
The universal drone specifications.

Parameter l1 [mm] (min-max) l2 [mm] Propeller diameter [inch] (min-max) h1 [deg] h2 [deg] mass [kg] (min-max) Number of rotors

Value 660–810 450 12–18 22:5 45 12–30 4–12

Fig. 3. Designed model view of drone system for 12 rotors (a) rotor directions, vehicle orientation and arm lengths. (b) Representation of motion direction.

The matrix C is constant and can be calculated according to the accepted in order to the sake of simplicity of the equality of the
vehicle’s configuration as in Eq. (2). rotor speeds to be obtained.
For the sake of simplicity of the matrix, K, D and C given in Eq. (3)  
A¼ sy  kf  l1  cosh1
K ¼ kf  l1  sin h1 D ¼ kf  l1  cos h1 C ¼ kf  l2  sin h2 ð3Þ  
B ¼ sx  kf  l1  sinh1
 
The motor speeds vector X given as Eq. (4) C ¼ sx  kf  l1  cosh1
 T  
X ¼ X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 X29 X210 X211 X212 D ¼ sy  kf  l1  sinh1
 
ð4Þ E ¼ sx  kf  l2  sinh2
 
where Xi is the angular velocity of the ith motor. The vector U d is F ¼ sy  kf  l2  sinh2
given as Eq. (5), which includes the needed forces and torques for  2  2  2 
the motion. G¼4 kf  l1  cosh1 þ kf  l1  sinh1 þ kf  l2  sinh1  sinh2
2 3 ð8Þ
T
6 sx 7
6 7
Ud ¼ 6 7 ð5Þ X1 2 ¼ l2 k
T
þ l2 skz m þ AþB
4 sy 5 f G

sz X2 2 ¼ l2 k
T
f
þ l2 skz m  AþB
G

where T is the desired thrust force that acts on the body and sx and X3 2 ¼ l2 k
T
 l2 skz m þ AþD
sy are the desired roll and pitch torques. sz yaw torque, which is the f G

sum of the reaction torques caused by each rotor and propeller. X4 2 ¼ l2 k

T
 l2 skz m  AB
G
f
Required rotor speeds can be calculated by combining Eqs. (1)
and (4). However, the inverse of the matrix C is needed to deter- X5 2 ¼ l2 k
T
 l2 skz m þ AB
G
f
mine the required motor speeds for the desired force and torque
X6 2 ¼ l2 k
T
 l2 skz m  CþD
values. Since the matrix C is not a square matrix, a precise inverse f G
ð9Þ
matrix is not obtained. In this case, the solution can be obtained X7 2 ¼ l2 k
T
þ l2 skz m  CD
G
by taking the pseudo-inverse of the matrix C. The pseudo-inverse f

matrix C can be computed as Eq. (6). X8 2 ¼ l2 k

T
þ l2 skz m þ CD
G
f
 1
C ¼ C T  C  C T ð6Þ X9 2 ¼ l2 k
T
 l2 skz m þ EþF
G
f

Hence, the required rotor speeds can be calculated as X10 2 ¼ l2 k

T
 l2 skz m  EþF
G
f

X ¼ CU d ð7Þ X11 2 ¼ l2 k

T
þ l2 skz m  EF
G
f

By using Eq. (7), the angular velocity equations of each motor can be X12 2 ¼ l2 k
T
þ l2 skz m þ EF
G
obtained as given in Eq. (9). The following abbreviations were f
 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834 5

This rotation matrix determines the angular position of the

Fig. 4. Cross section of the novel multirotor system about changeable arm number
and length.
Fig. 5. Thrust (Left) and Torque (Right) deviations according to angular velocity.
body of the drone relative to the ground reference coordinate sys-
tem. These angles should be limited in order to ensure the stability
of the drone in the flight. Because for a given forward or backward
motion command to the drone, it will want to change the roll or
pitch angle limitlessly. Thus, control of the drone will be difficult
and it may fall out of control. In this study, the maximum thrust
that is produced by all of the propellers and the total mass of the
drone are used as the two main parameters in limiting these two
angles. Eq. (12) is related to the limitation of these angles. This
equation may vary depending on the design of the drone.

p 1 mg
Tiltmax ¼  sin ð12Þ
2 T max
The net force acting on the drone consists of three components,
the thrust that is produced by the propellers, gravitational forces,
and disturbing forces. The drag force caused by the drone body is
not taken into account. This equality is given as Eq. (13). The trans-
lational acceleration of the drone is obtained from Eq. (14)
Fb ¼ T  ðBRG  mg þ Fd Þ ð13Þ
  Fb
F b ¼ m V_ b þ xb  V b ; V_ b ¼  ðxb  V b Þ ð14Þ
m
where V b is the translation velocity in the body frame and the trans-
lation velocity in the ground frame, V G can be calculated as Eq. (15).
xb ¼ ½pqrT is the angular velocity vector of the vehicle according to
the body frame, which is feedbacking from the Inertial Measure-
ment Unit (IMU).
V G ¼ V b xGRB ð15Þ

At least two coordinate systems are needed to define the angu- The thrust causes roll and pitch moments in the drone. In addi-
lar and linear movements of the vehicle. The first of these coordi- tion to these moments there are also gyroscopic moments. These
nate systems is the ground coordinate system whose origin is in moments are caused by the change in the axis orientation of the
ground. The second is the body fixed coordinate system, which is rotation of the rotor. The total moments in the drone are given in
accepted in the center of mass of the drone and fixed to the body Eq. (16). Due to the very low value of the gyroscopic moments
of it. The distance between the axis of both coordinate systems caused by the angular acceleration of the rotors, they may not be
gives information about the linear position of the drone in space, taken into account. The angular acceleration of drone is obtained
and the change of this distance according to time gives information from Eq. (18)
about the translational velocity in the three axes. Similarly, the Mb ¼ sgyr þ sx;y;z ð16Þ
angles of these two coordinate systems with each other are related
to the calculation of the angular position of the drone, the variation 2 Pn 3 2 3
r
ð1Þi  ðIzz  p  Xi Þ sx
of these angular differences over time refers to the angular velocity 6 Pi¼1 7 6 7
of the drone. The rotation matrices for all three axes are given in Mb ¼ 6
4
nr
i¼1 ð1Þ i
 ðI zz  q  X Þ
i 5
7 þ 4 sy5 ð17Þ
Eq. (10). Pnr i _ s
i¼1 ð1Þ  ðIzz  Xi Þ
z

Ix _ b ¼ inv ðIÞðM b  ðxb  ðIxb ÞÞ

_ b ¼ M b  ðxb  ðIxb ÞÞ; x ð18Þ
2 3 2 3
1 0 0 cos h 0  sin h h iT
6
Rx ¼ 4 0 cos w
7 6
sin w 5; Ry ¼ 4 0 1 0
7
5; Hence, the Euler angles ½whuT and the Euler rates w_ h_ u
_ can be

0  sin w cos w sin h 0 cos h calculated according to the ground frame as in Eq. (19) and after
2 3 ð10Þ some mathematical operations Eq. (20) is obtained.
cos u sin u 0
6 7 h h i h ii
Rz ¼ 4  sin u cos u 0 5 xb ¼ Rz  Ry  Rx  ½0 0 u_  þ Rz  Ry  0 h_ 0 þ Rz  w_ 0 0
0 0 1 2 3
w_  u
_ sinh ð19Þ
6_ 7
The rotation matrices of each axis are multiplied forward to ¼ 4 hcosw þu _ coshsinw 5
obtain the rotation matrix given in Eq. (11). _
u_ coswcosh  hsinw

2 3
cos u cos h cos h sin u  sin h
6 7
BRG ¼ 4 cos u sin w sin h  cos w sin u cos u cos w þ sin u sin w sin h cos h sin w 5 ð11Þ
sin u sin w þ cos u cos w sin h cos w sin u sin h  cos u sin w cos w cos h
6 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834

Fig. 6. Block diagram of the system.

Fig. 7. Cascade PID control diagrams of thrust, roll, pitch and yaw.

Table 2
Cases of applied disturbance forces to the center of mass of the drone.

Cases Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Applied disturbance No Periodic. Amplitude 50 N, Periodic. Amplitude 100 N, Random. Random.
to body disturbance frequency 0.1 rad/s frequency 0.1 rad/s Range (50, 50) N, Range (100, 100) N,
sample time 1 s sample time 1 s

Fig. 8. Trajectory tracking of dodecacopter. Trajectory tracking in 2D (left), trajectory tracking in 3D (right).
 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834 7

2 3 2 3
u_ ðrcos ðwÞþqsin wÞ
cos h
The position control of the drone is primarily about the control
6 _ 7 6 7 of four basic variables: the orientation angles, roll-pitch-yaw and
4h5¼4 q  cos w  r  sin w 5 ð20Þ
the altitude of the vehicle. These four variables used in a cascade
w_ ðp  cos h þ r  cos w  sin h
cos h
þ q  sin w  sin hÞ
PID controller to control the position and speed of the drone. This
control structure is one of the effective control methods for elimi-
4.2. Control of the system nating disruptive effects. The gain parameters of the controller
were adjusted empirically. Block diagrams of this control approach
Air vehicles can be operated in two different ways as manual are given in Fig. 7.
and autonomous. For manual controlled operation, direction com-
mands are entered into the system. In autonomous controlled
5. Simulation results of the universal drone system
operation, it is requested to follow a desired trajectory from the
vehicle. The controller calculates the required forces and torques
Simulation in this study was evaluated in three parts. The first
for the motion of the vehicle according to the desired trajectory
one was the trajectory tracking performance of the dodecacopter,
and the speeds limit. Since this study is related to autonomous
the second one is the trajectory tracking performance of the octo-
flight, the algorithm used for controller design is listed below.
copter and the third was to examine the effect of arm lengths on
The realization of the simulation according to the desired positions
the trajectory tracking performance for both systems. In all three
for autonomous flight can be divided into four stages.
simulations, the controller with the same parameters was used.
The simulations were carried out without disturbing effect and
 Controller calculates the required forces and torques according
under disruptive effect. The simulations were investigated using
to desired drone position and the system feedback
the trajectory for autonomous flight in five different cases. In the
 Controller outputs the speed of the rotors according to the cal-
first case where there was no disturbing effect. In the second and
culated forces and torques, which is the system inputs
third case, periodical disturbance force was applied to the drone
 System model calculates the generated forces and moments due
body. In the fourth and fifth cases, random signal was applied to
to the rotor speeds and external disturbance
the body of the drone as disturbing effect as seen Table 2.
 System outputs the dynamics of the vehicle, which are the con-
troller feedbacks
5.1. Trajectory tracking of the dodecacopter system
The simulation is performed for an autonomous flight, which is
defined as a time dependent trajectory. Thus, translational speeds Total mass of the dodecacopter is 30 kg and 2.5 kg per rotor. The
of the vehicle are also the inputs of the system because the desired simulation for two and three dimensional of desired and actual tra-
trajectory is given as time dependent. Fig. 6 shows the block dia- jectory given in Fig. 8 was obtained for the second case. The Root
gram of the whole system. Mean Square (RMS) of the position errors for each axis in the

Table 3
Trajectory tracking position errors of the dodecacopter systems.

RMSE First case Second case Third case Fourth case Fifth case
Value [m] Value [m] Value [m] Value [m] Value [m]
X 1.521 2.012 2.960 1.545 1.629
Y 1.321 1.742 2.868 1.506 1.644
Z 0.680 0.689 0.730 0.714 0.755
Mean 1.174 1.481 2.186 1.255 1.343

Fig. 9. Trajectory tracking of octocopter. Trajectory tracking in 2D (left), trajectory tracking in 3D (right).

Table 4
Trajectory tracking position errors of the octocopter systems.

RMSE First case Second case Third case Fourth case Fifth case
Value [m] Value [m] Value [m] Value [m] Value [m]
X 1.521 2.500 4.446 1.598 1.809
Y 1.323 2.137 3.832 1.592 1.864
Z 0.656 0.663 0.742 0.686 0.725
Mean 1.167 1.767 3.007 1.292 1.466
8 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834

tory tracing in both arm lengths. Fig. 10 shows the variation of the
angular velocities for same rotor in two different arm length for
dodecacopter system. Since the results obtained in the octocopter
system were the same as for the dodecacopter system, it was not
necessary to give these results. Table 5 shows the results of the
simulation performed in two different arm lengths in the second
case.

6. Conclusion

This paper presents a simulation approach for 12 and 8 rotors

Fig. 10. Rotor angular velocities and differences for different arm length.
ground frame were measured for the numerical comparison of the
simulation results. The values are given in Table 3.
5.2. Trajectory tracking of the octocopter system
Total mass of the vehicle for the octocopter is 20 kg and the
mass per rotor is kept as 2.5 kg. Simulation was performed using
the same trajectory and disturbance effect in the terms of compar-
ative study. The simulation for two and three dimensional of
desired and actual trajectory given in Fig. 9 was obtained in the
second case.
The RMS of the position errors for each axis in the ground frame
were measured for the numerical comparison of the simulation
results. The values are given in Table 4.
5.3. Investigation of the effect of arm length
In both dodecacopter and octocopter systems, arm lengths were
changed and simulated, the rotor 1 speeds in the cases of the long
arm and the short arm are given in Fig. 10 for the simulation.
Although there are instantaneous angular velocity differences for
the same rotor, the differences have almost no effect for the trajec-
drone systems trajectory tracking control by using standard PID
controller. As depicted from the results of trajectory of the drone
system, the standard PID controller has satisfactory performance,
eventually high-level disturbances. Two different configurations
were compared as dodecacopter and octocopter systems in the
study. In this comparison, an independent controllable rotors
dodecacopter system and conventional octocopter systems were
investigated using the same trajectory for autonomous flight sim-
ulation in five different cases. Table 6 shows comparison of simu-
lation results as numerically.
According to the obtained simulation results, when the ampli-
tude was increased by 100% under periodic disturbing effect (Case
2 to Case 3), an increase of 69.7% and 47.6% was observed in the
root mean square of the position errors of the Octocopter and
Dodecacopter systems, respectively. Similarly, when the amplitude
was increased by 100% under periodic disturbing effect (Case 4 to
Case 5) for non-periodic disturbances, an increase of %13 and %7
was observed in the root mean square of the position errors for
both systems, respectively. Therefore, in both periodic and random
disruptive force, the dodecacopter provides more stable flight than
octocopter as the disturbance effect increases. In the case where
the disturbance effect is not applied (Case 1), it can be said that
both systems provide the same trajectory tracking performance
approximately, but still the octocopter gives a better result as
shown in Table 6.
Another important aspect of this new drone system is the inter-
changeability in arm lengths. Although the main purpose of arm
length interchangeability is to allow using different sizes of pro-
peller, simulations carried out for the different arm lengths to
determine the effects of the change in the arm lengths on the flight

Table 5
Trajectory tracking position errors of both systems in case of different arm lengths.

RMSE [m] Dodecacopter Octocopter

l1 = 660 mm l1 = 810 mm l1 = 660 mm l1 = 810 mm

Value [m] Value [m] Value [m] Value [m]
X 2.012 2.012 2.500 2.500
Y 1.742 1.742 2.137 2.137
Z 0.689 0.689 0.663 0.663
Mean 1.481 1.481 1.767 1.767

Table 6
Trajectory tracking position errors of both systems.

RMSE [m]
First Case Second Case Third Case Fourth Case Fifth Case
Dodecacopter XX 1.521 2.012 2.960 1.545 1.629
YY 1.321 1.742 2.868 1.506 1.644
ZZ 0.680 0.689 0.730 0.714 0.755
MMean 1.174 1.481 2.186 1.255 1.343
Octocopter XX 1.521 2.500 4.446 1.598 1.809
YY 1.323 2.137 3.832 1.592 1.864
ZZ 0.656 0.663 0.742 0.686 0.725
MMean 1.167 1.767 3.007 1.292 1.466
 Sß. Yıldırım et al. / Measurement 147 (2019) 106834
performance. According to the simulation results performed in sec-
ond case. It is seen that changes in the arm lengths have no impact
on flight performance as seen in Table 5.
Finally, the proposed universal drone system that is offering
wide range of rotor configurations, can be used to investigate flight
performance for different multirotor drone configurations, as well
as in the development of advanced control methods such as adap-
tive control law and algorithm independent of the standard PID
controller used in this study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by Erciyes University Scientific
Research Projects Unit within the scope of FBA-2017-7393 project.
References
[1] M. Streßer, R. Carrasco, J. Horstmann, Video-based estimation of surface
currents using a low-cost quadcopter, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 14
(2017) 2027–2031, https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2017.2749120.
[2] A. Claesson, D. Fredman, L. Svensson, M. Ringh, J. Hollenberg, P. Nordberg, M.
Rosenqvist, T. Djarv, S. Österberg, J. Lennartsson, Y. Ban, Unmanned aerial
vehicles (drones) in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest, Scand. J. Trauma. Resusc.
Emerg. Med. 24 (2016) 124, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-016-0313-5.
[3] S.N. Ghazbi, Y. Aghli, M. Alimohammadi, A.A. Akbari, Quadrotors Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles: a Review, Int. J. Smart Sens. Intell. Syst. 9 (2016) 309–333,
https://doi.org/10.21307/ijssis-2017-872.
[4] V.K. Gadi, A. Garg, S. Prakash, L. Wei, S. Andriyas, A non-intrusive image
analysis technique for measurement of heterogeneity in grass species around
tree vicinity in a green infrastructure, Measurement 114 (2018) 132–143,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.09.010.
[5] B. Kršák, P. Blišťan, A. Pauliková, P. Puškárová, L’. Kovanič, J. Palková, V.
Zelizňaková, Use of low-cost UAV photogrammetry to analyze the accuracy of
a digital elevation model in a case study, Measurement 91 (2016) 276–287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.028.
[6] M. Jaud, P. Letortu, C. Théry, P. Grandjean, S. Costa, O. Maquaire, R. Davidson, N.
Le Dantec, UAV survey of a coastal cliff face – Selection of the best imaging
angle, Measurement 139 (2019) 10–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2019.02.024.
[7] A.M. Saad, K.N. Tahar, Identification of rut and pothole by using multirotor
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Measurement 137 (2019) 647–654, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.01.093.
[8] J. Verbeke, D. Hulens, H. Ramon, T. Goedeme, J. De Schutter, The design and
construction of a high endurance hexacopter suited for narrow corridors, Int.
Conf. Unmanned Aircr. Syst. ICUAS 2014 – Conf. Proc. (2014) 543–551, https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS.2014.6842296.
[9] C.E. Lin, T. Supsukbaworn, Development of dual power multirotor system, Int.
J. Aerosp. Eng. 2017 (2017) 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9821401.
[10] R. Niemiec, F. Gandhi, R. Singh, Control and performance of a reconfigurable
multicopter, J. Aircr. (2018) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034731.
[11] S. Brischetto, A. Ciano, C.G. Ferro, A multipurpose modular drone with
adjustable arms produced via the FDM additive manufacturing process,
Curved Layer. Struct. 3 (2016) 202–213, https://doi.org/10.1515/cls-2016-
0016.
[12] M. Moussid, Ad. Sayouti, H. Medromi, Dynamic modeling and control of a
hexarotor using linear and nonlinear methods, Int. J. Appl Inf. Syst. 9 (2015) 9–
17, https://doi.org/10.5120/ijais2015451411.
[13] S. Li, Y. Wang, J. Tan, Y. Zheng, Adaptive RBFNNs/integral sliding mode control
for a quadrotor aircraft, Neurocomputing 216 (2016) 126–134, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neucom.2016.07.033.
[14] D. Kotarski, Z. Benic, M. Krznar, Control design for unmanned aerial vehicles
with four rotors, Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst. 14 (2016) 236–245, https://
doi.org/10.7906/indecs.14.2.12.
[15] N. Hadi, A. Ramz, Tuning of PID controllers for quadcopter system using hybrid
memory based gravitational search algorithm – particle swarm optimization,
Int. J. Comput. Appl. 172 (2017) 9–18, https://doi.org/10.5120/
ijca2017915125.
[16] H. Alwi, C. Edwards, Fault tolerant control of an octorotor using LPV based
sliding mode control allocation, 2013 Am. Control Conf. IEEE (2013) 6505–
6510, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2013.6580859.
[17] G.A. Victor, A.M. Stoica, Integral LQR control of a star-shaped octorotor, Incas
Bull. 4 (2013) 3–18, https://doi.org/10.13111/2066-8201.2012.4.2.1.
View publication stats
9
[18] Y.-R. Tang, X. Xiao, Y. Li, Nonlinear dynamic modeling and hybrid control
design with dynamic compensator for a small-scale UAV quadrotor,
Measurement 109 (2017) 51–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2017.05.036.
[19] S. Badr, O. Mehrez, A.E. Kabeel, A novel modification for a quadrotor design,
Int. Conf. Unmanned Aircr. Syst IEEE (2016) 702–710, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICUAS.2016.7502536.
[20] P. Segui-Gasco, Y. Al-Rihani, H.-S. Shin, A. Savvaris, A novel actuation concept
for a multi rotor UAV, J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 74 (2014) 173–191, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10846-013-9987-3.
[21] S. Driessens, P.E.I. Pounds, Towards a more efficient quadrotor configuration,
in: 2013 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., IEEE, Tokyo, 2013, pp. 1386–
1392, https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2013.6696530.
[22] S. Zabunov, G. Mardirossian, Innovative dodecacopter design – Bulgarian
knight, Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerosp. 5 (2018), https://doi.org/10.15394/
ijaaa.2018.1293.
[23] E.L. de Angelis, Stability analysis of a multirotor vehicle hovering condition,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 72 (2018) 248–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ast.2017.11.017.
[24] P. Ventura Diaz, S. Yoon, High-fidelity computational aerodynamics of multi-
rotor unmanned aerial vehicles, in: 2018 AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet., American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2018, pp. 1–22,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-1266.
[25] P. Sanchez-Cuevas, G. Heredia, A. Ollero, Characterization of the aerodynamic
ground effect and its influence in multirotor control, Int. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2017
(2017) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1823056.
[26] H. Xiu, T. Xu, A.H. Jones, G. Wei, L. Ren, A reconfigurable quadcopter with
foldable rotor arms and a deployable carrier, in: 2017 IEEE Int. Conf Robot.
Biomimetics, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1412–1417, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ROBIO.2017.8324615.
[27] A.-R. Merheb, H. Noura, F. Bateman, Emergency control of AR drone quadrotor
UAV suffering a total loss of one rotor, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 22 (2017)
961–971, https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2017.2652399.
[28] M. Saied, B. Lussier, I. Fantoni, H. Shraim, C. Francis, Fault diagnosis and fault-
tolerant control of an octorotor UAV using motors speeds measurements,
IFAC-PapersOnLine 50 (2017) 5263–5268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ifacol.2017.08.468.
[29] M.W. Mueller, R. D’Andrea, Stability and control of a quadrocopter despite the
complete loss of one, two, or three propellers, in: 2014 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot.
Autom., IEEE, 2014, pp. 45–52, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2014.6906588.
[30] M. Saied, B. Lussier, I. Fantoni, C. Francis, H. Shraim, G. Sanahuja, Fault
diagnosis and fault-tolerant control strategy for rotor failure in an octorotor,
in: 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., IEEE, 2015, pp. 5266–5271, https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139933.
[31] E. Kuantama, T. Vesselenyi, S. Dzitac, R. Tarca, PID and Fuzzy-PID control
model for quadcopter attitude with disturbance parameter, Int. J. Comput.
Commun. Control. 12 (2017) 519–532, https://doi.org/10.15837/
ijccc.2017.4.2962.
[32] N.P. Nguyen, S.K. Hong, Fault-tolerant control of quadcopter UAVs using robust
adaptive sliding mode approach, Energies 12 (2018) 95, https://doi.org/
10.3390/en12010095.
[33] A. Freddi, S. Longhi, A. Monteriu, M. Prist, Actuator fault detection and isolation
system for an hexacopter, in: 2014 IEEE/ASME 10th Int. Conf. Mechatron.
Embed. Syst. Appl., 2014, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/
MESA.2014.6935563.
[34] M. Kuric, B. Lacevic, N. Osmic, A. Tahirovic, RLS-based fault-tolerant tracking
control of multirotor aerial vehicles, in: IEEE/ASME Int. Conf. Adv. Intell.
Mechatronics, AIM, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1148–1153, https://doi.org/10.1109/
AIM.2017.8014173.
[35] F.R. López-Estrada, J.-C. Ponsart, D. Theilliol, Y. Zhang, C.-M. Astorga-Zaragoza,
LPV model-based tracking control and robust sensor fault diagnosis for a
quadrotor UAV, J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 84 (2016) 163–177, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10846-015-0295-y.
[36] K. Alexis, G. Nikolakopoulos, A. Tzes, Experimental constrained optimal
attitude control of a quadrotor subject to wind disturbances, Int. J. Control.
Autom. Syst. 12 (2014) 1289–1302, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-013-
0290-7.
[37] M. McKay, R. Niemiec, F. Gandhi, An analysis of classical and alternate
hexacopter configurations with single rotor failure, 73rd AHS Int. Annu. Forum
(2017) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035005.
[38] A. Zulu, S. John, A review of control algorithms for autonomous quadrotors,
Open J. Appl. Sci. 4 (2014) 547–556, https://doi.org/10.4236/
ojapps.2014.414053.
[39] J. Muliadi, B. Kusumoputro, Neural network control system of UAV altitude
dynamics and its comparison with the PID control system, J. Adv. Transp. 2018
(2018) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3823201.
[40] D.A. Tesch, D. Eckhard, W.C. Guarienti, Pitch and roll control of a quadcopter
using cascade iterative feedback tuning, IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (2016) 30–35,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.118.
[41] C.S. Subudhi, D. Ezhilarasi, Modeling and trajectory tracking with cascaded PD
controller for quadrotor, Procedia Comput. Sci. 133 (2018) 952–959, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.082.