Masterthesis

Acknowledgments
My deepest gratitude goes to the almighty God for giving me the gift of life, health
and strength which has enabled me pursue my academic pursuits to the best of my
ability.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Majd Saeid
and Dr. Clovis Francis. Its my pleasure that I worked with such supportive inspiring,
motivating and tolerant team. Your encouragement, guidance and trust enabled me
to elaborate this work and complete this thesis.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Abdel-
latif Samhat and Pr. Youssef Harkous for their great attention, discussion, ideas and
feedback that have been absolutely invaluable and enabled me finally to finish this
work.
Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my family for providing me
with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study
and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment
would not have been possible without their love.
1
Publications
• M. Saied, M. Slim, H. Mazeh, H. Shraim, C. Francis, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Fleet Control via Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm, Accepted in Systol, Sep.
2019.
• M. Slim, M. Saied, H. Mazeh, H. Shraim, C. Francis, Fault-Tolerant control

design for multirotor UAVs formation flight, under preparation.
2
Abstract
An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is known as a powered flying vehicle that does
not carry a human operator, it can be operated remotely or autonomously and can
carry a payload. UAVs can be used in both military and civilian applications. They
can carry out tasks without placing human pilots in risk. However, in some cases,
a single UAV cannot well perform some complex missions, such as large payloads
transportation, searching objects in large area, etc. Motivated by these potential
applications, researchers are more and more attracted by the cooperation of multiple
UAVs. The main challenge in this field is to find the local interaction rules between
these vehicles to achieve a global desired comportment.
To deal with this issue, different formation control structures and architectures
are proposed in the literature. In addition, several methods exist for synthesizing the
control laws. Optimization approaches are widely used in the control of multi-agent
systems in which the objective is formulated as an optimization problem providing
effective tools to find the optimal solution with respect to the considered criteria.
However, if a fault/failure occurs in the formation, these control laws can be very
limited, resulting in an unstable system behavior. The development of fault tolerant
control tools becomes then essential to maintain control performance in the presence
of faults.
In this thesis, we propose the use of the Articial Bee Colony algorithm to solve
an online optimization problem for the leaderless distributed control of a fleet of
hexarotor UAVs. The ABC algorithm is used to minimize a cost function for each
UAV guaranteeing convergence to the desired position while avoiding obstacles and
collisions with other agents. We then studied the cases of loss of agents due to actuator
faults in the fleet. The method is tested in simulation on a fleet of hexarotor UAVs.
Test results for various cases are presented.
Key Words: Formation control, Distributed control, ABC algorithm, Fault Tol-
erance.
3
General Introduction
In recent years, the control of multiple vehicles has attracted increasing attention
from scholars around the world, owing to its potential applications whether in the
military or civilian fields and by the fact that many benefits can be obtained when
a single complicated vehicle is equivalently replaced by multiple yet simpler vehicles.
This is partly made possible thanks to the technological developments such as the
miniaturization of the electronic and mechanical components, the constantly improv-
ing wireless communication devices, and the increasing capabilities of the storage and
computation.
First, the study of collective behaviors of animals that lead to a global objective
was inaugurated by biologists. They studied flocks of birds, swarms of insects, herds
of quadruped and schools of fish. They tried to understand the secret of free-collision,
harmonic and collective motion of individuals. Moreover, they searched to discover
motivations that lead animals to aggregate in groups like flocks of birds. The natural
behavior of animals operating as a team has inspired scientists in different disciplines
to investigate the possibilities of networking a group of systems in order to accomplish
a given set of tasks without requiring an explicit supervisor. Therefore, multi-agent
systems have appeared broadly in several applications including multi-vehicle system,
formation flight of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), clusters of satellites, etc.
Motivation
Recently, relatively cheap Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), equipped by sensing
and actuation capabilities, are emerging rapidly. Moreover, with the miniaturization
revolution, these devices are able to perform local decision-making as well as short-
range communications. These novelties motivate scientists and researchers to raise
different questions about the techniques that could be introduced to coordinate and
control these devices. One of the biggest challenges in this new field of research is
to define local interaction rules, between these devices, that lead to a global desired
behavior, in other words, ”Think globally, act locally”. A global desired behavior
could be any objective or mission achieved by one device, for instance, surveillance,
inspection, transportation, etc. However, this objective, if it is done by one device,
could be expensive in terms of time, reliability and computational power. Therefore,
the question could be reformulated to be ”How should the interaction rules and the
control algorithms be designed to efficiently achieve the global desired objective?”
Different control architectures used for autonomous vehicle fleet control exist in
the literature in addition to the theoretical tools used to synthesize the control laws.
Some methods proposed the use of consensus protocol to achieve a defined fleet goal,
where the theory of algebraic graphs is the main theoretical tool used to solve control
4
5
problems. Other methods are based on optimization approaches where the controllers
are designed by minimizing or maximizing an optimization criterion. This method is
used in this thesis, where the primary goal is to implement an efficient, fast-converging
and suitable algorithm for fleet problems.
The formation control is based on advanced control techniques that aim to achieve
high performance. Nevertheless, if a fault or failure occurs in a fleet, these control
strategies may be very limited, inducing unwanted behaviors and may even lead to
instability of the agents. In such situations, it is necessary to develop fault-tolerant
tools and methods (FTC). By definition, the fault tolerance of a system is its ability
to perform its function despite the presence or occurrence of defects, whether physical
degradations of hardware or software defects. It should be noted that fault tolerance
in multi-agent systems is more general than its definition for a single system. In
reality, the operation of a multi-agent system is not affected only by the appearance
of defects on each agent, but also collisions, the loss or drift of agents, the modification
or the loss of the communication network, can be considered as defects for multi-agent
systems.
Thesis Contribution
The main contributions of this thesis are:
• Proposition and simulation validation of the use of the Articial Bee Colony
algorithm (ABC) for the leaderless distributed control of a fleet of hexarotor
UAVs with collision avoidance.
• Convergence time comparison between the ABC and the Particle Swarm Opti-
mization algorithm (PSO) in four different scenarios.
• Proposition and simulation validation of the use of an improved version of the

ABC for the leaderless distributed control of a fleet of hexarotor UAVs with
collision and obstacle avoidance.
• Proposition and simulation validation of a reconfiguration method for the opti-

mization problem in case of loss of an agent in the fleet using ABC.
• Design of a fault tolerant control allocation method to recover a faulty UAV in

the fleet instead of losing it.
Thesis Outline
The thesis is organized in 5 chapters:
• Chapter 1: In this chapter a state of the art in formation control of unmanned

aerial vehicles (UAV) is provided and different formation control structures and
architectures are presented. In addition, different control methods and the
concept of fault tolerance are addressed.
• Chapter 2: The mathematical model of the hexarotor vehicle used for sim-
ulation and control design is derived and the control strategy applied to the
6
hexarotor is presented: A Proportional Derivative controller based on nested

saturations technique.
• Chapter 3: The Artificial Bee Colony algorithm principle and procedure are
explained and the optimization problem for the control of the fleet is formulated.
• Chapter 4: The ABC results are presented and compared to PSO results. A
further improvement in ABC is then introduced and its results are shown.
• Chapter 5: The Fault tolerance of formation control is discussed in three

different cases.
Finally the thesis concludes with a summary about the obtained results and an
outlook about potential improvements of our work.
Chapter 1
Literature Review
1.1 Introduction
Automatic formation control is a field that addresses the control of multiple robots
in order to realize certain geometrical patterns. Inspired by nature, these geometrical
patterns could be regular, such as the V-shape seen in migratory birds, or irregular
as seen in a flock of birds. Several techniques of automatic formation control are
used, developed and applied on aircrafts and multiple aerial robots [1]. This chapter
describes the different classifications of structures and architectures existing in this
field, in addition to the different applied control laws and the theoretical tools used
to design them. It also defines the fault tolerance concept and its applied techniques
for single and multi-agent systems.
1.2 Formation control structures

In the existing literature, three formation control structures can be distinguished,
these are: Leader-follower, Virtual and Behavioral-based. In the following, we describe
these structures with their main advantages and disadvantages.
1.2.1 Leader-follower structure

In this structure, one agent- which is designated as a leader- is followed by other
agents in the formation. The formation flight mission trajectory is loaded in the leader
and the followers track it. Moreover, different strategies have been implemented in this
structure, for instance, leader mode or front mode [2]. In the leader mode strategy,
all the followers follow directly the leader. However, in the front mode strategy, each
agent in the formation follows its preceding, or neighboring agent and so on until
reaching the leader which drives the whole formation [3].
The advantages of this structure is its simplicity and its wide implementation
in multi-agent formation [1], [4]. Moreover, stability analysis of systems using this
structure, is relatively simple. Experimental work was conducted in [5] using this
control structure.
On the other side, this control structure reveals some drawbacks. One of them
is that the entire formation depends on one agent, so if there is a problem with the
7
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 8
leader, the whole formation will be affected. Moreover, error propagation and non-self-
organization formation are some disadvantages of this structure. Solutions of some of
these drawbacks are found in [3] and [6]. In [6], the leader in the formation is replaced
by a virtual one. In fact, the virtual leader is a reference trajectory sent to all the
agent in the formation. This solution resolves the reliability problem when depending
on a physical leader as well as the problem of error propagation. In [3], a multiple
leader solution is proposed to solve the problem of one leader dependency. However,
the self-organization problem is still persistent in this structure.
1.2.2 Virtual structure

In this structure, each agent in the formation has its own trajectory to follow. The
group of all trajectories form the desired formation. Trajectories are calculated in a
central computer and sent to all agents in the formation. Generally, no interactions
between agents are considered. Examples of experimental works of such control
strategy can be found in [7] and [8].
It is well noticed that this structure solves the problems of reliability and error
propagation present in the leader-follower structure because each agent follows its
own trajectory independently of any other agent found in the formation.
However, it exhibits some drawbacks. In fact, since there is no interaction between
agents in the formation, collisions could not be avoided in the presence of perturba-
tions. Moreover, the centralized control of this structure increases the computational
and communication cost which reveals a problem in scalability.
1.2.3 Behavioral-based structure

In this structure, each individual follows a set of rules in order to accomplish the
desired formation. Among the first technical work on this structure is the distributed
behavioral model introduced by Reynolds [9]. Reynolds inspired his rules from bi-
ologists studies of collective motion of animals. He considered that each agent in a
formation should follow these rules in order to perform a behavioral-based structure.
These rules are: Collision Avoidance, Velocity Matching, and formation Centering. In
the collision avoidance rule, each individual in the formation should ensure a predefined
safety distance with its neighboring agents. This could be done by an embedded
controller on each agent whose duty is to generate a repulsion force if the distance
with the neighboring agent is less than the safety distance. In the velocity matching
rule, also called velocity consensus or velocity alignment, each agent attempts to match
its velocity with nearby agents. This could be ensured by a controller that regulates
the relative velocities to zero with respect to the neighboring agents. In the formation
centering rule, also called formation cohesion, each agent tries to stay close to nearby
agents. This is achieved by a controller that generates an attraction force toward the
neighboring agents. In addition, each agent should converge to a global objective of
the formation. This objective may be a rendezvous point or a reference trajectory
known by all the agents in the formation. This structure is found in the work of [1],
[10] and [12]. In [10], two flocking algorithms are introduced with Lyapunov stability
analysis. The author proved analytically that these algorithms embed the rules of
Reynolds. In [11], a non-smooth analysis is used to prove the stability of a group of
agents applying the rules of Reynolds.The work in [12] introduces a Null Space-based
behavioral control laws to follow the rules of Reynolds.
Many advantages can be noticed by this structure. One of the main ones is that a
behavioral-based structure is easily self-organized since each agent has to follow a set
of rules and knows the objective trajectory or destination. Another crucial one is the
scalability which can be seen when increasing or decreasing the number of agents in the
formation, where each agent still interacts only with neighbors, thus its computational
capabilities are not affected. The interaction with neighbors shows also the distributed
control aspect.
Yet, one main disadvantage of this structure is that we cannot ensure a fixed
geometrical pattern of the formation. Patterns such as V-shape, rectangles could not
be guaranteed. Only lattice patterns with fixed inter-agent distances could be formed.
Moreover, stability analysis of systems using this structure is relatively difficult.
1.3 Formation control architectures

In the formation control, three types of architectures can be distinguished: central-
ized, decentralized and distributed. In the following, we try to summarize these three
architectures and show their main advantages and disadvantages.
1.3.1 Centralized control architecture

In this architecture, all the individuals in the formation are controlled by one
centralized controller. This controller senses the states of all the agents, calculates
the appropriate control inputs to each of them, and sends back the controlling signals
to each of the agents. Fig 1.1 illustrates the centralized control architecture. The
location of this controller could be in a ground base station or aboard an agent in the
formation, for instance, the leader agent.
Figure 1.1: Centralized Control Architecture[13]
In the literature, we can find several works such as [14] and [15]. This kind of
architecture is clearly identified in the aforementioned virtual structure. Moreover, a
centralized control architecture could be implemented in the leader-follower structure,
especially in the leader mode. The works in [7] and [8] show experimental works that
used the centralized control architecture. Its main advantage is the global knowledge
of the states of all agents in the formation. This global knowledge is beneficial in
designing a controller to achieve an optimal path planning and self-organization.
However, this control architecture needs high computational and communication

power. Moreover, the scalability problem could be easily identified on this architecture,
since the computational cost depends on the number of agents in the formation. In
addition, the centralized control renders this architecture unreliable, because in the
case of presence of a problem in the central controller, the whole formation will be
affected.
1.3.2 Distributed control architecture

The distributed control architecture is the most used and successful architecture for
autonomous flight formation control. In this architecture, each agent in the formation
has its own aboard controller that uses its own states in addition to information from
neighbors. The information from neighbors could be their positions, velocities, ranges
from the agent, etc. This information could be gathered through sensing, using on
board sensors such as cameras or LIDAR, or through communication. Fig 1.2 shows
the distributed control architecture of multiple systems.
Figure 1.2: Distributed Control Architecture[13]
1.3.3 Decentralized control architecture

This control architecture is mainly used in interconnected subsystems [18]. The
interconnections between subsystems are principally mechanical, for instance, springs.
Each system will have its own controller. The controller only measures and controls the
states of the system where it is implemented [19]. In other word, the only knowledge
a controller in a subsystem has is the state of the subsystem itself. Fig 1.3 illustrates
the decentralized control architecture.
Since the controller in the decentralized control architecture has no knowledge
about the states of the other subsystems, this architecture could not be applied for
autonomous flight formation control. However, the wide use of name ”Decentralized
control” in some formation control literature, for instance the works of [5], [16] and
[17], could be conflicted with the distributed architecture as mentioned before. In fact,
the authors claim the development of decentralized controllers, while in their articles
they mentioned that the controller on each agent uses information from neighbors.
This conflict could be explained by the fact that multiple-robot systems are studied
Figure 1.3: Decentralized Control Architecture[13]
by researchers from different specialties, for example, information technology, sensor

network, robotics and control theory, etc. In this work, we choose the ”distributed
architecture” as a name of our control strategies.
1.4 Control Methods

In addition to the different control structures and architectures used for autonomous
vehicle fleet control existing in the literature, different theoretical tools used to synthe-
size the control laws also exist. Some methods proposed the use of consensus protocol
which aims at achieving an agreement of all agents in a multi-agent system in order to
reach a predefined fleet goal [20]. It is an interaction rule that specifies the information
exchange between an agent and all of its neighbors on the network where the theory
of algebraic graphs is the main theoretical tool used to solve control problems. The
works in [21] and [22] considered that the consensus is to deliberately drive the states
of network components to a common value or trajectory. In [23], the author has also
claimed that the consensus algorithms cause all the agents in the multi-agent systems
to converge to the same trajectory.
Other methods are based on optimization approaches where the controllers are
designed by minimizing or maximizing an optimization criterion. The advantage
with these approaches in the control of multi-agent systems is that the objective
is formulated as an optimization problem, providing effective tools to find the optimal
solution with respect to the considered criteria. A distributed control approach of
a fleet of quadrotors based on a leaderless strategy is proposed in [24] and [25],
where the formation problematic is formulated as an optimization problem solved
using the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm. The objective is to minimize
a cost function for each vehicle that enables the fleet to converge to a target point
in a predefined configuration while avoiding obstacle and collision between agents.
According to the authors, the PSO has shown optimal performance with a minimum
calculation time. However, as stated in [26], the PSO can converge untimely and be
snared into a local minimum, which could be risky when dealing with systems such
as UAVs. To overcome this drawback, other optimization algorithms could be used to
minimize the cost functions.
The Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) is a population-based optimization technique
capable of handling constrained optimization problems [27]. It was compared to other
known optimization methods and the results outmatched or matched those achieved
using other techniques [28], [29]. Different works in the literature proposed the use
of the ABC approach to solve multi-robot path planning in a given environment with
an ultimate objective to select the shortest path length of all the robots without
hitting any obstacle in the world map [30]. In [31], satellite formation keeping problem
was treated, in which the feedback gain parameter that ensures bounded motion and
minimum fuel consumption was estimated using ABC. These works have shown the
feasibility of applying this technique for path planning and optimization of feedback
gain controller parameters with a good quality of the solutions and fast convergence.
After generating the trajectories for a formation of UAVs, a certain control law
must be designed whose duty is to track the vehicles to the calculated reference
trajectory. Control laws may be classified into two major types, linear and nonlinear.
For linear control, the model should firstly be linearized, then a linear control technique
is used, such as, PID, Linear Quadratic, etc.
An efficient and reliable PID technique based on quaternion for a hexacopter
control and stabilization has been presented and discussed by means of a wide exper-
imentation in [32]. In [33], an optimum linear control algorithm is proposed, that is
able to stabilize the attitude of a hexarotor micro aerial vehicle in indoor environment.
Some nonlinear control techniques are backstepping, sliding mode, nested satura-
tion, or Lyapunov redesign. In [34], a control algorithm based on the backstepping
technique is presented and applied to the trajectory tracking problem for a hexarotor
aerial robot. In [35], the Sliding Mode Control method, which is known to be insen-
sitive to external disturbances and parameter uncertainties, was used to control the
altitude, attitude and position of the hexarotor.
1.5 Fault tolerance

The security of a system, consisting of fault detection, isolation (FDI) and fault
tolerant control (FTC) methods is nowadays an area of intensive research in the field of
automation and must be taken into account in the design of the systems and control
laws. Fault diagnosis can be defined as the procedure of detecting, locating and
identifying a defective component or element in a dynamic system [36], [37]. Three
classes of faults are defined in the literature:
• Actuator failures that act as a function of the operative part and which degrade
the control signal of the system.
• Sensor faults which are the cause of a wrong measurement or estimation of the
state of the system.
• The components or system faults that come from the system itself and result
from the alteration of a component of the system.
Existing fault diagnostic techniques can be classified as internal and external.
Internal techniques are based on methods generally used in control. This requires
a deep knowledge of the system behavior described by mathematical models. These
models need to be validated experimentally before any real time application. The first
step in these approaches is to generate defect indicators (residuals). They contain
information on the anomalies of the system to be controlled. The principle is to
measure the difference between the measurements of the sensor or actuator signals, and
the theoretical value provided by the model under the nominal operating conditions
[38], [39]. On the other hand, external methods are suitable when no analytical model
is available for the system to be controlled. The only knowledge available is based on
the human expertise associated with a strong experience feedback. These methods
are based on Artificial Intelligent Techniques including pattern recognition, artificial
neural networks, expert systems, etc.
The objective of the fault-tolerant control is then to determine a control strategy
that can prevent, or at least limit, the effects of faults on the stability and performance
of the system. In the presence of a low-amplitude defect, a simple and robust control
can preserve the nominal stability and performance of the controlled system. It is
called passive fault-tolerant control [40], [41]. However, in presence of severe defects,
it is necessary to implement an active fault-tolerant control strategy. In this case,
one distinguishes accommodation, reconfiguration and restructuring according to the
desired performance after the occurrence of the fault. This approach makes it possible
to deal with unforeseen faults, but it requires the synthesis of an FDI scheme to provide
information as precise as possible.
The problem of fault tolerance has been widely discussed in the last two decades.
The major problem encountered when designing such control is that most FDI tech-
niques are used as a monitoring tool to detect and locate open loop faults and do
not integrate the control part. The study of multi-agent systems and particularly
autonomous vehicle fleet control requires, in comparison to the control of a single
system, the consideration of additional problems which may compromise the execution
of a given mission such as loss of communication, changes in network topology, data
loss between agents, collision avoidance, defects or loss of agents in the fleet or
problems of error propagation. All these aspects are considered in the fleet control
framework as defects in the multi-agent system. Although the study of FDI and FTC
methods for a single dynamic system is widely known and developed, few results relate
to the concept of multi-agent systems. In [42] the consensus problem in multi-agent
systems in the case of actuator fault detection is studied. By adopting an approach
based on virtual actuators, it is shown that the effects of faults can be effectively
compensated. The authors in [43] propose a predictive-based (MPC) fault-tolerant
method for stabilizing and navigating a heterogeneous formation in a 3D space. In
[44], the authors studied problems related to the detection of defects that occur in a
formation control. He was particularly interested in the case of agent loss in the fleet
and actuator faults. Simulation and experimental results were presented on a fleet of
quadrotors based on two algorithms, the consensus and the PSO algorithm.
1.6 conclusion
This chapter presents the several formation control structures and architectures
found in the literature focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of each. It then
lists some control laws used for controlling hexarotor UAV systems and describes the
different theoretical methods used to synthesize these control laws for multi-agent
systems. Finally, the fault tolerance concept is explained, together with its existing
types and methods and some applied examples on formation control problems.
Chapter 2
Modelling
2.1 Introduction
Hexarotors are aerial robots that have been extensively used in the last decades. In
both, research and industrial fields, hexarotors seem to be a promising platform. They
are a type of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) that have useful properties compared
to fixed-wing airplanes and helicopters. This chapter presents the basic mathematical
modelling of a hexarotor UAV, which has been used to develop proper methods for
stabilization and trajectory control. It is controlled by adjusting the angular velocities
of the rotors which are spun by electric motors. The model of fleet of hexarotors is
then deduced using the graph theory. A general idea of the PID controller is finally
given, focusing on the advantages of using it in our work.
2.2 Model of the Hexarotor UAV

A hexarotor UAV is an under-actuated system with six-degrees of freedom and only
four inputs. It consists of six motors on which propellers are fixed. They are attached
at the ends of arms under a symmetric body frame. Each motor can be controlled
individually, thus modifying the altitude and the attitude (roll, pitch and yaw) of the
vehicle allowing it to maneuver into the three dimensional space.
Different configurations of hexarotor systems exist as seen in Fig 2.1 and 2.2.
They can be controlled to fly in a plus ’+’ flight configuration, i.e. pointing an arm
in the front of the hexarotor (the X axis), or in a cross ’x’ flight configuration, i.e.
with the front of the hexarotor at the bisection between two arms. According to the
arrangement and distribution of rotors, the most widely used layout is the star- shaped
hexarotor where actuators are equally spaced around the vehicle.
For the simplicity of the model, the hexarotor UAV model developed in the next
sections assume the following [45]
• The structure of the vehicle is supposed to be rigid and symmetrical
• The center of gravity and the origin of the body-fixed frame are assumed to
coincide
• The thrust and the drag are proportional to the square of the rotors speed
14
CHAPTER 2. MODELLING 15
Figure 2.1: Hexarotor ”+” configuration Figure 2.2: Hexarotor ”X” configuration
Describing the dynamics under the external forces that are applied to the center of
mass of the hexarotor system using the Newton Euler formalism results in the following
nonlinear model:
ζ̇ = v (2.1)
mζ̈ = G + RU (2.2)
η̇ = W Ω (2.3)
Where:
T
• ζ = x y z is the position of the center of mass of the hexarotor in the
inertial frame.
T
• v = vx vy vz is the vector of linear velocities in the inertial frame.
T
• η = ϕ θ ψ is the vector of Euler angles in the body-fixed frame named as
Roll, Pitch and Yaw respectively.
T
• Ω = ωBx ωBy ωBz is the vector of the angular velocities in the body-fixed
frame.
• m is the mass of the hexarotor.

 
Jx 0 0
• J =  0 Jy 0  is the moment of inertia matrix
0 0 Jz
T
• G = 0 0 −g is the gravitational force.
• W is the transformation velocity matrix.
• R is the rotation matrix from the body frame to the inertial frame.

• U = 0 0 F is the thrust vector.
T
• τ = τφ τθ τψ is the torque vector.
2.2.1 The forces acting on the Hexarotor

The thrust force is the force produced by the aerodynamics of the propellers and
reaction moment from the rotation of the rotors. The thrust from propeller i is denoted
fi and is given by:
fi = Kf × ωi2 (2.4)
where Kf is a constant that includes aerodynamic parameters of the blade. The overall
thrust generated by the six rotors is given as follows:
F = f1 + f2 + f3 + f4 + f5 + f6 (2.5)
Moreover, a drag moment is induced on each rotor due to aerodynamic forces. The
direction of the drag moment is opposite to the rotation of the rotor. This moment is
given by:
τi = Kt × ωi2 (2.6)
where Kt is a constant that includes the aerodynamic parameters relating the angular
velocities and the drag moment. These forces produce moments around the x, y and
z axes called the roll τφ , pitch τθ and yaw τψ moments respectively, and given by the
following equations:
1 1 1 1
τφ = l(− f1 + f2 + f3 + f4 − f5 − f6 ) (2.7)
2 2 2 2
√
3
τθ = l (f1 + f2 − f4 − f5 ) (2.8)
2
τψ = τ2 + τ3 + τ5 − τ1 − τ4 τ6 ) (2.9)
Using equations 2.4 to 2.9 , we can write:
U1 = BW (2.10)
where:
 
F
 τφ 
U1 = 
τ θ
 (2.11)
τψ
 
Kf Kf Kf Kf Kf Kf
 −Kf l Kf √2l Kf l Kf 2l√ −Kf √2l −Kf l
B= √2  (2.12)
Kf l 3 Kf l 3 0 −Kf l 3 −Kf l 3 0 
2 2 2 2
−Kt Kt Kt −Kt Kt −Kt
 2
w1
w22 
 2
w3 
W = 
w42  (2.13)
 2
w5 
w62
Thus, by adjusting the angular velocities of the rotors, the system states including
translation and rotational position and velocity vectors are controlled by using a
suitable controller that acts on the above described model for each UAV, to track
it to the desired trajectory, achieving by this the whole formation goal.
2.2.2 The full dynamical model
Figure 2.3: Hexarotor configuration and axis
Referring to Fig 2.3 and to the equations 2.1 to 2.9, we can describe the full
dynamic model of the hexarotor UAV by the given equations [45], where:
U
ẍ = ((cosφsinθcosψ) + (sinφsinψ)) (2.14)
m
U
ÿ = ((cosφsinθsinψ) − (sinφcosθ)) (2.15)
m
U
z̈ = (cosθcosφ) −g (2.16)
m
And:
Jy − Jz τφ
φ̈ = θ̇ψ̇ + (2.17)
Jx Jx
Jz − Jx τθ
θ̈ = φ̇ψ̇ + (2.18)
Jy Jy
Jx − Jy τψ
ψ̈ = φ̇θ̇ + (2.19)
Jz Jz
2.3 Model of the fleet of hexarotor UAVs

The Graph theory is used to describe the topology of a multi-hexarotor system.
A multi-hexarotor system is represented by an undirected graph G = (V, E), need a
citation Where:
• V is a set of nodes V = 1, 2, . . ., N , where every node represents a hexarotor.
• E is a set of edges E ⊆ {(i, j) : i, j ∈ V, i 6= j}, where edges depict the sensing

between hexarotors.
An adjacency matrix A is M x M matrix with elements aij as follows: aij = 1 if

(i, j) ∈ E and aij = 0 otherwise. Connected hexarotors with a hexarotor i in the
graph can be modeled by a set γi defined by:
γi = {j ∈ V : aij 6= 0}
We assume that every hexarotor has an Omni-directional detection capability,

i.e. it can detect in all directions. This capability of each hexarotor means that
there is a mutual detection between connected hexarotors. The adjacency matrix is
then symmetric AT = A. Therefore, the graph is undirected. Before working on
the dynamics of hexarotors, we need to represent the multi-hexarotor system in the
Euclidean space Need a citation. Therefore, to every node i in the graph, a position
vector qi ∈ Rf is associated, where f is the dimension of the space (example: f = 2, 3).
The configuration of all nodes of the graph is defined by the vector q = col(q1, ., qn) ∈
Rf M .
A set of special neighbors of a hexarotor i is dened by:
Ni = {j ∈ V : kqi − qj k < c} (2.20)
where k.k is the Euclidean norm, and c is the interaction range.

The desired conformation of multiple hexarotors in a flock could be written as
follows:
kqj − qi k = ddij ∀j ∈ Ni (q) (2.21)
where ddij is the desired interdistance [13].
2.4 Control of the Hexarotor System

Due to the complexity of our system, which is defined by a group of six hexarotor
UAVs, we seek the usage of an easy and a well performing controller such as the PID
controller for each agent of the formation. The controller acts on the above described
model for each UAV, to track it to the desired trajectory, achieving by this the whole
formation goal.
The control law applied to the hexarotor is based on the nested saturation
control for the roll and pitch, and Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) Controller
for the yaw and altitude.
2.4.1 PID Controller

In general, the PID controller has the following form:
Z
1 de(t)
u (t) = k e(t) + e(τ )dτ + Td (2.22)
Ti dt
where:
• u is the control signal
• e is the control error (e = ysp − y)
• y is the measured process variable
• ysp is the reference variable often called the set point
The control signal is thus a sum of three terms as in Fig 2.4: The P-term (which
is proportional to the error), the I-term (which is proportional to the integral of
the error), and the D-term (which is proportional to the derivative of the error).
The controller parameters are the proportional gain K, the integral time Ti , and the
derivative time Td . The proportional control helps in reducing the steady state error,
Figure 2.4: PID controller
thus makes the system more stable. In addition, it has the effect of reducing the rise
time, so the slow response of an overdamped system can be made faster by the help
of the proportional action. The integral action is used to eliminate the steady state
error, and thus improving the accuracy. But it makes the transient response worse.
The derivative part reduces the overshoot and improves the transient response of the
control system thus increasing its stability.
When compared to other control algorithms, like model-based or matrix based
ones, PID controller presents several advantages: it is easier to implement (just a
simple equation) and easier to tune by simple trial and error, it uses lower resources,
it is more robust to tuning mismatches and has a better response to unmeasured
disturbances. Model-based controllers recover from unmeasured disturbances with
only an integral type of action, while PID has also the proportional and derivative
actions that immediately act on an unknown disturbance.
2.4.2 Nested Saturation Control

We present in this section a short overview of this method. Each control input of
the input vector U1 given by equation 2.11 can be used to control one or two degrees
of freedom as shown in Fig 2.5. F is essentially used to make the altitude reach a
desired value. τφ is used to control the roll angle and the horizontal displacement in
the y-axis. Similarly, τθ is used to control the pitch angle and the horizontal movement
in the x-axis while τψ is used to control the yaw rotation Need citation.
Figure 2.5: Altitude, Attitude and Position Control diagram
Roll and Pitch Control:

The control by nested saturations guarantees that φ, φ̇, θ and θ̇ remain bounded
during the flight. The control inputs that stabilize the φ − θ rotational dynamics are
given as follows: Equations

τφ = −σφ Kφ φ̇ + Kφ (φ − φref )) (2.23)

τθ = −σθ Kθ θ̇ + Kθ (θ − θref )) (2.24)
where σαi (s) is a saturation function represented in Fig 2.6
σαi (s) = αi if s > αi
σαi (s) = s if − αi 6 s 6 αi
σαi (s) = −αi if s < αi
The Kai (a = φ, θ, i = 1, 2) are positive tuning gains. φref and θref are desired
references, i.e. the outputs of the x-y position controllers.
Figure 2.6: Saturation function
Altitude and Yaw Control:

PD controllers are used to control the altitude and yaw dynamics. The control inputs
of these two subsystems are given by the general expression of a PID controller in a
tracking perspective, as follows:
F = Kpz (zref z) + Kdz (żref − ż) (2.25)
τψ = Kpψ (ψref − ψ) + Kdψ (ψ̇ref − ψ̇) (2.26)

where zref and ψref are the desired altitude and heading of the hexarotor, and the
coefficients Kmn (m=p,d,i n=z,ψ) are positive tuning gains. The different parameters and
gains of the control laws used during simulations are listed in table 2.1.
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Kp z 120 K φ2 0.12
Kdz 50 σφ1 0.4
K iz 0.2 σφ2 1.74
Kp ψ 50 Kθ1 7
Kdψ 20 Kθ2 0.12
K iψ 0.2 σθ1 0.4
Kφ 30 σθ2 1.74
Table 2.1: Parameters used during experiments
2.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, we presented the model of a hexarotor system followed by the model
of the fleet of hexarotors. In addition to the control law that is used to control the
attitude and altitude of the hexarotor during this work. This control law is based on
nested saturation control for the roll and pitch and on a PID control for the yaw and
the altitude. The control by nested saturations presents the advantage of being simple
to be implemented onboard the UAV like a PID controller. In addition, it is suitable
for a hexarotor UAV since it guarantees that the angles and the angular velocities
remain bounded during the flight.
Chapter 3
Proposed Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses a distributed planner method for multiple unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV), based on a leaderless approach, using an Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
optimization algorithm. It explains how does this algorithm proceed and how is this
problem formulated.
3.2 Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm

Swarm intelligence added a new dimension in artificial intelligence to study the
collective behavior and emergent properties of complex systems with a definite social
structure. In recent years a number of swarm based optimization techniques have been
proposed, among which we here discuss the artificial bee colony optimization algorithm
proposed by Karaboga and Basturk [29]. The ABC algorithm is a metaheuristic
optimization method inspired by the intelligent behavior of the honeybee swarm. It is a
population-based optimization technique capable of handling constrained optimization
problems [27].
3.2.1 Principle of ABC algorithm

Artificial bee colony algorithm is based on intelligent foraging behavior of honey
bee swarm proposed by Dr. Karaboga in 2005. The algorithm is used to solve non-
linear searching problem mimicking the behavior of a honey bee swarm as they search
the food source [46]. Artificial Bee colony consists of three groups of bees: Employed
bees, onlookers and scouts. It is assumed that there is only one artificial employed
bee for each food source. In other words, the number of employed bees in the colony
is equal to the number of food sources around the hive. Employed bees go to their
food source and come back to hive and dance on this area. Onlookers watch the
dances of employed bees and choose food sources depending on dances. The employed
bee whose food source has been abandoned becomes a scout and starts to search for
finding a new food source.
The position of a food source represents a possible solution of the optimization
problem and the nectar amount of a food source corresponds to the fitness of the
22
CHAPTER 3. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY 23
associated solution. The number of employed bees and onlooker bees is equal to the
number of solutions in the population.
3.2.2 Procedure
In the ABC algorithm, each cycle of the search consists of three steps [29]:
1. Initialization
ABC generates a randomly distributed initial population P of Np solutions (food
source positions) and evaluates the nectar amount (fitness value) of each of them.
Each solution Xi(i=0,1,2,,Np −1) is a D dimensional vector where D is the number of
optimization parameters. This initialization is modeled as:
xij = xmin
ij + rand(0, 1)(xmax
ij − xmin
ij ) (3.1)
where i = 1, 2, , Np and the fitness value of a food source is calculated by the

following expression:
1
f it(Xi ) = (3.2)
(1 + Λ(Xi ))
Where Λ(Xi ) represents the value of the cost function at the solution Xi .
2. Placement of employed bees on the food sources

An employed bee produces a modification on the position (solution) in its mem-
ory depending on the local information (visual information) as stated by equa-
tions 3.4, 3.5 and tests the nectar amount (fitness value) of the new source (new
solution). Provided that the nectar amount of the new one is higher than that
of the previous one, the bee memorizes the new position and forgets the old one.
Otherwise it keeps the position of the previous one in her memory.
3. Placement of onlooker bees on the food sources

After all employed bees have completed the search process, they share the nectar
and position information of the food sources (solutions) with the onlooker bees
on the dance area. An onlooker bee evaluates the nectar information from all
employed bees and chooses a food source depending on the probability value
associated with that food source, Pi , calculated by the following expression:
f it(Xi )
Pi = Pn (3.3)
i=1 f it(Xi )
Where f it(Xi ) is the fitness value of the solution Xi evaluated by its employed
bee, which is proportional to the nectar amount of the food source in the
position i and Np is the number of food sources which is equal to the number of
employed bees. After that, as in case of employed bee, onlooker bee produces a
modification on the position (solution) in her memory according to equation 3.4
and checks the nectar amount of the candidate source (solution). Providing that
its fitness is better than that of the previous one, bee memorizes the new position
0
and forgets the old one. In order to find a solution Xi in the neighborhood of Xi ,
a solution parameter j and another solution Xk are selected on random basis.
0
Except for the value of chosen parameter j, all other parameter values of Xi are
the same as in the solution xi , this is shown as follows:
0
0

Xi = xi0 , xi1 , xi2 , , xi(j−1) , xij , xi(j+1) , , x(i(D−1) (3.4)
0 0
The value of xij parameter in Xi solution is computed using the following
expression:
0
xij = xij + u(xij − xkj ) (3.5)
where u is a uniformly random variable in [-1, 1] and k is any number between

0 to Np − 1 but not equal to i.
4. Scout Bee Phase

In the ABC algorithm, if a position cannot be improved further through a
predefined number of cycles called limit, the food source is abandoned. This
abandoned food source is replaced by the scouts by randomly producing a new
position. After that again steps 1, 2 and 3 will be repeated until the stopping
criteria is met.
The algorithm procedure can be summarized by the following flow chart in Fig
3.1:
Figure 3.1: ABC Flow Chart

3.3 Problem Formulation

The recent results in the area of control of multiple UAVs are categorized into
several directions, such as consensus, formation control, task assignment and opti-
mization. It is to be considered that all these approaches are not independent but
may actually be overlapping to some extent [23]. Using optimization approaches to
design control laws for such a problem makes it easier, in which it becomes possible to
use effective tools in order to find the optimal solution satisfying the required criteria.
On the other hand, control strategies can be classified into centralized, decentral-
ized and distributed. Even if the centralized approach is generally considered the
simplest way to control a multi-agent system, this approach requires a considerable
calculation effort. One solution to these problems would be to use the decentralized or
distributed approach. These two approaches make it possible to simplify the central
computation by distributing it on all the agents. In the distributed control, each agent
is connected only with its nearest neighbors and has its own controller which receives
the information from the states of the other agents but also shares them with the
others, whereas in the decentralized control, each agent uses its own information even
if this agent also exchanges information with other neighbors [47]. Hence, distributed
control seems to be superior to other architectures in solving these control issues
because it does not require a central station for control and allows for a better
adaptation to many physical constraints such as limited resources, short chains of
wireless communication and autonomy problems.
Thus, a distributed trajectory generation is proposed to control a group of UAVs
based on a leaderless approach, capable of self-organizing. Moreover, the developed
method will be able to follow a predefined topology around a rendezvous point while
ensuring obstacle and collision avoidance between team members. The issue is treated
as an online optimization problem, and is solved by the ABC algorithm. Each UAV
is equipped with an independent optimization algorithm, which, by minimizing a cost
function for each UAV, allows the fleet to reach the predefined objectives [25].
The goal of our approach is to get a set of UAVs to fly on a 2D plane while
converging to a predefined spatial configuration and avoiding collisions between each
other and with obstacles.
To represent the hexarotors fleet in the Euclidean space, a position vector qi =
T
xi yi ∈ R2 is associated to each node i in the graph. A set of neighbors of a
vehicle i is defined by:
Ξi = {j ∈ N : kqi − qj k < l} (3.6)
where l is the neighborhood scope. A second type of neighborhood called topological

neighborhood, in this case we only consider λ elements of the set Ξi which are the
0 0
closest to node i. The λ nodes represent a new set Ξi with Ξi ⊂ Ξi .
The required configuration of multiple UAVs in the fleet could be formulated as
follows:
kqi − qj k = ddij (3.7)
The sets of elements ddij representing the desired distances between each two agents
i and j forms the desired adjacency matrix Ad . In addition, collision between agents
should be avoided. This constraint can be written as follows:
kqi − qj k > c (3.8)
with c ∈ R being the smallest acceptable distance between any two neighbors. In the
matrix A(t), this constraint is formulated as:
∀aij (t) ∈ A(t) : aij (t) > c, with i 6= j (3.9)
To introduce this constraint in the cost function, a new function αij (t) is defined
between each hexarotor i and its neighbor j (24):
c−aij (t)
αij (t) = 1 + e σ (3.10)
The value of the αij (t) function depends on the difference between aij (t) ; the distance
between two agents i and j with the safety distance c (where l > c), and it is all the
greater when aij (t) < c and converges to the value l when aij (t) >> c. Also, collision
with obstacles should be avoided. This constraint is written as:
kqi − qk k > c (3.11)
where qk is the position vector of an obstacle k. To take into account obstacle avoidance
in the fleet control strategy, an additional term is also introduced into the cost function:
c−dik (t)
Obsik (t) = e σ (3.12)
The value of the Obsik (t) function also depends on the difference between dik (t) ; the
distance between agent i and obstacle k with the safety distance c, and it converges
to zero when the distance is much greater than the safety distance.
The control objective is then:
• Bringing the fleet from an initial geometrical configuration A(t0 ) to a desired

geometrical configuration Ad around a target point.
• Avoiding collisions between interacting agents.
• Avoiding collisions with obstacles .
3.4 Methodology
The design of the whole controller is schematized in the following diagram in Fig
3.2.
Definition of Cost Function

The main idea is to find at each sample time τ , a desired reference point Yiref (t +
τ ) ∈ R2 for each agent i of the fleet based on the rendezvous point Pd and the λ
0
positions of the servants in its field of vision qi (t) with j ∈ Ξi such that: limt→∞ A(t) =
Ad while ensuring the anti-collision of the agents, with Ad being the desired distances
Figure 3.2: Controller design [44]
between agents.
At first, let us define a cost function Λi (t) for each UAV i such that:
q m
X X
Λi (t) = ρ(kPd − [qi (t) + h]k − ddip ) + αij (t)(kqj (t) − [qi (t) + h]k − ddij )) + Obsik (t)
j=0 k=1
(3.13)
With i 6= j , q = card(Ξ) , h ∈ R2 and ρ 1, ddip representing the desired distance

between UAV i and rendezvous point Pd and m the number of obstacles detected by
the ith UAV. Equations 3.10 and 3.11 can be written respectively by:
c−kqj (t)−[qi (t)+h]k
αij (t) = 1 + e σ) (3.14)
c−kqkobs (t)−[qi (t)+h]k)

Obsik (t) = e σ (3.15)
The main goal is to find the best vector h for each agent i minimizing the cost function
Λi (t) such that: ∀i ∈ N : limt→∞ Λi (t) = 0 ⇒ limt→∞ A(t) = Ad . The reference
trajectory at time t + τ for the agent i will then be:
Yir ef (t + τ ) = Yir ef (t) + h (3.16)
The ρ coefficient in the cost function should be larger than 1. This choice is due to
the fact that we favor each agent i position to be in the direction of the target point
Pd .
3.5 Conclusion
This chapter has presented a distributed path planning approach for the control of
a fleet of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The control objective has been formulated as an
online optimization problem. The minimization of a cost function allowed to generate
in a distributed way the trajectories of the UAVs which guarantee the control of the
fleet. The main advantage of the proposed approach is that it is only dependent on the
trajectory generation part and it is independent from the model or from the control
law of the UAVs, which makes it easier to use.
Chapter 4
Simulation and Results
4.1 Introduction
The proposed UAVs fleet control method in this thesis was used in [24] to control
a fleet of quadrotors based on a leaderless strategy, where the formation problematic
was formulated as an optimization problem with the same cost function and the same
constraints, and solved using the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm. This
method has been validated by simulations on Matlab under different scenarios, using
both ABC and PSO algorithms. Then the following trajectories are shown when the
algorithm is tested on a hexarotor fleet simulator on Matlab. This chapter shows
the results of the different scenarios and compares between ABC and PSO, it then
presents a modified version of the ABC to further improve its performance.
4.2 Trajectory Generation Results

In order to have a more stable behavior of the fleet, a minimum value of the cost
function Λimin is considered satisfactory. Λimin describes then the tolerance of the cost
function which defines its convergence. Another criterion involved in the termination
of the algorithm is the maximum number of iterations ”M axIterations”.
When the two conditions are satisfied, i.e. when Λi < Λimin and iterations <
M axIterations, the algorithm stops and the value of hi is the null vector. The
choice of the time step and the search intervals of hi displacements are considered as
optimization constraints.
The parameters of the cost function and those related to the convergence criteria
which are used for simulations are presented in table 4.1.
Parameter Value Parameter Value
ρ 5 hxi ∈ [−0.25, 0.25]
σ 4 hyi ∈ [−0.25, 0.25]
c 1 τ 1s
T olerance 0.1 M axIterations 1000
Table 4.1: Problem Parameters
28
CHAPTER 4. SIMULATION AND RESULTS 29
4.2.1 ABC Results

The parameters of the ABC algorithm used for simulations are presented in table 4.2.
Parameter Value
limit 100
population size 100
Table 4.2: ABC Parameters
• First, the ABC technique is applied on a single agent to generate its path from
an initial position (3,0) to a desired position (-3,0) without an obstacle. Fig 4.1
shows the generated path.
Figure 4.1: ABC path for one agent without obstacle
• In a second scenario, an obstacle was added where its location is considered to

be known at (0,0). The results in Fig 4.2 show how the ABC algorithm adapts
the trajectory to avoid collision if the agent approaches the obstacle.
• In a third scenario, two agents should converge to a rendezvous point (0,0) while
keeping a circle configuration of radius 2. The generated trajectories are shown
in Fig 4.3.
• The fourth scenario is similar to the third one but with six agents where the
rendezvous point is Pd = (15, 10) and the radius is r = 6 m. The time constant
is set to 1 second (τ = 1s). The rendezvous point’s position Pd and the desired
configuration for the UAVs set formed by the adjacency matrix Ad are fixed.
The matrix Ad of elements ddij that describe the desired distance between UAVs
is constructed to have a configuration in a circle around the rendezvous point
Figure 4.2: ABC path for one agent with obstacle avoidance
Figure 4.3: ABC path for two agents with collision avoidance
with a radius r as follows:

 √ √ 
0 r r 3 2r
√ r 3 r
√ 
 r 0 r r 3 2r r 3
 √ √
r 3 2r 0 r r 3 2r
 
Ad =  √ √ 
 2r r 3 √r 0 r r 3

 √ 
r 3 2r
√ r 3 √ r 0 r 
r r 3 2r r 3 r 0
And: ddip = r, ∀i ∈ [1, 6] with ddip being the desired distances between UAV i and
the rendezvous point Pd . The initial positions considered are illustrated in table
4.3.
Pos UAV1 UAV2 UAV3 UAV4 UAV5 UAV6

x0 -8 -7 -1 -1 6 2
y0 -2 9 11 6 -4 -9
Table 4.3: Initial Positions of UAVs
Fig 4.4 shows the evolution paths generated by the ABC for each UAV from the
initial position to the final position to reach the desired circle as shown by the
final positions in Fig 4.5.
Figure 4.4: ABC paths for six agents with collision avoidance
Figure 4.5: ABC final positions for six agents with collision avoidance
To assess the temporal behavior of the fleet, the cost functions Λi (t) of each
UAV i and the distances between the agents and the rendezvous point ddip (t) are
shown in Fig 4.6 and Fig 4.7 respectively. The convergence time of the fleet is
estimated to be around 80 seconds.
Figure 4.6: ABC Cost function convergence for six agents with collision avoidance
Figure 4.7: ABC Radius convergence for six agents with collision avoidance
4.2.2 PSO Results

The particle swarm optimization (PSO) method appeared in [48] and is based on
the notion of cooperation between agents called particles, which manage to solve
complex problems by exchanging information. The PSO algorithm is initialized by
a random population of potential solutions x(t), interpreted as particles moving in
the search space where V (t) represents their speed. Each particle is attracted to its
best position discovered in the past noted Plbest as well as to the best position of the
particles discovered by the whole swarm noted Pgbest . The algorithm includes several
setting parameters to act on the compromise Exploration-Exploitation.
The classic PSO algorithm is written as follows [24]:

V (t + 1) = aV (t) + b1 r1 (Plbest − x(t)) + b2 r2 (Pgbest − x(t)) (4.1)
x(t + 1) = x(t) + V (t + 1) (4.2)

Where, a is the coefficient of inertia, b1 and b2 two real numbers representing the
intensity of attraction and r1 , r2 two random values between 0 and 1. The deterministic
version of the algorithm is considered in [24], where random numbers are replaced by
their average values 1/2 . According to the authors in [24], the PSO algorithm has
shown optimal performance with a minimum calculation time. However, as stated in
the same work, PSO can converge untimely and be snared into a local minimum, which
could be risky when dealing with systems such as UAVs. To overcome this drawback,
other optimization algorithms could be used to minimize the cost functions, such as
the ABC algorithm used in this thesis.
For comparison purpose, the same scenarios above were tested using the Adaptive
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) used in [44] and described in [49], which changes
the values of its parameters during each iteration according to the following equations:
it
a(it) = am ax − amax − amin (4.3)
M axIteration
M axIteration − it
b1 (it) = (b1i − b1f ) + b1i (4.4)
M axIteration
M axIteration − it
b2 (it) = (b2i − b2f ) + b2f (4.5)
M axIteration
Where ”it” is the number of current iteration, and with the parameters shown in table
4.4.
Parameter Value
InertiaW eight amin = 0.4 , amax = 0.9
Cognitiveweight b1i = 2.6, b1f = 0.4
Socialweight b1i = 0.4, b1f = 2.6
P opulationsize 100
Table 4.4: PSO Parameters
• Fig 4.8 Shows the generated path for the first scenario by the PSO.
• In the second scenario, PSO succeeded in obstacle avoidance and the generated
trajectory is shown in Fig 4.9.
• In the third scenario, the two agents reach the desired circle diametrically
opposite following the generated trajectories by the PSO as shown in Fig 4.10.
• In the last scenario, the six agents succeed in reaching the rendezvous point
with a circle configuration around it by the PSO. The evolution paths of the six
agents are shown in Fig 4.11. Fig 4.12 shows that the convergence of the fleet
using the PSO algorithm takes 112 seconds.
Figure 4.8: PSO path for one agent without obstacle
Figure 4.9: PSO path for one agent with obstacle avoidance
4.3 Comparison
To compare the performance of the two algorithms (ABC and PSO), 100 simulations
were done and the average results were taken. For this purpose, table 4.5 was
illustrated to summarize the results of the two algorithms. It presents the average
convergence time after 100 runs for each algorithm under the different scenarios with
the same conditions and the same solutions quality.
Figure 4.10: PSO paths for two agents with collision avoidance
Figure 4.11: PSO paths for six agents with collision avoidance
Scenario ABC PSO

One agent without obstacle 5.4s 6.3s
One agent with obstacle 5.06s 6.84s
T wo agents 11.4s 12.38s
Six agents 108s 160s
Table 4.5: Average convergence time of ABC and PSO for different scenarios
According to the obtained results, it is clear that ABC converges faster than the PSO.
The results reveal that the ABC algorithm is efficient, fast-converging and suitable
for such applications. The whole approach inspired from previous similar works using
Figure 4.12: PSO Cost function convergence for six agents with collision avoidance
PSO optimization offers many advantages in particular in terms of its generic aspect
since it can be applied to various types of vehicles, its simplicity of implementation
and adjustment, and also its distributed architecture and real time aspect.
4.4 Modification of ABC

4.4.1 Six agents without obstacle
According to the various applications listed in the literature, and to the results
obtained above, ABC algorithm seems to be a well-performing optimization algorithm.
However, there is still an insufficiency in ABC algorithm regarding the solution search
equation, which is used to generate new candidate solutions based on the information
of previous solutions. It is well known that both exploration and exploitation are
necessary for a population-based optimization algorithm. In practice, the exploration
and exploitation contradicts to each other. In order to achieve good performances on
problem optimizations, the two abilities should be well balanced [50]. The exploration
refers to the ability to investigate the various unknown regions in the solution space
to discover the global optimum. While, the exploitation refers to the ability to apply
the knowledge of the previous good solutions to find better solutions [50]. However,
according to the solution search equation of ABC algorithm described by equation
3.5, the new candidate solution is generated by moving the old solution towards (or
away from) another solution selected randomly from the population. However, the
probability that the randomly selected solution is a good solution is the same as
that the randomly selected solution is a bad one, so the new candidate solution is not
promising to be a solution better than the previous one. On the other hand, in equation
3.5, the coefficient u is a uniform random number in [−1, 1] and xkj is a random
individual in the population, therefore, the solution search dominated by equation
3.5 is random enough for exploration. To sum up, the solution search equation of
ABC algorithm is good at exploration but poor at exploitation [50]. Inspired by PSO,
which in order to improve the exploitation, takes advantage of the information of the
global best (gbest) solution to guide the search of candidate solutions, we modify the
solution search equation described by equation 3.5 as follows:
0
xij = xij + u(xij − xkj ) + Ψ(yj − xij ) (4.6)
Where the third term in the right-hand side of equation 4.6 is a new added term
called gbest term, yj is the j th element of the global best solution, Ψ is a uniform
random number in [0, C], where C is a non-negative constant and chosen to take
the value 1.5 according to [50]. According to equation 4.6, the gbest term can drive
the new candidate solution towards the global best solution, therefore, the modified
solution search equation described by equation 4.6 can increase the exploitation of
ABC algorithm. This modified version of the ABC algorithm (GABC) was then
tested on the fourth scenario (six agents are supposed to reach a fixed target point
Pd while making a circle around it with a fixed radius r with collision avoidance), the
results are shown in Fig 4.13 and 4.14. Fig 4.13 shows that the generated trajectories
Figure 4.13: GABC paths for six agents with collision avoidance
by GABC are smoother than those generated by the ABC since the position steps are
smaller, this is due to the fact that the search equation is improved and is affected
now by the global best position found among the population, which decreases the
algorithms randomness. Fig 4.14 shows that the convergence of GABC took around
60 seconds which is much less than the convergence time took by the ABC. These
two advantages revealed by the GABC lead to considering it superior to the classical
ABC and using it for testing the behavior of the fleet on a hexarotor fleet simulator
on Matlab.
4.4.2 Six agents with obstacle avoidance

Next, an obstacle is considered to be present across the path of the fleet of agents.
When any agent approaches near the obstacle, the GABC algorithm adapts the
trajectory to avoid collision. This is shown in Fig 4.15. Fig 4.16 shows the distance
between each UAV and the obstacle according to the positions calculated by the
Figure 4.14: GABC cost function convergence for six agents with collision avoidance
Figure 4.15: GABC paths for six agents with obstacle and collision avoidance
GABC. And Fig 4.17 shows these distances according to the real positions of the
UAVs. We can see that all the inter-distances are larger than the safety distance
which ensures the collision avoidance of each UAV with the obstacle.
4.5 Simulator Results

The proposed GABC algorithm was tested on a hexarotor fleet simulator on Matlab.
The model used for each hexarotor UAV is that described in chapter two by the
equations 2.14 to 2.19. And the control law is that described in section 2.4.
Fig 4.18 shows the actual evolution paths for each hexarotor from the initial posi-
tion to the final position, which seem to be tracking the desired trajectory generated
by the GABC in order to reach the final desired configuration.
In Fig 4.19 and Fig 4.20, we can see the trajectory tracking of the UAV1. The
Figure 4.16: GABC calculated inter-distance between each UAV and the obstacle
Figure 4.17: Real inter-distance between each UAV and the obstacle
Figure 4.18: GABC Trajectories of six hexarotors in a circle conguration
nested saturation control for the roll and pitch, and the PID controller for the yaw
and altitude were able to allow each hexarotor UAV to follow its desired trajectory
generated by the GABC algorithm.
Fig 4.21 shows the inter-distances between each pair of hexarotor UAVs, it is
Figure 4.19: Position Tracking UAV1 in X direction
Figure 4.20: Position Tracking UAV1 in Y direction
clear that all the inter-distances calculated from the positions generated by GABC
are greater than the predefined security distance which validates that the collision
avoidance constraint is verified.
Figure 4.21: Distance between each pair of UAVs calculated by GABC
Fig 4.22 shows the actual interdistances between each two UAVS trying to track
the calculated inter distances.
Figure 4.22: Real distance between each pair of UAVs
4.6 Conclusion
This chapter presented the results of the ABC algorithm on four different scenarios
showing that it is an efficient algorithm and fast converging compared to the PSO
algorithm that is previously applied on fleet problems. In an attempt to improve its
performance more and more, a modified version of the ABC has been presented and
applied on a hexarotor fleet simulator on Matlab showing satisfying results to reach
the desired configuration and avoid collision between UAVs and with obstacles.
Chapter 5
Fault Tolerant Control for

Formation Control
5.1 Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to extend the results obtained with the control
technique proposed in chapter three to cases of presence of defects. We are particularly
interested in the cases of loss of agents due to actuator faults in the fleet. Simulations
on a fleet of hexarotors are carried out in order to validate the proposed approaches.
Three cases are considered when an agent is lost, one is without recovery of the faulty
agent that is detected as faulty before starting the simulation. Another is the same
one but with sudden detection of the fault during the flight of the fleet. In both cases,
the remaining faultless agents in the fleet are supposed to continue the mission. The
last studied case is with accompanying a fault tolerant control allocation module with
each agent in order to recover it.
5.2 Non-Recovery of the faulty agent

We propose in this part the implementation of a re-configuration module of the
objective functions and the desired adjacency matrix present in the optimization
modules in order to manage the fault caused by the loss of an agent in the fleet.
The reconfiguration module uses Fault Detection and Isolation modules (FDI) that
are supposed to be functional, making it possible to act on the objective functions of
each of the GABC algorithms in order to modify, according to the detected fault, the
trajectories computed by the optimization modules. Fig 5.1 describes the function of
the reconfiguration module.
The situation considered in the following is the case of loss of an agent in the fleet
of N agents. Let K(t) be a diagonal matrix N × N of elements ki (t) where:
1. ki (t) = 1 In the case of absence of fault on the agent i
2. ki (t) = 0 In case an agent i is defective
By introducing the modifications on the cost function, its expression becomes as
42
CHAPTER 5. FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL FOR FORMATION CONTROL 43
Figure 5.1: Reconfiguration scheme of optimization modules
described by equation 5.1:

q
X
Λi (t) = ρ(kPd − [xi (t) + h(t)]k − ddip ) + kj (t)aij (t)(kxj (t) − [xi (t) + h(t)]k − ddij )
j=1
(5.1)
A zero value of a parameter kj (t) would then cancel the influence of an agent j on the
trajectory generation of the other agents of the fleet. The loss of an agent would then
be taken into account in the objective functions of the optimization modules, which
greatly facilitates the formation control.
5.2.1 Faulty agent detected before simulation

This case was tested on Matlab, on the trajectory generation for the fleet of six
agents with the desired configuration as described by the fourth scenario in chapter
four. It was then validated on a hexarotor fleet simulator. We consider the case in
which an agent in the fleet is detected as a faulty agent from the beginning and is thus
motionless. The FDI module detects the faulty agent and transmits this information
to the re-configuration module. This module will act on the objective function by
eliminating the influence of the defective agent through the matrix K(t) and modify
the desired configuration of the fleet with the matrix ξs (t). The results are shown in
the following figures.
Fig 5.2 shows how the remaining five faultless agents were able to continue the
mission and reach the target point while making a circle shape around it.
Fig 5.3 draws the evolution paths computed by the GABC algorithm from the
initial position to the final position for each faultless agent. The faulty agent is
motionless.
To assess the temporal behavior of the fleet in the case of loss of an agent, the cost
functions Λi (t) of each UAV i and the distances between the agents and the rendezvous
point ddip (t) are shown in figures 5.6 and 5.7 respectively. The convergence time of the
fleet is 50 seconds. The cost function of the faulty agent is set to zero once the fault
is detected, in order not to affect the convergence of the remaining faultless agents in
the fleet.
Figure 5.2: Final positions computed by GABC in faulty agent case
Figure 5.3: GABC trajectories for six agents with a faulty agent
In the Fig 5.6 and Fig 5.7, we can see that UAV4 is detected defective at the start
of the simulation and remains in the same position. The other five hexarotor UAVs
continue the mission and move in formation towards the calculated desired positions.
5.2.2 Faulty agent detected during simulation

In this part, we suppose that UAV4 is detected faulty after 50 seconds from the
flight of the fleet. It then lands vertically and become motionless. The remaining
five UAVs continue their flight according to the modification done in the optimization
module by the reconfiguration module so that the five faultless agents achieve a circle
topology around the target point without collision. Fig 5.8 draws the evolution paths
computed by the GABC algorithm from the initial position to the final position for
Figure 5.4: GABC cost function convergence in the case of loss of an agent
Figure 5.5: GABC radius convergence in the case of loss of an agent
each agent. The faulty agent becomes motionless after the injection of fault.
In the Fig 5.9 and Fig 5.10, we can see that the UAV4 is detected defective after 50
seconds of the simulation and remains in the same position. The other five hexarotor
UAVs continue the mission and move in formation towards the new calculated desired
positions. The vertical dashed lines indicate the injection fault time.
5.3 Second Case: Recovery of the faulty agent by

Control Allocation
In this part, we seek to study the case of recovery of the faulty agent in the fleet
once it is detected. The six agents must then continue the mission all together
to achieve the desired topology as stated in the fourth scenario in chapter four,
without reconfiguring the optimization module so that the objective function and the
Figure 5.6: Desired and Real Positions in X for the six UAVs with a faulty agent detected
at the start
Figure 5.7: Desired and Real Positions in Y for the six UAVs with a faulty agent detected
at the start
Figure 5.8: GABC trajectories for six agents with a faulty agent detected during flight
Figure 5.9: Desired and Real Positions in X for the six UAVs with a faulty agent detected
during flight
Figure 5.10: Desired and Real Positions in Y for the six UAVs with a faulty agent detected
during flight
desired adjacency matrix remain unmodified. For this purpose, fault tolerant control
allocation is suggested to recover the faulty hexarotor.
One major advantage noticed with a hexarotor is the motor redundancy. Due to
this redundancy, it can continue flying when one motor got failed. The main objective
of control allocation is to determine how to generate a desired control effect from
a redundant set of actuators and effectors. In particular, if the set of actuators and
effectors is partially affected by faults, one can modify the control allocation scheme by
preventing the use of inefficient/ineffective devices in the generation of control effect
or compensating for the loss of efficiency. However, one key point for successfully
re-allocating the control is the availability of adequate information about the faults
that have occurred. Indeed, some accurate fault estimation and a correct isolation of
the faulty actuators or effectors is necessary to address the reconguration problem. In
our case, we suppose that there is a functioning FDI module which detects the fault
and isolate it properly. The type of fault considered is the actuator fault in one of the
six motors of the hexarotor UAV.
As in the first case, the FDI module provides a signal informing about the detected
fault. This signal will be received by the fault tolerant control allocation, which will act
on the control input to the UAV system by eliminating the influence of the defective
part through a matrix W(t) and modify its output. By other words, the speeds of the
motors will be modified in a way to compensate for the fault.
With W (t) be a diagonal matrix N × N of elements wi (t) where:
1. wi (t) = 1 In the case of absence of fault in the motor i
2. wi (t) = 0 In the case of presence of fault in the motor i
Control Allocation Problem Formulation:

The general control allocation problem arises when the system to be controlled has
more physical actuators than control objectives. Its design is often divided into several
levels as shown in Fig 5.11 First, a high level motion control algorithm is designed
to compute a vector of virtual inputs to the system. Second, a control allocation
algorithm is designed in order to map the vector of virtual inputs to the propellers
speed, such that the total forces and moments generated by all effectors amount to
the controlled virtual input. Third, a separate low-level controller for each effector
may be used to control its actuators in such a way that the desired force and moment
are achieved.
Figure 5.11: System structure including control allocation
Let us assume a system that can be formulated in two ways:
{ẋ = F (x) + g(x)v (5.2)

{ẋ = F (x) + g(x)Bu (5.3)
with x ∈ Rn is the states vector, F (x) is a nonlinear function, B is the control

effectiveness matrix, u ∈ Rm is the true control input vector and v is the virtual control
input vector. The first equation describes the desired form of the system, whereas the
second equation describes what is available for control. To get a system where the
two formulations are equal, the equation v = Bu needs to be solved for the actuators
inputs u.
Considering the dimensions of Rm and Rn , if the inequality m > n holds, the
system is called over-actuated. This means that there exist different solutions of
the equation v = Bu. When controlling these types of systems, other objectives
must be considered to efficiently choose amongst the numerous possible solutions.
Over-actuated control allocation problems are thus usually formulated as optimization
problems that are hard to solve in real-time systems with limiting processing capacity
(which is the case of UAV systems). However, there exist several control allocation
approaches that do not deal with optimization formulation such as the pseudo-inverse
technique that we use in this section.
For a hexarotor UAV, the virtual control input v of the system will be the total
thrust F and the roll, pitch and yaw moments τφ , τθ and τψ around the three axes,
computed according to the control laws to make the hexarotor move as desired. The
real control input is the motors speeds vector. The relation between these two vectors
inputs is described by the control effectiveness matrix B which depends on the hexaro-
tor configuration and the rotors distribution. The low-level controller is the motors
speed controller. In case of one or more actuators failures, the healthy actuators can
be reconfigured by the control allocation system without having to change the motion
controller structure and tuning. The weighted pseudo-inverse method is often used
to solve unconstrained linear control allocation problems. Neglecting any constraints
and saturations on the input, an explicit solution for the control allocation problem
can be obtained from the minimization of a quadratic problem as follows:
minu J = kWu−1 uk (5.4)

s.t Bu(t) = τ (5.5)
and the solution is given based on a weighted pseudo-inverse as follows:
u = W B T (BW B T )−1 ∗ u

(5.6)
T
where W is the matrix described above. τ = F τφ τθ τψ is the virtual control
T
inputs vector and u = ω12 ...ω62 are the motors speeds. The fixed matrix B is defined
as in equation 2.12.
Because we neglect constraints and saturations, there is no guarantee that the
solution will not violate those constraints, and it may become unacceptable when
considering the saturations on the control inputs. This is the main drawback of this
method. However, its main advantage is its easy construction and high allocation
efficiency.
For validation purpose, we considered the case of failure of motor 2 in UAV4 in
the fleet of hexarotors after 40 seconds from the beginning of the simulation and we
tested the behavior of the fleet after recovering this faulty UAV on a hexarotor fleet
simulator on Matlab by fault tolerant control allocation. The results are shown in the
figures below.
Figures 5.12 to 5.17 show the angular speeds of the six rotors of the faulty hexaro-
tor. The first dashed line indicates the failure injection time and the second the
detection and recovery time.
The control allocation succeeded in eliminating the influence of the defective rotor
and modify the control input to the UAV4 system and recover it within 1 second a
figure of x or y is needed here. After the recovery of UAV4 , it tracks the desired
trajectory and continues its flight with the other members of the fleet to reach the
formation target.
5.4 Conclusion
This chapter introduced the idea of fault tolerance for formation control of UAVs.
It studied the problem of losing an agent from the fleet in three cases. Two of them
do not consider the recovery of the faulty agent and one aims to design fault tolerant
control allocation for the faulty UAV in an attempt to recover it. Simulations on a
fleet of hexarotors are carried out in order to validate the proposed approaches. In all
cases, the fleet succeeded in completing the mission after detecting the fault.
Figure 5.12: ω1 Figure 5.13: ω4

Conclusions and Outlook
In this final section, we first summarize the contributions concerning the develop-
ment and simulation validation of applying ABC on formation control problem. We
then suggest possible improvements upon our work and topics for future studies.
Conclusions
The main objective of this thesis was to explore an autonomous vehicle fleet control
technique and approach for the purpose of designing and realizing UAV formation
flight control in real time. We also aimed to take into account the case of faults and
failures in the fleet by proposing fault-tolerant control methods in the multi-agent
context.
We started with a bibliographic research on the existing works. Taking into account
the richness of the field covered in this topic, we have chosen specific research directions
in trying to propose relevant contributions. We were interested in fleet controls based
on optimization techniques. A large number of algorithms are proposed in the litera-
ture which are derived from swarm intelligence. An approach based on a distributed
trajectory generation is proposed. In this one, an optimization block, implemented on
each vehicle, allows minimizing an objective function to calculate the optimal reference
trajectory guaranteeing the formation control of the fleet to reach a target point
with a desired topology while avoiding collisions and obstacles. The minimization
of objective functions in each vehicle is done in a fully distributed manner. The
real-time aspect also requires the choice of an optimization algorithm adapted with a
minimum calculation time. The ABC algorithm, used in our approach, is very suitable
for this dynamic optimization problem, it was then compared with PSO applied in
literature on the same problem and have shown better performance regarding the
convergence time. However, there is still an insufciency in ABC algorithm regarding
the solution search equation, which is used to generate new candidate solutions based
on the information of previous solutions. Inspired by PSO, which in order to improve
the exploitation, takes advantage of the information of the global best solution to guide
the search of candidate solutions, an improved version of the ABC was presented in
which the solution search equation is modified. The whole approach inspired from
previous similar works using PSO optimization offers many advantages in particular
in terms of its generic aspect since it can be applied to various types of vehicles, its
simplicity of implementation and adjustment, and also its distributed architecture and
real time aspect.
Our method was first tested in simulation on Matlab and then on a hexarotor
fleet simulator. The hexarotor was modeled with nonlinear dynamics and controlled
by nested saturation and PID controller. The main advantage of our approach is the
52
ability to separate the local control part of each vehicle that can be done independently,
with the path generation part for the fleet control. The control by nested saturations
presents the advantage of being simple to be implemented onboard the UAV like a
PID controller. In addition, it is suitable for a hexarotor UAV since it guarantees that
the angles and the angular velocities remain bounded during the flight. However, the
disadvantage noticed in this method was that the generation of positions after each
sample time which is done by the ABC algorithm was faster than the controller ability
to track these desired positions in the same time. This is due to the fact that the PID
controller is a simple linear controller while the hexarotor was modeled as a nonlinear
system.
In the last part of this thesis we have proposed the design of fault tolerant control
laws for the proposed fleet control approach. We were interested in problems related
to the loss of agents in the fleet, and actuator faults. We have assumed in these
developments that an almost perfect fault detection and isolation module FDI is
implemented upstream to our control.
Perspective
In future works, we intend to consider a nonlinear controller such as the sliding mode
controller in order to better adapt the hexarotor system to the desired trajectory in a
faster response to the new generated position after each sample time. The proposed
architecture will be tested experimentally on a fleet of real hexarotors.
The extensions proposed in the last chapter on fault tolerance remain simplistic
for the moment and represent only preliminary results. We were interested only in
cases of loss of agents and actuator faults. The aspect of detection and fault tolerance
should be studied in more detail.
In addition, further work is to be considered concerning other faults types such
as problems related to telecommunications, data loss, delays and location errors. It
would be interesting to develop the approaches proposed in this direction in order to
be able to perform training flights in an external environment.
Bibliography
[1] J-A. Guerrero, “UAV ight formation control,” John Wiley-ISTE, 2012.
[2] F. Giulietti, “Autonomous formation flight,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 20, no.
6, pp. 34-44, 2000.
[3] Z. Hou, “Distributed leader-follower formation control for multiple quadrotors with
weighted topology,” 10th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE), pp.
256-261, 2015.
[4] M. Chiaramonti, “Formation control laws for autonomous flight vehicles,” 14th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, pp. 1-5, 2006.
[5] G. Vasarhelyi, “Outdoor flocking and formation flight with autonomous aerial
robots,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), pp. 3866-3873, 2014.
[6] H. Shi, “Virtual leader approach to coordinated control of multiple mobile agents
with asymmetric interactions,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena,vol. 213, no. 1,
pp. 51-65, 2006.
[7] A. Kushleyev, “Towards a swarm of agile micro quadrotors,” Autonomous Robots,

vol. 35, pp. 287-300, 2013.
[8] A. Schollig, “Synchronizing the motion of a quadrocopter to music,” IEEE

International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3355-3360, 2010.
[9] CW. Reynolds, “Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model,”
Computer Graphics, pp. 25-34, 1987.
[10] R. Olfati-Saber, “Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and

theory,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 401-420,
2006.
[11] H. Tanner, “Flocking in fixed and switching networks,” IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 863-868, 2007.
[12] G. Antonelli, “Flocking for multi-robot systems via the null-space-based behav-
ioral control,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 37-56, 2010.
[13] O. Saif, “Reactive Navigation of a Fleet of Drones in Interaction,” Phd Thesis,

University of Technology of Compiègne, France, 2016.
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY 55
[14] J. Bellingham, “Cooperative path planning for multiple UAVs in dynamic and
uncertain environments,” Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, pp. 2816-2822, 2002.
[15] A. Richards, “Aircraft trajectory planning with collision avoidance using mixed
integer linear programming,”. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pp.
1936-1941, 2002.
[16] X. Zhang, “An output feedback nonlinear decentralized controller design for
multiple unmanned vehicle coordination,”. American Control Conference, 2006.
[17] D. Roberson, “Decentralized control and estimation for a platoon of autonomous
vehicles with a circulant communication network,” American Control Conference,
2006.
[18] L. Bakule L, “Decentralized control: An overview,” Annual Reviews in Control,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 87-98, 2008.
[19] MR. Jovanovic, “Modeling, Analysis, and Control of Spatially Distributed
Systems,” PhD Thesis, University of California Santa Barbara, 2004.
[20] L. Brunet, “Consensus-Based Auction Approaches for Decentralized Task Assign-
ment,”. AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2008.
[21] X WASAS, “Consensus in the network with uniform constant communication
delay,” IEEE 51st Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 3252-
3257, 2012.
[22] T. Yang, “Consensus for multi-agent systems-synchronization and regulation for
complex networks,” American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 5312-5317, 2011.
[23] J. Qin, “Cluster consensus control of generic linear multi-agent systems under
directed topology with acyclic partition,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 2898-2905,
2013.
[24] A. Belkadi, “UAVs Fleet Control Design Using Distributed Particle Swarm
Optimization: A Leaderless Approach,” International Conference on Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2016.
[25] A. Belkadi, “Distributed Path Planning for Controlling a Fleet of UAVs:
Application to a Team of Quadrotors,” IFAC-PapersOnline, vol. 50, no. 1, pp.
15983-15989, 2017.
[26] Abdmouleha, “Review of optimization techniques applied for the integration of
distributed generation from renewable energy sources,” Renewable Energy, vol. 113,
pp. 266-280, 2017.
[27] D. Basturk, “Articial Bee Colony (ABC) Optimization Algorithm for Solving
Constrained Optimization Problems,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 789-
798, 2007.
[28] D. Basturk, “On the performance of articial bee colony (ABC) algorithm,” Appl.
Soft Comput., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 687-697, 2008.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 56
[29] M. Lalitha, “Optimal DG placement for maximum loss reduction in radial

distribution system using ABC algorithm,” Int. J. Rev. Comput., vol. 3, pp. 44-
52, 2010.
[30] P. PRIGAKAKN, “Multi-Robot Path-Planning Using Artificial Bee Colony Op-

timization Algorithm,” Third World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired
Computing, 2011.
[31] H. SOKaD, “Satellite formation keeping via chaotic ABC,” Aircraft Engineering
and Aerospace Technology, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 246-256, 2015.
[32] A. Alaimo, “PID Controller Applied to Hexacopter Flight,” Springer Sci-

ence+Business Media Dordrecht, 2013.
[33] N.-D. Salim, “PID plus LQR Attitude Control for Hexarotor MAV in Indoor
Environments,” IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, 2014.
[34] C.-A. Arellano, “Backstepping control with sliding mode estimation for a
hexacopter,” 10th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing
Science and Automatic Control (CCE), 2013.
[35] S. Busarakum, “The Design of Sliding Mode Control of a Hexarotor,” IEEE

Conference on Systems, Process and Control, 2014.
[36] DE PERSIS CaIA, “A geometric approach to nonlinear fault detection and

isolation,” IEEE transactions on automatic control, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 853-865,
2001.
[37] PATTON RJ, “Robust model-based fault diagnosis: the state of the art,” IFAC
Proceedings Volumes, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1-24, 1994.
[38] P. Ripoll, “Conception dun système de diagnostic ou appliqué au moteur

automobile,” PhD Thesis, Université de Savoie, 1999.
[39] D. Henry, “Diagnostic et contrle de cohérence des systèmes multivariables

incertains,” PhD Thesis, Université de Bordeaux, 1999.
[40] H. Niemann, “Passive fault tolerant control of double inverted pendulum a

case study example,” Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection,
Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes SAFEPROCESS03, 2003.
[41] K. Zhou, “A new controller architecture for high performance, robust and fault
tolerant control,” Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
2000.
[42] Zhou, “Cooperative control for consensus of multi-agent systems with actuator
faults,” Computers Electrical Engineering, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2154-2166, 2014.
[43] M. Saska, “Fault-tolerant formation driving mechanism designed for heteroge-

neous MAVs-UGVs groups,” Journal of Intelligent Robotic Systems, vol. 73, no.
1-4, 2014.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 57
[44] A. Belkadi, “Conception de commande tolérante aux défauts pour les systèmes
multi-agents : application au vol en formation d’une otte de véhicules autonomes
aériens,” PhD Thesis, Université de Lorraine, 2017.
[45] S. Bouabdallah, “Design and Control of Quadrotors With Application to

Autonomous Flying,” PhD thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, 2007
[46] DD. Karaboga, “An Idea Based On Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimiza-
tion,”. Tech. Report TR06, Kayseri, Turkey: Dept. Comput. Eng., Erciyes Univ.,
2005.
[47] R. Diestel, “Graph Theory,” vol. 173 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 3rd ed.
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005.
[48] R. Eberhart, “A new optimizer using particle swarm theory,” Proceedings of the
sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, pp. 39-43,
1995.
[49] M.-M. Zirkohi, “Design of Radial Basis Function Network Using Adaptive Particle
Swarm Optimization and Orthogonal Least Squares,” Software Engineering &
Applications, 2010.
[50] G. Zhua, “Gbest-guided articial bee colony algorithm for numerical function
optimization,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2010.

Masterthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Masterthesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masterthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acknowledgments

• M. Saied, M. Slim, H. Mazeh, H. Shraim, C. Francis, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

• M. Slim, M. Saied, H. Mazeh, H. Shraim, C. Francis, Fault-Tolerant control

• Proposition and simulation validation of the use of an improved version of the

• Proposition and simulation validation of a reconfiguration method for the opti-

• Design of a fault tolerant control allocation method to recover a faulty UAV in

• Chapter 1: In this chapter a state of the art in formation control of unmanned

hexarotor is presented: A Proportional Derivative controller based on nested

• Chapter 5: The Fault tolerance of formation control is discussed in three

1.2 Formation control structures

1.2.1 Leader-follower structure

1.2.2 Virtual structure

1.2.3 Behavioral-based structure

1.3 Formation control architectures

1.3.1 Centralized control architecture

Figure 1.1: Centralized Control Architecture[13]

However, this control architecture needs high computational and communication

1.3.2 Distributed control architecture

Figure 1.2: Distributed Control Architecture[13]

1.3.3 Decentralized control architecture

Figure 1.3: Decentralized Control Architecture[13]

by researchers from different specialties, for example, information technology, sensor

1.4 Control Methods

1.5 Fault tolerance

2.2 Model of the Hexarotor UAV

• The structure of the vehicle is supposed to be rigid and symmetrical

• m is the mass of the hexarotor.

• W is the transformation velocity matrix.

2.2.1 The forces acting on the Hexarotor

Using equations 2.4 to 2.9 , we can write:

2.2.2 The full dynamical model

Figure 2.3: Hexarotor configuration and axis

2.3 Model of the fleet of hexarotor UAVs

• V is a set of nodes V = 1, 2, . . ., N , where every node represents a hexarotor.

• E is a set of edges E ⊆ {(i, j) : i, j ∈ V, i 6= j}, where edges depict the sensing

An adjacency matrix A is M x M matrix with elements aij as follows: aij = 1 if

We assume that every hexarotor has an Omni-directional detection capability,

Ni = {j ∈ V : kqi − qj k < c} (2.20)

where k.k is the Euclidean norm, and c is the interaction range.

kqj − qi k = ddij ∀j ∈ Ni (q) (2.21)

where ddij is the desired interdistance [13].

2.4 Control of the Hexarotor System

2.4.1 PID Controller

• u is the control signal

• e is the control error (e = ysp − y)

• y is the measured process variable

• ysp is the reference variable often called the set point

Figure 2.4: PID controller

2.4.2 Nested Saturation Control

Figure 2.5: Altitude, Attitude and Position Control diagram

Roll and Pitch Control:

where σαi (s) is a saturation function represented in Fig 2.6

σαi (s) = αi if s > αi

Figure 2.6: Saturation function

Altitude and Yaw Control:

τψ = Kpψ (ψref − ψ) + Kdψ (ψ̇ref − ψ̇) (2.26)

Table 2.1: Parameters used during experiments

With i 6= j , q = card(Ξ) , h ∈ R2 and ρ 1, ddip representing the desired distance