2. State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, P. R. China
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. The flying of UAV, which depends on the flight control system (FCS) including actuator, sensor and so on, is controlled either autonomously by on board computers or by the remote control of a pilot[1-5]. The UAV not only has many potential military and civil applications but also has great scientific significance in academic research. One of the interesting topics is the cooperative control of UAV in formation flight, in which a group of UAVs fly in a desired graph formation[6-10]. There are reasons to believe that the efficiency of group performance is higher than that of single UAV. There have been significant researches in the area of cooperative control of multiple vehicles system in recent years. For examples, the authors mainly focused on the motion consensus and formation control of UAV swarm in Ref.[11], and a novel formation control algorithm suitable for both leaders and followers was designed, in which leaders can be influenced by feedback from their teammates. A normal PID control law was studied for the closed formation of UAVs in Ref.[12], and the bound condition of a safe distance was given. In Ref. [13], the authors respectively proposed centralized and decentralized event-triggered control laws, which achieved the the circle formation. The fault of single UAV or agent will influence the entire formation and even safe, so it is necessary to study the fault tolerant control (FTC) problem of the formation[14]. Several approaches have been exploited to solve the problem about accomplishing a certain formation for faulty UAVs. A mathematical model using dual quaternion is employed to describe the spacecraft formation. The effectiveness of the proposed control method is further demonstrated in the presence of actuator fault, disturbance and parameter uncertainty as well. Moreover, the finite-time stability of the closed-loop system is guaranteed by the adaptive feedback FTC law[15]. The authors investigate the time varying fault tolerant control formation problem for high-order multi-agent systems with actuator failure in Ref. [16]. Using the adaptive online updating strategies, the bounds of actuator failures can be unknown. Then an algorithm is proposed to determine the control parameters of the FTC, where an approach to expand the feasible formation set and the formation feasible conditions is given. A fault tolerant formation control scheme of UAV based on Kalman filter is presented, which can deal with both GPS sensor failure and wireless communication packet losses in Ref.[17]. A centralized null space based approach is introduced to compose a complex mission for swarms. Bernulli model and Extended Gilbert model are employed to value the impact of the main packet loss in wireless networks[18]. The works mentioned above perform effectively in the design of formation controller, but the sensor faults in multi-UAV formation are not studied seriously. Once the attitude, velocity or position sensor of a UAV fails, the formation flight control system (FFCS) will be influenced, which motivates us to study further[19-21].
Motivated by the above discussion, the robust fault tolerant tracking control design is discussed in this paper for FFCS of multi-UAV in which sensor faults happen to a single UAV. The dynamics model of UAV formation including sensor faults and disturbances is established. Then an observer-based feedback control approach is employed. Finally, a simulation example is given to illustrate the validity of the proposed approach.
1 Problem StatementIn this study, the typical leader and wing-man formation patterns are adopted, and a typical triangle formation of UAV is shown in Fig. 1[22].
The aerodynamic coupling effects are ignored for the simplicity, and then a linear state space model for the FFCS of UAV is obtained [12]
$ \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{\dot {\bar x}}} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{A\bar x}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{Bu}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{w}}_1}}\\ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar y}} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{C\bar x}}} \end{array}} \right. $ | (1) |
where
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}} = {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} x&{{V_W}}&y&{{\psi _W}}&z&\zeta \end{array}} \right]^{\rm{T}}} $ |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{u}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{V_{{W_C}}}}\\ {{\psi _{{W_C}}}}\\ {{h_{{W_C}}}} \end{array}} \right],{\mathit{\boldsymbol{w}}_1} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{V_L}}\\ {{\psi _L}}\\ {{h_{{L_C}}}} \end{array}} \right] $ |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0&{ - 1}&0&{ - {y_0}/{\tau _{{\psi _W}}}}&0&0\\ 0&{ - 1/{\tau _{{V_W}}}}&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&{\left( {\frac{{{x_0}}}{{{\tau _{{\psi _W}}}}} - {V_{{L_0}}}} \right)}&0&0\\ 0&0&0&{ - 1/{\tau _{{\psi _W}}}}&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&0&0&{ - \frac{1}{{{\tau _{{h_a}}}{\tau _{{h_b}}}}}}&{ - \left( {\frac{1}{{{\tau _{{h_a}}}}} + \frac{1}{{{\tau _{{h_b}}}}}} \right)} \end{array}} \right] $ |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{B}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0&{\frac{{{y_0}}}{{{\tau _{{V_W}}}}}}&0\\ {\frac{1}{{{\tau _{{V_W}}}}}}&0&0\\ 0&{\frac{{{x_0}}}{{{\tau _{{\psi _W}}}}}}&0\\ 0&{\frac{1}{{{\tau _{{\psi _W}}}}}}&0\\ 0&0&0\\ 0&0&{\frac{1}{{{\tau _{{h_a}}}{\tau _{{h_b}}}}}} \end{array}} \right],\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 1&0&0\\ 0&0&0\\ 0&{{V_{{L_0}}}}&0\\ 0&0&0\\ 0&0&0\\ 0&0&{ - \frac{1}{{{\tau _{{h_a}}}{\tau _{{h_b}}}}}} \end{array}} \right] $ |
where
In order to meet the requirements of actual conditions, the following important aspects should be taken into consideration simultaneously.
(1) Sensor fault. When the attitude, velocity or position sensor of a UAV occurs gain fault, the fault of FFCS will occur, and the measure values of x, y, z, ψW, VW and ζ will fully or partially be inflected. Under this condition, the output can be generally characterized as[23]
$ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar y}}}_F} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{F\bar y}} $ | (2) |
where
Here matrices F0 and
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_0} = {\rm{diag}}\left\{ {{f_{01}},{f_{02}}} \right\} = \frac{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\underline F}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar F}}}}{2} = }\\ {{\rm{diag}}\left\{ {\frac{{{{\underline f }_1} + {{\bar f}_1}}}{2},\frac{{{{\underline f }_2} + {{\bar f}_2}}}{2}} \right\}} \end{array} $ | (3) |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde F}} = {\rm{diag}}\left\{ {{{\tilde f}_1},{{\tilde f}_2}} \right\} = \frac{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar F}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{\underline F}} }}{2} = {\rm{diag}}\left\{ {\frac{{{{\bar f}_1} - {{\underline f }_1}}}{2},\frac{{{{\bar f}_2} - {{\underline f }_2}}}{2}} \right\} $ | (4) |
The sensor fault model parameter F can be turned into
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}} = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_0} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_\delta } = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_0} + {\rm{diag}}\left\{ {{\delta _1},{\delta _2}} \right\} $ | (5) |
where
(2) Input constraint. In view of the limited power of actuator, the actual control input force should be confined into a certain range, which means that
$ {\left\| {\mathit{\boldsymbol{u}}\left( t \right)} \right\|_2} \le {u_{\max }} $ | (6) |
where umax denotes the maximum control input.
(3) Disturbance. In order to obtain an actual dynamic performance of FFCS, the disturbance vector w, which includes process disturbance w1 and outside disturbance w2, is assumed to belong to a bounded set
According to the above mentioned sensor faults and disturbances, the FFCS model (Eq.(1)) of UAV can be described by
$ \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mathit{\boldsymbol{\dot {\bar x}}} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{A\bar x}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{Bu}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} w}}\\ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar y}}}_F} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{F\bar y = FC\bar x}} \end{array} \right. $ | (7) |
where w is a bounded disturbance.
To design the tracking controller, a reference model is introduced for FFCS
$ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\dot {\bar x}}}}_r} = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}}}_r} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{r}} $ | (8) |
where
Since UAV is a low cost aircraft and state variables are not all measured exactly, a close-loop system tracking controller based on an observer is designed as
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\dot {\hat {\bar x}} }} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{A\hat {\bar x}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{Bu}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar y}}}_F} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{\hat {\bar y}}}} \right) $ | (9) |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\hat {\bar y}}} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{C\hat {\bar x}}} $ | (10) |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{u}} = - \mathit{\boldsymbol{K}}\left( {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}}}_r} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{\hat {\bar x}}}} \right) $ | (11) |
where
The attenuation of external disturbances is guaranteed considering the H∞ performance related to the tracking error
$ \int_0^{{t_f}} {{{\left( {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}}}_r} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}}} \right)}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}\left( {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}}}_r} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{\bar x}}} \right){\rm{d}}t} \le {\eta ^2}\int_0^{{t_f}} {\left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{r}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{r}} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{w}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{w}}} \right){\rm{d}}t} $ | (12) |
where Q is a given positive definite weighting matrix, tf denotes the final time, and η is a specified attenuation level. By defining the state estimated error
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\dot {\tilde x}}} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde A\tilde x}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde B\tilde \varphi }} $ | (13) |
where
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde A}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}\\ { - \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}}\\ 0&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}} \end{array}} \right] $ |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde S}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}&0\\ \mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}&{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}\\ 0&\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} \end{array}} \right],\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \mathit{\boldsymbol{w}}\\ \mathit{\boldsymbol{r}} \end{array}} \right] $ |
Note that with the state vector
$ \int_0^t {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde Q\tilde x}}{\rm{d}}t} \le {\eta ^2}\int_0^t {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}{\rm{d}}t} $ | (14) |
where
The objective is now to compute the gain matrices K, L to ensure the asymptotic stability of Eq.(13) thus guaranteeing Eq.(14). A straightforward result is summarized in the following theorem.
Theorem 1 If there exists a matrix
$ \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde A}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde S}}}\\ {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde S}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P}}}&{ - {\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 $ | (15) |
then the asymptotic stability of the closed-loop formation control system Eq.(13) is ensured and the H∞ tracking control performance Eq.(14) is guaranteed with an attenuation level η.
Proof Consider the following candidate Lyapunov function
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{V}} = {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}^{\rm{{\rm T}}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde x}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}} = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}^{\rm{T}}} > 0} \end{array} $ | (16) |
The stability of the closed-loop model (Eq.(13)) is satisfied under the H∞ performance (Eq.(14)) with the attenuation level η if
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\dot V}} + {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde Q\tilde x}} - {\eta ^2}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }} \le 0 $ | (17) |
Eq.(17) leads to
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}^{\rm{T}}}\left[ {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde A}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde Q}}} \right]\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}} + {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde S\tilde \varphi }} + }\\ {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{P\tilde x}} - {\eta ^2}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }} \le 0} \end{array} $ | (18) |
or equivalently
$ \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}\\ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}} \end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde A}}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde Q}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde P\tilde S}}}\\ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}}&{ - {\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde x}}}\\ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde \varphi }}} \end{array}} \right] \le 0 $ | (19) |
The goal is now to obtain a tractable LMI problem that allows searching the gain matrices (both the control matrix K and the observer gain matrix L) to prove the closed-loop stability (finding
Remark Most of former results just consider the wireless communication or GPS fault of the multiple aircrafts formation[14, 17], but few attempts have been made towards solving the controller design problem with sensor faults. Thus, the novelty of model (Eq.(13)) with respect to existing results is that the sensor fault of FFCS is taken into consideration.
2 Fault Tolerant Control DesignIn this section, the fault tolerant formation controller design problem of multiple UAVs is investigated. The design requirements mentioned above are analyzed separately, and the obtained results are utilized for the tracking controller design.
Lemma 1[25] For real matrices X, Y and S=ST>0 with appropriate dimensions and a positive constant γ, the following inequalities hold
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}} \le \gamma {\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{X + }}{\gamma ^{ - 1}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}} $ | (20) |
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}} \le {\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}^{ - 1}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{X + }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{SY}} $ | (21) |
Lemma 2[26] For real matrices A, B, W, Y, Z and a regular matrix Q with appropriate dimensions, one has
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}^{ - 1}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{W}}^{\rm{T}}}}\\ \mathit{\boldsymbol{W}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{AQ}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{\rm{T}}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 \Rightarrow }\\ {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{W}}^{\rm{T}}} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}^{\rm{T}}}}\\ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{W}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{AB}}}&\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}} \end{array}} \right] < 0} \end{array} $ | (22) |
Lemma 3[27] Let a matrix Ξ < 0, a matrix X with appropriate dimension such that XTΞX≤0, and a scalar α, the following inequality holds
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varXi} X}} \le - \alpha \left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{X}}} \right) - {\alpha ^2}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varXi} }}^{ - 1}} $ |
Lemmas 1-3 formulate the conditions under which the inequality meets the negative definite. Based on these propositions, the following theorem presents a controller design method via convex optimization.
Theorem 2 When the sensor fault parameter matrix F of closed-loop system (Eq.(13)) is unknown and satisfies Eqs.(3)-(5), if there exist positive symmetric matrices
$ \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{11}^1}&0&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{13}^1}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&0&\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}}&0&0&\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}}&0\\ * &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{22}^1}&0&0&0&0&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{NQ}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\hat \varGamma} }}_{28}^1}&0&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{\rm{T}}}}\\ *&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\hat \varGamma} }}_{33}^1}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}&0&0&0&0&0\\ *&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&* &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{S}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde F}}}^{ - 2}}}&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde F}}}^{ - 2}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 $ | (23) |
where
$ \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{11}^1}&\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ * &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}}&0&0&0&0&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\rm{T}}}}\\ *&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{33}^2}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}}&\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}&{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0\\ *&*&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{44}^2}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&* &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 $ | (24) |
where
Proof Assuming that
$ \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varPi} }}_{11}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varPi} }}_{12}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&0\\ * &{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varPi} }}_{22}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}} \right)}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&{ - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}}\\ *&* &{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}\\ *&*&* &{ - {\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - {\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 $ | (25) |
where
$ \begin{array}{l} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varPi} }}_{11}} = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}} \right) + {\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}} \right)^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1},{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varPi} }}_{12}} = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - } \right.\\ \left. \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{K}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2},{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varPi} }}_{22}} = {\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}} \right) + {\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}} \right)^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2} + \\ \mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}} \end{array} $ |
For a convenient design, in-Eq.(19) is simplified as
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}^1} + {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}^2} < 0 $ |
where
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}^1} = }\\ {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{11}^1}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&0\\ * &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{22}^1}&0&0&0\\ *&* &{0.5\left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}} \right)}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}\\ *&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right]} \end{array} $ |
$ \begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}^2} = }\\ {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{11}^2}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{K}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{B}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}}&0&0&0\\ * &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{22}^2}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}} \right)}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&{ - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}}\\ *&* &{0.5\left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}} \right)}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}\\ *&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right]} \end{array} $ |
$ \begin{array}{l} \mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{11}^1 = 0.5\left[ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}} \right) + {{\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}} \right)}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}} \right],\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{22}^1 = 0.5 \cdot \\ \left[ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}} \right){{\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}} \right)}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}} \right],\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{11}^2 = 0.5\left[ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - } \right.} \right.\\ \left. {\left. {\mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}} \right) + {{\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{LC}}} \right)}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}} \right],\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\bar \varGamma} }}_{22}^2 = 0.5\left[ {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}} - } \right.} \right.\\ \left. {{{\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{BK}}} \right)}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_2} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}} \right]. \end{array} $ |
Then in-Eq.(25) holds, if Γ1 < 0 and Γ2 < 0.
Using the well-known property in Lemma 1, the following inequality can be deduced
$ \begin{array}{l} \mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_0^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_p} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_0^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{\rm{T}}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right){\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_0} \le \\ \mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_0^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}{\left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}} \right)^{\rm{T}}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_0} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_p^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}^{\rm{T}}}{\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)^{\rm{T}}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{e}}_p} \end{array} $ |
Based on the above, Γ1 < 0 is equivalent to
$ \begin{array}{l} {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\tilde \varGamma} }}}^1} = \\ \;\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\tilde \varGamma} }}_{11}^1}&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&0\\ * &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\tilde \varGamma} }}_{22}^1}&0&0&0\\ *&* &{0.5\left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}} \right)}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}\\ *&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 \end{array} $ | (26) |
where
Then, one proceeds a bijective change of variables followed by a pre-post multiply of the in-Eq.(26) by diag{I, N, I, I, I} with Z=P1L, N=P2-1 and KP2-1=KN=Y, and obtains
$ \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{11}^1}&0&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - \mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&0&\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}}&0&0\\ * &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{22}^1}&0&0&0&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{28}^1}\\ *&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{33}^1}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&* &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 $ | (27) |
where
Similarly, Γ2 < 0 can be turned into
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}^2} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{11}^2}&\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ * &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}}&0&0&0&0&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Y}}^{\rm{T}}}}\\ *&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{33}^2}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}} - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r}}&\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}&{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0\\ *&*&* &{0.5\left( {{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r^{\rm{T}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}} \right)}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&* &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] < 0 $ | (28) |
where
Using Eqs.(3)-(5), in-Eq.(27) can be rewritten as
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{M}}^1} = \mathit{\boldsymbol{M}}_0^1 + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_\delta }{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\beta }}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\beta }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_\delta }{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\xi }}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\mu }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_\delta }{\mathit{\boldsymbol{v}}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{v}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_\delta }{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\mu }}^{\rm{T}}} < 0 $ | (29) |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{M}}_0^1 = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{11}^1}&0&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}}\left( {\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}} - {\mathit{\boldsymbol{F}}_0}} \right)\mathit{\boldsymbol{C}}}&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_1}\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varTheta} }}}&0&\mathit{\boldsymbol{Z}}&0&0\\ * &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{22}^1}&0&0&0&0&{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{N}}^{\rm{T}}}\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\hat \varGamma} }}_{28}^1}\\ *&* &{\mathit{\boldsymbol{ \boldsymbol{\varGamma} }}_{33}^1}&0&{0.5{\mathit{\boldsymbol{P}}_3}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&* &{ - 0.5{\eta ^2}\mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}}&0&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&* &{ - 2\mathit{\boldsymbol{Q}}}&0\\ *&*&*&*&*&*&* &{ - \mathit{\boldsymbol{I}}} \end{array}} \right] $ |
where
For Lemma 1 and S=ST>0, in-Eq.(29) is equivalent to
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{M}}^1} \le \mathit{\boldsymbol{M}}_0^1 + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\xi }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}^{ - 1}}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde F}}}^2}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\xi }}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\beta S}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\beta }}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{\mu }}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{S}}^{ - 1}}{{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\tilde F}}}^2}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{\mu }}^{\rm{T}}} + \mathit{\boldsymbol{vS}}{\mathit{\boldsymbol{v}}^{\rm{T}}} $ |
Applying Schur complement theorem on the above inequalities, the in-Eq.(23) is deduced, then Theorem 3 is proved. When sensor fault of FFCS is unknown and satisfies conditions (Eqs.(3)-(5)), the asymptotic stability of the close-loop FFCS (Eq.(13)) is ensured.
3 Simulation ResultsSimulations are performed for FFCS consisting of two UAVs. The expected formation geometries are specified by xc=20 m, yc=20 m and zc=0 m, respectively. The initial state of leader UAV are set as: VL0=30 m/s, ψL0=10°, hL0=1 000 m. The initial state of follower UAV are set as: VW0=20 m/s, ψW0=20°, hW0=1 010 m. The initial formation geometries are defined as: x0=35 m, y0=35 m and z0=-10 m. The dynamic matrices A and B are valuated for the data listed as[8]: The velocity time constant τVW=5 s, the heading time constant τψW=0.75 s, the altitude time constant τha=0.3 s, τhb=3.85 s. Outside disturbance is assumed as: w2=0.02·[2sint, cos0.5t, 3sint-cost]T. Furthermore, the parameter matrix of the reference model is given by
$ {\mathit{\boldsymbol{A}}_r} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {0.5637}&{ - 1.0683}&{2.8774}&{ - 9.422}&0&0\\ { - 8.4503}&{0.2027}&0&0&{0.6296}&0\\ 0&0&{ - 2.9534}&{ - 6.8129}&0&0\\ 0&0&{ - 0.6912}&{ - 3.1775}&0&0\\ 0&{ - 1.3284}&0&0&{4.1532}&{1.0078}\\ { - 0.7359}&0&0&0&{0.6304}&{ - 6.1824} \end{array}} \right] $ |
The resulting design is simulated in Matlab's Simulink package by the mathworks. To verify the superiority of the control approach, it is assumed that unknown sensor faults occur in the sensor channels of x, VW and y, respectively. It is assumed that
In the following, different simulation results are given using a robust controller without FTC and an observer-based FTC scheme developed in this study, respectively. First of all, a robust tracking controller without FTC is adopted. As shown in Figs. 2, 3, the robust controller without FTC cannot guarantee the state and control input of FFCS having a satisfactory dynamic performance. For example, the evolution of x cannot asymptotically track command xc.
Correspondingly, according to the linear matrix inequality in Theorem 3, one can deduce the fault tolerant tracking controller matrix K and observer gain matrix L as
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{K}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {0.3578}&{ - 7.1436}&{ - 2.2473}&{7.1387}&{13.6481}&{14.3787}\\ {0.0487}&{ - 0.0057}&{2.2459}&{ - 9.7714}&{ - 0.0001}&{ - 0.0001}\\ { - 0.0889}&{0.4104}&{ - 0.003}&{0.1804}&{ - 13.6884}&{ - 14.4836} \end{array}} \right] $ |
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}} = {10^3} \cdot \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {5.5405}&{6.1796}&{ - 9.2905}\\ {5.5182}&{6.2120}&{ - 9.3002}\\ {5.4071}&{6.0587}&{ - 9.0407}\\ {5.7957}&{6.5002}&{ - 9.8711}\\ {5.6223}&{6.3028}&{ - 9.4959}\\ {5.6187}&{6.2989}&{ - 9.4925} \end{array}} \right] $ |
By utilizing the robust fault tolerant controller obtained in Theorem 3, it can be seen from Fig. 4 that the unknown sensor fault can be well regulated. Both x and y asymptotically track the specified commands xc and yc within 6 s. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 5, the robust fault tolerant tracking controller developed in this paper, makes that control input responses of the close-loop FFCS have a satisfactory dynamic performance in spite of the sensor fault, which demonstrates the efficiency of the proposed approach.
4 Conclusions
In this study, a novel fault tolerant tracking control design approach is proposed for a class of multiple UAVs formation control systems with sensor faults using both LMI technique and Lyapunov stability approach, which guarantees that the faulty UAVs formation has the good fault tolerant capability. Firstly, a formation control model of multiple UAVs considering the disturbances and sensor faults is introduced and a sensor gain fault model is also given. Then a robust fault tolerant tracking controller is designed in unknown sensor faulty case by means of a generalized observer. Finally, the simulation results are shown to exhibit the effectiveness of designed FTC approach.
AcknowledgementsThis work was supported in part by the Post Doctoral Research Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No.1701140B), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.61403195), and the GF Research and Development Project of the Nanjing Tech Universities (No.201709).
[1] |
TUNA G, NEFZI B, CONTE G. Unmanned aerial vehicle-aided communications system for disaster recovery[J]. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2014, 41(5): 27-36. |
[2] |
LI P, YU X, ZHANG Y M, et al. Adaptive multivariable integral TSMC of a hypersonic gliding vehicle with actuator faults and model uncertainties[J]. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2017, 22(6): 2723-2735. DOI:10.1109/TMECH.2017.2756345 |
[3] |
BAYEZIT I, FIDAN B. Distributed cohesive motion control of flight vehicle formations[J]. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2013, 60(12): 5763-5772. DOI:10.1109/TIE.2012.2235391 |
[4] |
SHI X Y, QI R Y. Modeling and attitude control for three-axis liquid-filled spacecraft[J]. Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2017, 49(1): 132-139. (in Chinese) |
[5] |
OH K K, PARK M C, AHN H S. A survey of multi-agent formation control[J]. Automatica, 2015, 53(3): 424-440. |
[6] |
DONG L F, CHEN Y Z, QU X J. Formation control strategy for nonholonomic intelligent vehicles based on virtual structure and consensus approach[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2016, 137(4): 415-424. |
[7] |
LIU L, SHAN J J. Distributed formation control of networked Euler-lagrange systems with fault diagnosis[J]. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2015, 352(3): 952-973. DOI:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2014.11.021 |
[8] |
MYSTKOWSKI A. Implementation and investigation of a robust control algorithm for an unmanned microaerial vehicle[J]. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2014, 62(8): 1187-1196. DOI:10.1016/j.robot.2014.04.002 |
[9] |
XIE C H, YANG G H. Cooperative guaranteed cost fault-tolerant control for multi-agent systems with time-varying actuator faults[J]. Neurocomputing, 2016, 214(11): 382-390. |
[10] |
MA C, ZENG Q. Distributed formation control of 6-DOF autonomous underwater vehicles networked by sampled-data information under directed topology[J]. Neurocomputing, 2015, 154(4): 33-40. |
[11] |
HE L L, BAI P, LIANG X L, et al. Feedback formation control of UAV swarm with multiple implicit leaders[J]. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2018, 72(1): 327-334. |
[12] |
PROUD A, PACHTER W M, AZZO J D. Close formation flight control[C]//Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit.Portland, OR, USA: [s.n.], 1999: 1231-1246. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1999-4207
|
[13] |
YU M, WANG H F, XIE G M, et al. Event-triggered circle formation control for second-order-agent system[J]. Neurocomputing, 2018, 275(1): 462-469. |
[14] |
INNOCENTI M, POLLINI L, GIULIETTI F. Management of communication failures in formation flight[J]. Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication, 2004, 1(1): 19-35. DOI:10.2514/1.2608 |
[15] |
DONG H Y, HU Q L, MA G F. Dual-quaternion based fault-tolerant control for spacecraft formation flying with finite-time convergence[J]. ISA Transactions, 2016, 61(3): 87-94. |
[16] |
HUA Y Z, DONG X W, LI Q D, et al. Distributed fault-tolerant time-varying formation control for high-order linear multi-agent systems with actuator failures[J]. ISA Transactions, 2017, 71(12): 40-50. |
[17] |
QU Y H, ZHANG Y M. Cooperative localization against GPS signal loss in multiple UAVs flight[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2011, 22(1): 103-112. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-4132.2011.01.013 |
[18] |
BUONOCORE L R, LIPPIELLO V, MANFREDI S, et al. Effects of packet losses on formation control of unmanned aerial vehicles[C]//Proceedings of the 19th World Congress The International Federation of Automatic Control. Cape Town, South Africa: [s.n.], 2014. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474667016417829
|
[19] |
YU X, FU Y, PENG X. Fuzzy logic aided fault-tolerant control applied to transport aircraft subject to actuator stuck failures[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy System, 2017, 25(10): 1-11. |
[20] |
YANG A, NAEEM W, IRWIN G W, et al. Stability analysis and implementation of a decentralized formation control strategy for unmanned vehicles[J]. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2014, 22(2): 706-720. DOI:10.1109/TCST.2013.2259168 |
[21] |
YIN S, XIAO B, DING S X, ZHOU D H. A review on recent development of spacecraft attitude fault tolerant control system[J]. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2016, 63(5): 3311-3320. DOI:10.1109/TIE.2016.2530789 |
[22] |
KIM S H, NEGASH L, CHOI H L. Cubature Kalman filter based fault detection and isolation for formation control of multi-UAVs[J]. IFAC Papersonline, 2016, 49(15): 63-68. DOI:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.710 |
[23] |
ZHANG C X, WANG J H, ZHANG D X, et al. Fault tolerant adaptive finite time attitude synchronization and tracking control for multi-spacecraft formation[J]. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2018, 73(2): 197-209. |
[24] |
AMBROZIAK L, GOSIEWSKI Z. Two stage switching control for autonomous formation flight of unmanned aerial vehicles[J]. Aerospace Science Technology, 2015, 46(10/11): 221-226. |
[25] |
WANG X, YANG G H. Distributed fault tolerant control for a class of cooperative uncertain systems with actuator failures and switching topologies[J]. Information Sciences, 2016, 370/371: 650-666. DOI:10.1016/j.ins.2015.11.002 |
[26] |
BUSTON D, PARIZ N, HOSSEINI S S. Robust fault-tolerant tracking control design for spacecraft under control input saturation[J]. ISA Transactions, 2014, 53(4): 1073-1080. DOI:10.1016/j.isatra.2014.03.006 |
[27] |
XU J. Fault tolerant finite-time leader-follower formation control for autonomous surface vessels with LOS range and angle constraints[J]. Automatica, 2016, 68(6): 228-236. |