Classifications of CA.
Abstract
Drones, also known as Crewless Aircrafts (CAs), are by far the most multi  level and multi developing technologies of the modern period. This technology has recently found various uses in the transportation area, spanning from traffic monitoring applicability to traffic engineering for overall traffic flow and efficiency improvements. Because of its nonlinear characteristics and underactuated design, the CA seems to be an excellent platform to control systems study. Following a brief overview of the system, the various evolutionary and robust control algorithms were examined, along with their benefits and drawbacks. In this chapter, a mathematical and theoretical model of a CA’s dynamics is derived, using Euler’s and Newton’s laws. The result is a linearized version of the model, from which a linear controller, the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), is generated. Furthermore, the performance of these nonlinear control techniques is compared to that of the LQR. Feedbacklinearization controller when implemented in the simulation for the chapter, the results for the same was better than any other algorithm when compared with. The suggested regulatory paradigm of the CAbased monitoring system and analysis study will be the subject of future research, with a particular emphasis on practical applications.
Keywords
 crewless aircrafts (CA)
 dynamic controller
 adaptive controller
 robust controller
 LQR
 PID
 ANN
1. Introduction
Crewless Aircrafts (CAs) are becoming more common in a variety of industries, including reconnaissance, aerial reconnaissance, rescue operations missions as first responders, and industrial automation. CAs outperform their competitors due to their small size and strong manoeuvrability, allowing them to easily navigate complex trajectories. A CA is a mechanism featuring 6DoF however and four control inputs: the rotor speeds. Individual rotor speeds are adjusted to provide the thrust as well as torques needed to propel the CA. The axis of a CA have to be skewed with respect to the vertical to accomplish propulsion in a specific direction [1]. CA kinematics and control are thus complicated since the CA’s translational motion is connected with its angular orientation.
Prior to controller design, mathematical modelling is perhaps the most important stage in understanding system dynamics. The Newton–Euler and Euler–Lagrange approaches are used to derive the differential equations that govern CA dynamics. Due to modelling limitations, complex interactions such as blades flapping but also rotors stiffness effects are frequently overlooked [2]. CA control is primarily concerned with two types of issues: attitude stability and trajectory tracking. There are three types of controllers used for this purpose: linear controls, modelbased nonlinear controllers, and learningbased controllers. Multirotor stand out among CAs for their manoeuvrability, stability, and payload. Initially, the goal of these vehicles’ research was to find controllers capable of maintaining their attitude, as well as the fastest and most powerful dynamics [3]. Backstepping, Feedbacklinearization, Sliding Mode, optimum regulation, PID, adaptive control, learningbased control, and other strategies have been used to tackle the stabilisation control problem for the specific instance of a CA.
The difficulty for CAs nowadays is trajectory controls, fault  tolerance control, path planning, or obstacle avoidance, given that stability control has been extensively explored. The trajectory control problem, which is defined as getting a vehicle to follow a predetermined course in space, can be solved using one of two methods: a trajectory tracking controllers and perhaps a path following controller [4]. A reference described in time is tracked about the trajectory tracking issue, where the path’s references are provided by something like a temporal evolution from each spatial coordinate. Path following (PF) provides a solution of following the path with no preassigned timing information, removing the problem’s time dependence [5].
Because the quantity, as well as the complexity of implementations for such systems, is increasing on a daily basis, the control techniques used must likewise improve to provide improved performance and versatility. Considering computational ease and reliable hover flight, simple linear control algorithms were previously used. However, with improved modelling techniques and faster onboard processing capabilities, realtime implementation of comprehensive nonlinear techniques has become a reality. Nonlinear techniques promise to improve the performance and robustness of these systems quickly. This chapter discusses various ways to CA automatic control [6]. The system dynamics are used to design specific linear and nonlinear control strategies.
1.1 Motivation
CA support to various ground domains or terrestrial networks has lately been identified as a critical success factor for a large number of jobs that require significant enhancement of timeframe, connectivity, and flexibility. As a result, a really well notion of this paradigm must be precisely specified while taking into account the various CA criteria. This enables CAs to better support groundusers (GUs) and complete their assigned tasks. CAs can overcome communication gaps in ground networks and monitor hostile settings or disaster zones [3]. Aside from the traditional CA difficulties, a number of new ones, including such technical and standardisation considerations, societal privacy and safety, and mobility optimization, require further attention. The possible benefits of CAs raise the following concerns:
What are the control methodologies and advantageous for establish a CA flight control across a terrestrial flight?
What is the best number of CAs and mobility models to use in a particular scenario?
How can CAs improve ground network performance as well as better serve GUs?
Inspired from the afforested questions, we present a full overview of CA’s extant achievements and control mechanisms in this chapter.
1.2 Classification
CAs differ in terms of weight, size, kind, altitude, payload, and a variety of other characteristics. According to their type and height, they can be divided into two broad categories (Figure 1). Both category have their own set of benefits and drawbacks. Various sorts of CAs are utilised depending on the application scenario. Table 1 shows the classification of CAs.
Advantages  Limitations  

Fixed wingbased 


Rotary wing based 


Classification based on the weight of UA (Unmanned Aircraft) as follows:
Micro: less than 2 kilogrammes (<2 kg).
Mini: Greater than 2 kilogrammes and less than 20 kilogrammes (2–20 kg).
Small: Greater than 20 kilogrammes and less than 150 kilogrammes (20–150 kg).
Large: Greater than 150 kilogrammes (>150 kg).
Typical physical parameters of small CAs for commercial applications can be summarised as follows as in Table 2.
Takeoff weight  6–16 lb 

Airframe weight  5–9 lb 
Wing span  5–7 ft 
Fuselage length  4–8 ft 
CA speed  20–30 mph 
Payload  5–10 lb 
Flight endurance  10–25 h 
Rating of electric motor  1 kW or 1.35 HP (some CAs use gasoline engine, while others use an electric motor) 
Takeoff speed  15–20 mph 
Landing speed  1520mph 
Runway length  40–60 ft 
Maximum climb speed  16 ft./s 
Turn radius  35–50 ft 
Flight altitude  50–6000 ft.(max) 
Radio control range  3–5 km 
2. State of art in CA
CA, sometimes known as drones, has had robust growth in the previous 5 years all over the world. The model UAS fleet is expected to grow from 1.25 million entity to about 1.39 million by 2023, according to the study aerospace projection fiscal years 2019–2039, while the nonmodel CA fleet is expected to rise from 277,000 CA to over 835,000 CA by 2023. CA’s beneficial applications have the potentiality for saving lives, improving safety and efficiency, and allow for more impactful engineering as well as research [7]. Designers experimenting with small CA for a variety of purposes such as aerial surveillance as well as personal recreational flying, entrepreneurs exploring parcel and medical supply delivery, and search and rescue missions are just a few examples.
While CA have their origins in military uses, they have recently become more helpful towards scientific and commercial purposes [8, 9]. Remote sensing, georeferencing, cartography, customs and border protection, investigation, rescue operations, fire espial, agronomic imaging, traffic surveillance systems, and package delivery are just a few of the applications they have recently discovered around the world.
Due to the rapid growth of CA technology, the extensive usefulness of CAs for numerous applications has been recognised, ranging from transportation services to disaster search and rescue.
While many current control systems still rely heavily on the availability of precise mathematical models (e.g., ModelPredictiveControl (MPC) [10], linear quadratic Gaussian [11, 12], backstepping [13], as well as gain scheduling [14]), this article evaluates extra versatile and intelligent approaches by emphasising the value of evolutionary computation to resolve the actual constraints of modelbased control systems.
When building a robust flight control system, there are a few things to keep in mind. The first issue is the closedloop control’s robustness in the presence of uncertainties [11], including unpredictably extremely high air passes (e.g., violent wind gusts) and modelling errors. A small CA’s mobility can be extremely vulnerable to wind gusts, which might cause the system to deviate from its intended trajectories. This phenomenon can also result in large overshoots and tracking offsets, both of which are undesirable in terms of safety and efficiency.
While many current dynamic control systems still rely significantly on mathematical equations of the subsystems (e.g., gains scheduling [14] as well as feedback linearization strategies), these approaches may be excessively complex or unworkable in some cases. Gain scheduling control, for example, has been considered one of the most historically dominant adaptive control approaches, but it has a number of technical flaws. Because it significantly leans on the linearization technique of the aviation dynamics over numerous places in the performance envelope, as well as several joint interpolation approaches, the system is extremely mathematical and timeconsuming. It could potentially result in a system that lacks global property. Furthermore, in the absence of thorough mathematical models, feedback linearization could be impractical.
Despite the positive results, MBCbased designs face a hurdle in that they rely on the correctness of the mathematical model of a real plant. According to imprecise system information and omnipresent exogenous disruptions, a poorly developed or described model might have a negative impact on later controller synthesis, resulting in inadequate performances or even instability. Uncertainties and disturbances of this nature can be categorised as follows:
Parametric uncertainties: These are typically caused by incorrect modelling and/or system depreciation (e.g., inertia changes as well as mass, etc).
Stochastic dynamics: These are difficulttomodel, illdefined, and purposefully neglected components of a nonlinear model, such as sophisticated aerodynamic effects such blade flapping [15], airflow effect [16], ground and ceiling impact [11, 12], and so on.
Disruptions and noise: Disturbances might include things like gusty winds and turbulence, whereas noise mostly relates to sensor noise. Because the statistical features of sensor noise are typically nonGaussian in actuality, the assumptions considered may not be realistic.
To address these issues, a variety of modern control systems have been offered, each with its own set of benefits, restrictions, and drawbacks. Gain Scheduling (GS) [10], for example, is a frequently used strategy that shows good capabilities in dealing with parametric variations and nonlinearities, but frequent and fast changes in the controller gains might make the system unstable [13]. Furthermore, as noted in [14], the cost of implementation rises with the frequency of functioning points. Robust control, on the other hand, is effective when dealing with constrained parametric uncertainties, but it has drawbacks when dealing with boundless ones or stochastic dynamics [17, 18]. Adaptive control is a potential method for managing parametric uncertainties (because to its realtime adaptation strength); nonetheless, there are few commonly acknowledged approaches here to robust adaptive control issue so far [19]. The sliding control technique has been demonstrated to be resistant to modelling mistakes and parameter uncertainty, however frequent controller switches can cause chattering. Furthermore, when exogenous disruptions occur, the insensitivity to parameter changes characteristics may cause problems with selfstabilisation. Last but not least, thanks to using a continually updated model, namely an ultralocal model, ModelFree Control (MFC) approaches that have arisen to tackle stochastic dynamic behaviour as well as ambiguities of nonlinear systems have exhibited outstanding adaptation and estimating capabilities. However, for the time being, this methodology is confined to system dynamics that can be turned into SingleInput SingleOutput (SISO) subsystem. There are other issues with analytic stability and evidence of convergence. ANNs have been used to analyse complicated control systems in order to solve the previously mentioned limitations of MBCbased solutions. This is primarily due to ANNs’ perceived advantages in structural analysis and controller design [14, 20], which include their ability to recognise stochastic and multinomial systems [21, 22], their capacity to adapt in realtime, and their relatively simple computation methodology and hardware implementation.
As a result of these characteristics, ANNs are a fantastic tool for building the systems underneath prototype of high accuracy and low sophistication, even if it is distorted by uncertainties and disturbances, as well as for facilitating the implementation process and improving realtime performance. Regardless, there are still obstacles owing to their datadriven essence that limit their industrial applications, to some extent, due to various: a need for huge datasets of training data; the tendency to learn spurious relationships, which can lead to poor generalisation functionalities [23]; dearth of readability due to their own blackbox characteristics [24]; and the lack of a structured method for pertaining ANN architecture designs [25] (In other words, given a certain ANN design, the number of hidden layers and synapses, the sort of perceptron, weight update algorithms, and so on are often decided haphazardly than in a structured manner).
3. Dynamic model of CA
Quadrotor CA systems typically have a cross “X” or plus “+” structure with four rotors attached to each side of the structure. When at the time all of four rotors revolve in the likewise direction, the quad rotor produces a vertical upward lift force, allowing it to move in landing positions, pitch, hover, yaw, roll, takeoff.
Two frames, a reference Earth frame as well as a quadrotor frame, can be used to define and characterise quadrotor dynamics. Rotational and translational dynamics with 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) are common.
The following is a summary of the deciding set for 6DoF equation that describe the dynamic model of a conventional CA including a longitudinal axis of symmetry treated as a rigid body (Figure 2).
The aforementioned differential equations are nonlinear, linked, which means that each differential equation is dependent on variables that are represented by other nonlinear equations. In most cases, the analytical answers are unknown, and the only way to solve them is numerical. The free motion of a solid body subject to extrinsic forces
Statevariable  Definition 

CA’s inertial position vector and its components  
Body frame, the components of inertial velocity vector is settled.  
Euler angles describe the position of body frame in relation to inertial ref. frame.  
Bodyfixed frame, angular inertial rates are settled. 
3.1 Problem statement
Nonlinear rotational dynamics can cause hindrance in actuated control torques when paired with modest imperfections in rotating alignments and propeller defects. With the help of internal feedback control scheme for the quadrotor attitude can eliminate the influence of these. External disturbances such as gusty winds, aerodynamic interacts with neighbouring structures, and ground impacts can all be compensated for using the same attitude controller.
In order to create and deploy robust control mechanisms for quadrotor CAs, the following technical difficulties must be explored in a research.
How to develop a dynamic inversion models to improve the performance of a PID controller.
How to include a LQR into the responsive method of improving controller resilience in the context of nonlinearities, variable incompatibility, and wind perturbations.
Application of the LQRbased dynamical inversion control system in practise.
4. Control strategies
The most significant component of the control system is the controller. It is in charge of the control system’s performance. It is a mechanism or method that works to keep the amount of the process variable at a predetermined level.
Based on the input(s), a control method can direct its output(s) to a specific value, complete a sequence of events, or execute an action if the terms are met. The controllers are useful for a variety of purposes, including:
Controllers increase steadystate accuracy by lowering steadystate error [4, 26].
With the improvement in accuracy for the steadystate, so does the stability [2].
Controllers also aid in decreasing the system’s undesired offsets [27].
The maximum overrun of the system can be controlled using controllers [28, 29].
Controllers can aid in the reduction of noise signals generated by the system [2, 30].
Controllers can help boost an overdamped system’s slow reaction.
In this section, we’ll go through the most prevalent pathfollowing control schemes and algorithms. The algorithms are divided into subsections and compared qualitatively. Several control techniques have been implemented due to the CA’s dynamics. Fuzzy logic, LQR (LQG), NN, Proportional Integral Derivative (PID), Sliding Mode Control (SMC), and other control systems can be employed [31, 32]. To deal with parameterized uncertainties and external disturbances, robust control systems are extensively developed. Several methods for CA or unsupervised robot path planning have been proposed in recent years. CA translational and rotational restrictions are rarely taken into account by these methods, hence they are rarely useful in practise [33]. Populationbased genetic operators have made significant progress recently as a result of developments of swarm intelligence technology [34], and they continue to have a strong ability to find the best answer in a somewhat more efficient and adaptable manner. Using this strategy, an increasing number of researchers have focused on CA path planning. Artificial bee colony approach (ABC), antcolonyapproach (ACO), geneticalgorithm (GA), and particle swarm algorithm are the most often utilised algorithms (PSO) [35]. The necessity about a robust nonlinear controller in multirotor CAs is dictated by uncertainties originating through propeller rotation, blade flap, shift in propeller rotational speed, and centre of mass position [36]. Each control system, as one might imagine, has certain set of advantages and disadvantages. There were both linear as well as nonlinear control designs employed.
One of the control techniques is linear (LQG), whereas the other two are nonlinear (Dynamic feedback and dynamic nversion having nildynamics stabilisation provide perfect linearization and noninteracting control [37]). There are several similarities made between these control strategies.
4.1 PID
A diverse variety of controller applications have used the PIDcontroller. It is, without a doubt, the most widely used controller in industry. The traditional PID linear controllers has the advantages of being easy to alter parameter gains, being simple to construct, and having strong resilience. However, nonlinearity connected with both the precise mathematical and the imprecise character of the model to determine to unmodeled or faulty mathematical modelling of a few of the dynamics are two of the CA’s key issues [38]. As a result, using a PIDcontroller on the CA reduces its performance. The attitude stabilisation of a CA was done with a PIDcontroller, while the altitude control was done with a DynamicSurfaceControl (DSC). Researchers were able to verify that all CA signals were uniformly ultimately confined using Lyapunov stability criteria. This signified that now the CA was sturdy enough to hover. The PIDcontroller, on the other hand, appears to been performed better in pitch angle tracking, although substantial steadystate errors were noted in roll angle tracking [39], according to the model and the experimental plots. The PIDcontroller was successfully used to the CA, however with significant limitations, according to the literature.
Tuning the PIDcontroller might be difficult because it must be done around the equilibrium position, which would be the hover point, in order to achieve better results (Figure 3).
The time domain outcome of such a PID controller, that is equivalent to the control signal to the plant, is computed from the feedback inaccuracy as follows:
First, using the diagram shown above, examine how the PID controller operates in a closedloop system. The tracking error is represented by the variable (
The plant receives this control signal (
The Laplace transform of Expression (5) is used to calculate the transfer function for such PID controller.
4.2 LQR
By minimising a suitable cost function, the LQR optimalcontrol method manages a dynamic system. Boubdallar and colleagues tested the LQRalgorithm on a CA and compared it to the PIDcontroller’s performance. The PID been used on the CA’s simplified kinematics, whereas, LQR is used on the entire model. Both of approaches produced not so good results, but it seemed evident, the LQR strategy performed better attributed to the reason that it has been implemented to a more comprehensive dynamic model [40]. Upon the comprehensive dynamic system of the CA, a basic trail LQR controller was deployed. Despite the existence of gust and other disturbances, accurate pathway following been demonstrated using simulation utilising of optimal realtime trajectory (ies). After evading a barrier, the controller appeared to lose track. Its effectiveness in the face of several challenges was still being studied.
The LQR technique becomes the LinearQuadraticGaussian (LQG) when combined including a LinearQuadraticEstimator (LQE) as well as a Kalman Filter. Considering systems having Gaussian noise and partial state information, this approach is used. In hover mode, the LQG using integral action was used to stabilise the inclination of a CA with good results. The upside of the whole LQG controller is that it can be implemented without having entire state information (Figure 4).
If output is to reflect reference r, therefore adding an integrator and specifying error state (
Equation (7) describe a dynamic system.
4.3 Linearization of feedback
Through a change in variables, feedbacklinearization control scheme convert a complex nonlinear model into more of an equivalent linearsystem. The reduction of granularity due to linearization and the need for a specific set for implementation are two drawbacks of feedbacklinearization [41]. On a CA with having dynamic changes in its centre of gravity, feedbacklinearization was used as an adaptive control approach for stabilisation and trajectory tracking. When the CA’s centre of gravity shifted, the controller proved able to stabilise and reorganise it in real time [42, 43]. In order to develop a pathfollowing controller, feedbacklinearization as well as input dynamic inversion had been used. This allowed the designer to describe the control performance and yaw angle as more of a function as displacement anywhere along path. Two simulation scenarios were evaluated, with the CA cruising at varying speeds throughout the course. The airspeed and yaw angle convergence was seen in both circumstances. In, adaptable sliding mode control was compared to feedbacklinearization [14, 44]. The feedback controller proved very vulnerable to sensor noise but not robust, even with simplified dynamics. Under noisy conditions, the SMC operated effectively, and adaptability was able to anticipate uncertainty including ground effect [17]. As a result, nonlinear feedbacklinearization control has goodtracking yet poordisturbance rejection. However, when feedbacklinearization is combined with that another approach that is less sensitive to noise, good results are obtained.
4.4 Intelligent adaptive control (artificialneuralnetworks and fuzzylogic controller)
Two simulation scenarios were evaluated, with the CA cruising at varying speeds throughout the course. The airspeed and yaw angle convergence was seen in both circumstances. In, adaptable sliding mode control was compared to feedbacklinearization. The feedback controller proved very vulnerable to sensor noise but not robust, even with simplified dynamics. Under noisy conditions, the SMC operated effectively, and adaptability was able to anticipate uncertainty including ground effect [45]. As a result, nonlinear feedbacklinearization control has good tracking yet poor disturbance rejection [46]. However, when feedback linearization is combined with another approach that is less sensitive to noise, good results are obtained. The use of a trial and error strategy to tune input variables was, however, a key shortcoming of this study. The strategy was shown to be more effective in terms of achieving the target attitude as well as reducing weight drift [47]. To learn the whole dynamics of the CA, including unmodeled dynamics, outputting feedback control been implemented on a CA employing NN for leaderfollower CA generation. From four control inputs, a virtual NN control was used to govern all 6DoF. In the context of a sinusoidal disturbance, an adaptive neural network approach was used to stabilise CAs. Decreased error function and so no weight drifts were achieved using the proposed technique of two simultaneous single hidden layers (Figures 5 and 6).
5. Matlabsimulink result and comparison
In this chapter, we display the Mat labSimulink findings and discuss the divergence between the various controllers shown above. The stepresponse of the endogenous variable x, y, z and ψ is shown for each control, followed by the double circular or elliptical trajectories along the simulated outcomes.
With LQR control is utilised, some distinctive characteristics of the stepresponse are shown using Table 4 (Figures 7 and 8).
Table 5 depicts the exact linearization position and yaw response with no interfering control by dynamicfeedback to a stepinput (Figure 9).
Table 6 Exhibits some typical features from the step response, while using dynamic inversion using zerodynamics stabilisation control.
5.1 Comparison
Whenever different Controllers are used, the stepresponse of the dependent variable x, y, z, and ψ is shown in the diagram below (Figure 10).
Tables 7–10 demonstrate some of the step response’s characteristic parameters, where DFBL denotes DynamicFeedbackLinearization and SFBL denotes StaticFeedbackLinearization.
x(t)  y(t)  z(t)  (t)  

RT[s]  00.75  00.75  00.72  00.08 
OS[m]  04%  04%  04.3%  00% 
ST[s]  02.3  02.3  02.60  01.75 
x(t)  y(t)  z(t)  (t)  

RT[s]  00.4  00.4  00.47  00.301 
OS[m]  04%  04%  05.20%  04.20% 
ST[s]  01.3  01.3  01.54  01.70 
x(t)  y(t)  z(t)  (t)  

RT[s]  00.02  00.02  00.02  00.15 
OS[m]  07%  07%  09%  04% 
ST[s]  01.4  01.4  01.7  01.5 
x(t)  LQR  DFBL  SFBL 

RT[s]  00.75  00.04  00.02 
OS[m]  04%  04%  07% 
ST[s]  02.3  01.3  01.4 
y(t)  LQR  DFBL  SFBL 

RT[s]  00.75  00.04  00.02 
OS[m]  04%  04%  07% 
ST[s]  02.3  01.3  01.4 
z(t)  LQR  DFBL  SFBL 

RT[s]  00.72  00.47  00.02 
OS[m]  04.3%  05.2%  09% 
ST[s]  02.6  01.54  01.4 
(t)  LQR  DFBL  SFBL 

RT[s]  00.08  00.31  00.15 
OS[m]  00%  04.2%  04% 
ST[s]  01.75  01.7  01.7 
We can deduce the following from the information shown in these tables:
The LQR’s control is slower and has a low overshoot value.
Although the dynamic inverting with zerodynamics stabilisation control is faster, it has a higher overshoot value.
Because the related linearsystem shows the fourfold integrators after feedbacklinearization, dynamic inversion of zerodynamics stabilisation control is slower to dynamic inversion of zerodynamics stabilisation control.
6. Conclusion
The dynamic model of a crewless aircraft is discussed in this chapter, as well as a comparison of linear or nonlinear control algorithms and the t, S Trajectories control challenge, which can be handled using a track follower or trajectory controlling tracking algorithm. The CA’s dynamic theory is obtained using the NewtonEuler method. The ‘RT’, ‘OS’, and ‘ST’ of any and all three controllers were all investigated. When applying the Feedbacklinearization controller, the best results are attained. Pathfollowing control strategies are a concept that has been defined. All simulations in this study were conducted under the assumption that the CA’s whole motion happens at a significant altitude from the ground, and also that the CA does not perform takeoff or landing. Another issue is that due to the complexity of modelling uncertainties like wind velocities as well as ground impacts, the proposed theoretical model does not include them. The controllers must be made resilient so that they can deal successfully with external disturbances that were not taken into account during the modelling process. A next step towards achieving is to design a controller which can deal with the malfunction with one or more rotors.
RT  Rise Time 

OS  Overshoot 
ST  Settling Time 
ProportionalGain  
IntegralGain  
DerivativeGain. 
References
 1.
Kanellakis C, Nikolakopoulos G. Survey on computer vision for UAVs: Current developments and trends. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems. 2017; 87 (1):141168  2.
Han D, Gwak DY, Lee S. Noise prediction of multirotor UAV by RPM fluctuation correction method. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology. 2020; 34 :14291443  3.
Fotouhi A, Qiang H, Ding M, Hassan M, Giordano LG, GarciaRodriguez A, et al. Survey on UAV cellular communications: Practical aspects, standardization advancements, regulation, and security challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 2019; 21 (4):34173442  4.
Atyabi A, MahmoudZadeh S, NeftiMeziani S. Current advancements on autonomous mission planning and management systems: An AUV and UAV perspective. Annual Reviews in Control. 2018; 46 :196215  5.
Bonna R, Camino JF. Trajectory tracking control of a UAV using feedback linearisation. Proceedings of the XVII International Symposium on Dynamic Problems of Mechanics DINAME2015.2015, February; 2015  6.
Bouabdallah S, Noth A, Siegwart R. PID vs LQ control techniques applied to an indoor micro UAV. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004. (IROS 2004), IEEE; Vol. 3, 2004; pp. 24512456  7.
Song H, Srinivasan R, Sookoor T, Jeschke S. Smart Cities: Foundations, Principles and Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2017  8.
Zhou G, Ambrosia V, Gasiewski AJ, Bland G. Foreword to the special issue on unmanned airborne vehicle (UAV) sensing systems for earth observations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2009; 47 :687689  9.
Nex FC, Remondino F. UAV for 3D mapping applications: A review. Applied Geomatics. 2013; 6 :115  10.
Singh L, Fuller J. Trajectory generation for a UAV in urban terrain, using nonlinear MPC. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Vol. 3; June 2001. pp. 23012308  11.
Santoso F, Liu M, Egan G. H 2 andH ∞ robust autopilot synthesis for longitudinal flight of a special unmanned aerial vehicle: A comparative study. IET Control Theory and Applications. 2008;2 (7):583594  12.
Santoso F, Liu M, Egan G. Optimal control linear quadratic synthesis for an unconventional aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 12th Australian International Aerospace Congress (AIAC), March 2006  13.
Azinheira JR, Moutinho A. Hover control of an UAV with backstepping design including input saturations. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. 2008; 16 (3):517526  14.
HernándezGarcía RG, RodríguezCortés H. Transition flight control of a cyclic tiltrotor UAV based on the gainscheduling strategy. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Unmanned Aircraft System (ICUAS), June 2015, pp. 951956  15.
Santoso F, Garratt MA, Anavatti SG. Stateoftheart intelligent flight control systems in unmanned aerial vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. 2018; 15 (2):613627  16.
Das A, Subbarao K, Lewis F. Dynamic inversion with zerodynamics stabilisation for UAV control. IET Control Theory and Applications. 2009; 3 (3):303314  17.
Arisoy A, Temeltas H. Attitude control of a UAV. Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, 2009. RAST’09, June, IEEE; 2009. pp. 722–727  18.
Lee D, Jin Kim H, Sastry S. Feedbacklinearization vs. adaptive sliding mode control for a UAV helicopter. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems. 2009; 7 (3):419428  19.
Li L, Sun L, Jin J. Survey of advances in control algorithms of UAV unmanned aerial vehicle. 2015 IEEE 16th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), October, IEEE; 2015. pp. 107111  20.
Luukkonen T. Modelling and control of UAV, independent research project in applied mathematics, Espoo. 2011  21.
Sabatino F. UAV control: Modeling, nonlinear control design, simulation, 2015  22.
Slotine JJE, Li W. Applied Nonlinear Control; Vol. 199(1). PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1191  23.
Ramon Soria P, Arrue BC, Ollero A. Detection, location and grasping objects using a stereo sensor on UAV in outdoor environments. Sensors. 2017; 17 (1):103  24.
Xiao B, Yin S. Exponential tracking control of robotic manipulators with uncertain dynamics and kinematics. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 2018; 15 (2):689698  25.
Yang C, Jiang Y, Na J, Li Z, Cheng L, Su CY. Finitetime convergence adaptive fuzzy control for dualarm robot with unknown kinematics and dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 2018; 27 (3):574588  26.
Jamisola RS Jr, Mastalli C, Ibikunle F. Modular relative jacobian for combined 3arm parallel manipulators. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics. 2016; 5 (2):9095  27.
Jamisola RS, Kormushev PS, Roberts RG, Caldwell DG. Taskspace modular dynamics for dualarms expressed through a relative jacobian. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems. 2016; 83 (2):205218  28.
Chen S, Laefer DF, Mangina E. State of technology review of civilian UAVs. Recent Patents on Engineering. 2016; 10 (3):160174  29.
Dupont QF, Chua DK, Tashrif A, Abbott EL. Potential applications of UAV along the construction’s value chain. Procedia Engineering. 2017; 182 :165173  30.
Otto A, Agatz N, Campbell J, Golden B, Pesch E. Optimization approaches for civil applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or aerial drones: A survey. Networks. 2018; 72 (4):411458  31.
Gaffey C, Bhardwaj A. Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles in cryosphere: Latest advances and prospects. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12 (6):140  32.
Huo X, Huo M, Karimi HR. Attitude stabilization control of a UAV by using backstepping approach. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2014; 2014 :19  33.
Mahony R, Kumar V, Corke P. Multirotor aerial vehicles: Modeling, estimation, and control of UAV. Robotics Automation Magazine. 2012; 19 :2032. DOI: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2206474  34.
Lee BY, Lee HI, Tahk MJ. Analysis of adaptive control using online neural networks for a UAV. Thirteenth International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS), 2023 October 2013; 2013. pp. 18401844  35.
Diao C, Xian B, Yin Q, Zeng W, Li H, Yang Y. A nonlinear adaptive control approach for UAVs. Proceedings of the 8th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), Kaohsiung, 1518 May 2011. 2011. pp. 223228  36.
Palunko I, Fierro R. Adaptive control of a UAV with dynamic changes in the center of gravity. Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World Congress, Milan, 28 August2 September 2011; 2011. pp. 26262631  37.
De Monte P, Lohmann B. Position trajectory tracking of a UAV helicopter based on L1 adaptive control. Proceedings of the 2013 European Control Conference (ECC), Zurich, 1719 July 2013. 2013. pp. 33463353  38.
Jung W, Lim S, Lee D, Bang H. Unmanned aircraft vector field path following with arrival angle control. Journal of Intelligent Robotic & Systems. 2016; 84 (1):311325. DOI: 10.1007/s1084601603325  39.
Kaminer I, Yakimenko O, Pascoal A, Ghabcheloo R. Path generation, path following and coordinated control for timecritical missions of multiple UAV s. In: 2006 American Control Conference, Proceedings of the American Control Conference. Vol. 112; 2006. p. 4906. Doi: 10.1109/ACC.2006.1657498  40.
Klausen K, Fossen TI, Johansen TA, Aguiar AP. Cooperative pathfollowing for multirotor UAVs with a suspended payload. In: 2015 IEEE Conference on Control and Applications (CCA 2015); 2015. pp. 13541360  41.
Kokotovic PV, Sussmann HJ. A positive real condition for global stabilization of nonlinearsystems. Systems and Control Letters. 1989; 13 (2):125133  42.
Kukreti S, Kumar M, Cohen K. Genetically tuned Lqr based path following for CAs under wind disturbance. In: 2016 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS); 2016. pp. 267274. Doi: 10.1109/ICUAS.2016.7502620  43.
Hoffmann G, Huang H, Waslander S, Tomlin C. Quadrotor helicopter flight dynamics and control: Theory and experiment. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit; 2007. p. 6461  44.
Conyers SA, Rutherford MJ, Valavanis KP. An empirical evaluation of ground effect for smallscale rotorcraft. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); 2018. pp. 12441250  45.
Kothari M, Postlethwaite I, Gu DW. A suboptimal path planning algorithm using rapidlyexploring random trees. International Journal of Aerospace Innovations. 2009; 2 :93104  46.
Ali ZA, Wang D, Aamir M. Fuzzybased hybrid control algorithm for the stabilization of a trirotor UAV. Sensors. 2016; 16 (5):652  47.
EspinozaFraire T, Saenz A, Salas F, Juarez R, Giernacki W. Trajectory tracking with adaptive robust control for quadrotor. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11 (18):8571