J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

DOI 10.1007/s10846-013-9947-y

PID Controller Applied to Hexacopter Flight

Andrea Alaimo Valeria Artale
Cristina Lucia Rosa Milazzo
Angela Ricciardello

Received: 30 August 2013 / Accepted: 13 September 2013 / Published online: 4 October 2013
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In the last decades, the increasing interest in unmanned aerial vehicles for both military
and civil applications made necessary the development of flight control theory and algorithms
more and more efficient and fast. In this paper, an
original trajectory controller, like a Proportional
Integrative Derivative one, is taken into account
and the drone structure assumes a hexacopter
configuration, i.e. it consists of six rotors, located
on the vertices of a regular hexagon with three
pairs of counter-rotating fixed pitch blades. The
motion of unmanned aerial vehicle is described
by means of the Newton-Euler equations in terms
of quaternions, in order to improve the numerical efficiency and stability of the controller algorithm, whose novelty lies in the quaternion error

A. Alaimo V. Artale C. L. R. Milazzo

A. Ricciardello (B)
Cittadella Universitaria, 94100 Enna, Italy
e-mail: angela.ricciardello@unikore.it
A. Alaimo
e-mail: andrea.alaimo@unikore.it
V. Artale
e-mail: valeria.artale@unikore.it
C. L. R. Milazzo
e-mail: cristina.milazzo@unikore.it

definition. Both model and algorithm have been

tested and then validated through a wide experimentation, where the drone keeps going to not
elementary trajectories.
Keywords Hexacopter Newton-Euler
equation PID controller Quaternion
Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)
65L05 68U20 70E15 70E60 11R52

1 Introduction
The interest of the research community for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) design is fast
growing up with the aim of developing cheaper
and more capable machines. Their military and
civil applications vary from surveillance and reconnaissance to search and rescue, but, overall,
the main UAV goal is to avoid any risk to aircrew
[13, 15, 18].
Thanks to their mechanical structure and control systems, multirotor mikrokopter gain some
advantages over vertical takeoff and landing
UAVs [7, 9], that can be summarized as follows.
The propeller layout is fixed-pitch based and the
control is realized by adjusting the angular velocity of the rotors. This simplifies both the design
and maintenance procedures for the vehicle such
that any complex mechanical system is required

262

for rotor actuation. Moreover, the use of more

than one rotor reduces the length of the blade
diameter with respect to a helicopter, leading to
less structural and dynamical problems. Furthermore, a multirotor UAV can be equipped with
a boundary frame at the aim of protecting the
whole structure in case of collision and, thus, of
guaranteeing missions in small and obstacle-dense
environments, with low risk of damaging the vehicle or its surroundings.
Recently, the UAV design moves toward multirotor with more than four rotor, exceeding the
quadrotor configuration widely popular in the last
years [2, 3, 8, 11, 14, 17] due to the possibility
of managing engine failures and increasing the
total payload. For this reason, in this paper, the
commonly used configuration of a hexacopter is
treated. In details, the six-rotors are located on the
vertices of a regular hexagon and the propulsion
system consists of three pairs of counter-rotating
fixed-pitch propellers.
In order to build an appropriate mathematical model the drone is assumed as a rigid body,
thus its dynamics can be studied by means of
Newton-Euler differential equations, which consider both internal and external influences that
affect the UAV. Actually, the Euler angle parametrization, which describes the aircraft rotation,
is here replaced in dynamical formulation by
quaternions, since, contrary to Euler angles, they
do not present any kind of singularity, they show
more efficiency and stability from a computational
point of view, and, overall, they provide a quicker
response [16].
A robust mathematical modeling together with
efficient control system guarantees an easy flight
management of the drone; for this reason control
strategies are very frequently research task [12, 15,
18, 19]. The Proportional Integrative Derivative
(PID) Controller, presented in this work, is based
on quaternion symbolism and differs from the
others thanks to the originality of the quaternion
error, a set of parameters that do not depend on
the trajectory and provide a fast response.
In the following, the mathematical model is
briefly recalled as well as the PID controller, that
represents a generalization of the Proportional

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

Derivative (PD) controller illustrated in [6], is described. Both mathematical model and controller
technique are formulated in terms of quaternion
as shown in [5]. In conclusion, some trajectories,
with several check points, have been chosen as
desired ones for testing and validating both dynamical model and control system.

2 The Mathematical Model

The aim of this section is to provide the mathematical equations describing the dynamical behaviour of the hexacopter by means of a generalization of the quadrotor model presented in
[7, 17].
The mathematical model representing the
drone dynamics is deduced from the Newton
Euler equations, since the hexacopter is assumed
as a rigid body. It is constituted of six propellers
located at the vertices of a regular hexagon, such
that the geometrical symmetry of the structure
is preserved. The propulsion system is realized
by means of three pairs of counter-rotating fixed
pitch blades in order to facilitate design and maintenance procedures. The six electric motor dynamics is relatively fast and therefore it will be
neglected as well as the flexibility of the blades.
More details are shown in [6].
The quaternion parametrization is applied instead of Euler angles for describing the drone
orientation because these latter might induce the
lost of a degree of freedom in the dynamic system
if the gimbal lock configuration is reached. A comparison between the two approaches emphasizes a
greater efficiency and stability of the quaternions
as well as an increasing gain in time during simulations [1, 4]. This latter is a relevant topic in flight
control, because a promptness of data processing
reflects on an easier manoeuvrability and management especially in case of unexpected events
which could damage the stability of the drone. It
is worth to underline that the quaternions and the
Euler angles are directly correlated, thus , and
can be evaluated through quaternion representation, and vice versa, in order to easier visualize
the drone orientation during flight simulations.

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

263

As shown in [5], let m be the mass of the drone,

its position vector with respect to the inertial
frame, Fg the gravitational force, TB the total
thrust, Q the orthogonal transformation matrix
from the body frame to the inertial one. Total
thrust together with gravitational force represents
the total force acting on the hexacopter, thus, the
translational component of the motion referred to
the inertial frame can be written as
m = Fg + Q T B .

(1)

Let be the angular velocity, it satisfies the

differential equation
I + (I ) +  = B

(2)

in which I is diagonal inertial matrix,  represents


T
the gyroscopic effects and B =
the
roll, pitch and yaw moment vector, generated by
angular velocity and acceleration of the rotor.
As well, let q be the quaternion vector, which
has to satisfy the normality condition (i.e. q2 =
1), than the equation, that governs the rotational
dynamic leads to

hand, an Integrative component has been added

in the flight controller with the aim of reducing the
effects of the fluctuations in hexacopter behaviour
caused by random external forces.
In general, a PID controller assumes the following form
e(t) = xd (t) x(t)

(4)

u(t) = K P e(t) + K I

e(s)ds + K D

d
e(t)
dt

(5)

where u(t) is the control input and e(t) represents

the error function between the desired position
xd (t) and the actual state x(t) . The coefficients
K P , K I , K D represent the parameters for the proportional, integrative and derivative components of
the PID controller.
The PID technique is thus applied to the systems 1 and 2, describing the motion of the aircraft
and with respect to the position, it writes
dx = Kx,P (xd x) + Kx,D (x d x )
 t
+Kx,I
(xd x) ds

(6)

q =

d
(S )
dt

(3)

where S denotes the velocity transformation

matrix.
The differential equations (1), (2) and (3) associated with null initial condition define the mathematical model of the hexacopter motion with
respect to the inertial frame. A PID controller
technique will be applied to the aforesaid initial
value problem for manoeuvring the drone flight
over a certain trajectory.

d y = K y,P (yd y) + K y,D ( y d y )

 t
+Kx,I
(yd y) ds

(7)

dz = Kz,P (zd z) + Kz,D (zd z )

 t
+Kx,I+
(zd z) ds

(8)

Indeed, differing from classical approaches

based on internal linearization, Lyapunov method
or least square estimations [10, 12, 19], the quaternion error qe is defined as the difference between
the desired orientation and the actual one according to quaternion algebra. It leads to

3 Trajectory Control Model

The trajectory control technique treated in this
section improves the PD controller presented in
[6]. In particular, the quaternion approach keeps
unchanged, since it reduces the instability due
to the numerical implementation; on the other

qe,1 = qd,0 q1 qd,3 q2 + qd,2 q3 + qd,1 q0

qe,2 = qd,3 q1 qd,0 q2 qd,1 q3 + qd,2 q0
qe,3 = qd,2 q1 + qd,1 q2 qd,0 q3 + qd,3 q0
qe,4 = qd,1 q1 + qd,2 q2 + qd,3 q3 + qd,0 q0

(9)

264

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

where qd is the quaternion corresponding to the

desired yaw position and q is the quaternion representing the actual position. Let q0 , q1 , q2 and the
total thrust T derived as in [6],

Table 1 Parameters considered for the numerical

simulations


1
dz + g

q0 =  + 
q23
2 2 d2 + d2 + (d + g)2
z
x
y
T=

m(dz + g)
2(q20 + q23 ) 1

q1 =

m(dx q3 d y q0 )
(q20 + q23 )2T

q2 =

m(dx q0 + d y q3 )
(q20 + q23 )2T

(10)

2.980e-6
1.140e-7
0.225
9.81
0.468
4.856e-3
4.856e-3
8.801e-3
3.357e-5

[kg m]
[kg m2 ]
[m]
[m/s2 ]
[kg]
[kg m2 ]
[kg m2 ]
[kg m2 ]
[kg m2 ]

Let us recall that the hexacopter is controlled by

adjusting the angular velocities of the rotors which
are spun by electric motors.

4 Numerical Simulations

The moment components, , , can be computed as follows

= K,D p + K,P qe,1 qe,4 Ixx

(11)

= K,D q + 2K,P qe,2 qe,4 I yy

(12)

= K,Dr + 2K,P qe,3 qe,4 Izz .

(13)

Through total thrust and , , moments, the

control inputs, i.e. the angular velocities, are so
derived
12 =

T
2

,
6k 5kl 10b

(14)

22 =

+
,
6k 3kl 5kl 5b

(15)

32 =

+
+

,
6k 3kl 5kl 5b

(16)

42 =

T
2

+
+
,
6k 5kl 10b

(17)

52 =

,
6k 3kl 5kl 5b

(18)

+
.
6k 3kl 5kl 5b

(19)

62 =

k
b
d
g
m
Ixx
I yy
Izz
Ir

This paragraph deals with several numerical simulations presented and discussed in order to prove
the efficiency, stability and well-working of the
algorithm shown in the previous section. The control algorithm has been codified by using MATLAB software and its routine for the integration
of Differential Equations has been employed.
In [6], the PD technique has been applied in
order to control basic trajectories and to analyze
the role played by the angular velocities in the
flight, with respect to the symmetry of both trend
and structure of the drone. Starting from the same
results obtained by means of the improved PID
controller, in this paper, not elementary trajectories have been chosen with the aim of trying the
reliability of the new method.
Given a desired position and orientation, the
main idea consists of considering a sequence of
check-points along the trajectory and requiring
that the drone passes across them with a certain
attitude. The set of physical constants adopted in
the dynamical system during the whole experimentation, is reported in Table 1, while the parameters of the PID controller are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Constants used
for the PID controller

Ki,P

Ki,I

Ki,D

x
y
z

0.2
1
10
0.25
0.25
0.3

0.02
0.13
5

0.75
3.1
10
0.25
0.25
0.25

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

265

4.1 First Case

In Fig. 1, the controlled quantities, i.e. x, y,

z and , and the control inputs in terms of
total thrust, are illustrated. In details, Fig. 1
(UP-LEFT) shows the actual position of the
hexacopter with respect to the XY-plane, at the
altitude z = 1, where
symbols locate the fixed
check-points. The trend of x, y and z components
of the motion versus time is plotted in Fig. 1
(UP-RIGHT) as well as the yaw angle is depicted in Fig. 1 (DOWN-LEFT) and shows that
the desired orientation is reached in less then 8
seconds. Finally, Fig. 1 (DOWN-RIGHT) depicts
the variation of total thrust in time, emphasizing
that the drone maintains the hoovering condition
during the whole simulation.

In the first case taken into account, it is required

that the aircraft describes a circle at altitude 1.
Then, the desired position can be written in a
parametric form as follows

x = cos()

y = sin()

z =1

=1

(20)

[0, 2]

Along the trajectory, 81 check points have been

fixed and the orientation required to the drone is
20 degrees.

1.5
Xd
X

0.8
0.6
0.4
position [m]

0.5
position [m]

x
y
z

0.5

0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6

0.8
1

1.5
1.5

0.5

0
time [s]

0.5

1.5

25

500

1000

1500
2000
time [s]

2500

3000

3500

500

1000

1500
2000
time [s]

2500

3000

3500

4.5922
yaw
4.592

4.5918
15

Thrust [N]

Yaw angle [deg]

20

10

4.5916

4.5914
5

0
0

4.5912

6
time [s]

10

4.591
0

Fig. 1 Case 1: UP the Figure shows desired position (

) and actual position (continuous line) in the XY plane (left) and the
three component of the drone motion (right); down the Figure illustrates the yaw angle (left) and the total Thrust (right)

266

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

4.2 Second Case

Hexacopter position and attitude corresponding to both simulations are reported in Figs. 2
and 3 respectively.
Along the two trajectories, 121 check points
have been fixed and the orientation required to
the drone is again 20 degrees.
In Fig. 2, where the desired position corresponds
to a = 3, b = 1, c = 3, d = 1, the actual position of
the aircraft is reported distinguishing the movement in the XY-plane, with also the check-points
(LEFT), from the x, y and z evolution in time
(RIGHT). The other controlled variable is the
yaw angle , depicted in Fig. 2 (DOWN-LEFT)
showing that the 20 degrees in orientation is
reached in less then 8 s. Finally, Fig. 2 (DOWN-

In the second case the circular configuration is

complicated through the presence of several circle
combined such that the desired position leads to
the following parametric function

x = cos(a) cos3 (b )

y = sin(c) sin3 (d)

z =1

[0, 2] .

(21)

Two different cases have been analysed by varying

the coefficients a, b , c, d as a = 3, b = 1, c = 3,
d = 1, firstly, and a = 5, b = 1, c = 5, d = 1, later.

2.5

2
Xd
X

x
y
z

1.5

1.5
1
0.5

position [m]

position [m]

0
0.5

0.5
0
0.5

1
1
1.5
1.5

2
2.5
1.5

0.5

0
time [s]

0.5

2
0

1.5

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

3000

4000

5000

time [s]

25

4.5924
yaw
4.5922

20

15

Thrust [N]

Yaw angle [deg]

4.592

10

4.5918
4.5916
4.5914
4.5912

5
4.591
0
0

10

time [s]

Fig. 2 Case 2.1: UP the Figure shows desired position

corresponding to a = 3, b = 1, c = 3, d = 1. (
) and actual
position (continuous line) in the XY plane (left) and the

1000

2000
time [s]

three component of the drone motion (right); down the

Figure illustrates the yaw angle (left) and the total Thrust
(right)

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

267
2

2
Xd
X

0.5

0.5

0
0.5

0
0.5

1.5

1.5

2
2

1.5

0.5

0
time [s]

0.5

1.5

x
y
z

1.5

position [m]

position [m]

1.5

2
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

3000

4000

5000

time [s]
4.594

25
yaw

4.5935
20

15

Thrust [N]

Yaw angle [deg]

4.593

10

4.5925
4.592
4.5915

5
4.591
0
0

10

4.5905
0

1000

time [s]

2000
time [s]

Fig. 3 Case 2.2: UP the Figure shows desired position

corresponding to a = 5, b = 1, c = 5, d = 1. (
) and actual
position (continuous line) in the XY plane (left) and the

three component of the drone motion (right); down the

Figure illustrates the yaw angle (left) and the total Thrust
(right)

RIGHT) depicts the sum of the control inputs,

that is the variation of total thrust in time. Again,
the drone maintains the hoovering condition during the whole simulation.
Analogously to the fist simulation of the second
case, Fig. 3 (UP-LEFT) depicts the desired position corresponding to a = 5, b = 1, c = 5, d = 1,
marked by
and the actual position of the aircraft
in the XY-plane (line); Fig. 3 (UP-RIGHT) illustrates the motion of the three components versus
time. The desired attitude is also reached in few
second as shown in Fig. 3 (DOWN-LEFT) as well
as the maintaining of hoovering can be deduced
by Fig. 3 (DOWN-RIGHT).

4.3 Third Case

In conclusion of the numerical simulation section,
in order to describe a not elementary trajectory
different from the circular ones treated until now,
a star shape path has been considered. Its parametric function follows
 a


x =(ab ) cos()+b cos

1

 a

[0, n]
y
=(ab
)
sin()b
cos

z =1
(22)

268

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

in which two different sets of coefficients a, b , n

have been selected and similar to the previous
simulations, controlled variables and control inputs are discussed.
The first case corresponds to the choice a/b =
2.5, b = 1, n = 8, and it is depicted in Fig. 4 (UPLEFT) by means of its 161 check points; the
continuous line indicates the solution of the PID
control that is the actual position described by the
drone. The trend of displacement (UP-RIGHT)
and bearing (DOWN-LEFT) is represented in
Fig. 4 for about 5,000 s. The role of the angular
velocities is exhibited by the total thrust in Fig. 4

(DOWN-RIGHT). Figure 5 displays the second

case corresponding to a/b = 1.8, b = 1, n = 10.
Along the desired trajectory, 161 check points
are determined and put out through
markers in
Fig. 5 (UP-LEFT) where the continuous line is the
plane curve describing the actual position of the
drone in XY plane. Figure 5 exhibits the evolution
in time of position and of attitude by means of
x, y and z functions of the motion (UP-RIGHT)
and the yaw angle (DOWN-LEFT). Finally, Fig. 5
(DOWN-RIGHT) depicts the whole action of the
angular velocities which guarantee the hoovering
state during the flight.

2.5

2.5
Xd
X

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

0
0.5

0
0.5

1.5

1.5

2.5
3

2.5
0

x
y
z

position [m]

position [m]

1000

2000

3000
4000
time [s]

5000

6000

7000

1000

2000

3000
4000
time [s]

5000

6000

7000

time [s]
25

4.597
yaw
4.596

20

15

Thrust [N]

Yaw angle [deg]

4.595

10

4.594
4.593
4.592

5
4.591
0
0

10

time [s]

Fig. 4 Case 3.1: UP the Figure shows desired position corresponding to a = 2.5, b = 1, n = 8 (
) and actual position
(continuous line) in the XY plane (left) and the three

4.59
0

component of the drone motion (right); down the Figure

illustrates the yaw angle (left) and the total Thrust (right)

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

269
2

2
Xd
X

0.5

0.5

0
0.5

0
0.5

1.5

1.5

2
2

x
y
z

1.5

position [m]

position [m]

1.5

2
0

1000

2000

3000
4000
time [s]

5000

6000

7000

1000

2000

3000
4000
time [s]

5000

6000

7000

time [s]
25

4.5945
yaw
4.594

20

15

Thrust [N]

Yaw angle [deg]

4.5935

10

4.593
4.5925
4.592
4.5915

5
4.591
0
0

10

time [s]

4.5905
0

Fig. 5 Case 3.2: UP the Figure shows desired position corresponding to a = 1.8, b = 1, n = 10 (
) and actual position
(continuous line) in the XY plane (left) and the three

component of the drone motion (right); down the Figure

illustrates the yaw angle (left) and the total Thrust (right)

5 Concluding Remarks

the hoovering state is preserved during the entire

flight. The PID controller parameters do not vary
with the desired position. These promising results
induce to an implementation of the presented
technique in real flights, where rapid and reliable
responses of the controller are necessary to manoeuvre and manage the UAVs.

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 experimentation. The PID controlled has
been applied to Newton-Euler equations, describing the dynamical behaviour of the hexacopter.
Numerical results emphasized that actual position
gained by the numerical integration of the dynamical system, overlaps the check-points fixed along
the path of the desired position. Moreover, the
required attitude is reached in few seconds and

Acknowledgements Project supported by the PO. FESR

2007/2013 subprogram 4.1.1.1 Actions to support the research and experimental development in connection with
the production sectors, technological and production districts in areas of potentiality excellence that test high integration between universities, research centers, SMEs and

270
large enterprises; (Prog. Mezzo Aereo a controllo remoto per il Rilevamento del TErritorio - MARTE Grant
No.10772131).

References
1. Alaimo, A., Artale, V., Milazzo, C.L.R., Ricciardello,
A.: Comparison between euler and quaternion parametrization in uav dynamics. In: AIP Conference Proceedings (2013)
2. Artale, V., Barbaraci, G., Milazzo, C.L.R., Orlando, C.,
Ricciardello, A.: Dynamic analysis of a hexacopter controlled via LQR-PI. In: AIP Conference Proceedings
(2013)
3. Artale, V., Collotta, M., Pau, G., Ricciardello, A.:
Hexacopter Trajectory Control using a Neural Network. In: AIP Conference Proceedings (2013)
4. Artale, V., Milazzo, C., Ricciardello, A.: An example of
quaternion parameterization for dynamical simulation.
In: International Conference on Mathematical Modeling in Physical Sciences, IC-MSQUARE Conference
Proceedings Book (2013)
5. Artale, V., Milazzo, C., Ricciardello, A.: Mathematical
modeling of hexacopter. Appl. Math. Sci. 7(97), 4805
4811 (2013)
6. Alaimo, A., Artale, V., Milazzo, C., Ricciardello,
A., Trefiletti, L.: Mathematical modeling and control
of a hexacopter. In: ICUAS13 Conference Digital
Proceedings Simulator Aero Model Implementation
(2013)
7. Alderete, T.S.: Simulator aero model implementation,
NASA Ref. Pub. 1373, DOT/FAA/CT-94/83 (1995).
Available online: www.aviationsystemsdivision.arc.nasa.
gov/publications/hitl/rtsim/Toms.pdf. Accessed 7 Nov
2011
8. Castillo, P., Lozano, R., Dzul, A.: Modelling and
control of mini-flying machines. Springer, New York
(2005)
9. Hoffmann, G.M., Huang, H., Waslander, S.L., Tomlin,
C.J.: Quadrotor helicopter flight dynamics and control:
theory and experiment. In: Proceedings of the AIAA

J Intell Robot Syst (2014) 73:261270

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and

Exhibit (2007)
Kristiansen, R., Nicklasson, P.J.: Satellite attitude control by Quaternion-Based backstepping. In: Proceedings of the 2005 American Control Conference (2005)
Mc Kerrow, P.: Modelling the Draganflyer four-rotor
helicopter. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International
Conference on Robotics & Automation, pp. 3596
3600. N. Orleans, LA:IEEE (2004)
Mian, A.A., Daoboo, W.: Modeling and Backsteppingbased Nonlinear Control Strategy for a 6 DOF
Quadrotor Helicopter. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 21, 261268
(2008)
Morse, B.S., Engh, C.H., Goodrich, M.A.: UAV video
coverage quality maps and prioritized indexing for
wilderness search and rescue. In: HRI10 Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction (2010)
Pounds, P., Mahony, R., Corke, P.: Modelling and control of a large quadrotor robot. Control. Eng. Pract. 18,
691699 (2010)
Rango, A., Laliberte, A., Herrick, J.E., Winters,
C., Havstad, K., Steele, C., Browning, D.: Unmanned aerial vehicle-based remote sensing for rangeland assessment, monitoring and management. J.
Appl. Remote. Sens. 3(1), 033542-033542-15 (2009).
doi:10.1117/1.3216822
Rico-Martinez, J.M., Gallardo-Alvarado, J.: A simple
method for the determination of angular velocity and
acceleration of a spherical motion through quaternions.
Meccanica 35, 111118 (2000)
Salazar, S., Romero, H., Lozano, R., Castillo, P.: Modeling and real-time stabilization of an aircraft having eight rotors. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 54 455470
(2009)
Waharte, S., Trigoni, N.: Supporting search and rescue
operations with UAVs. In: EST10 Proceedings of the
2010 International Conference on Emerging Security
Technologies (2010)
Zhang, R., Quan, Q., Cai, K.Y.: Attitude control of
quadrotor aircraft subject to a class of time-varying
disturbances. IET Control Theory Appl. 5, 11401146
(2011)