2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)
Washington State Convention Center
Seattle, Washington, May 26-30, 2015
A Mobile Self-Leveling Landing Platform for VTOL UAVs*
Stephen A. Conyers, Nikolaos I. Vitzilaios, Matthew J. Rutherford, and Kimon P. Valavanis
Abstract— A semi-autonomous mobile self-leveling landing
platform designed to launch, recover and re-launch VTOL
UAVs without the need for human intervention is described. The
landing platform is rugged, lightweight and inexpensive, making
it ideal for civilian applications that require a base station from
which a rotorcraft UAV can be launched and/or recovered on
terrain that is normally unsuitable for UAV take-off and
landing. This landing platform is capable of autonomously self-
leveling on rough terrain and inclines up to 25°, and can operate
in isolated remote locations for extended periods of time using
large onboard lithium batteries and wireless communication.
The unique design aspects of this landing platform are that it is
mobile, self-leveling, and man-portable. A fully-operational
prototype has been designed, constructed and evaluated. Design
details and experimental results are presented to demonstrate
the landing platform’s functionality, and that all primary design
requirements have been met.
I. INTRODUCTION
The ever-increasing popularity of autonomous unmanned
aircraft for both military and civilian applications has created
a need for increased autonomy in the deployment of UAVs in
the field. Recent years have seen a significant increase in the
capabilities of small (< 150 kg) Vertical Take-Off and Landing
(VTOL) UAVs. At the same time, these vehicles have become
more accessible and less expensive. Despite the rapid growth,
there have been few solutions offered to address the problem
of launching and recovering UAVs without human
intervention. One of the difficulties associated with VTOL
aircraft is that they cannot land safely on slopped or uneven
terrain. This is primarily due to the physics of rotorcraft UAVs
in which the thrust force is always perpendicular to the landing
gear; if the vehicle is oriented to match an uneven landing
surface, the vehicle may not be able to maintain flight.
Additionally, when the landing surface is uneven, there is a
higher chance of touching the ground with one of the rotors,
causing catastrophic failure of the vehicle. While a fixed-wing
aircraft can operate on a sloped landing strip by simply taking
off traveling down the slope and land while traveling back up
the slope, there is a need to provide a level and flat landing
surface for VTOL aircraft.
This paper presents details of a semi-autonomous, mobile
self-leveling landing platform designed to launch, recover and
re-launch VTOL UAVs without the need for human
intervention. The platform is self-powered and intelligent,
allowing it to operate in remote or isolated locations with
uneven terrain for extended periods of time.
*This work is partially supported by the Major Research Instrumentation
Program of the National Science Foundation under Grant Number CNS-
1229236.
S. A. Conyers, N. I. Vitzilaios, M.J. Rutherford, and K.P. Valavanis are
with the University of Denver Unmanned Systems Research Institute,
Denver, Colorado, USA. Email: {firstname.lastname}@du.edu
978-1-4799-6923-4/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
The vehicle is not based on any commercially available
mobile robot; instead it has been designed, constructed and
tested using a combination of open-source and off-the-shelf
components, as well as custom parts fabricated in-house. In
contrast to other landing platforms, the platform presented
here has been designed and built to accommodate as many
commercially available small-scale rotorcraft UAVs as
possible, thus, maximizing its usability and versatility. This is
accomplished by using a landing surface that is not tailored for
a specific aircraft, but rather is generic and suitable for many
different UAV designs.
The contribution of this paper resides in the presentation of
a novel design of a mobile, self-leveling landing platform, a
detailed description of the implementation of a prototype
vehicle, and an experimental evaluation of its capabilities.
II. RELATED WORK
Related research in two main areas is discussed: landing
platforms and self-leveling systems. This section identifies
differences among the platform introduced in this paper and
prior landing platform designs, including previous work
performed by our research group. Table I summarizes the
literature by providing a side-by-side comparison between this
landing platform and other related systems.
A. Landing Platforms & UAV / UGV Collaborations
A review of the literature surrounding this topic reveals a
few examples of similar automated UAV landing platform
systems. While these systems were designed to accomplish a
set of functional objectives that are comparable to our own,
none of them demonstrate the versatility and the combination
of unique capabilities of our system.
The first system, developed by the Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), is an example of an
automated UAV launch, recovery, refuel and re-launch system
from an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) [1-2]. The
SPAWAR system, shown in Figure 1, incorporates a large, all-
terrain UGV, which serves as an autonomous patrol vehicle as
well as a base station for deploying a VTOL UAV. The
SPAWAR system uses an Allied Aerospace iSTAR UAV,
which is a 29-inch diameter ducted fan vehicle, powered by a
piston-engine. The UGV base station is quite heavy (weighing
more than 3000 lbs. in most standard configurations [3]) and
cannot level itself. Additionally, the UGV can only
accommodate the iSTAR UAV, making its design specialized,
and not generally applicable.
A similar mobile landing platform system is part of an
Italian military defense research project [25]. This system is
part of a collaboration between Oto Melara, one of Italy’s
largest defense contractors, and Italian aviation company Celin
Avio. This project combines an unmanned electric helicopter
called the E-TRIP 5 Ibis with a mobile landing platform based
on the Praetor UGV. This is a six-wheeled all-terrain ground
vehicle that has been modified with a folding landing surface
815
on top to accommodate launching and recovering the 10 kg
UAV. Again, this system lacks the ability to level itself,
limiting its operations to flat ground. Additionally, the folding
landing surface of the UGV is smaller than the helicopter’s
main rotor diameter, making the UAV difficult to control
during landing.
Fig. 1. SPAWAR UAV launch and recovery system [1-2].
Another system is described in a patent for a self-leveling
landing surface designed to allow helicopters to land on ships
traveling in rough seas [4]. Normally, operating a helicopter
from the deck of a ship is only possible during fair weather,
and there have been several reported accidents involving
helicopters attempting to land on ships that were rocking due
to rough seas [5-6]. The system incorporates a landing surface
mounted on a stack of rotating columns with angled mating
surfaces and is designed to respond quickly to relatively small
changes in the angle (high-frequency, low-amplitude), and
cannot compensate for an angle greater than 15°.
Another example of a UAV / UGV collaboration system is
discussed in [7]. This system uses a PackBot ground vehicle to
launch a Raven UAV when aerial reconnaissance and aerial
tracking capabilities are required. Like the SPAWAR system,
this system is based on a commercially available mobile robot
designed to accommodate a single type of UAV. It has limited
leveling capabilities, and the PackBot alone is prohibitively
expensive for most civilian applications.
In contrast to these systems, the mobile self-leveling
landing platform described in this paper uses an integrated
self-leveling system that compensates for the incline of
whatever terrain it encounters, and can accommodate angles
of 25° in any direction (low-frequency, high-amplitude).
Additionally, its design accommodates a number of different
aircraft designs while remaining lightweight, compact, and
relatively inexpensive to build. It accomplishes these goals
without sacrificing off-road capabilities and long-term
endurance in isolated locations.
B. Self-Leveling Systems
There are a number of designs for self-leveling systems
presented in the literature. There are numerous potential
applications for intelligent self-leveling systems, and as a
result, these designs are not typically intended for use with
UAVs or aircraft landing platforms. In [8], the focus is on
building an autonomous, self-correcting platform using low-
cost materials and hardware. The purpose of this work is to
show that a self-leveling platform can be built quickly and for
less than $100 USD using common materials such as sheet
metal, wood, door hinges, and plastic enclosures. It is actuated
by standard RC servos, and controlled using an Arduino
816
microcontroller that runs some basic electronics on a
breadboard.
A cable-based self-leveling system intended to keep heavy
steel cargo containers level during loading and unloading
using a cable-driven mechanism is described in [9]. This
system is intended specifically for leveling steel shipping
containers that are commonly used aboard cargo ships and
freight trains. Because the cargo inside these shipping
containers is often valuable, it is important to keep them level
to avoid shifting and damaging the contents. Unlike other self-
leveling systems that are actuated from below, this design is
controlled from above using cables making it well suited for
gantry cranes that transfer cargo at large shipping ports. This
system uses a fuzzy logic controller to accomplish the task,
and is computationally expensive and slow to respond to any
disturbances. The presence of cables above the level plane
makes it unsuitable for landing UAVs.
A conceptual design of a self-leveling system using an
ATRV-Jr mobile robot as the base with a gimbaled landing
surface mounted above is presented in [14]. This system uses
a mechanism similar to a large universal joint to provide multi-
directional flexibility with two degrees of freedom.
C. Self-Leveling UGVs
One of the primary focuses of this paper is to show how a
vehicle can utilize an integrated self-leveling system for a
practical purpose. By leveling the entire vehicle instead of just
the top surface, the landing platform can remain more compact
and have a more favorable center of gravity. There are a
number of mobile robots that have the ability to level
themselves, beginning with the iRobot PackBot and PackBot-
like designs [18-20]. All of these designs utilize rotatable
“flippers” with drive treads to push the vehicle off of the
ground. Some designs such as the Roboteam MTGR have two
flippers at the front, and other designs such as the Robotex
Avatar III and the ASI Chaos High Mobility Robot have four
flippers. Although these flippers are typically not intended
specifically for leveling the robot, they can do so in certain
configurations, as shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. ASI Robots Chaos High Mobility Robot [20]
There are two notable examples of self-leveling mobile
robots from academic research. The first of these is called the
GOAT (Goes Over All Terrain), and is a collaborative project
between Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, CMU and
Georgia Tech [21]. This is a small scale robot that uses RC
servo motors to rotate four limbs with a wheel on the end of
each. This configuration allows the GOAT to individually
change the height of each wheel to keep itself level, however
this vehicle is too small and underpowered to provide ground
support during UAV operations. The second example from
academia is the Work Partner Robot from the Aalto
University, Finland [22]. Again, this vehicle uses four wheels
mounted to the end of actuated limbs to allow it to level itself
in any work environment. The Work Partner is essentially a
large wheeled robot with a humanoid torso, head and arms
attached to the front of the vehicle. This system is designed to
assist human workers in factories or industrial facilities, and is
about the size of a small automobile.
There are also some significant efforts from U.S.
government programs in the area of self-leveling mobile
robots. One of these is the MULE (Multifunctional
Utility/Logistics and Equipment vehicle) which is a joint
development between DARPA and the U.S. Army [23, 24].
The MULE vehicle is a hybrid legged/wheeled UGV with six
wheels mounted on the end of six legs. Each leg has a full 360°
range of motion and is designed to climb over concrete K-Rails
and other obstacles.
D. Previous Work within Our Group
The landing platform design described in this paper is
developed with the intention of addressing some of the
limitations of the ISLANDS platform [12-13] shown in Figure
3. Both platforms are developed with the same purpose in
mind, to serve as a fully integrated ground station for UAV
operations in remote locations. The ISLANDS platform is a
large stationary unit that must be driven from one location to
the next on a truck. This mobility problem has been solved in
this landing platform design by making the platform into a
mobile robot. ISLANDS also requires access to a source of
electricity to recharge the batteries, which only last a few hours
during constant operation. This means that a certain amount of
human involvement is always required to keep the ISLANDS
platform operating, and many steps have been taken to
minimize this dependency in this landing platform design.
Fig. 3. The ISLANDS landing platform system [12-13].
The leveling system on the ISLANDS platform uses a
basic two-degree of freedom (DOF) design combining a DC
gear motor for rotation about the central Z-axis, and a
pneumatic linear actuator for changing the angle of the landing
surface with respect to the platform’s base. This system is
capable of leveling itself on a slope using a two-step approach:
(1) the ISLANDS platform rotates to align itself with the
gradient, and (2) tilts the landing surface to match the angle of
the slope. The current mobile landing platform uses a more
direct approach, leveling itself by adjusting the height of each
corner individually using linear actuators, thereby changing
the angle of the entire vehicle instead of just the landing
surface. Its improved design does not require an elevated
landing surface, large actuators, or motors for central axis
rotation, allowing the system to remain more compact and low
to the ground as needed for mobility.
817
Table I. Related work comparison.
Capabilities
Related Systems Launch/ Self- Multi-UAV Man- Self-
Mobile
Recover Leveling Compatible Portable Powered
Landing Platform Y Y Y Y Y Y
SPAWAR [1-2] Y Y N N N N
Praetor/E-TRIP [25] Y Y N N N N
PackBot/Raven [7] N Y - N Y N
ISLANDS [12-13] Y N Y Y N N
III. SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The main requirements of the landing platform design are
its mobility and self-leveling capabilities. The basic
configuration of the landing platform, shown in Figures 4 and
6, is a four-wheeled mobile robot with a differential drive
system. The novel feature of this system is the combination of
a conventional four-wheel design with an innovative self-
leveling mechanism.
Fig. 4. SolidWorks model of the landing platform system.
A. Self-Leveling System
Each of the four wheels is mounted on the end of a control
arm that rotates up and down to change the position of each
wheel independently. This gives the platform the ability to
level itself on a sloped surface or uneven terrain with the
design requirement of self-leveling on a slope of 25° to within
± one degree. The control arms are connected to a linear
actuator that adjusts the position of the control arm and its
corresponding wheel by extending and retracting, as shown in
Figure 5. By raising and lowering the position of each
individual wheel, it is possible to change the ground clearance
at each corner of the vehicle, thereby adjusting the angle of the
landing surface with respect to the environment. The landing
surface in this case is the top surface of the robot, which
measures 82.5 cm across and is octagonal to accommodate the
area under the helicopter’s main rotor.
The dimensions of the components in the self-leveling
system are chosen based on the desired ±25° leveling
requirement and the combined weight of the helicopter and
landing platform. The DC linear actuators selected are the
Duff-Norton LT-100-1-100P model, shown in Figure 5. These
units can deliver a rated push-pull force of 500 N over a 100
mm stroke length. The linear actuators are individually
controlled using four Firgelli Linear Actuator Control (LAC)
boards, which allow them to be operated like servomotors. A
Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) signal controls the position
of each actuator, which uses internal potentiometer feedback
to achieve the desired extension length.

Fig. 5. Self-leveling mechanism of the landing platform.
Fig. 6. Landing platform prototype with TREX 450 helicopter on board.
Given that the platform itself weighs approximately 20 kg,
and the Align TREX 450 helicopter, shown in Figure 6, weighs
just 900 g, the linear actuators can provide sufficient force to
lift the platform to the correct angle. Figure 7 shows the Free
Body Diagram (FBD) of the control arm and actuator in the
self-leveling system. In the FBD, FLAC is the force provided by
the linear actuator on the control arm, FWTE is the force
provided by the wheel motor which can rotate inward to
provide additional force at low transmission angles, and FLIFT
is the resulting lifting force that is being applied at the wheel
to lift the corner of the vehicle.
Fig. 7. Free body diagram of self-leveling system.
The angle between the linear actuator and the control arm
is represented by θ which is the transmission angle, and the
angle between the control arm and the ground is represented
by φ. The range of these angles is limited by the stroke length
of the linear actuator acting as a physical constraint. As the
linear actuator extends, the angle θ decreases and the angle φ
increases. Because these two angles are dependent on one
another, one can be written as a function of the other, as shown
818
in Equation 1. The lifting force FLIFT is dependent on these
angles, as shown in Equation 2, and changes as the control arm
moves through its range of motion, and this relationship is
shown in Figure 8.
𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠: − 4.41° ≤ 𝜑 ≤ 76.48°
𝜃 = −0.558𝜑 + 53.049 (1)
0.1(𝐹𝐿𝐴𝐶 sin 𝜃) + 0.225(𝐹𝑊𝑇𝐸 cos 𝜑)
𝐹𝐿𝐼𝐹𝑇 = (2)
0.225
∴ 43.3𝑁 ≤ 𝐹𝐿𝐼𝐹𝑇 ≤ 188.9𝑁
The force balance of this system is based on the
requirement that the sum of the moments about the pivot point,
ΣMo, is equal to zero. The force balance equations for this
system assume that the landing platform is on flat ground and
assume that the control arm is a rigid body. These calculations
are also based on the rated push-pull force of 500 N from the
linear actuators, however they can produce significantly more
force before stall.
Fig 8. Plot of FLIFT vs. control arm angle (φ) for self-leveling system.
The self-leveling system uses a Murata SCA121T analog
dual-axis inclinometer to monitor the incline in the X and Y
directions. The analog signals from the inclinometer are
converted into digital signals using an LTC1865 two-channel
16-bit Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), which then sends
the inclination information to the landing platform’s XMOS
XC-1A digital microcontroller. The microcontroller also
monitors the position of all four linear actuators. Using the
inclination data, the landing platform is able to compute its
angle with respect to the environment and the current position
of each linear actuator. The prototype vehicle controls the self-
leveling system using a proportional closed-loop controller.
This controller is implemented in software on the
microcontroller, and the proportional gains are experimentally
determined from measured inclinometer angles with respect to
actuator positions. A block diagram for the self-leveling
controller is shown in Figure 9. The set points, SPx and SPy,
are chosen based on the raw inclinometer values that
correspond to 0° in both axes. The angles φx and φy represent
the vehicle’s measured roll and pitch angles, respectively. The
desired actuator positions are represented by dcom, and dact
represents the actual measured actuator positions. Both dcom
and dact are integer values from 0-100, representing the
physical actuator extension length from 0 mm to 100 mm. An
experimental evaluation of the self-leveling system is provided
in Section IV.
 Fig. 9. Auto-leveling system control block diagram.
B. Weight and Size Considerations
Although the primary function of the landing platform is to
accommodate lightweight, unmanned helicopters, it is
designed to be as rugged as possible without compromising the
lightweight construction. The requirement states the vehicle
must support a mass of 120 kg on the center of the landing
surface. Because the landing platform has four points of
contact with the ground, the load is shared between them and
is assumed to be symmetrical (40 kg per corner). Therefore,
the analysis examines one corner of the vehicle as it is parked
on a 15° side-slope. We focus primarily on the control arm,
which is subjected to the largest stresses under the given
conditions. Equations 3, 4 and 5 describe the force components
associated with this loading condition, where FH is the
horizontal force applied to the unsupported end of the control
arm, FV is the vertical force component, and MWT is the wheel
offset moment created by the wheel being mounted to the
outside of the control arm. This analysis is performed using
both SolidWorks and Abaqus Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
software. The software applies fixed boundary conditions to
the mounting points for the linear actuator and the main body
of the vehicle. The analysis reveals that the control arms are
subjected to a maximum stress of 160.8 MPa (Von Mises).
This is below the yield strength of 275 MPa for the 6061-T6
aluminum alloy, and equates to a safety factor of 1.71. In
addition, the maximum deflection of the control arm is 1.62
mm, which is not significant enough to cause any interference
issues. The Von Mises equivalent stress contour plot generated
in Abaqus is shown in Figure 10.
𝑚
𝐹𝐻 = 40 𝑘𝑔 ∙ (9.81 2 ) ∙ sin(15°) = 101.561 𝑁
𝑠
𝑚
𝐹𝑉 = 40 𝑘𝑔 ∙ (9.81 ) ∙ cos(15°) = 379.029 𝑁
𝑠2
101.561 𝑁
𝑀𝑊𝑇 = = 1336.3 𝑁 ∙ 𝑚
0.076 𝑚
Fig. 10. Von Mises equivalent stress contour plot of the control arm.
Another design requirement is that the platform must be
man-portable, and can be carried on a person’s back.
Guidelines for these requirements come from other
civilian/military robots being carried into the field, notably the
PackBot EOD which can be carried on a parson’s back and
easily deployed in the field [15]. The PackBot EOD weighs
approximately 18 kg, which according to studies by the US
military, is less than the 23 kg weight limit that one person can
carry for long periods of time [16]. The landing platform, with
a mass of 20 kg, is also within this limit.
One important feature of the PackBot is that it can be
reduced to a compact configuration by rotating its extendable
“flipper” tread arms inward to sit beside the vehicle’s body.
Similarly, the landing platform features a collapsible landing
surface that folds up from an octagon into a square to make it
more compact and more durable during transport, as shown in
Figure 11. When folded, the width of the landing platform is
reduced by 50% from 82.5 cm to 55 cm, which is narrow
enough to be carried on a person’s back and easily fit through
doorways. The folding landing surface is fully mechanized,
using four DC gear motors as winches to pull the spring-loaded
flaps open from underneath via a cam mechanism. This system
is controlled using limit switches on all four flaps, so that the
motors can be stopped individually.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Fig. 11. Extended and folded landing surface configuration. The compact
folded configuration facilitates the transportation of the vehicle by a person.
819
C. Power Budget data from the sensors, control the wheel motors, operate the
Other design considerations are: the amount of energy linear actuators, and communicate with human operators in
carried on board, subsystem power consumption, and efficient parallel. XMOS technology is well-suited for controlling
power distribution. As a main power source, a lithium-polymer unmanned vehicles as discussed in [17]. Currently,
battery system is used due to its high energy density and low communication between the human operator and the landing
weight. To provide some comparison, the PackBot EOD, platform is accomplished wirelessly using a NXP
which is similar in size and weight to the landing platform, Semiconductor WiFly module. This allows the operator to
uses a lithium battery pack with a total onboard energy connect directly to the landing platform via any WiFi-enabled
capacity of 500 Wh. The landing platform is required to travel device and send commands while at the same time receive
long distances over rough terrain and operate for extended routine information regarding the status of the onboard
periods of time in the field; therefore four lithium-polymer systems. The XMOS, WiFly, and various other components
batteries with a total onboard energy capacity of 814 Wh are are mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB) designed
used. This capacity provides enough power for the platform to specifically for this vehicle, as shown in Figure 13. This
remain in the field for days at a time, or travel a maximum simplifies the debugging process and the numerous I/O
distance of 13.1 km (in ideal conditions) without requiring connections. The XMOS, WiFly and ICs are connected to the
recharging. A breakdown of the average power consumption board via sockets, allowing for easy replacement of damaged
for the vehicle’s various electrical components is shown in components.
Table II.
Table II. Breakdown of power consumption of the prototype vehicle.
Component Consumption Function
XMOS XC-1A Microcontroller 5.0V*500mA Control
WiFly Module 3.3V*210mA Control
Control Electronics Power = 3.193 Watts Control
LTC1865 ADC (x2) 5.0V*2mA Leveling
SCA121T Inclinometer 12V*8mA Leveling
Duff-NortonLT-100-1-100P (x4) 12V*1500mA Leveling
Leveling System Power = 72.116 Watts Leveling
GPS Module 5.0V*50mA Locomotion
Wheel Motor Encoders (x4) 3.3V*5mA Locomotion
RE 35 Wheel Motors (x4) 21V*3620mA Locomotion
Locomotion System Power = 306.597 Watts Locomotion
Fig. 13. Control board PCB with all components mounted.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Fig. 12. DC-DC converter, control board and motor controllers.
In order to efficiently distribute the power among the
various electrical components we make use of a 250 W DC-
DC converter to convert the battery voltage (18.5-21.0 V) to
the levels required by the various components, such as the
linear actuators, sensors, wireless communications and digital
microcontroller, as shown in Figure 12. This system has a 94%
power conversion efficiency under typical load.
D. Vehicle Control
For servicing and monitoring the subsystems, the XMOS
XC-1A microcontroller is used. This microcontroller is
capable of handling up to 32 simultaneous tasks with tight real-
time scheduling. This unique capability allows it to monitor
Substantial field-testing has been performed on the landing
platform prototype vehicle. The experimental test results are
described in this section and compared to the original design
requirements. Tests of the self-leveling system are described
first: three separate tests are conducted, one for the x-axis
(transverse), one for the y-axis (longitudinal), and one that
combines the x and y axes, as shown in Figure 14,
respectively, and in the attached video. Each of the three tests
consists of three trials, and the results are shown
superimposed on the plots for each test.
The setup for the three leveling tests consists of placing the
vehicle on a ramp with a fixed angle of 24° in one of the three
orientations shown in Figure 14. The auto leveling system is
then activated by a user command over the wireless interface.
From that point, the user has no interaction with the vehicle
until after the conclusion of that trial. The data sent back over
the wireless interface is later plotted to show the measured
inclinometer angles as a function of time. The results of the
x-axis, y-axis and combined axes leveling tests are shown in
Figures 15, 16, and 17, respectively. In the combined leveling
tests, the angle components at the beginning of each trial in
the x- and y-axes are measured by the inclinometer to be 15.5°
and 15.8° respectively, which equates to an overall vehicle
angle of 22.1°. In all of these tests, the landing platform
reaches a level orientation without any intervention from the
operator within approximately 8 to 18 seconds (depending on
the orientation on the ramp).

820
 18
Combined X-Y Leveling
X-Axis Trial 1
16 X-Axis Trial 2
X-Axis Trial 3
14 Y-Axis Trial 1
12 Y-Axis Trial 2

Angle (degrees)
Y-Axis Trial 3
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Time (sec)
Fig. 17. Combined axes leveling test results.

The second series of tests evaluate the locomotion system

of the landing platform. The primary design requirement for
the locomotion system is that the vehicle should be able to
travel at a speed of 1.4 m/s (5.0 km/h) on flat ground. This
requirement is based on a brisk walking pace, fast enough to
cover a distance in a reasonable amount of time but not so fast
that it is difficult to control. An indoor speed test was
conducted in an aircraft hangar with a polished concrete floor,
and consists of a series of six timed trials (three forward and
three in reverse) along a 10 m straight trajectory at full speed.
The results from this test are averaged, and show that the
vehicle takes an average of 6.98 seconds to cover the distance
giving an average speed of 1.435 m/s.
Fig. 14. Pictures of the x-axis, y-axis, Additional speed tests are conducted outdoors, the first of
and combined axes leveling tests, respectively.
which involves timing the vehicle at full speed in both
X-Axis Leveling directions along a 100 m straight trajectory over rough
28 X-Axis Trial 1 asphalt. The position data for the distance covered during the
X-Axis Trial 2
24 test comes from the onboard GPS module. The vehicle takes
X-Axis Trial 3
20 Y-Axis (Comparison) an average of 77.52 seconds to cover the distance giving an
Angle (degrees)

16 average speed of 1.286 m/s. A similar test was conducted on

12
an uneven, muddy and partially snow-covered surface with
tall grass and weeds. The vehicle traversed this off-road
8
terrain with an average speed of 0.952 m/s. A velocity profile
4
of the off-road speed test is shown in Figure 18 as a plot of
0 velocity versus time. In the velocity profile it appears that the
-4 vehicle occasionally exceeds its maximum speed, but in fact
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 this is caused by the GPS registering the change in position as
Time (sec)
a series of sudden jumps from one location to another.
Fig. 15. Transverse x-axis leveling test results.
Velocity Profile for Off-Road Speed Test
28
Y-Axis Leveling 2.5
Y-Axis Trial 1
Y-Axis Trial 2
24 Y-Axis Trial 3 2.0
X-Axis (Comparison)
20
Velocity (m/s)
Angle (degrees)

16 1.5

12
1.0
8
4 0.5
0
0.0
-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 18. Velocity profile of off-road speed test.
Fig. 16. Longitudinal y-axis leveling test results.

821
 The final test focuses on the turning capability of the
differential drive system by timing the completion of 5
rotations. These tests are conducted with the vehicle in the
most upright configuration with the shortest wheelbase
length. Again, three trials are performed, and the vehicle
takes an average of 5.43 seconds to complete a single rotation
(giving an average angular velocity of 1.157 rad/s).
V. FUTURE WORK
We are working to design a system that allows the landing
platform to recharge the helicopter after each flight. The
literature describes some methods that have been successfully
implemented to swap the battery on a small UAV without
human intervention [10-11]. These systems allow the vehicle
to perform multiple flights without the limitations of
traditional UAVs that need a human operator to change the
battery after each flight. We would like to accomplish the same
goal for vehicles using the landing platform as a base station
in remote locations. Rather than swapping batteries, we are
examining the option of using a wireless inductive charging
system to accomplish this goal. We are also currently working
on a full kinematic model of the landing platform to augment
its functionality in the field. One of the primary goals
surrounding this effort is to develop an improved leveling
controller that can facilitate active auto-leveling while the
vehicle is in motion.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper we present an intelligent, mobile, self-leveling
landing platform for increasing the autonomy and endurance
of small-sized UAVs in the field. We have designed, built and
tested a system that is capable of navigating to a remote
location, and remaining in an isolated area for extended
periods of time without requiring any human intervention. It
provides a level landing surface for autonomous unmanned
helicopters and multi rotor aircraft, and serves as a base station
for aerial vehicles in remote or inaccessible areas. We evaluate
the self-leveling, locomotion and turning capabilities and show
the vehicle meets its requirements.
REFERENCES
[1] K. D. Mullens, E. B. Pacis, S. B. Stancliff, A. B. Burmeister, T. A.
Denewiler, M. H. Brunch, and H. R. Everett, "An automated UAV
mission system," in AUVSI Unmanned Systems in International
Security 2003 (USIS 03), Sept. 2003.
[2] K. Mullens, A. Burmeister, M. Wills, N. Stroumtsos, T. Denewiler,
J. Pachura, G. Prior, and B. Hawkins, "Automated launch, landing
and refueling technologies for increased UGV-UAV
effectiveness," in 1st Joint Emer. Prep. & Response/Robotic &
Remote Sys. Top. Mtg., pp. 164-170, Feb. 2006.
[3] MDARS Vehicle Datasheet (2014, Feb. 05). [Online]. Available:
www.jpeocbd.osd.mil/fps/Docs/Brochure%20for%20MDARS%2
0Aug2008.pdf
[4] F. A. Chouery, “Stabilizing surface for flight deck or other uses,”
U.S. Patent 7040247 B2, May 9, 2006.
[5] R. Vogelaar. (2009, Oct. 23). "Black Hawk Helicopter Crashed into
a Navy Ship." [Online]. Available:
http://www.aviationnews.eu/2009/10/23/black-hawk-helicopter-
crashed-into-a-navy-ship/
[6] Los Angeles Times. "Marines Halt Search for Copter Lost at
Sea."Internet:http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/19/news/mn-
24411, Sept. 19, 1998 [Feb. 05, 2014].
822
[7] C. Cheung, B. Grocholsky, "UAV-UGV collaboration with a
PackBot UGV and Raven SUAV for pursuit and tracking of a
dynamic target", in Proc. SPIE 6962, Unmanned Systems
Technology X, April 16, 2008.
[8] M. J. Zeno. "Design of an Autonomous Self Correcting Platform
Using Open Source Hardware." MSME thesis, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Hartford, CT, 2011.
[9] Y. Yu, J. Yi, C. Li, D. Zhao, and J. Zhang, "Control of a rope-driven
self-leveling device for leveling adjustment," in American Control
Conference 2009, pp. 5115-5120, June 2009.
[10] T. Toksoz, J. Redding, M. Michini, B. Michini, J. P. How, M. A.
Vavrina, and J. Vian, “Automated battery swap and recharge to
enable persistent UAV missions,” in Infotech@Aerospace, March
2011.
[11] K. A. Swieringa, C. B. Hanson, J. R. Richardson, J. D. White, Z.
Hasan, E. Qian, and A. Girard, "Autonomous battery swapping
system for small-scale helicopters," in 2010 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3335-3340,
May 2010.
[12] R. Godzdanker, M. J. Rutherford, and K. P. Valavanis, “ISLANDS:
A self-leveling landing platform for autonomous miniature UAVs,”
in 2011 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), pp. 170-175, July 2011.
[13] R. Godzdanker, M. J. Rutherford, and K. P. Valavanis, “Improving
endurance of autonomous aerial vehicles through intelligent
service-station placement,” in 2012 IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3179-3184, May 2012.
[14] K. Dalamagkidis, S. Ioannou, K. Valavanis, and E. Stefanakos, "A
mobile landing platform for miniature vertical take-off and landing
vehicles," in 14th Mediterranean Conference on Control and
Automation, 2006. MED '06, pp. 1-6, June 2006.
[15] B. M. Yamauchi, "PackBot: a versatile platform for military
robotics", in Proc. SPIE 5422, Unmanned Ground Vehicle
Technology VI, 228, Sept. 2004.
[16] “The modern warrior’s combat load,” U.S Army, Center for Army
Lessons Learned Report.
[17] G. Martins, A. Moses, M. J. Rutherford, and K. P. Valavanis,
"Enabling intelligent unmanned vehicles through XMOS
Technology," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation:
Applications, Methodology, Technology, vol. 9, no 1, pp. 71-82,
2012.
[18] Roboteam. (2014, Sept. 10). “MTGR – Mobile Technical Ground
Robot.” [Online]. Available: http://www.robo-team.com/
products/systems/mtgr
[19] Robotex, Inc. (2014, Sept. 10). “Avatar III Robot.” [Online].
Available: http:// robotex.com/avatar-iii-robot/
[20] Autonomous Solutions, Inc. (2014, Sept. 10). “Chaos High
Mobility Robot.” [Online]. Available: http://www.asirobots.com/
products/chaos/
[21] Carnegie Mellon University. (2014, Sept. 10). "UGCV GOAT."
[Online]. Available: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~trb/goat/
[22] Aalto University. (2014, Sept. 10). “Work Partner.” Internet:
http://autsys.aalto.fi/en/WorkPartner
[23] Defense Update. (2014, Aug. 28). “MULE – Multifunction
Logistics/Utility and Equipment.” [Online]. Available:
http://defense-update.com/products/ m/mule-load-carrier.htm
[24] Wikipedia. (2014, Aug. 28). "Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and
Equipment vehicle." [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunctional_Utility/Logistics_an
d_Equipment_vehicle
[25] R. Braybrook. "The Now Inevitable Mini-Vertilift Drone." Armada
International (June, 2011), pp. 22.