Proceedings

The of the
International
Toulouse, France, 20th9-14,
World
Federation
July of Congress
Automatic Control
2017
The International
Proceedings
Toulouse, Federation
of the
France, 20th9-14,
July Worldof Congress
Automatic Control
2017
The International
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Toulouse, France,Federation of Automatic Control
July 9-14, 2017
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017
ScienceDirect
A
A dynamic analysis
IFAC PapersOnLine
dynamic 50-1 (2017)of
analysis ground
ground effect
10311–10316
of effect for
for aa
A dynamicquadrotor
analysis ofplatform ground effect for a
A dynamicquadrotor
analysis ofplatform ground effect for a
quadrotor platform∗
Davide Del Contquadrotor
Bernard Fabio∗
platform
Riccardi ∗ Mattia Giurato ∗∗
Davide Del Cont Bernard ∗ Fabio Riccardi ∗
Marco Mattia Giurato
Lovera ∗
∗
Davide Del Cont Bernard Marco Fabio
Lovera Riccardi ∗ Mattia Giurato ∗
∗ ∗
Davide
∗
Del Cont Bernard Fabio
Marco Lovera Riccardi ∗ Mattia Giurato ∗
∗ Dipartimento di Scienze e
Marco Tecnologie
LoveraAerospaziali, Politecnico
Aerospaziali,
∗ di
∗
Dipartimento
Milano, Milano, di Scienze Italye (e-mail:
Tecnologie marco.lovera@polimi.it) Politecnico di
Dipartimento
Milano, Milano, di Scienze Italye (e-mail:
Tecnologie Aerospaziali, Politecnico di
marco.lovera@polimi.it)
∗
Dipartimento
Milano, Milano, di Scienze Italye (e-mail:
Tecnologie Aerospaziali, Politecnico di
marco.lovera@polimi.it)
Abstract: It is well Milano,
known Milano,
in theItaly (e-mail:onmarco.lovera@polimi.it)
literature multirotor UAVs that the flight control
Abstract:
performanceItis isaffected well known in the literature
when operating close to onthemultirotor
ground surface. UAVs While that the ground flight control
effect has
Abstract: Itis isaffected
performance well knownwhen in the literature
operating close to on
the multirotor
ground UAVs While
surface. that the ground flight control
effect has
been
Abstract:studiedItextensively
is well for full
known in scale
the helicopters,onitsmultirotor
literature study for multirotors
UAVs that has
the soflight
far received
control
performance
been studied is affected when
extensively for full operating close to the
scale helicopters, its ground surface.
studyinvestigation
for multirotorsWhilehas ground fareffect
soground has
received
limited
performance
been studied attention.
is In
affected
extensively particular,
when
for full following
operating an
close
scale helicopters, experimental
to theits ground surface.
studyinvestigation
for multirotorsWhileof static
ground
has effect
fareffect
soground has
received
limited
for attention.
a quadrotor In particular,
platform, for in this following an
paperhelicopters, experimental
the problemitsofstudy characterising of
the dynamicstatic operationeffect
of
been
limited
for studied
asame
quadrotor extensively
attention. In
platform, particular, full
in this scale
following
paper an experimental
the problem of the for multirotors
investigation
characterising of
the dynamic has
static so far
ground received
effect
operation of
the
limited platform
attention. in ground
Ininparticular, effect is
following considered and results obtained in an experimental
for
the asame
quadrotor
platform platform, groundin this paper
effect thean experimental
problem
is considered and of the investigation
characterising
results theofdynamic
obtained static
in an groundoperationeffect
experimental of
campaign
for to thisplatform,
purpose arethis
presented andproblem
discussed.
the asame
campaign quadrotor
platform
to this purpose in ground in paper
effect
are presented the
is considered and
and discussed. of the
characterising
results obtained the dynamic operation of
in an experimental
the same platform
campaign to this purpose in ground effect is considered
are presented and the results obtained in an experimental
and discussed.
© 2017,1.IFAC
campaign (International
INTRODUCTION
to this purpose are Federation
presented of Automatic Control) Hosting by2.Elsevier
and discussed. STATE Ltd.OF AllTHErightsART
reserved.
1. INTRODUCTION 2. STATE OF THE ART
1. INTRODUCTION 2. STATE OF THE ART
1. INTRODUCTION Classical modelling 2. STATE for ground OF THE effectART Ground effect in
In the rotorcraft literature, ground effect is defined as the Classical modelling for ground effect a century,
Ground effect in
In the rotorcraft literature, ground effect is defined as the helicopters
Classical has
modellingbeen studied
for ground for almost Ground see
effect a century, John-
effect in
increase
In in
the rotorcraftthrust (at constant
literature, ground power)
effect ofof a rotor
is defined oper-
as the son helicopters has been studied for almost see John-
increase in thrust (at constant power) a rotorstudiedoper- Classical (2013)modelling
for been
an overview
for ground or Padfield (2008),
Ground Leishman
effect a century, effect in
ating
In the near
increase
ating nearin the
rotorcraft
thrust
the
ground.
literature, Ground
(at constant
ground. ground
Ground
effect
effecthas
power)
effect has abeen
is defined
of been as
rotorstudied the helicopters
oper- son
(2006). (2013) In
has
for an overview
particular,
studied for
experiments
almost
or Padfield (2008),
usually focus
see
on
John-
Leishman the
extensively for conventional helicopters, however the phe- helicopters
son (2013)
(2006). Inquantities: has
for been
an studied
overview for
or almost
Padfield
particular, experiments usually focus on the a century,
(2008), see John-
Leishman
increase
ating near
extensively in for
thrust
the (at constant
ground.
conventional Ground power)
effect has
helicopters, of abeen
however rotor oper-
studied
the phe- following
nomenon has received limited attention as been
far as small- son (2013)
(2006).
following for an overview
Inquantities:
particular, or Padfield
experiments (2008),
usually focusLeishman
on the
ating
nomenon near
extensively the
for ground.
conventional
has received Ground
limited effect
helicopters,
attention has
however
as far studied
the
asthoughphe-
small- following
scale multirotor helicopters are concerned, even (2006).• Ratio Inquantities:
particular,
between powerexperiments
required usually
for IGE focus
and on
outtheof
extensively
nomenon
scale hasforreceived
multirotor conventional limited
helicopters helicopters,
are attention
concerned, however
as fareven the
as phe-
small-
though • ground
Ratioquantities:
between power required for IGE and out of
there is practical evidence that the performance of quadro- following effect (OGE) conditions, at constant thrust:
nomenon
scale
there both
is has
multirotor
practical received
evidence limited
helicopters thatare attention
the concerned,
performanceas far
even as small-
though
of quadro- • Ratio
ground  between
effect (OGE) power conditions,
required for at IGE and thrust:
constant out of
tors,
scale both in terms
multirotor of altitude
helicopters thatare and attitudeeven
concerned, control,
though de- Ratio
• groundP 
between power conditions,
required for
there
tors, is practical
in terms evidence
of altitude theand performance
attitude of quadro-
control, de-  PP  = kg (OGE)
effect at IGE and thrust:
constant out of
grades
there
tors, iswhen
both in operating
practicalterms evidence
of close
that
altitude tothethe
and ground
performance
attitude surface.
of In the
quadro-
control, de-
∞
ground
P
T = kg
effect (OGE) conditions, at constant thrust:
grades when
literature on operating
multirotors, close thisto the ground surface. In the  Tof= IGE
• Ratio P∞
kg and OGE thrust, at constant power:
tors, both
grades
literaturewhen inoperating
on terms of close
multirotors, altitude
thisto degradation
andground
the attitude
degradation
iscontrol,
generically
surface. de-
In the
is interaction
generically • Ratio
 PPT  Tof= IGE
P∞ and OGE thrust, at constant power:
attributed
grades when
literature to
on ground
operating
multirotors, effect,
close this nevertheless
to the groundthis
degradation this
surface. In the
is interaction
generically • Ratio ∞ fkgg , and OGE thrust, at constant power:
Tof= IGE
attributed
is frequently to ground effect, nevertheless  TT∞  P = f ,
to neglected at this
the modelling this stage. However • Ratio g
literature
attributed
is frequently on multirotors,
ground effect,
neglected at the degradation
nevertheless
modelling is interaction
stage. generically
However where Tcoefficients
TT∞
Pof= IGE and OGE thrust, at constant power:
fg , k e f are related by
during
attributed
is take-off
frequently and
to neglected
ground landing
effect,
at theand in near-ground
nevertheless
modelling this
stage. operation,
interaction
However where Tcoefficients T∞
P = fg , kg e fgg are related by
g
during
ground take-off
effect is and
not landing
avoidable and andin near-ground
must be operation,
properly han- ∞
P  −3/2
is frequently
during
ground take-off
effect toneglected
isandnot landingat the
avoidable andand modelling
must bestage.
in near-ground However
operation,
properly han- where coefficients P kg veifg are  related
T −3/2 by
dled
during
ground in order
take-off
effect to achieve
and
is not landingsatisfactory
avoidable and in flight
near-ground
and must performance
operation,
beperformance
properly han- in where k =
coefficients
g P =k v
e i f = are
 T
related
−3/2
−3/2
by= −fg−3/2 . (1)
dled
the in
case order
of achieve
autonomous satisfactory
operation. flight in k = PP∞ = vvi∞ g g
= T = −f . (1)
ground
dled in effect
order is
to not
achieveavoidable and
satisfactory must
flightbe properly
performance han-in g i  T∞  g
the case of autonomous operation.
Furthermore, kg = Pexperimentally
P∞ = vv i∞ = TT∞
a
−3/2
dependence = −fon: −3/2
g−3/2 . (1)
kg = Pexperimentally T∞
dledcase
in order totheachieve satisfactory flight performance in i
the
Moreover, of in
autonomous operation.
classical rotorcraft literature ground Furthermore, ∞ = vi∞ = a dependence = −fon:g . (1)
Moreover,
the case
effect is of in
studied the
autonomous
in classical
static rotorcraft
operation.
conditions, i.e., literature
for a fixed ground
rotor to Pexperimentally
∞ vi∞ T ∞
Moreover, in the classical rotorcraft literature ground Furthermore,
• Distance from ground a
scaled dependence
by rotor on:
radius h/R
effect isconstant
studied in static conditions, i.e., for a fixed rotor to Furthermore,
•• Distance fromcoefficient
ground scaled
which
Moreover,
effect is in
studied controls
the
in static are
classical applied,
rotorcraft
conditions, evenfor
i.e., though
literature
a fixedthis is not
ground
rotor to • Disk
Distance loadingexperimentally
from ground scaled /σby
CaTdependence
by
rotor radius
rotor
on: h/R
radius h/R
which
entirely constant controls
representative are applied, even though this is not • Disk loading coefficient C /σ
effect isconstant
which
entirely studied in staticof
controls
representative are
of
a applied,
a
free-flying
conditions,
free-flying i.e.,
even platform
for a fixed
though
platform
operating
rotor
this to
is not
operating ••• Distance
Blade geometry
Disk loadingfrom (e.g., taper
ground
coefficient
T
scaled
C /σ
and
by twist)radius h/R
rotor
in ground effectcontrols
(IGE). area applied, Blade geometry (e.g., taper T and twist)
which
entirely
in constant
ground representative
effect (IGE). of free-flying even though this
platform is not is observed.
operating • DiskBladeloading Some coefficient
geometry CT /σ
(e.g., expressions
classical taper and twist)
for the above men-
entirely
in ground
Following representative
effect
a previous(IGE).work of a free-flying
(see Del Cont platformet al.operating
(2017)), is observed.
tioned • Blade Some classical
geometry
coefficients are(e.g.,
provided expressions
taperhereafter: for the above men-
and twist)
Following
in ground
which a previous
effect
consisted (IGE).
in an work (see Delstatic
experimental Contcharacterization
et al. (2017)), is observed.
tioned Some classical
coefficients
 are provided expressions
hereafter:for the above men-
Following a previous work (see Delstatic Contcharacterization
et al. (2017)), tioned −1
which consisted in an experimental is observed.  Some1 classical
coefficients are provided
−1
expressions
hereafter:for the above men-
of ground effect (inan terms
workof IGE/OGE thrust ratio) both
Following
which
of ground a previous
consisted
effect in
(in terms of (see
experimentalIGE/OGEDelstatic
Contthrustet al. (2017)),
characterization
ratio) both tioned f = 11 −
fg =coefficients
− (4h/R)
1 are2 provided
−1
Cheeseman
hereafter:and
Cheeseman
Bennet (2)
and Bennet (2)
for
which
of theconsisted
ground isolated
effect rotor
in
(in an and of forIGE/OGE
experimental
terms the complete
static quadrotor,
characterization
thrust ratio) bothin g  1 2 −1
for the isolated rotor and for theincomplete quadrotor, in f g = 1 − (4h/R) 1 0.03794 Cheeseman and Bennet (2)
this
for paper
of ground
the the results
effect
isolated (in
rotor termsobtained
and offorIGE/OGE an experimental
theincomplete thrust ratio) cam-
quadrotor, bothin 1 − (4h/R) 2 2/3
Cheeseman
this
paign paper
aimed theat results obtained
characterizing ground an effect
experimental
in a cam-
dynamic ffg = = 0.9926 + 0.03794
2/3
Hayden and Bennet (2) (3)
for the
this isolated
paper the rotor and
results for the
obtained incomplete
an effect quadrotor,
experimental cam-in f
g
= 0.9926 (4h/R)
+
2
(h/2R) 2 2/3 Hayden (3)
paign
sense aimed
for a at characterizing
quadrotor platform ground
are reported. in
In a dynamic
particular, g  0.03794 2 
this paper
paign
sense aimed
for a theat results obtainedground
characterizing
quadrotor platform arein reported.
an effect
experimental
in particular,
In a dynamiccam- fg = 0.9926 + (h/2R) 0.03794
2/3 Hayden (3)
the
paign
sense main aconcern
aimed
for is to
at characterizing
quadrotor assess ground
platform the effect of distance
effect
are reported. in particular,
In a dynamicfrom fg = 0.9926 + (h/2R)2
2
Hayden (3)
the
groundmain on concern
the is
dynamics to assess
of thethe effect
individual of distance
rotors andfromof (h/2R)
sense
the
ground for a quadrotor
mainonconcern
the platform
is to assess
dynamics of the are reported.
theindividual In
effect of distance
rotorsparticular,
andfromof Ground effect in multirotors While there is an increasing
the
groundoverall
the main attitude
onconcern
the motion
is to
dynamics assess
of the ofthethe platform,
effect
individual i.e., and
of distance
rotors unlike
fromof Ground
the overall
classical attitude
characterizations motion of
of the the
ground platform,
effect, rotors i.e.,
non-constantunlike attentioneffect in multirotors
to ground While there
effect in multirotors, is an
only increasing
a small num-
ground
the
classical on
overall the dynamics
attitude
characterizations motion ofof of individual
the
ground platform,
effect, i.e., and
non-constantunlikeof Ground
attention effect
to in
ground multirotors
effect in While
multirotors, there is
only an
a increasing
small num-
controls and a movingmotion platform are considered. More ber
pre- Ground
attention of references
effect is available
in multirotors
to ground effect at the
While
in multirotors, moment.
there is an
only In
aIn Bangura
increasing
small num-
the overall
classical
controls and attitude
characterizations
a moving of of
platform the
ground
are platform,
considered. i.e.,
effect, non-constant
More unlike
pre- ber of references is available at the moment. Bangura
cisely, results have been obtained in different conditions: and
attention Mahony to (2012)effect
ground it is suggested
in multirotors, to useonlythea small
radiusnum-of a
classical
controls
cisely,with characterizations
and a have
results moving been of
platform
obtained ground effect,
areinconsidered.
different non-constant
More pre- and
conditions: ber of references
Mahony (2012) is available
it issum at
suggested the moment.
to useofthe In Bangura
radius of a
first the platform constrained both in position and rotor
ber of equivalent
references to the
is the
available of the areas the individual
controls
cisely,
first with and
results
the a have
moving
platform been platform
obtained
constrained areinconsidered.
different
both in More pre-
conditions:
position and and
rotor
rotor
Mahony
equivalent
as a
(2012)
geometric to it issum
parameter ofatto
suggestedthetheareas
apply
moment.
to theIn
useofthe
classical
Bangura
radius of a
individual
results
attitude
cisely,
first but
results
with the subject
have
platform beentoconstrained
dynamic in
obtained inputs, then
different
both in with and
conditions:
position one and rotor Mahony
equivalent
as a (2012)
geometric to it issum
the
parameter suggested
of the
to to use
areas
apply of the
the
classical radius offor
individual
results fora
attitude
attitude but
degree subject
of to
freedom dynamic
(DoF) inputs,
released. then with one single rotor helicopters. In Danjun et al. (2015) a model
first withdegree
attitude the subject
but platform toconstrained
dynamic both inthen
inputs, position
with and rotor equivalent
as a geometric to the sum
parameter
one single rotor helicopters. In Danjun et al. (2015) of the
to areas
apply of the
classical individual
results
TOGE a model for
attitude of freedom (DoF) released. for ground effect based on Danjun
the expression =model −
1for
attitude degree
but subject to dynamic
of freedom (DoF) released. inputs, then with one rotor
single as a
rotorgeometric
helicopters. parameterIn
for ground effect based on the expression TIGE = 1 − to apply
et classical
al. (2015)
T
T results
OGE
IGE a
attitude degree of freedom (DoF) released. single
for ground rotor effect
helicopters.
based In on Danjun et al. (2015) a =model
the expression T OGE
1−
TIGE
Copyright © 2017 IFAC 10798for ground effect based on the expression TTOGE = 1 −
Copyright © 2017 IFAC 10798 IGE
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2017
2017, IFAC
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
10798Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer review
Copyright © under responsibility of International Federation of Automatic
2017 IFAC 10798Control.
10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1500
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
10312
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Davide Del Cont Bernard et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10311–10316

 R 2 Parameter Value
ρ 4h is used, where ρ is a parameter estimated from
Radius R 0.1524 m
experimental data. For the identification of ρ, hovering
Average chord length c̄ 0.02 m
tests at different altitudes have been carried out and it Solidity σ 0.083
was noted that the effect was measurable for distances Flap frequency f1f 9 Hz
up to h/R = 4. In Davis et al. (2015) it is claimed that Table 2. Main parameters of the propellers
ground effect is measurable up to almost h/R = 6. It is also
suggested to use the classical formulas for conventional
helicopters by replacing the main rotor radius with the H∞ synthesis described in Riccardi and Lovera (2014),
distance from the outer tip of one rotor to the vehicle’s starting from grey-box identified models (see Panizza et al.
center. In Sharf et al. (2014) a commercial Draganflyer (2014)).
X8 multirotor, having 4 pairs of coaxial, counter-rotating
rotors, is considered. Unlike other studies, the requirement
of carrying out the experiments at constant power so as Experimental set-up Two different experimental set-up
to obtain results comparable with the Cheeseman formula, were used: one for the characterization of the individual
has been enforced. However, a characterization in terms of actuators and one for the study of the vehicle pitch
the rotor rpm is used. It is concluded that ground effect dynamics.
is measurable for distances up to h/R = 6. Aich et al.
(2014) reports frequency-domain analysis of roll dynamics Fixed set-up: in order to characterize the dynamic re-
as a function of height and a slow-down of attitude dy- sponse of the actuators at different altitudes, the quadrotor
namics as the distance from ground decreases is reported. has been rigidly attached to a testbed (see Figure 2) that
Finally, a number of references dealing with the problem of allows to vary the height from ground up to about 7 h/R.
the experimental characterization of propellers for small- A 6 DoF load cell was used, and all the data were logged
scale multirotors is available, see for example Saedan and by means of a NI PXIe board.
Puangmali (2015) and Yoon (2015a,b).

3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
PXIe
Considered quadrotor platform The considered quadrotor
is shown in Figure 1; the relevant parameters are reported Test-bed
in Tables 1 and 2.

Load cell

Power
supplies
Quadrotor

Fig. 2. Complete view of the fixed set-up.

1 DoF set-up: in this setup, the quadrotor was placed

Fig. 1. Quadrotor helicopter on a test-bed (see Figure 3) constraining all degrees of
Parameter Value
freedom except for pitch rotation and able to put the
Frame Configuration X vehicle at different heights with respect to the ground.
Frame Model HobbyKing Talon V2.0 This indoor setup is representative of the actual pitch
Arm length b 0.275 mm attitude dynamics in flight for near hovering conditions,
Take-off weight m 1.51 kg see Riccardi and Lovera (2014). All the measurements
Inertia Ixx 0.035 kg m2 come directly from the on-board IMU. Control commands
Inertia Iyy 0.035 kg m2 were sent to the FCU directly from a PC connected
Motors HP2814 - RCTimer through a serial port.
KV 710 rpm/V
ESC RCTimer NFS 30 A
Battery Turnigy nano-tech 4000 mAh 4. CONSTRAINED DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS
Table 1. Main parameters of the quadrotor
helicopter In this section the results concerning two different con-
strained test cases are described:
The Flight Control Unit (FCU) uses as electronic boards • the first considers the dynamic response of a single
the R2P (Rapid Robot Prototyping) modules (see Bonar- rotor at different distances from the ground;
ini et al. (2014)). R2P is an open source HW/SW frame- • the second, on the other hand, studies the dynamic
work providing components for the rapid development of response of the four rotors working together while
robotic applications. The on-board attitude control system mounted on the complete frame of the quadrotor
has been designed using the approach based on structured helicopter, varying the height.

10799
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress

Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Davide Del Cont Bernard et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10311–10316 10313

with the measured data, where A0 is the static thrust level,

Ti the starting time of each step and Ai its amplitude,
τi the time constant to be identified. Figure 4 shows the
identified function superimposed to the experimental data.
In Figure 6 the values of the estimated time constants
for each step (rising and decreasing), obtained at different
heights, are presented. From such results one can see that
the time constants for positive and negative steps are
significantly different: the main reason for this behavior
is that the motor ESCs do not have any active brake
implemented so when the throttle command decreases
the time constant of the thrust response is slower. The
dynamics also depends on the throttle level: the higher the
Fig. 3. 1-DOF set-up. throttle, the faster the motor response. Finally, no clear
dependence of the time constants on height appears from
Both test cases have been conducted considering as an the data.
input a sequence of steps of motor throttle percentage (first 30->20
increasing, then decreasing, see Figure 4 for an example), 0.3
20->30
0.3
40->30
50->40
with a step amplitude of 10%. 0.25
30->40
40->50
0.25 60->50
70->60
50->60
0.2 60->70 0.2
0

τ [s]

τ [s]
0.15 0.15
-2

0.1 0.1
-4

0.05 0.05
-6
FZ

0 0
-8
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
h/R h/R
-10 Meas.
Iden.
-12 Fig. 6. Identified time constants, single rotor case: rising
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time [s] steps (left) and decreasing steps (right).

Fig. 4. Data acquired in a campaign at fixed height (red

line) and identified response (blue dashed line).
Four rotors The same tests conducted on the single rotor
have been repeated for the four rotors mounted on the
quadrotor frame and the results are reported in Figure 7.
Single rotor Figure 5 shows the transients of thrust Fz The same comments for the single rotor tests apply also
and torque Mz for a single rotor, following the application to this case. In particular, it is not possible to recognize
of a step of throttle percentage. As can be observed, the an evident dependency of the time constants from the
thrust response can be modeled as a first-order dynamics. height from ground. Moreover comparing the single rotor
Note that this is clearly not true for the torque response: case with the four rotor one, no effect of the aerodynamic
a possible reason for this discrepancy could be associated interaction between the rotors and the interference of the
with the torsional flexibility of the structure connecting quadrotor airframe appears on the motors dynamics, while
the quadrotor to the load cell. these phenomena were observed concerning the static rotor
0.02
thrust characterization, see Del Cont et al. (2017).
0 0
0.3 0.3 30->20
40->30
-0.02 30->20
-1 50->40
0.25 30->40 0.25 60->50
FX -0.04 MX
40->50
Torque [Nm]

70->60
Force [N]

FY MY
0.2 50->60 0.2
-2 -0.06
FZ MZ 60->70
-0.08
τ [s]

τ [s]

0.15 0.15
-3
-0.1
0.1 0.1
-4 -0.12

-0.14 0.05 0.05

15 15.5 16 16.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
Time [s] Time [s]
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
h/R h/R
Fig. 5. Transients of rotor forces (left) and moments (right)
applying a motor throttle step. Fig. 7. Identified time constants, four rotors case: rising
steps (left) and decreasing steps (right).
Focusing on the identification of first order models for the
thrust response, a least squares approach has been used, 5. PITCH ATTITUDE DYNAMICS
to fit the analytical response for thrust Fz , given by CHARACTERIZATION IN GROUND EFFECT
N
t − Ti In this section the results of the conducted quadrotor pitch
Fz = A0 + step(t − Ti ) Ai exp , (4)
i=1
τi attitude dynamics identification varying the height from

10800
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
10314
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Davide Del Cont Bernard et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10311–10316

ground will be presented and discussed. The experiments an estimate of the state sequence X p,p is obtained com-
have been carried out in laboratory conditions, with the puting the Singular Value Decomposition
quadrotor placed on the test-bed described in Section 3. Γp Kp Z̄ p,p = U ΣV T (11)
A characterization of the pitch dynamics for the considered from which an estimate of matrix C can be obtained
quadrotor platform was performed in Giurato (2015), in solving the least squares problem
OGE conditions: as excitation signal a Pseudo Random Bi- min Y p,p − DU p,p − C X p,p F . (12)
nary Sequence (PRBS, see Ljung (1999)) was selected and C
applied in open-loop experiments. A grey-box approach The final step consists of the estimation of the innovation
was adopted to identify the unknown parameters of the data matrix
a-priori assigned first order structure for the SISO model EN p,f X
= Y p,p − C  p,p − DU
 p,p (13)
from the control variable to the pitch angular rate. and the entire set of the state space matrices for the
In the considered experimental framework however the system, which can be obtained by solving the least squares
open-loop approach turned out to be critical, as the bench problem
test attitude limits were frequently reached by the quadro- min X  p+1,p − AX  p,p−1 − BU p,p−1 − KE p,p−1 F . (14)
tor and there was no way to ensure that the vehicle main- A,B,K
tains on average a null pitch angle during the oscillations,
hence on average the same distance of the rotors from 5.2 Identification: experiments and procedures
the ground plane. Therefore, while in the present study
a PRBS excitation sequence was still used, it was applied The PRBS excitation signal was applied according to
in closed-loop. Regarding the identification algorithm, a the block diagram in Figure 8, combined to the attitude
black-box approach was chosen, in particular the PBSID controller feedback action (with a null pitch angle set-
(Predictor Based System IDentification) subspace model point). The control variable is defined as
identification method (see Chiuso, A. (2007)), in view of 1
u = [(thr1 + thr2 ) − (thr3 + thr4 )] (15)
its ability to deal with data generated in closed-loop: a 2
short overview of this technique is reported hereafter. where thri , i = 1, . . . , 4 is the throttle percentage com-
mand to the ESC of the i − th rotor.
5.1 The PBSID algorithm

Consider the finite dimensional LTI state space model PRBS

x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) + w(t)
(5) Pitch u Quadrotor
y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k) + v(k), attitude pitch
−
where {v(k), w(k)} are ergodic sequences of finite variance controller dynamics
(possibly correlated with the input u(t)) and express it
in innovation form using the steady-state Kalman gain K
(the innovation vector is e) Fig. 8. Excitation signal introduction in the control
 scheme.
x(k + 1) = Āx(k) + Bz(k)
y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k) + e(k), (6) The parameters of the PRBS, i.e., signal amplitude and
 T
T T
where z(k) = u (k) y (k) and Ā = A − KC, B̄ = B − min/max switching interval, were tuned to obtain an ex-
  citation spectrum consistent with the expected dominant
KD, B  = B̄ K .
dynamics. An example of excitation sequence is shown in
Letting
  Figure 9, together with the total control variable and the
Kp = Āp−1 B 
0 . . . B (7) measured quadrotor pitch angular velocity response. A key
and   metric to verify that the system has been properly excited
z(k) across the entire range of interest is the coherence function:
 ..  as can be seen in Figure 10 the result is satisfactory
Z 0,p−1 =  . ,
(greater than 0.6) on a reasonably wide and adequate
z(k + p − 1) range of frequencies.
the data equations in matrix notation are given by
The 25 s long excitation was applied for 20 test repetitions
X p,f  Kp Z̄ p,f for each of the 11 considered values of height from ground,
Y p,f  CKp Z̄ p,f + DU p,f + E p,f . (8) logging with a sampling time of 0.01 s the manipulated
Considering p = f (for simplicity), an estimate for the variable u and the pitch angular rate q. Then the PBSID
matrices CKp and D is obtained by solving the least- algorithm has been applied to identify SISO models having
squares problem as input u and as output q. The investigated distance from
min Y p,p − CKp Z̄ p,p − DU p,p F . (9) ground ranges from 38 cm (h/R = 2.49, the lowest possible
p
CK ,D value in order to ensure a sufficient pitch angle range on
Defining now the extended observability matrix Γp as the test-bed) to 120 cm (h/R = 7.87, fully OGE): from the
 C  static experimental characterization previously carried out
 C Ā  in Del Cont et al. (2017), the effect of the ground on the
Γp = 
 ... 
 (10) thrust is extended up to a height of almost 4 rotor radii
in the case of complete quadrotor, doubling the limit of
C Āp−1 about h/R = 2 found for the isolated rotor.

10801
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress

Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Davide Del Cont Bernard et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10311–10316 10315

10
Meas.
PRBS

0 200 Identified
-10

Angular velocity [deg/s]

0 5 10 15 20 25
100
20
u [%]

0
-20 0

0 5 10 15 20 25
200 -100
q [deg/s]

0
-200 -200
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 9. PRBS excitation sequence, total control variable Fig. 11. Example of cross-validation of an identified model:
u (PRBS + attitude controller feedback action) and VAF=92%.
measured quadrotor pitch angular rate q, logged dur- from ground is present, and, if so, at characterizing it.
ing an identification test. The Bode plots of the frequency response functions for
the identified models for all tested heights from ground are
1
shown in Figure 12, considering only the results obtained
from experimental data-sets that guarantee a VAF greater
Magnitude-Squared Coherence

0.8
than 85%. It is evident that all the models are close to
0.6 each other in terms of magnitude, especially in the range
of frequencies where the coherence function is higher and
0.4 hence the best model accuracy can be expected. The phase
plots, on the other hand, show that the location of the
0.2
poles varies from one test result to another. Analyzing
0
10 0 10 1 10 2
Feequency [rad/s] Bode Diagram
60

Fig. 10. Coherence function of a measured dataset. 40

Magnitude (dB)

The presence of a time delay in the plant dynamics has 20

been accounted for by means of a forward shift of a proper 0
number of samples on data-set input signal u. The overall
delay of the control loop implemented on board (from -20
0
IMU measurements, through acquisition and processing,
to actuation of rotors angular velocity) was estimated in
Phase (deg)

-45
0.05 s (5 samples), evaluating the initial inverse behaviour
of an identified model step response without any input -90

data shift. The order of the identified models was fixed to 2

-135
based on the inspection of the singular values in (11), with 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
a cross-validation approach. Similarly, in order to select Frequency (rad/s)

the parameters of the PBSID algorithm, i.e., past window

length p and future window length f , the identification on
each experimental data-set has been carried out for several
values, in a predefined range, for p and f ; the performance
of each obtained model has been assessed in terms of the
Variance Accounted For (VAF) indicator
 
var(Y − Yest )
V AF = max 1 − , 0 × 100% (16)
var(Y )
for the simulated response Yest of the estimated models
respect to the measured angular rate Y . Then, the combi-
nation of past and future window length that maximizes
the VAF has been retained.
In Figure 11 is reported an example of one of the best
matching in time domain between the estimated and
measured angular rate on a cross-validation data-set.
5.3 Results
The analysis of the results aims at verifying if a variation
of the identified dynamics as a function of the distance
Fig. 12. Bode diagram of the most reliable identified
models for all tested heights from ground (color scale:
blu=OGE, red=IGE).
the location of the poles of the identified second order
models as a function of the distance from ground (again,
considering for each height only data-sets producing a
VAF> 85%) the results reported in Figure 13 are obtained.
The dominant pole, representing the pitch attitude dy-
namics, becomes slower when reducing the distance from
ground. On the other hand, the second pole, corresponding
to the actuators dynamics, becomes faster when the height
decreases. Therefore, it appears that besides affecting the
rotors in a static sense, as is well known in the rotorcraft
literature and also verified in previous experiments (see
Del Cont et al. (2017)), the distance from ground has
an impact also on the attitude dynamics (although in a
limited way and at very close distances from ground). In
ground effect a decrease in the rotor height produces a ro-
tor thrust increase that acts as a spring against the height
change, with increasing stiffness as the ground approaches:

10802
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Davide Del Cont Bernard et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10311–10316
10316
considering the side-by-side rotors configuration of the
quadrotor, the antisymmetric height change of opposite
rotors associated with pitch (or roll) rotation implies an
alteration of the pitch (or roll) attitude dynamics as a
function of height in ground effect.
-15
-0.8 -20
-1 -25
-1.2 -30
Pole 1
Pole 2
-1.4 -35
-1.6 -40
-1.8 -45
-2 -50
2 4 6 8 2 4
h/R
Fig. 13. Poles of the the most reliable identified models
varying the distance from ground: the bar represents
the standard deviation around the mean value of
considered model for each height.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The problem of characterizing the ground effect for a
small-scale quadrotor platform in a dynamic perspective
has been considered and the results of laboratory ex-
periments have been presented and discussed. While the
constrained dynamical analysis did not show a clear de-
pendence of the model from motor throttle to rotor thrust
on the rotor height, when considering the pitch attitude
dynamics of the quadrotor (operated on a single DoF test-
bed, representative of actual near hovering flight condi-
tion), the identified second order models show a depen-
dence with respect to the height from ground, justifying
the attitude control performance degradation experienced
in the near-ground flight.
Future work will aim at a more accurate quantification
of the actual variation of pole locations. Furthermore,
the available array of LTI models at different heights
from ground can be interpolated to build a LPV model
of the quadrotor attitude dynamics to be used in the
design of a gain scheduled attitude controller for enhanced
performance during take-off, landing or close to ground
hovering operations.
REFERENCES
Aich, S., Ahuja, C., Gupta, T., and Arulmozhivarman,
P. (2014). Analysis of ground effect on multi-rotors.
In 2014 International Conference on Electronics, Com-
munication and Computational Engineering (ICECCE),
236–241. IEEE.
Bangura, M. and Mahony, R. (2012). Nonlinear dynamic
modeling for high performance control of a quadrotor. In
Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation,
1–10.
Bonarini, A., Matteucci, M., Migliavacca, M., and Rizzi,
D. (2014). R2P: An open source hardware and software
modular approach to robot prototyping. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 62(7), 1073–1084.
Chiuso, A. (2007). The role of autoregressive modeling
in predictor-based subspace identification. Automatica,
43(3), 1034–1048.
Danjun, L., Yan, Z., Zongying, S., and Geng, L. (2015).
Autonomous landing of quadrotor based on ground ef-
fect modelling. In 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference
(CCC), 5647–5652. IEEE.
Davis, E., Spollard, J., and Pounds, P. (2015). Pas-
sive height stability and trajectory repeatability of a
quadrotor maneuvering in ground effect with regulated
voltage bus. In Australasian Conference on Robotics and
Automation (ACRA 2015).
Del Cont, D., Giurato, M., Riccardi, F., and Lovera, M.
(2017). Ground effect analysis for a quadrotor platform.
In 4th CEAS Specialist Conference on Guidance, Navi-
gation & Control, Warsaw, Poland (Accepted).
Giurato, M. (2015). Design, integration and control of a
6 8
h/R
multirotor UAV platform. Master’s thesis, Politecnico
di Milano, Italy.
Johnson, W. (2013). Rotorcraft Aeromechanics. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Leishman, G.J. (2006). Principles of helicopter aerody-
namics. Cambridge University Press.
Ljung, L. (1999). System identification: theory for the user.
Prentice-Hall.
Padfield, G.D. (2008). Helicopter flight dynamics. John
Wiley & Sons.
Panizza, P., Riccardi, F., and Lovera, M. (2014). Iden-
tification of the attitude dynamics for a variable-
pitch quadrotor. In 40th European Rotorcraft Forum,
Southampton, UK.
Riccardi, F. and Lovera, M. (2014). Robust attitude
control for a variable-pitch quadrotor. In IEEE Multi-
Conference on Systems and Control, Antibes, France.
IEEE.
Saedan, M. and Puangmali, P. (2015). Characterization of
motor and propeller sets for a small radio controlled air-
craft. In 2015 10th Asian Control Conference (ASCC),
1–6. IEEE.
Sharf, I., Nahon, M., Harmat, A., Khan, W., Michini,
M., Speal, N., Trentini, M., Tsadok, T., and Wang, T.
(2014). Ground effect experiments and model validation
with Draganflyer X8 rotorcraft. In 2014 International
Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS),
1158–1166. IEEE.
Yoon, M. (2015a). On driving signal of electronic speed
controller for small multi-rotor helicopter. International
Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 4(11),
456–459.
Yoon, M. (2015b). Experimental identification of thrust
dynamics for a multirotor helicopter. International
Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 4(11),
206–209.
10803