THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021 VOLUME 125 NO 1290 1380

pp 1380–1407.  c The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical
Society.
doi:10.1017/aer.2021.23

Three-dimensional guidance
and control for ground moving
target tracking by a quadrotor
M. Sepehri Movafegh
Graduated from Control and Intelligent Systems Department
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Tehran
Tehran
Iran

S.M.M. Dehghan
[email protected]
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Malek Ashtar University of Technology
Tehran
Iran

R. Zardashti
Faculty of Aerospace
Malek Ashtar University of Technology
Tehran
Iran

ABSTRACT
This paper develops a three-dimensional guidance and control algorithm to ensure that a
manoeuverable target is preserved by a quadrotor in a long-term tracking scenario. The pro-
posed guidance approach determines the desired altitude of the quadrotor to adjust the field
of view (FOV) to the union of two desired trusted and critical regions. The dimensions of the
desired trusted region depend on the controller performance that is evaluated by the distance
of the target from the center of the FOV. The critical region is a predefined margin around
the trusted region that is defined by the operator based on the upper bounds of the quadrotor
and target localisation errors. It also depends on the duration and magnitude of the temporal
increase in the target velocity compared to the quadrotor velocity. A sufficient condition is
provided for the minimum desired altitude of the quadrotor to ensure that the target is main-
tained in the FOV. Furthermore, a model predictive control (MPC) is employed to preserve

Received 14 March 2020; revised 14 February 2021; accepted 8 March 2021.

DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1381

the target at the center of the aerial image and the desired altitude determined by the guidance
law. Also, the integrals of the position errors are used to achieve null steady-state errors in the
presence of wind disturbances. The simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed
approach in preserving the manoeuverable target in the FOV in the presence of the wind,
the uncertainty of the target and quadrotor localisation, accelerations estimation errors, and
terrain altitude variation.

Keywords: Quadrotor; 3D guidance and control law; Ground moving target tracking; Model
predictive control (MPC)

NOMENCLATURE
GMT Ground Moving Target
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
MPC Model Predictive Control
FOV Field of View
LQR Linear Quadratic Programing
UGV Unmanned Ground Vehicle
φ, θ , ψ Rotational Variables of Quadrotor
aφ , aθ , aψ Rotational Acceleration of Quadrotor
wφ , wθ , wψ Rotational Disturbance
x, y, z Actual Translational Variables of Quadrotor
x̂, ŷ, ẑ Measured Translational Variables of Quadrotor
wx , wy , wz Translational Disturbance
ax , ay , az Translational Acceleration of Quadrotor
xmt , ymt , zmt Actual Translational Variables of Moving Target
x̂mt , ŷmt , ẑmt Measured Translational Variables of Moving Target
amt mt mt
x , ay , az Translational Acceleration of Moving Target
ex , ey , ez Target Tracking Errors
η Rotational state vector
Tη Sampling Time of Control Loop
ξ Translational state vector
Tξ Sampling Time of Guidance Loop
Bx , By , Bz Body-fixed Coordinate
Ex , Ey , Ez Earth-fixed Coordinate
Ti , i = 1, . . . , 4 Thrust Forces
Ixx , Iyy , Izz Moment of Inertia of the Quadrotor
m Quadrotor’s Mass
l Length of Quadrotor’s Arm
g Gravitational Acceleration
vi , i = 1, . . . , 4 Normalised Input Voltage of each Motor
LoFOV Actual Length of Field of View
LFOV Length of Truncated Field of View
1382 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

LC Length of Critical Region

LTR Length of Trusted Region
zr Altitude’s Reference of Quadrotor
δxuav , δyuav , δzuav Measuring Fault of Quadrotor’s Position
δxmt , δymt , δzmt Measuring Fault of Target’s Position
x , y , z Maximum Measuring Fault of Position
Constant Adjustable Parameter
Pμ Prediction Horizon
Nμ Control Horizon
Jμ Cost Function
Eaμ Input Vector of Cost Function
Yeμ Output Vector of Cost Function
Rμ Penalty Factor of Inputs
Qμ Penalty Factor of Outputs

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Tracking of ground moving targets (GMT) by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has a lot of
military and commercial applications in aerial surveillance, traffic monitoring, border patrols,
unmanned aerial/ground vehicles formation control, etc. The guidance and control of the
UAVs to track a GMT has been investigated in several studies(1-3) . The complications of the
target tracking are due to deceptive manoeuvering of targets, limitations of real-time data
processing, target localisation error, terrain altitude variation, and departure of the target from
the FOV.
Gomes et al.(1) proposed a UAV stabilisation strategy based on computer vision and switch-
ing controllers for GMT tracking. A visual servo controller is designed to keep multiple
targets in the FOV of a mobile camera by Gans et al.(2) . Zhu et al.(3) proposed a saturated
heading rate controller based on a guidance vector field to guarantee the global convergence
of the UAV to a desired circular trajectory around the target. The geo-pointing control system
is presented by Kim et al.(4) . This paper has discussed three main topics including estimat-
ing coordinates, tracking the stationary target, and flying automatically around the target. In
another research, a vision system on a quadrotor is used to observe and track a visual target
over a ground vehicle(5) . In the leader-follower formation control strategy, a combination of
sliding mode control (SMC) and linear quadratic regulator (LQR) as the UAV local controller,
and a pure-pursuit strategy as the unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) guidance law are used
during takeoff, tracking and landing phases(6) . Engelhardt et al.(7) employed a flatness-based
approach to obtain linear input-output dynamics as well as feasible reference trajectories using
a MPC in which the operator commands are translated to the camera motions. Tan et al.(8)
developed control and guidance laws for a quadrotor to track manoeuverable ground targets.
In this reference, an optimal switching strategy is proposed, which is based on the analytic
solutions of the proportional navigation and proportional derivative methods. Prevost et al.(9)
proposed a two-level hierarchical approach for GMT tracking by a fixed wing UAV using
MPC theory. Chen et al.(10) formulated the GMT tracking in cluttered environments using a
quadrotor as an optimisation problem. In this approach, collision avoidance and dynamical
feasibility are modeled as linear inequality constraints, which are considered in trajectory
generation by the quadratic programming method. Kim et al.(11) proposed a nonlinear MPC
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1383

framework for coordinated target tracking by a pair of unmanned aerial vehicles. The pro-
posed controller is decentralised in which each UAV optimises its trajectory based on the
prediction of the vehicles and target states. Oh et al.(12) proposed a guidance law for standoff
target tracking based on the differential geometry between the UAV and the target to pro-
vide rigorous stability, explicit use of the target velocity, and tuning parameter reduction.
Liu et al.(13) proposed an on-board vision-based system for tracking arbitrary 3D objects
moving at unknown velocities by utilising a 3-axis gimbaled system. Moreover, a Kernelised
Correlation Filter (KCF) tracker is used in that paper to detect and localise the target of inter-
est from images acquired by the gimbaled camera, and proportional navigation (PN) guidance
law is proposed as the tracking strategy. Yang et al.(14) addressed the problem of real-time
object tracking for unmanned aerial vehicles via transforming the large-scale least-squares
problem in the spatial domain to a series of small-scale least-squares problems with con-
straints in the Fourier domain using the correlation filter technique. Dong et al.(15) proposed a
flight controller for a UAV to loiter over a GMT by designing a discrete-time integral sliding
mode controller using an integral sliding surface. Liang et al.(16) studied the UAV/UGV col-
laborative tracking task as a heterogeneous system. In this paper, the deviation between the
center of the ground vehicle and the center of the aerial image is used by the UAV as an error
signal in a simple PID target tracker. Esposito et al.(17) proposed a vision-based system to
autonomously detect and track an evader UAV with a moving camera. The proposed frame-
work is based on a detection stage that exploits a Faster Region-based Convolution Neural
Network to detect the region of interest associated with the UAVs position in the image plane.
Among the published research, few works have considered the models uncertainties in
designing the guidance and control system(18-22) . Also, most of the strategies presented
in the relevant literature haven’t paid enough attention to the important requirements of
the GMT tracking, such as terrain altitude variation, practical considerations include the
UAV’s dynamic constraints and the saturation of the actuators, the uncertainty of the tar-
get localisation, real-time implementation requirements, and the target temporal exit from the
UAVs FOV.
Due to the uncertainty of the target localisation, the relative dynamics between the quadro-
tor and the target, and the multivariate nature of the problem, the MPC methodology is used to
maintain the target at the center of the aerial images and reference altitude. Also, an altitude
guidance law is employed to adjust the quadrotor FOV to the union of the desired trusted and
critical regions. The dimensions of the desired trusted region are selected to be proportional
to the non-compensated distance of the target from the center of the FOV. The critical region
is a predefined margin around the trusted region, which is defined by an operator based on
the upper bounds of the measurement errors of the quadrotor and the target positions. Also, it
depends on the duration and the amount of increase in the target speed relative to the quadro-
tor speed. This three-dimensional guidance and control algorithm also can overcome changes
in ground elevation, which causes the temporal exit of the target from the FOV.
The main contribution of this paper can be summarised as developing a three-dimensional
guidance and control algorithm using the capability of adjusting the altitude of the quadrotor
for preserving the manoeuverable target in the FOV, in the presence of wind, target localisa-
tion errors, and terrain altitude variation. The proposed approach finds the minimum altitude
which preserves the target in the FOV in all circumstances. In other words, the proposed
approach finds a balance between increasing the altitude, which is relevant for preserving the
target in the FOV, and decreasing the altitude, which decreases the payload requirements.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. The quadrotor nonlinear dynamics is rep-
resented briefly in Section 2. The proposed problem formulation and overall solution are
1384 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

discussed in Section 3. Section 4 is dedicated to the proposed MPC-based guidance and con-
trol law. A comprehensive simulation is performed in Section 5. Finally, conclusion and future
works are presented.

2.0 QUADROTOR NONLINEAR DYNAMICS

It is assumed that the quadrotor has a rigid body and symmetrical structure. Also, the pro-
pellers of the motors are considered rigid which means that the flapping effects of propellers
are negligible. Furthermore, the origin of the body-fixed frame coincides with the center
of the gravity of the quadrotor and the thrust forces are proportional to the input voltage
of the actuators. Two coordinate systems have been utilised including the body-fixed frame
B = [B1 , B2 , B3 ] and the Earth-fixed frame as illustrated in Fig. 1. The dynamic model of the
quadrotor, which is used in the current paper, is presented in detail in Ref. (23). This dynamic
model is explained briefly in the following.
By employing the Euler-Lagrange equation, the nonlinear dynamic model is derived in
the general form of Ẋ = F(X , U) + W , in which X ∈ R12 , U ∈ R4 and W ∈ R12 are states,
inputs, and aerodynamic disturbances, respectively(24) . The state vector consists of the quadro-
tor mass center position and the corresponding linear velocities of the quadrotor, i.e. ξ =
[z, ż, x, ẋ, y, ẏ], which is expressed in the Earth-fixed frame and the system attitude state vector,
which is shown as η = [φ, φ̇, θ , θ̇, ψ, ψ̇].
According to the nature of the quadrotor dynamic model, it is usual to consider two separate
subsystems, named rotational and translational subsystems containing ξ and η variables as it
is mentioned by Bouabdallah et al.(25) . It should be noted that this consideration remains
admissible for the relatively slow translational velocities.
Based on these descriptions, the state space representation of the rotational subsystem
dynamic model is as follows(24) .
⎡ ⎤
η̇1 ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
η2 0
⎢η̇ ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ a1 η6 η4 + b1 (T3 − T1 ) ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ wφ ⎥
⎢η̇3 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ η4 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢η̇ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥+⎢ ⎥ · · · (1)
⎢ 4⎥ ⎢ a2 η6 η2 + b2 (T4 − T2 ) ⎥ ⎢w ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ θ⎥
⎢η̇5 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ η6 ⎦ ⎣0⎦
⎣η̇6 ⎦
a3 η4 η2 + b3 (T4 + T2 − T3 − T1 ) wψ
v

Also, the state space representation of the translational subsystem dynamic model is shown
in Equation(2).
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ξ̇1 ξ2 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 4 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇2 ⎥ ⎢ −g + cos η cos η T /m ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1 3 i=1 i
⎥ ⎢
wz⎥
⎢ξ̇ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 3⎥ ⎢ ξ4 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0
⎢ ⎥=⎢ +⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇4 ⎥ ⎢(cos φ sin θ cos ψ + sin φ sin ψ) 4 T /m⎥ ⎥ wx ⎥
· · · (2)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ i=1 i ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇5 ⎥ ⎣ ξ6 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
⎣ ⎦ 4
ξ̇6 (cos φ sin θ sin ψ − sin φ cos ψ) i=1 Ti /m wy
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1385

Table 1
Quadrotor model parameters(24)

Parameters Description
Ixx Moment of inertia of the quadrotor around the Ex axis
Iyy Moment of inertia of the quadrotor around the Ey axis
Izz Moment of inertia of the quadrotor around the Ey axis
m Quadrotor mass
la Quadrotor arm length
b Thrust coefficient
g Gravitational acceleration

Figure 1. Body and earth coordinate systems used for quadrotor dynamic modeling.

The parameters used in the above equations are described in Table 1. Other parameters used
for simplification in equations presentation are defined as follows.

a1 = (Iyy − Izz )/Ixx , a2 = (Izz − Ixx )/Iyy

a3 = (Ixx − Iyy )/Izz , b1 = la /Ixx , b2 = la /Iyy
b3 = 1/Izz .

To apply the practical consideration, thrust forces are modeled as the following form.

Ti = k1 vi ; with 0 ≤ vi ≤ 1 and i = 1, 2, 3, 4 · · · (3)

Also, the duty cycle of the actuators are considered using (4).

Di = (h0 vi + h1 )/Tpwm ; for i = 1, 2, 3, 4 · · · (4)

In Equation (3), vi is normalised input voltage that corresponds to ith motor, which is typically
in the range of zero to one, Tpwm is the duty cycle period, h0 and h1 are parameters relate to
1386 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

the dead zone and the saturation limit of the actuators, and k1 is motor parameter obtained by
a simple linear identification.
Substituting Equation (3) in Equations (2) and (1) yields the dynamic model of the system
in the following form.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
η̇1 η2 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢
⎢η̇2 ⎥ ⎢ a1 η6 η4 + b1 k1 uφ ⎥ ⎢ wφ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢η̇ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 3⎥ ⎢ η4 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ +
⎢η̇4 ⎥ ⎢ a η η + b k u ⎥ ⎢ w ⎥
⎥ ⎢
⎥ · · · (5)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 6 2 2 2 θ⎥ ⎢ θ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢η̇5 ⎥ ⎣ η6 ⎦ ⎣0⎦
⎣ ⎦
η̇6 a3 η4 η2 + b3 k3 uψ wψ

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ξ̇1 ξ2 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢
⎢ξ̇2 ⎥ ⎢−g + k1 cos η1 cos η3 uz /m⎥ ⎢wz ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 3⎥ ⎢ ξ4 ⎥ ⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ · · · (6)
⎢ξ̇4 ⎥ ⎢ k1 ux uz /m ⎥ ⎢wx ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇5 ⎥ ⎣ ξ ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
⎣ ⎦ 6
ξ̇6 k1 uy uz /m wy

in which

ux = cos φ sin θ cos ψ + sin φ sin ψ

uy = cos φ sin θ sin ψ − sin φ cos ψ · · · (7)

uz = 4i=1 vi /m

ux and uy are considered as virtual inputs while uz and uφ , uθ , uψ are real inputs that corre-
spond to the total thrust and the attitude of the quadrotor. The real inputs of the system are
defined by the following equations.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
v1 uφ −1 0 1 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢v2 ⎥ ⎢u ⎥ ⎢0 −1 0 1⎥
⎢ ⎥ = T −1 ⎢ θ ⎥ ; T =⎢ ⎥
⎢v ⎥ ⎢u ⎥ ⎢−1 −1 1⎥
⎣ 3⎦ ⎣ ψ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦
v4 uz 1 1 1 1

It should be mentioned that the orientations of the quadrotor are restricted as follows.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
−π/4 φ π/4
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣−π/4⎦ < ⎣ θ ⎦ < ⎣π/4⎦
−π ψ π
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1387

The dynamic model of the ground moving target is considered as follows, which corre-
sponds to the accelerated three-dimensional motion of the target on the ground
⎡ mt ⎤
ξ̇1 ⎡ mt ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ mt ⎥ ξ2 0
⎢ξ̇2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ mt ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢az ⎥
⎢ mt ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇3 ⎥ ⎢ξ mt ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 4 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ mt ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ mt ⎥ · · · (8)
⎢ξ̇4 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ax ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ξ̇ mt ⎥ ⎢ mt ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 5 ⎥ ⎣ξ6 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
⎣ ⎦
ξ̇6mt 0 amt
y

in which, ξ mt = [zmt , żmt , xmt , ẋmt , ymt , ẏmt ].

3.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION

As mentioned earlier, the possible altitude variation of the quadrotor can be used to pre-
vent GMT loss.This section presents a guidance law and a sufficient condition to adjust the
minimum quadrotor altitude for preserving the target in the FOV in long-term tracking. For
this purpose, the FOV of the quadrotor is divided into two critical and trusted regions. The
dimensions of the trusted region depend on the controller performance that is evaluated by the
distance of the quadrotor from the target. The critical region is a predefined margin defined
by an operator to prevent target loss in situations in which the target speed is temporally faster
than the quadrotor speed. Also, it depends on the upper bounds of the quadrotor navigation
errors and the target localisation errors. The proposed guidance law generates the minimum
desired altitude of the quadrotor to adjust the FOV of the quadrotor to the union of the trusted
and the critical regions.
Let P and P̂ be considered as the real and the estimated position vector, respectively. mt and
uav subscriptions are used through the paper to indicate the moving target and the unmanned
aerial vehicle.

Puav = x y z , Pmt = xmt ymt zmt ,

P̂uav = x̂ ŷ ẑ , P̂mt = x̂mt ŷmt ẑmt

Definition 1. By considering zr as the desired altitude reference; ez , ex and ey , i.e. the
estimated tracking errors, are defined by the following equations.

ez = ẑ − zr
ex = x̂ − x̂mt · · · (9)
ey = ŷ − ŷmt .

The uncertainty of the position measurements, which are denoted by δiuav and δimt for the
quadrotor and moving target positions, respectively, are shown in Equation (10). Without loss
of generality, the upper bounds of these uncertainties are considered constant.
1388 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

Figure 2. Illustration of the parameters used in the problem formulation.

x̂mt = xmt ± δxmt

ŷmt = ymt ± δymt
ẑmt = zmt ± δzmt
x̂ = x ± δxuav · · · (10)
ŷ = y ± δyuav
ẑ = z ± δzuav .

As illustrated in Fig. 2, ex−y is the target tracking error in the horizontal plan and LoFOV is the
actual size of the smaller dimension of the field of view (FOV). To simplify the derivation and
improvement of the proposed approach, a square FOV with LFOV dimensions is defined as a
subset of the actual FOV which results the following relation;

LFOV ≤ LoFOV · · · (11)

The considered square FOV is divided into critical and trusted regions. The dimensions of
these regions are shown with LC and LTR . Based on this description, it can be written;

LFOV (ẑ) = LTR (ẑ) + LC · · · (12)

As denoted in Equation (12), the dimensions of the critical region remain constant through an
operation, which are set by the operator. However, LFOV and LTR are functions of the altitude
of the quadrotor. In fact, LFOV will be equal to the LC when the tracking error (ex−y in Fig. 2)
becomes zero (13).
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1389

LFOV (z0 ) = LC . · · · (13)

In Equation (13), z0 is the required altitude of the quadrotor to provide a FOV with LC
dimension.
The following assumptions are considered to develop the proposed strategy:

Assumption 1. Without loss of generality and to simplify the equations, the direction of the
camera is considered vertical to the x − y plane, which can be provided by a simple local con-
troller for the employed two axis gimbaled camera. Generally, the controller should maintain
the direction of the camera on fixed values or measure them. In this manner, the captured
aerial image should be compensated by the camera angles. The other phases of the proposed
approach are the same as following.

Assumption 2. Both angles of field of view of the camera are assumed to be larger than 45
degrees, which means LoFOV (k) ≥ ẑ(k) − ẑmt (k) for k ≥ 0.

3.1 Critical region design

LC is a constant value composed of and x−y−z as follows.

LC = + x−y−z ; > 0, x−y−z > 0 · · · (14)

In the Equation (14), is used to prevent the target loss when the target speed is temporarily
faster than the quadrotor speed. Its value is designed by the operator based on the maximum
estimated duration and the amount of difference between the quadrotor and the target speed.
Also, x−y−z is an upper bound for the effect of measurement errors on the horizontal plane,
which is defined by the following equation

x−y−z = 2 ∗ (z + x−y ), · · · (15)

¯ z)
where z is an equivalent value for the quadrotor and target al.titude measurement errors (
on the horizontal plane containing the target.

x−y = max(|δ̄xuav | + |δ̄xmt |, |δ̄yuav | + |δ̄ymt |).

¯ z = |δ̄zmt | + |δ̄zuav |


As previously mentioned about Equation (10), δ̄iuav and δ̄imt are the upper bounds of the
quadrotor and the moving target localisation errors, respectively. i in this parameters denote
the x,y,z directions.
It should be mentioned that the average speed of the quadrotor should be bigger than
the average speed of the target in a long-term tracking scenario. The proposed algorithm
is designed to be robust to the temporary increase in the target velocity in relation to the
quadrotor velocity.

3.2 Trusted region design

LTR is an ascending function of the quadrotor altitude that means increasing in the quadrotor
altitude causes the larger dimentions of LTR . Considering the relation between LFOV (z), and the
1390 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

critical and the trusted regions dimensions mentioned in Equation (12) and the Assumption 2,
a suitable function between LTR and the quadrotor altitude that satisfies the marginal constraint
in Equation (13) can be as follows.

ẑ(k) − z0 (k) ẑ(k) > z0 (k)
LTR (ẑ) = · · · (16)
0 Else

A sufficient condition to preserve the target in the FOV will be proven through the three
following lemmas. In the thired one, the desired altitude of the quadrotor is determined based
on the designed trusted region. Also, a sufficient condition for the loss of target during the
ususal target tracking without the FOV adjustment will be proven in the last lemma.

Lemma 1. To satisfy the inequality (11), it is enough to determine z0 as

z0 ≥ LC + ẑmt .

Proof. Substituting Equation (16) in Equation (12) takes the following form.

LFOV (ẑ) = ẑ(k) − z0 + LC = ẑ(k) − ẑmt − (z0 − ẑmt − LC ) · · · (17)

Considering the Assumption 2 and the z0 determination, which means z0 − ẑmt − LC is not
negative, (17) can be rewritten as the following inequality.

LFOV (ẑ) ≤ ẑ(k) − ẑmt ≤ LoFOV (k).

Lemma 2. The real and the estimated distances between the quadrotor and the target satisfy
the following inequalities.

|x − xmt | < |ex | + x−y

|y − ymt | < |ey | + x−y
|x − xmt | > |ex | − x−y
|y − ymt | > |ey | − x−y

Proof. Substituting Equation (10) in Equation (9), the following equations are obtained.

ex = x − xmt ± δxuav ± δxmt

· · · (18)
ey = y − ymt ± δyuav ± δymt ,

Considering the definition of x−y in the critical region design, it is straightforward to derive
the Lemma 2 from Equation (18).

Lemma 3. A sufficient condition to maintain the target in the FOV is defined as follows.

ez (k) + > 0 ; ez = ẑ − zr · · · (19)

DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1391

which is provided by

zr (k) = 2 max(|ex |, |ey |) + z0 (k) · · · (20)

Proof. To preserve the target in the field of view of the quadrotor, the following inequality
should be satisfied.

LFOV /2 > max(|x − xmt |, |y − ymt |), for k > 0 · · · (21)

Applying the Lemma 2 to the inequality (21) results the following inequality.

LFOV /2 > max(|ex | + x−y , |ey | + x−y ) · · · (22)

Substituting Equations (15) and (12) in Equation (22) yields the following relation.

LTR (ẑ)/2 + /2 > max(|ex |, |ey |) · · · (23)

Defining eLTR = LTR (ẑ) − LTR (zr ), Equation (23) takes the following form.

eLTR /2 + /2 > max(|ex |, |ey |) − LTR (zr )/2 · · · (24)

To eliminate the right side of the inequality (24), LTR (zr ) is designed using the following
form.

LTR (zr ) = 2 max(|ex |, |ey |). · · · (25)

According to Equations (16) and (25), the desired altitude of the quadrotor to preserve the
target in the FOV is determined as follows.

zr (k) = 2 max(|ex |, |ey |) + z0 (k) · · · (26)

Using Equations (16) and (26), eLTR changes to the following form.

eLTR = ẑ(k) − z0 (k) − zr (k) + z0 (k) = ez (k) · · · (27)

Substituting Equations (25) and (27) in Equation (24), the Lemma 3 inequality is obtained.

Lemma 4. Considering the assumption LoFOV = LFOV , a sufficient condition for the loss of the
target using the usual target tracking approach without the FOV adjustment by the altitude
increasing is defined as follows.

ez (k) + − 2 min(|ex |, |ey |) < 0; ez = ẑ − zr · · · (28)

which is provided by

zr (k) = z0 (k) · · · (29)

1392 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

Proof. To lose the target from the field of view of the quadrotor, the following inequality
should be satisfied.

LFOV /2 < min(|x − xmt |, |y − ymt |), for k > 0 · · · (30)

Applying the Lemma 2 to the inequality (30), the following inequality is obtained.

LFOV /2 < min(|ex | − x−y , |ey | − x−y ) · · · (31)

Substituting Equations (15) and (12) in Equation (31) yields the following relation.

LTR (ẑ)/2 + /2 < min(|ex |, |ey |); ± z ≈ · · · (32)

Defining eLTR = LTR (ẑ) − LTR (zr ), Equation (32) takes the following form.

eLTR /2 + /2 < min(|ex |, |ey |) − LTR (zr )/2 · · · (33)

In the usuall approaches without the proposed strategy in the inequality (33), LTR (zr ) is
selected as follows.

LTR (zr ) = 0 · · · (34)

According to Equations (16) and (34), the reference altitude of the quadrotor is determined as
the follows.

zr (k) = z0 (k) · · · (35)

Using Equations (16) and (35), eLTR changes to the following form.

eLTR = ẑ(k) − z0 (k) − zr (k) + z0 (k) = ez (k) · · · (36)

Substituting Equations (34) and (36) to Equation (33), yields the inequality of
Lemma 4.

4.0 MPC-BASED GUIDANCE AND CONTROL

As shown in the previous section, to maintain the target in the FOV of the quadrotor, it is suf-
ficient to satisfy the inequality of (19) when designing the guidance law. Given this fact, and
without loss of generality, a feedback linearision (FL) is applied to the nonlinear model to
achieve a decoupled linear description of the system. Furthermore, the position error vec-
tor integral is added to the model to achieve null steady errors in the presence of wind
disturbances(19) . The proposed MPC-based guidance and control system consist of three main
components, the quadrotor desired attitude generator, the reference x − y planar motion gen-
erator, and the desired attitude generator in a cascade structure. It should be noted that such
cascade architecture requires slower translational dynamics than rotational ones. The guid-
ance and control diagram including the non-linear system dynamic and the actuator model is
illustrated in Fig. 3.
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1393

Figure 3. Block diagram of the MPC-based guidance and control subsystem.

4.1 Linear decoupled dynamic of the quadrotor

Initially, a linear decoupled dynamics of the quadrotor must be derived. To meet this need,
primitive nonlinear feedbacks for rotational and translational subsystems are considered in
the following forms, respectively.

uφ = −(a1 η4 η6 − aφ )/c1
uθ = −(a3 η2 η6 − aθ )/c2 · · · (37)
uψ = −(a5 η2 η4 − aψ )/c3

uz = m(g + az )/(k1 cos η1 cos η3 )

ux = max /k1 uz · · · (38)
uy = may /k1 uz

where, V = [aφ , aθ , aψ , az , ax , ay ] is the quadrotor movement acceleration vector.

Substituting Equation (37) in Equation (5) yields three decoupled identical linear dynamics
for the rotational subsystem as shown in Equation (39).

η̇s = Am ηs + Bm asη for s = 0, 1, 2

· · · (39)
ysη = Cm ηs

where
η0 = [φ, φ̇]T , η1 = [θ , θ̇]T , η2 = [ψ, ψ̇]T
 
0 1 0

Am = Bm = Cm = 1 0
0 0 1
a0η = aφ a1η = aθ a2η = aψ
Also, substituting the Equation (38) into the Equation (6) yields three decoupled identical
linear dynamics for the translational subsystem as follows.
1394 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

ξ̇ s = Am ξ s + Bm asξ + Bm wsξ for s = 0, 1, 2

· · · (40)
ysξ = Cm ξ s

in which
ξ 0 = [z, ż]T , ξ 1 = [x, ẋ]T , ξ 2 = [y, ẏ]T
 0     
aξ az a1ξ ax a2ξ ay
0
= , 1
= , 2
=
wξ wz wξ wx wξ wy

GMT dynamics in the Equation (8) can be written as

ξ̇mt
s
= Am ξmt
s
+ Bm asmt for s = 0, 1, 2 · · · (41)

in which
ξmt
0
= [zmt , żmt ]T , ξ 1 = [xmt , ẋmt ]T , ξ 2 = [ymt , ẏmt ]T
a0mt = amt
z , amt = ax , amt = ay
1 mt 2 mt

The virtual reference air vehicle defined in Ref. (19) has a linear dynamic model similar to
the quadrotor rotational subsystem.

η̇rs = Am ηrs + Bm asηr for s = 0, 1, 2 · · · (42)

where, ηr0 = [φr , φ̇r ]T , ηr1 = [θr , θ̇r ]T , and ηr2 = [ψr , ψ̇r ]T . Based on Equation (39), the linear
acceleration reference values, i.e. asηr can be defined as follows.

a0ηr = aφr = φ̈r , a1ηr = aθr = θ̈r , a2ηr = aψr = ψ̈r

To achieve zero steady state position errors, the augmented translational error vector is defined
as follows.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ez ẑ − zr
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
e0ξ = ⎣ ėz ⎦ = ⎣ż − żmt − L̇des
c ⎦
 
ez ẑ − zr
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ex x̂ − x̂mt
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
e1ξ = ⎣ ėx ⎦ = ⎣ ẋ − ẋmt ⎦ · · · (43)
 
ex x̂ − x̂mt
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ey ŷ − ŷmt
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
e2ξ = ⎣ ėy ⎦ = ⎣ ẏ − ẏmt ⎦ ,
 
ey ŷ − ŷmt

Substituting the Equations (40) and (41) in the Equation (43), the dynamics of the translational
error is written as follows.
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1395

ėsξ (t) = Aesξ + Besaξ (t) + Bwsξ (t) for s = 0, 1, 2

esyξ (t) = Cesξ (t), · · · (44)

in which
e0aξ = z̈ − z̈r = az − amt
z − 2 max(|eaξ |, |eaξ |),
1 2
e1aξ = ẍ − ẍmt = ax − amt
x , e2aξ = ÿ − ÿmt =
ay − ay mt
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

A = ⎣0 0 0⎦ , B = ⎣1⎦ , C = 1 0 0
1 0 0 0
By subtracting the Equation (39) from the Equation (42) and augmenting the attitude errors,
the rotational error dynamics model is obtained as follows.

ėsη (t) = Aesη + Besaη (t) + Bwsη (t) for s = 0, 1, 2

esyη (t) = Cesη (t), · · · (45)

⎡ ⎤
η1s − η1 sr
⎢ ⎥
where, esη = ⎣ η2s − η2 sr ⎦, esaη = asη − asηr
 s
(η1 − η1 sr )
Considering the measurement rate of the sensors, Tξ and Tη are defined as the sampling period
for the guidance and control loops, respectively.
The discrete representation of the quadrotor error dynamics takes the following form(19)
for s = 0, 1, 2.

esξ (k + 1) = Aξ esξ (k) + Bξ esaξ (k) + Bξ wsξ (k)

esyξ (k) = Cesξ (k), · · · (46)

esη (k + 1) = Aη esη (k) + Bη esaη (k) + Bwsη (k)

esyη (k) = Cesη (k), · · · (47)

in which
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 Tξ 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Aξ = ⎣ 0 1 0⎦, Bξ = ⎣Tξ ⎦,
Tξ 0 1 0
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 Tη 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Aη = ⎣ 0 1 0⎦, Bη = ⎣Tη ⎦
Tη 0 1 0

Using μ to indicate both η and ξ subscriptions, the error dynamics, mentioned in Equations
(46) and (47), can be written in a common form as follows.
1396 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021


esμ (k + 1) = Aμ esμ (k) + Bμ esaμ (k) s = 0, 1, 2
for · · · (48)
esyμ (k) = Cesμ (k). μ = ξ, η

4.2 Guidance and control synthesis

In the previous subsection, the guidance and control problem for a nonlinear high order system
is simplified to a linear third-order model. In this section, the MPC formulation is discussed
for the Equation (48), which is common for s = 0, 1, 2. It should be noted that unknown effects
on the system such as unmeasurable disturbance are excluded from Equation (48).
Jμ is considered as a cost function that has the following form(26) .

s = 0, 1, 2
Jμs = Yesμ T Qsμ Yesμ + Eas μ T Rsμ Eas μ for · · · (49)
μ = ξ, η

in which
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
esyμ (k + 1|k) êsaμ (k)
⎢ es (k + 2|k) ⎥ ⎢ ês (k + 1) ⎥
⎢ yμ ⎥ ⎢ aμ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ s ⎢ ⎥
Yesμ =⎢ .. ⎥ Eaμ = ⎢ .. ⎥,
⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
eyμ (k + Pμ |k)
s
êaμ (k + Nμ − 1)
s

and the Pμ , Nμ are the prediction and the control horizon parameters, respectively. Also, the
Qμ ≥ 0, Rμ > 0 are penalty factors related to the errors and the inputs, respectively. αμ is the
pole of the first order filter on the reference signal to suppress its abrupt changes, as well
as noise effects(27) . The guidance law is obtained by solving the optimisation problem in the
following form.

s ∗
s = 0, 1, 2
Eaμ = minimize s
Jμ for
s
E aμ μ = ξ, η

subject to Yesμ = Fμ esμ (k) + Gμ esaμ (k)

· · · (50)
s
Y seμ ≤ Yesμ ≤ Y eμ
s
Esaμ ≤ Eas μ ≤ Eaμ

where

T
Fμ = CAμ CA2μ CA3μ ... CAPμ
⎡ ⎤
CBμ 0 ... 0
⎢ CA B ... ⎥
⎢ μ μ Cμ Bμ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ CA2μ Bμ CAμ Bμ ... 0 ⎥
Gμ = ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎣ . ⎦
CAP−1
μ Bμ CAP−2
μ Bμ ... CAP−N
μ Bμ
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1397

Initial conditions of the dynamic model at instance kth is provided by the measurement of
the system at the same time.
Optimisation methods such as quadratic programming can be used to solve the problem
(50). In this approach, an optimisation should be performed at any time. The closed form is
obtained by replacing of Yesμ in the Equation (49) and derivation with respect to esaμ (k), as the
following equation(27) :
 −1 T
Eas μ ∗ = − GμT Qμ Gμ + Rμ Gμ Qμ Fμ eμ (k) · · · (51)

High computational burden and consumption time are prominent disadvantages of the opti-
misation methods. Given this, Equation (51) is employed as the solution of the optimisation
problem (50) to derive the desired relative acceleration for the x − y planar motion. This
provides the admissible performance of the proposed algorithm. It should be noted that
inequality constraints can be satisfied via adjusting Qμ and Rμ parameters(27) ; however, in
the considered case, it is assumed that inequality constraints remain passive using powerful
actuators.
To obtain the desired relative acceleration for altitude, the inequality constraint (19) should
be satisfied. For this purpose, the following algorithm is proposed
• Initially, the solution of Equation (51) is used to obtain ê0aξ (k)
• If ez (k + 1|k) + > 0 → Aξ e0ξ (k) + Bξ ê0aξ (k) + > 0 then (ê0aξ )∗ = ê0aξ
• Else, numerical
optimisation

algorithms such as QP is employed for solving Equation (50)
subject to − 1 1 ... 1 < Ye0ξ .
Subsequently, the appropriate translational acceleration, which reduces the distance
between the quadrotor and the target, takes the following form.
 ∗  
des
a0ξ = ades
z (k) = âz + êaξ
mt 0
+ 2 max |e1aξ |, |e2aξ |
 ∗
des
a1ξ = adesx (k) = âx + êaξ
mt 1
· · · (52)
 ∗
des
a2ξ = adesy (k) = ây + êaξ
mt 2
,

where, âmt mt mt
z , âx and ây are the measured acceleration of the moving target described by the
following equations.

z = az ± δaz
âmt mt mt

x = ax ± δax
âmt mt mt
· · · (53)
y = ay ± δay ,
âmt mt mt

where δamtz , δamtz and δamtz are estimation errors.

After calculating the desired translational acceleration, uz (k) and the reference of the roll
and pitch angles, i.e. φr and θr , are derived using Equations (7) and (38). These references
should be provided for the quadrotor rotational loop as follows.
1398 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

Table 2
MPC-based guidance and control parameters

Rotational Translational
Parameters controller controller
P(s) 1 3
M(s) 1 2
α 0.1 0.1
Q diag[1, 1, 2] diag[500, 500, 1000]
R 10 1
f (h) 100 10
Ts (s) 0.01 0.1

z (k) + g
ades
uz (k) = m
k1 cos(φk ) sin(θk )
 
des
mades (k) ma y (k)
φr (k) = arcsin x
sin(ψk ) − cos(ψk )
k1 uz (k) k1 uz (k)
⎛ ⎞ · · · (54)
⎜ ⎟
⎜ x (k) cos(ψk ) + ay (k) sin(ψk )
ades des ⎟
θr (k) = arcsin ⎜ 
⎜ 
⎟
⎝ k1 uz (k)
2  2 ⎟
⎠
− ades
x (k) sin(ψk ) − ay (k) cos(ψk )
des
m

Similarly, the desired rotational accelerations ades des des

φ (k), aθ (k) and aψ (k) have been computed
to track attitude reference signals by the quadrotor.
 ∗
asη des (k) = asηr (k) + êsaη (k) for s = 0, 1, 2 · · · (55)

in which the (êsaη (k))∗ is the first component of Eas μ ∗ in Equation (51).
General control inputs, i.e. uφ (k), uθ (k) and uψ (k), can be generated by substituting
Equation (55) in Equation (37).
The corresponding duty cycles of the quadrotor actuators are obtained using the
Equation (4) presented in Section 4.

5.0 SIMULATION RESULTS

The MPC parameters presented in Table 2 are designed to achieve fast disturbance rejection
and smooth output tracking. The sample time is selected to provide sufficient opportunity for
the translational controller to track the predefined trajectory using the roll and pitch angles
produced by the rotational controller.
The initial condition is defined in such a way that satisfies Equation (19) at k = 0,
i.e. ez (0) + > 0. The simulations are performed for the following initial condition of the
translational and rotational subsystems, respectively.
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1399

Table 3
Problem formulation parameters

Parameters Value Parameters Value

δ̄xmt = δ̄zmt (cm) 10 δ̄xuav = δ̄zuav (cm) 10
δ̄ymt (cm) 15 δ̄yuav (cm) 15
x−y (cm) 30 z (cm) 20
(cm) 200 z0 (cm) 280

Figure 4. The 3D trajectories of the ground moving target and the tracker UAV.

ξ (0) = 200 0 50 0 50 0

η(0) = 0 0 0 0 0 0
Problem formulation parameters are listed in Table 3. The quadrotor parameters are
selected based on a real model, which are as follows.
Ixx = Iyy = 0.0069kg.m2 Izz = 0.0137kg.m2
Jr = 0.0000551kg.m2 la = 0.27m
Sinusoidal external disturbances on the six degrees of freedom are included. The magnitude
of disturbances on the aerodynamic forces and moments have been set as in Ref. (24).
wx = 2u(t − 70) cos t(N/kg)wφ = u(t − 130) sin t(N.m)
wy = 2u(t − 100) cos t(N/kg)wθ = u(t − 170) cos t(N.m)
wz = u(t − 40) sin t(N/kg)wψ = u(t − 200) cos t (N.m)

Figures 4–11. show the tracking results in such a way that there is no error in estimat-
ing the target acceleration. This is not a general assumption and will be removed in the next
1400 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

Figure 5. The 2D illustration of the ground moving target and the tracker UAV trajectories on the x − y
and x − z planes.

400
UAV
z (cm)

GMT
200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250

600
x (cm)

400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 250

400
y (cm)

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (s)

Figure 6. The components of the position of the UAV and the target over time.

simulation. This simulation evaluate the controller performance; however, the next simula-
tion focuses on the guidance law, which should maintain the target in the FOV in the event
of the controller errors. The 3D representation of GMT tracking is shown in Fig. 4, and its
2D representations are shown in Fig. 5. As can be seen, tracking and maintaining the moving
target in the field of view has been done in various target manoeuver. Figure 6 shows the
time history of the movement of the target and the UAV in x, y, and z directions. The tracking
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1401

50

0
ez (cm)
–50

–100

–150
0 50 100 150 200 250

20

0
ex (cm)

–20

–40

–60
0 50 100 150 200 250

20

0
ey (cm)

–20

–40

0 50 100 150 200 250

Time (s)

Figure 7. The components of the position tracking error by the UAV.

errors of the position and the attitude reference signals by the UAV are shown in Figs. 7 and 8,
respectively. The jumps in the error signals are caused by sudden changes in the direction of
the target trajectory. For example, at 25 and 35 seconds, the moving target changes its direc-
tion that causes jumps in the related error signals at the same time. Another reason for these
error jumps are the wind turbulence. For example, in the eψ error signal, perturbation occurs
at the 200 seconds which causes error jumps at the same moment. It should be noted that
despite the perturbation remaining, the controller has removed its effect well. These figures
show that the proposed controller has good performance in tracking the reference generated
trajectory by the guidance law.
Corresponding control inputs in this simulation are shown in Fig. 9. These signals indicate
the PWMs of four actuators of the quadrotor. As can be seen, the amplitude of the inputs did
not exceed the admissible interval [0 1], i.e. the actuators didn’t saturate. Figure 10 shows
γ = ez + is positive all over the simulation times. This means that Lemma 3 is satisfied
during the tracking mission which guaranties the target preserving in the FOV. Figure 11
shows the parameters affecting the guidance law designed in accordance with Equation (20)
1402 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

0.02
e (rad)

–0.02
0 50 100 150 200 250

10–3
5
e (rad)

–5

–10
0 50 100 150 200 250

10–5
0
e (rad)

–2

–4
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s)

Figure 8. The components of the attitude tracking errors by the UAV.

in Lemma 3. It can be seen in this figure the relationship between the tracking errors on the
x − y plane, zmt , the proposed desired altitude and the results of the desired altitude tracking.
Due to some unpredictable reasons in the real world, such as target acceleration estima-
tion error, quadrotor actuator error, and etc., the quadrotor position deviates from the target.
Figure 12 shows the the x and y components of the relative distance between the quadro-
tor and the target caused by the presence of acceleration estimation errors as δamtz = 0.1m/s2 ,
δamtx = −0.5m/s2 and δamty = −0.4m/s2 .
In such circumstances, in order to examine the characteristics of the proposed strategy
in relation to existing researches, a comparison is made between two quadrotors called
Quad1 and Quad2 , in which the first quadrotor is equipped with the proposed guidance strat-
egy and the second quadrotor is guided regardless of the altitude adjustment to hold the
target.
For this purpose, γ and λ are defined as criterion parameters with the following form, which
are defined according to the Lemmas 3 and 4, respectively;

γ = ez (k) + with zr (k) = 2 max(|ex |, |ey |) + z0 (k)

λ = ez (k) + − 2 min(|ex |, |ey |) with zr (k) = z0 (k)

According to Lemma 3, γ (k) > 0 ensures the target retention in the FOV during the track-
ing mission by the Quad1 and regarding Lemma 4, λ(k) < 0 proves loss of target by the
Quad2 .
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1403

0.5 0.5

0.45 0.45
v1

v2
0.4 0.4

0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

0.5 0.5

0.45 0.45
v3

v4
0.4 0.4

0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 9. The control inputs of the quadrotor’s actuators.

220

200

180

160
(cm)

140

120

100

80

60
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s)

Figure 10. The sufficient condition parameter values.

1404 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

500
z
z
r
400 z
mt
e
x
e
300 y
Magnitude (cm)

200

100

–100
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s)

Figure 11. The parameters affecting the desired altitude calculation by the proposed guidance law.

–50
ex (cm)

–100

–150

–200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0
Quad 1
Quad 2
–50
ey (cm)

–100

–150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

Figure 12. The x and y components of the relative distance between the quadrotor and the target.

As it is illustrated in Fig. 13, γ is positive during this simulation, which obtains the target
retention in the FOV with Qaud1 . On the other hand, λ is negative, indicating the loss of target
by Quad2 .
The desired altitude and their corresponding real values are illustrated in Fig. 14. As it can
be seen, in contrast to Quad2, the altitude of Quad1 increases to provide the FOV needed to
ensure the target is maintained.
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1405

250

200
Quad ( )
1
150 Quad ( )
2

100

50

–50

–100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

Figure 13. The values of the criterion parameters to guarantee the target preserving by Quad1 and the
target missing by the Quad2.

700
Quad 1 (z)
650
Quad (z )
1 r

600 Quad 2 (z)

Quad (z )
2 r
550

500
z (cm)

450

400

350

300

250

200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

Figure 14. comparison between the reference altitudes of Quad1 and Quad2 and their tracking results.

6.0 CONCLUSION
In this paper, an aerial tracking guidance and control system is presented to preserve the
ground moving target in the FOV. For this purpose, a reference altitude is generated for the
quadrotor to provide the required FOV of the quadrotor, which consists of two critical and
1406 THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL AUGUST 2021

trusted regions. The dimensions of the trusted region are suggested as a function of the relative
distance between the target and the quadrotor. Also, the dimensions of the critical region are
determined according to the upper bounds of target localisation uncertainty and the quadrotor
locations. In addition, the problem of temporal increase in the target velocity with respect
to the quadrotor velocity is solved by considering larger dimensions for the critical region.
Considering the desired dimensions of the regions, a sufficient condition is provided on the
minimum altitude of the quadrotor, which ensures that the target is preserved in FOV despite
the uncertainty of the target location and the changes in ground altitude. A MPC is employed
to maintain the target at the center of the image and the desired altitude. Furthermore, the
integral of the position error is used to achieve null steady-state error in the presence of
the wind disturbances. It is shown analytically as well as by simulation that the proposed
method ensures that the target is maintained in the FOV of the quadrotor in the presence
of wind, quadrotor and target localisation uncertainty and terrain altitude variation. Future
research includes evaluating the proposed method in the presence of a complete block of
target localisation in which a complete of localisation error model used instead the maximum
of the error. The altitude limit, which is influenced by the specifications of the quadrotor and
its payload, should also be considered in proposing the guidance law. The use of cooperative
UAVs is also one of possible solutions to reduce the flight altitude while preserving the target
in the field of view. Practical implementation is another important activity that should be done
in the future.

REFERENCES
1. GOMEZ-BALDERA , J.E., FLORES, G., CARRILLO, L.R.G. and LOZANO, R. Tracking a ground moving
target with a quadrotor using switching control, J. Intell. Robot. Syst., 2013, 70, (1), pp 65–78.
2. GANS, N.R., NAGARAJAN, G., HU, K. and DIXON, W.E. Keeping multiple moving targets in the field
of view of a mobile camera, IEEE Trans. Rob., 2011, 27, (4), pp 822–828.
3. ZHU, S., WANG, D. and LOW, C.B. Ground target tracking using UAV with input constraints, J.
Intell. Robot. Syst., 2012, 69, pp 417–429.
4. KIM, D. and HONG, S.K. Target pointing and circling of a region of interest with quadcopter, Int. J.
Appl. Eng. Res., 2016, 11, (2), pp 1082–1088.
5. ABBASI, E. and MAHJOOB, M. Quadrotor UAV guidance for ground moving target tracking, J. Adv.
Comput. Eng. Technol., 2016, 2, (1), pp 37–44.
6. GHAMRY , K.A., DONG, Y., KAME, LM.A. and ZHANG, Y. Real-time autonomous take-off, tracking
and landing of UAV on a moving UGV platform, 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and
Automation, 2016, pp 1236–1241.
7. ENGELHARDT, T., KONRAD, T., SCHAFER, B. and ABEL, D. Flatness-based control for a quadro-
tor camera helicopter using model predictive control trajectory generation, 24th Mediterranean
Conference on Control and Automation, 2016, pp 852–859.
8. TAN, R. and KUMAR, M. Tracking of ground mobile targets by quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicles,
Unmanned Syst., 2014, 2, pp 157–173.
9. PREVOST C., THERIAULT, O., DESBIENS, A., POULIN, E. and GAGNON, E. Receding horizon model-
based predictive control for dynamic target tracking: a comparative study, AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference, 2009, pp 62–68.
10. CHEN, J., LIU, T. and SHEN, S. Tracking a moving target in cluttered environments using a
quadrotor, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016,
pp 446–453.
11. KIM, S., OH, H. and TSOURDOS, A. Nonlinear model predictive coordinated standoff tracking of a
moving ground vehicle, J. Guidance Control Dyn., 2013, 36, (2), pp 557–566.
12. OH, H., KIM, S., SHIN, H.S., WHITE, B.A., TSOURDOS, A. and RABBATH , A. Rendezvous and standoff
target tracking guidance using differential geometry, J. Intell. Rob. Syst., 2013, 69, 389–405.
DEHGHAN ET AL GROUND MOVING TARGET TRACKING BY A QUADROTOR ... 1407

13. LIU, X., YANG, Y., MA, C., LI, J. and ZHANG, S. Real-time visual tracking of moving targets using a
low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle with a 3-axis stabilized gimbal system, J. Appl. Sci., 2020, 10,
5064. doi: 10.3390/app10155064.
14. YANG, X., ZHU, R., WANG, J. and LI, Z. Real-time object tracking via least squares transformation
in spatial and Fourier domains for unmanned aerial vehicles, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2019, 32, (7), pp
1716–1726.
15. DONG, F., YOU, K. and ZHANG, J. Flight control for UAV loitering over a ground target with
unknown maneuver, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 2019, 28, (6), 2461–2473.
16. LIANG, X., CHEN, G., ZHAO, S. and XIU, Y. Moving target tracking method for unmanned aerial
vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle heterogeneous system based on AprilTag, J. Meas. Control,
2020, 53, (3–4), pp 427–440.
17. ESPOSITO, N., FONTANA, U., D’AUTILIA , G. and BIANCHI, L. A hybrid approach to detection and
tracking of unmanned aerial vehicles, AIAA J., 2020. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-1345.
18. COSTELO , M.F. Theory of the Analysis of Rotorcraft Operation in Atmospheric Turbulence, PhD
thesis, Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, May 1992.
19. RAFFO, G.V., ORTEGA , M.G. and RUBIO, F.R. An integral predictive/nonlinear control structure for
a quadrotor helicopter, Automatica, 2010, 46, pp 29–39.
20. YANG, X., POTA, H. and GARRATT, M. Design of a gust-attenuation controller for landing opera-
tions of un-manned autonomous helicopters, 2009 IEEE Control Applications, (CCA) Intelligent
Control, (ISIC), 2009, pp. 1300–1305.
21. PFLIMLIN, J.M., SOUERES, P. and HAMEL, T. Position control of a ducted fan VTOL UAV in
crosswind, Int. J. Control, 2007, 80, 666–683.
22. CHEVIRON, T., PLESTAN, F. and CHRIETTE, A. Position control of a ducted fan VTOL UAV in
crosswind, Int. J. Control, 2009, 82, pp 2206–2220.
23. WASLANDER, S., HOFFMANN, G., JANG, J.S. and TOMLIN , C. Multi-agent quadrotor testbed control
design: integral sliding mode vs. reinforcement learning, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005. (IROS 2005), 2005, pp 3712–3717.
24. ALEXIS, K., NIKOLAKOPOULOS, G. and TZES, A. On trajectory tracking model predictive control of
an unmanned quadrotor helicopter subject to aerodynamic disturbances, Asian. J. Control, 2014,
16, pp 209–224.
25. BOUABDALLAH, S. and SIEGWART, R. Full control of a quadrotor, IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2007. IROS 2007, 2007, pp 153–158.
26. SUNAN, T.K.K.H. and HENG, L.T. Applied Predictive Control, Springer-Verlag, 2002,
New York, ch 3.
27. CAMACHO, E. and BORDONS, C. Model Predictive Control, Springer-Verlag, 2007, New York, ch 2.