Fuzzy health degree-based dynamic performance evaluation of quadrotors in the presence of actuator and sensor faults

  • Zhiyao Zhao
  • Xiaoyi WangEmail author
  • Peng Yao
  • Jiping Xu
  • Jiabin Yu
Original Paper


This paper proposes a fuzzy health degree-based dynamic performance evaluation algorithm of quadrotors in the presence of actuator and sensor faults. First, an augmented stochastic hybrid system (SHS) model for quadrotors is established. In the SHS model, the discrete modes are assigned with sensor normal mode and other senor anomalous modes. In each mode, a process equation and an observation equation are provided to describe the continuous behavior of quadrotors, where the process equation is augmented to model actuator fault by introducing effectiveness coefficients, and different observation equations are built to model different sensor faults. Then, a modified interacting multiple model algorithm is used to estimate the hybrid state of the SHS model, and a concept of fuzzy health degree is introduced to measure dynamic performance of the quadrotor based on the state estimation result. Finally, a simulation of a quadrotor suffering from successive actuator and sensor faults is presented to validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.


Dynamic performance Quadrotor Actuator fault Sensor fault Fuzzy health degree 



This work was supported in part by the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation under Grant 4194074, in part by the National Key R&D Program of China under Grant 2017YFC1600605, in part by the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China under Grant ZR2018BF016, and in part by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission Research Program-General Project under Grant KM201910011011.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest concerning the publication of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Zhu, W., Du, H., Cheng, Y., Chu, Z.: Hovering control for quadrotor aircraft based on finite-time control algorithm. Nonlinear Dyn. 88(4), 2359–2369 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yao, P., Wang, H., Su, Z.: Real-time path planning of unmanned aerial vehicle for target tracking and obstacle avoidance in complex dynamic environment. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 47, 269–279 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agha-Mohammadi, A., Ure, N., How, J., Vian, J.: Health aware stochastic planning for persistent package delivery missions using quadrotors. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3389–3396 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yao, P., Wang, H., Ji, H.: Gaussian mixture model and receding horizon control for multiple UAV search in complex environment. Nonlinear Dyn. 88(2), 903–919 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bethke, B., How, J., Vian, J.: Multi-UAV persistent surveillance with communication constraints and health management. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Chicago, IL, (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo, Y., Yan, J., Zhao, Z., Yang, S., Quan, Q.: A pesticide spraying mission assignment performed by multi-quadcopters and its simulation platform establishment. In: IEEE Chinese Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference (CGNCC), Nanjing, China (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalgren, P., Byington, C., Roemer, M., Watson, M.: Defining PHM, a lexical evolution of maintenance and logistics. In: IEEE Autotestcon Conference, pp. 353–358 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheppard, J., Kaufman, M.: IEEE standards for prognostics and health management. IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 24(9), 34–41 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, J.: Aircraft engine health prognostics based on logistic regression with penalization regularization and state-space-based degradation framework. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 68, 345–361 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qi, X., Theilliol, D., Qi, J., Zhang, Y.: Fault diagnosis and fault tolerant control methods for manned and unmanned helicopters: a literature review. In: Conference on Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems, pp. 132–139 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fekih, A.: Fault diagnosis and fault tolerant control design for aerospace systems: a bibliographical review. In: American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1286–1291 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkatasubramanian, V., Rengaswamy, R., Yin, K., Kavuri, S.N.: A review of process fault detection and diagnosis: Part I: quantitative model-based methods. Comput. Chem. Eng. 27(3), 293–311 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkatasubramanian, V., Rengaswamy, R., Yin, K., Kavuri, S.N.: A review of process fault detection and diagnosis Part II qualitative models and search strategies. Comput. Chem. Eng. 27(3), 313–326 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Venkatasubramanian, V., Rengaswamy, R., Yin, K., Kavuri, S.N.: A review of process fault detection and diagnosis: Part III: process history based methods. Comput. Chem. Eng. 27(3), 327–346 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Avram, R., Zhang, X., Muse, J.: Quadrotor actuator fault diagnosis and accommodation using nonlinear adaptive estimators. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 25, 2219–2226 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hao, W., Xian, B.: Nonlinear adaptive fault-tolerant control for a quadrotor UAV based on immersion and invariance methodology. Nonlinear Dyn. 90(4), 2813–2826 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ansari, A., Bernstein, D.: Aircraft sensor fault detection using state and input estimation. In: American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 5951–5956 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yan, J., Zhao, Z., Liu, H., Quan, Q.: Fault detection and identification for quadrotor based on airframe vibration signals: a data-driven method. In: Chinese Control Conference (CCC), pp. 6356–6361 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Castaldi, P., Mimmo, N., Naldi, R., Marconi, L.: Robust quadrotor actuator fault detection and isolation in presence of environmental disturbances. In: European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 1892–1897 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gao, Y., Zhao, D., Li, Y.: Small UAV sensor fault detection and signal reconstruction. In: International Conference on Mechatronic Sciences, pp. 3055–3058 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudin, K., Ducard, G., Siegwart, R.: A sensor fault detection for aircraft using a single Kalman filter and hidden Markov models. In: IEEE Conference on Control Applications (CCA), pp. 991–996 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abbaspour, A., Aboutalebi, P., Yen, K., Sargolzaei, A.: Neural adaptive observer-based sensor and actuator fault detection in nonlinear systems: application in UAV. ISA Trans. 67, 317–329 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, D., Zhou, J., Liao, H., Peng, Y., Peng, X.: A health indicator extraction and optimization framework for lithium-ion battery degradation modeling and prognostics. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 45(6), 915–928 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao, Z., Quan, Q., Cai, K.Y.: A health evaluation method of multicopters modeled by stochastic hybrid system. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 68, 149–162 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao, Z., Quan, Q., Cai, K.Y.: A profust reliability based approach to prognostics and health management. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 63(1), 26–41 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu, W., Hwang, I.: On hybrid state estimation for stochastic hybrid systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 59(10), 2615–2628 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, Y., Li, X.R.: Detection and diagnosis of sensor and actuator failures using IMM estimator. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 34(4), 1293–1313 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao, S., Huang, B., Liu, F.: Fault detection and diagnosis of multiple-model systems with mismodeled transition probabilities. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62(8), 5063–5071 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhou, Y., Wang, D., Huang, H., Li, J., Yi, L.: Fuzzy logic based interactive multiple model fault diagnosis for PEM fuel cell systems. Discrete time systems, pp. 425–446. InTech Publisher, London (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blom, H.A., Bar-Shalom, Y.: The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with Markovian switching coefficients. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 33(8), 780–783 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao, Z., Quan, Q., Cai, K.Y.: A modified profust-performance-reliability algorithm and its application to dynamic systems. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 32(1), 643–660 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhiyao Zhao
    • 1
  • Xiaoyi Wang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peng Yao
    • 2
  • Jiping Xu
    • 1
  • Jiabin Yu
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer and Information EngineeringBeijing Technology and Business UniversityHaidian DistrictChina
  2. 2.College of EngineeringOcean University of ChinaQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations