Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems

, Volume 70, Issue 1–4, pp 107–117 | Cite as

Experimental Test of a Two-Stage Kalman Filter for Actuator Fault Detection and Diagnosis of an Unmanned Quadrotor Helicopter

  • M. Hadi Amoozgar
  • Abbas Chamseddine
  • Youmin Zhang


This paper addresses the problem of Faut Detection and Diagnosis (FDD) of a quadrotor helicopter system in the presence of actuator faults. To this end a Two-Stage Kalman Filter (TSKF) is used to simultaneously estimate and isolate possible faults in each actuator. The faults are modelled as losses in control effectiveness of rotors. Three fault scenarios are investigated: loss of control effectiveness in one single actuator, simultaneous loss of control effectiveness in all motors, and loss of control effectiveness in three motors with different magnitudes. The developed FDD algorithm is evaluated through experimental application to an unmanned quadrotor helicopter testbed available at the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering of Concordia University, called Qball-X4. The obtained results show the effectiveness of the proposed FDD method.


Unmanned quadrotor helicopter Actuator faults Fault detection and diagnosis Two-stage Kalman filter Experimental test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dierks, T., Jagannathan, S.: Neural network output feedback control of a quadrotor UAV. In: Proceedings of the 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 3633–3639. Cancun, Mexico, 9–11 December 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dierks, T., Jagannathan, S.: Neural network control of quadrotor UAV formations. In: American Control Conference, pp. 2990–2996. St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 10–12 June 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rafaralahy, H., Richard, E., Boutayeb, M., Zasadzinski, M.: Simultaneous observer based sensor diagnosis and speed estimation of unmanned aerial vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 2938–2943. Cancun, Mexico (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    SWARM: Cited 29 February 2012
  5. 5.
    STARMAC: Cited 29 February 2012
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Sharifi, F., Mirzaei, M., Gordon, B., Zhang, Y.M.: Fault-tolerant control of a quadrotor UAV using sliding mode control. In: Conference on Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems, pp. 239–244. Nice, France, 6–8 October 2009Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang, Y.M., Jiang, J.: Active fault-tolerant control system against partial actuator failures. IEE Proc., Control Theory Appl. 149(1), 95–104 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Oca, S.M., Puig, V., Theilliol, D., Tornil-Sin, S.: Fault-tolerant control design using LPV admissible model matching: application to a two-degree of freedom helicopter. In: 17th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, pp. 522–527. Thessaloniki, Greece, 24–26 June 2009Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wen, F., Willett, P., Deb, S.: Signal processing and fault detection with application to CH-46 helicopter data. In: Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 15–26. Big Sky, MT, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heredia, G., Ollero, A., Bejar, M., Mahtani, R.: Sensor and actuator fault detection in small autonomous helicopter. Mechatronics 18(2), 90–99 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heredia, G., RemuB, V., Ollero, A., Mahtani, R., Musial, M.: Actuator fault detection in autonomous helicopters. In: Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Symposium on Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles. Lisbon, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keller, J.Y., Darouach, M.: Optimal two-stage Kalman filter in the presence of random bias. Automat. 33(9), 1745–1748 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu, N.E., Zhang, Y.M., Zhou, K.M.: Control effectiveness estimation using an adaptive Kalman estimator. In: Proceedings of IEEE ISIC/CIRA/ISAS Joint Conference, pp. 181–186. Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 14–17 September 1998Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, Y.M., Wu, N.E.: Fault diagnosis for a ship propulsion benchmark: part I. In: Preprints of the 14th IFAC World Congress. Beijing, China, 5–9 July 1999Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu, N.E., Zhang, Y.M., Zhou, K.M.: Detection, estimation, and accommodation of loss of control effectiveness. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. (Special Issue: Fault Detection and Isolation) 14(7), 775–795 (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, Y.M., Li, X.R.: Detection and diagnosis of sensor and actuator failures using interacting multiple model estimator. In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 4475–4480. San Diego, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cork, L., Walker, R.: Sensor fault detection for UAVs using a nonlinear dynamic model and the IMM-UKF algorithm. In: Information, Decision and Control, pp. 230–235. Adelaide, Qld., Australia, 12–14 February 2007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, R., Ozguner, U.: Sliding mode control of a quadrotor helicopter. In: Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 4957–4962. San Diego, California, USA (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hadi Amoozgar
    • 1
  • Abbas Chamseddine
    • 1
  • Youmin Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations