Circular formation control of fixed-wing UAVs with constant speeds.

arXiv:1703.07736v1 [cs.RO] 22 Mar 2017

Hector Garcia de Marina1 Zhiyong Sun2 Murat Bronz1 and Gautier Hattenberger1

Abstract— In this paper we propose an algorithm for stabilizing circular formations of fixed-wing UAVs with constant
speeds. The algorithm is based on the idea of tracking circles
with different radii in order to control the inter-vehicle phases
with respect to a target circumference. We prove that the
desired equilibrium is exponentially stable and thanks to the
guidance vector field that guides the vehicles, the algorithm
can be extended to other closed trajectories. One of the main
advantages of this approach is that the algorithm guarantees
the confinement of the team in a specific area, even when
communications or sensing among vehicles are lost. We show
the effectiveness of the algorithm with an actual formation flight
of three aircraft. The algorithm is ready to use for the general
public in the open-source Paparazzi autopilot.

I. INTRODUCTION
There is a growing body of literature that recognises
the importance of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for
aerial surveillance, search and rescue, patrol, inspection of
facilities, precision agriculture, and atmosphere study [1],
[2], [3]. The current trend in multi-agent systems [4] has led
to a proliferation of works where individual and independent
UAVs have gradually been replaced by a team of cooperative
and coordinated ones [5], [6], [7], [8]. Formation control
is one of the most well-known tools for assessing the
cooperation and coordination of multi-agent systems [9],
[10], where the usage of such a tool aims at forming and
maintaining a prescribed geometrical shape for a group of
vehicles.
An important challenge in the formation control of UAVs
is to consider demanding constraints for the vehicles. For
example, fixed-wing UAVs are preferred to rotorcrafts in
missions where the endurance or the capacity for traveling
long distances are essential requirements. However, rather
than point mass models [11], [12], guidance algorithms for
fixed-wing UAVs have to consider nonholonomic constraints,
e.g., by modeling the aircraft as unicycles. Theoretical
contributions on the coordination and formation control of
unicycles include the consensus and rendezvous [13], [14],
and the circular formations [15], [16]. The circular or pursuit
formation design is a practical method for steering the vehicles to coordinated and periodic trajectories, which provide
means to sample data with a desired spatial and temporal
separation [17]. However, all the above mentioned works
consider that both the speed and orientation of the vehicles
can be actuated by the formation control algorithm in order
to accomplish the mission’s goal.
1 H. Garcia de Marina, M. Bronz and G. Hattenberger are with the Ecole
National de l’Aviation Civile, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
hgdemarina@ieee.org.
2 Z. Sun is with the Australian National University, Canberra.
zhiyong.sun@anu.edu.au.

Fixed-wing aircraft are usually designed for flying most
efficiently at a given fixed airspeed [18]. Furthermore, an
aircraft needs to fly with an airspeed over a certain lower
bound or otherwise the aircraft stalls and falls down. Consequently, the control problem to be discussed in this paper
considers unicycle-like vehicles with constant speed, i.e., we
only actuate on the steering of the vehicle via coordinated
turns by actuating on the bank angle of the aircraft. Note
that having a constant airspeed does not imply to have a
constant ground-speed because of the effect of the wind.
Therefore, the wind causes the aircraft to travel with different
ground speeds depending on its yaw and heading angles with
respect to some frame of coordinates fixed on the ground,
e.g., at center of the circular formation. Nevertheless, in this
paper it will be assumed that the speed of the wind is much
smaller than the desired airspeed, so the ground-speed can
be considered almost constant during the vehicle’s mission.
Circular formations for unicycles with the constraint of
having constant speeds make the formation control problem
more challenging as it has been shown in the early work
in [19] for just two vehicles. In particular, the analysis
of constantly moving vehicles is problematic if one wants
to control geometrical relations between them. However, a
clever strategy consisting in controlling the instantaneous
center of rotation of the vehicle, instead of its position,
for a given fixed angular velocity has been employed in
different works [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. The benefit of
this approach is that such instantaneous center of rotation
for a unit speed vehicle can be fixed with respect to some
global frame of coordinates while the vehicle is still moving,
i.e., it just circulates around a constant point. The cited works
applying this approach include the rendezvous of such points
or the control of geometric relations between them such as
position- or distance-based formation control approaches [9].
However, there are certain drawbacks associated with the
control of such centers of rotation. For example, it is common
that during the mission the steering control action of a vehicle
could be close to or exactly zero. For such a situation, if
communications or lines of sight for the sensors are lost,
then the control action of the vehicle is not updated since
the steering depends only on the relative states with respect
to its neighbors, and consequently, the aircraft will continue
flying straight. This is clearly a problem since nowadays
the restrictions for drones in the airspace are tight in many
countries. Therefore, the flight plan has to guarantee that the
fixed-wing UAVs will not abandon their designated flying
area.
In this paper we propose a distributed algorithm for
controlling circular formations of fixed-wing UAVs with

constant speeds, where each vehicle has a (feasible) prescribed inter-position with respect to its neighbors on the
circle. In particular, the formation control algorithm does
not directly actuate on steering the vehicle but setting the
radius of the circle to be tracked by the vehicle, i.e., we
actuate on the angular velocity of the vehicle around the
center point of the circle. This approach can be related to
algorithms where the agents are exclusively confined on the
target circumference and they can change their phases [25],
[26]. While several works controlling the inter-vehicle phases
have considered constraints such as anonymity, restrictions
in the communications or order preservation, to the best of
the authors’ knowledge, only the work by Wang et al [27]
addresses the constraint of having vehicles that cannot move
backwards. However, such condition implies that the vehicles
can be stopped on the circumference, something impossible
for a fixed-wing aircraft.
The proposed algorithm in this work has a series of
advantages and features. First, it is distributed, i.e., the vehicles depend only on relative measurements, such as relative
positions, with respect to their neighbors, and a complete
graph is not necessary. Second, unlike many of the above
cited works, the desired inter-vehicle angles on the circle can
be prescribed. Third, the desired formation is exponentially
stable. Fourth, an arbitrary bound of the maximum distance
of the vehicles with respect to the center of the circle can be
chosen by design, therefore it is guaranteed the confinement
of the formation regardless of broken communications or
sensing. Fifth, it is possible to extend the algorithm to
not only circles, but at least to any smooth closed orbit
homeomorphic to a circle.
The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows.
In Section II, the notation, the considered model of the fixedwing aircraft and the employed trajectory tracking algorithm
for following a circle are introduced. In Section III we state
the circular formation problem and propose the design of a
controller as a solution together with a stability analysis.
Experimental results with actual aircraft are presented in
Section IV. The algorithm has been implemented in the
popular open-source autopilot Paparazzi [28] and it is ready
to be used by the general public.
II. P RELIMINARIES
A. Notation
Consider a formation of n ≥ 2 fixed-wing UAVs whose
positions are denoted by pi ∈ R2 with i ∈ {1, . . . , n}. The
vehicles are able to sense the relative positions with respect
to their neighbors. The neighbors’ relationships are described
by an undirected graph G = (V, E) with the vertex set V =
{1, . . . , n} and the ordered edge set E ⊆ V × V. The set Ni
∆
of the neighbors of vehicle i is defined by Ni = {j ∈ V :
(i, j) ∈ E}. Two vertices are adjacent if (i, j) ∈ E. A path
from a vertex i to a vertex j is a sequence starting at i and
ending at j such that two consecutive vertices are adjacent,
and if i = j then the path is called a cycle. We assume that
the graph G is connected, i.e., there is a path between any

two vertices i and j. We define the elements of the incidence
matrix B ∈ R|V|×|E| , where |X | denotes the cardinality of
the set X , for G by

tail

+1 if i = Ek
∆
bik = −1 if i = Ekhead ,
(1)


0 otherwise
where Ektail and Ekhead denote the tail and head nodes, respectively, of the edge Ek , i.e., Ek = (Ektail , Ekhead ).
A circular trajectory with radius r ∈ R+ can be described
by the following implicit equation
∆

Cr = {p : ϕ(p) = 0},
(2)


T
where ϕ(p) = p2x +p2y −r2 and p = px py is a Cartesian
position with respect to a frame of coordinates whose origin
is at the center of Cr . The plane R2 can be covered by the
∆
following disjoint sets ϕc (p) = ϕ(p) = c ∈ R, where each
level set is defined for a particular value of c such that the
resulting circle’s radius is non-negative, and in particular,
the zero level set corresponds uniquely to Cr . We define by
∆
n(p) = ∇ϕ(p) the normal vector to the circle corresponding
to the level set ϕ(p) and the tangent vector at the same point
p is given by the rotation


0 1
.
τ (p) = En(p), E =
−1 0
Note that Cr belongs to the C 2 space and it is regular
everywhere excepting at its center, i.e.,
∇ϕ(p) 6= 0 ⇐⇒ p 6= 0,

(3)

and all the level sets ϕc (p) can be parametrized. In particular,
the vehicle i can calculate such parametrization associated
to its position with the following expression
θi (p) = atan2(py , px ) ∈ (−π, π].

(4)

Note that θi (p) belongs to the circle group S1 .
B. Fixed-wing aircraft’s model
Consider for the unit speed i’th fixed-wing aircraft the
following nonholonomic model in 2D
(
ṗi = m(ψi )
(5)
ψ̇i = uψi ,

T
where m = cos(ψi ) sin(ψi ) with ψi ∈ (−π, π] being
the attitude yaw angle1 and uψi is the control action that will
make the aircraft to turn. In particular, for coordinated turns
where the altitude of the vehicle is kept constant and the pitch
angle is close to zero, the control action uψi corresponds to
the following bank angle φi to be tracked by the autopilot
of the vehicle
uψ
(6)
φi = arctan i ,
g
where g is the gravity acceleration.
1 For our setup, the yaw angle and heading angle can be considered equal
due to the absence of wind.

n

C. Trajectory tracking
One of the key points of the proposed formation control
algorithm in this paper is to make sure that the aircraft is
tracking Cr . There exist many guidance algorithms in the
literature [29], [30]. We have chosen the algorithm proposed
in [31] that has been successfully tested in real flights [32]
for two reasons. Firstly, the local exponential converge to
the desired path is guaranteed. This property will help us
later to support the convergence of the formation control
algorithm under the argument of slow-fast dynamical systems
in cascade. Secondly, the algorithm can be straightforwardly
extended to other C 2 curves that are homeomorphic to Cr ,
such as ellipses or the (possibly concave curve) Cassini ovals.
The trajectory tracking algorithm employs the level sets
∆
e(p) = ϕ(p) for the notion of error distance between the
aircraft and Cr . Note that for circular paths, the error e has
a clear relation with the Euclidean distance, but for more
general trajectories, such as ellipses, this is not always true.
The vehicle has to follow the vector field defined by
∆

ṗd (p) = τ (p) − ke e(p)n(p),

(7)

where ke ∈ R+ is a gain that defines how aggressive the
vector field is, in order to converge to traveling on Cr . Let
us define x̂ as the unit vector constructed from the nonzero
vector x.
Theorem 2.1: [31], [32] Consider the system (5), then the
control action

 T
ṗd
uψ = − E ṗˆd ṗˆTd E (E − ke e)H(ϕ)ṗ − ke nT ṗn
E
||ṗd ||2
T
+ kd ṗˆ E ṗˆd ,
(8)
where H(·) is the Hessian operator and kd ∈ R+ , makes the
aircraft to converge (locally) exponentially fast to travel over
Cr , i.e., for |e(0)| ≤ c∗ we have that |e(t)| ≤ a exp(−bt)
with t → ∞ for some constants a, b, c∗ ∈ R+ .
The first term in (8) makes the aircraft to stay on the
guidance vector field (7) while the second term makes the
vehicle to converge to the guidance vector field in case that
the vehicle is not aligned with it.
III. C IRCULAR FORMATION CONTROL
A. Problem definition
Given the neighbors’ relationship described by the graph
G, the stacked vector of inter-vehicle angles can be calculated
as
z = B T θ,
(9)
where θ ∈ T|V| = S1 × · · · × S1 (the n-torus) is the stacked
vector of parameters for each vehicle as in (4), and z ∈
T|E| , therefore no necessarily all the inter-vehicle angles are
calculated. Note that zk ∈ S1 can be calculated from the
relative measurement pi − pj by just following trigonometric
arguments in Figure 1. Consider a collection of desired zk∗ ∈
S1 , k ∈ {1, . . . , |E|} on the circle. We define the formation
error eθ ∈ T|E| as the stacked vector of signals
eθk (t) = zk (t) − zk∗ ,

(10)

ṗ
ψ
ṗˆd

ϕ(p∗ ) = e > 0

τ

−ke en

Cr := ϕ(p) = 0
ϕ(p) < 0
p∗

θ(p∗ )
ON
Fig. 1: The direction to be followed by the UAV at the point
p∗ for converging to Cr is given by ṗˆd . The tangent and
normal vectors τ and n are calculated from ∇ϕ(p∗ ). The
error distance e is calculated as ϕ(p∗ ). All the circles ϕc can
be parametrized by an angle θ with respect to the horizontal
axis of a frame of coordinates at the center of Cr .
where eθk ∈ S1 . The objective of the proposed algorithm
for the team of fixed-wing UAVs in the next subsection is to
achieve simultaneously eθ (t) → 0 and pi (t) → Cr , ∀i ∈ N
as t → ∞.
B. Controller design and stability
Consider that the unit speed aircraft i is tracking correctly
Cr , therefore its angular velocity around the center of Cr is

1
.
(11)
r
The idea is to control the inter-vehicle angles in z by
changing in the vehicles the desired trajectory to be tracked,
i.e., instead of (2), the vehicle i has to track
θ̇i =

i

∆

C(r,i c) = {p : ϕ(p) = i c},

(12)

where i c ∈ R is the formation control signal to be designed
and the superindex i denotes for the vehicle i ∈ V. Note that
the smaller the i c (possibly negative), the bigger the radius
of i C(r,i c) , and thus the smaller the angular velocity θ̇i . For
the sake of simplicity in the following analysis we define
i

∆

c = i u2r + 2r i ur ,

(13)

where i ur ∈ R is a control action with a more straightforward physical meaning than i c, i.e., we set the radius (around
the desired r) of the circumference i C(r,i c) (or simply i C)
because
x2 + y 2 − r2 = i u2r + 2r i ur ⇐⇒ x2 + y 2 − (r + i ur )2 = 0.
(14)
Remark 3.1: Note that for a generic closed trajectory, if
a vehicle tracks it on a negative level set, then it travels less

distance than one that tracks the same trajectory on a positive
level set after one loop.
We propose the following control action for achieving the
desired circular formation
i

ur = kr Bi e,

(15)

where Bi stands for the i’th row of the incidence matrix B
as in (1), and kr ∈ R+ . Since eθk ∈ (−π, π], we impose to
kr the following condition
r − πkr max(|Ni |) > 0,
i∈V

(16)

i.e., we avoid the possibility of setting a negative radius2 in
i
C. Note that the control action (15) is based on the popular
consensus algorithm in formation control [9].
Before presenting the main result, we need the following
technical lemma that will define the neighbors’ relationships.
Lemma 3.2: If G does not contain any cycles, then the
∆
matrix A = −B T B is Hurwitz.
Proof: If G does not contain any cycles, it has been
show in [33] that Bx 6= 0 for any nonzero vector x ∈ R|E| .
Note that ||Bx||2 = xT B T Bx > 0, implying that B T B is
positive definite. Hence, A is Hurwitz if G does not contain
any cycles.
We also make use of the following assumption.
Assumption 3.3: A vehicle i is always tracking and traveling over i C as in (12).
The Assumption 3.3 considers that if there is a change
in the radius of i C, then the vehicle instantaneously jumps
to the required level set. As we will show, the circular
formation controller (15) guarantees the exponential stability
of the origin of the error signal eθ under the Assumption 3.3.
Since the trajectory error tracking e in Theorem 2.1 is also
locally exponentially stable, one may consider a slow-fast
dynamics in cascade by tuning appropriately the gains ke and
kr in (7) and (15) respectively [34, Chapter 4]. Informally,
the controller (8) provides a fast transient process of the
vehicle to i C if the aircraft is sufficiently close to it, while
the whole formation slowly follows the formation controller
(15). In fact, if kr is sufficiently small, the set of possible
trajectories i C will be very close to Cr , therefore making
reasonable the Assumption 3.3. Furthermore, since for circles
the convergence of the algorithm in Theorem 2.1 is almost
globally stable (with the exception of starting at the center of
Cr ), even if the vehicles start far away from the trajectories to
be tracked, they will approach a situation where Assumption
3.3 can eventually be considered.
Theorem 3.4: Consider a team of n unit speeds aircraft
modeled as in (5), and the graph G defining the neighbors’
relationships does not contain any cycles. All the vehicles are
tracking (12) by employing (8). If Assumption 3.3 holds and
the level sets i c in (12) are controlled by (15) via (13), then
the origin of the error eθ as in (10) is locally exponentially
stable for the desired zk∗ , k ∈ {1, . . . , |E|}.
2 Note that while a level set can be negative, the radius of a circumference
cannot.

Proof: The proof is based on checking the stability of
the linearization of the error dynamics eθ around the origin.
First note that ėθ = ż = B T θ̇. According to Assumption 3.3,
we also have that for each edge Ek = (i, j) the agents i and
j are tracking a circle of radius r + kr Bi eθ and r + kr Bj eθ
respectively, so from (11) it holds that
1
1
−
r + kr Bi eθ
r + kr Bj eθ
kr (Bj − Bi )eθ
=
(r + kr Bi eθ )(r + kr Bj eθ )
k r Ak e θ
, k ∈ {1, . . . , |E|},
=
(r + kr Bi eθ )(r + kr Bj eθ )
(17)

ėθk = żk =

where Ak is the k’th row of the matrix A as in Lemma 3.2.
We linearize (17) around eθ = 0, therefore the dynamics of
small variations θk of the error are given by
˙θk =

∂ ėθk
∂eθ

eθ =0

θ =

kr
Ak θ ,
r2

(18)

which leads to the following compact form
kr
Aθ ,
(19)
r2
and because A is Hurwitz according to Lemma 3.2 since
G has not any cycles, we can conclude that the equilibrium
eθ = 0 is locally exponentially stable.
Remark 3.5: Note that since the convergence to the trajectories i C is asymptotic, one can guarantee that all the vehicles
will be confined in a disc D of radius (r + πkr max(|Ni |),
i∈V
which corresponds to the worst case radius to be tracked,
for all time t, even if the control ur is not updated, e.g., the
vehicles are not exchanging or sensing their positions.
It is interesting to highlight that if G does not contain
any cycles, then in such a disc D the only equilibrium point
for the system is at eθ = 0, which has been proven stable.
Since the vehicles are eventually confined in D according
to Theorem 2.1, it seems reasonable to conjecture that an
estimation of the region of attraction for the exponentially
stable eθ = 0 is indeed D. Furthermore, for a proof of
the convergence of the overall system without Assumption
3.3, one can use the stability theory of cascade systems
[34, Chapter 4], while the exponential stability of the partial
system (17) could guarantee the (locally) asymptotic stability
of the overall system. We will present a rigorous proof in the
extended journal version.
˙θ =

IV. I MPLEMENTATION AND FLIGHT PERFORMANCE
A. Experimental platform
The validity of Theorem 3.4 has been tested with the
three fixed-wing UAVs shown in Figure 2. The aircraft have
about 600 grams of weight, 1.2 m of wingspan, and they
are actuated by two elevons and one motor. The electronics
include a battery that allows about 45 minutes of autonomy
at the nominal flight, which corresponds to an airspeed of 13
m/s. The chosen board for running the Paparazzi autopilot
stack is the Apogee [35], which includes the usual sensors of

Fig. 2: The three fixed-wing UAVs employed for the circular
formation at the aero club of Eole at Muret (Toulouse).

three axis gyros, accelerometers, magnetometers. Each fixedwing UAV has on board an U-Blox GPS with a nominal
accuracy of 3 meters in the horizontal plane. The airplanes
exchange their positions according to G, so they can compute
the corresponding inter-vehicle angles zk . The source code
can be checked online at the Paparazzi repository [35].
B. Circular formation flight experiment
The formation flight3 has been taken place at the aero
model club of Eole at Muret, close to the city of Toulose in
France. The flights were performed on the 17th of February,
2017 between the 10:00 and the 12:00 hours local time. The
wind coming from the south was about 2 m/s according to
MeteoFrance, therefore we can consider that ground-speed
and airspeed are approximately equal. The airplanes 1, 2 and
3 are tagged with the colors blue, pink and red respectively at
the ground station captions in Figure 3. The chosen incidence
matrix for the communication between vehicles is


1
0
B = −1 1  ,
(20)
0 −1
which clearly does not define any cycles. The desired formation is defined by z1∗ = z2∗ = 0, i.e., all the aircraft achieve
consensus for their corresponding θi . Potential collisions are
avoided by making the airplanes to fly at different altitudes,
which are 30, 32 and 35 meters above the ground for planes
1, 2 and 3 respectively. The target circle Cr is set at the
waypoint CIRCLE in Figure 3 with a desired radius r equal
to 80 meters. The gains kd , ke and kr in Theorems 2.1 and
3.4 have been set to 1, 1 and 8 respectively. The airplanes
exchange their positions with a frequency of 2 Hz, although
lost communications are expected. Note that each airplane
has a different understanding of eθ{1,2} , i.e., each airplane
calculates on board the error signal and it might be different
among neighbors due to lost communications or GPS delays.
Interesting work studying the effects of this fact in formation
control can be found at [36], [37].
Before the formation control algorithm begins the three
aircraft are orbiting at different standby points. The experiment starts at time 131 seconds in Figure 3. At this moment
3 The video of the experiment with HD quality can be watched at
https://www.youtube.com/c/HectorGarciadeMarina .

the algorithm commands the airplane 2 (red) to follow a
circumference with a much smaller radius than airplanes
1 (blue) and 3 (pink) in order to catch them up. In fact,
airplanes 1 and 3 are tracking a circumference with a bigger
radius than Cr in order to wait for airplane 2. In about 15
seconds, the errors eθ{1,2} have been reduced half. Some
lost communications have been experienced between times
150 and 170 seconds. However, the algorithm seems robust
against such an issue and the formation achieves consensus
within a band of ±10 degrees of error, and continues stable
until the end of the experiment after seven laps.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented an algorithm for achieving
circular formations with fixed-wing UAVs traveling with
constant speeds. The strategy consists in controlling the
angular velocities around the center of the desired circle.
For that, we design a control action that is applied to the
level set to be tracked around the desired circle. These level
sets are tracked by a guidance vector field algorithm that is
locally exponentially stable. Since the presented algorithm
for circular formations is also exponentially stable if the
vehicles are perfectly tracking the level sets, we employ the
argument of slow-fast systems in cascade in order to show
the compatibility of both algorithms, which has been demonstrated in practice with three aircraft. The algorithm can be
potentially extended to other closed non-circle trajectories.
A more rigorous analysis will be presented in an extension
of this work.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. W. Beard, T. W. McLain, D. B. Nelson, D. Kingston, and D. Johanson, “Decentralized cooperative aerial surveillance using fixed-wing
miniature UAVs,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1306–
1324, 2006.
[2] M. A. Goodrich, B. S. Morse, D. Gerhardt, J. L. Cooper, M. Quigley,
J. A. Adams, and C. Humphrey, “Supporting wilderness search and
rescue using a camera-equipped mini UAV,” Journal of Field Robotics,
vol. 25, no. 1-2, pp. 89–110, 2008.
[3] P. Tokekar, J. Vander Hook, D. Mulla, and V. Isler, “Sensor planning
for a symbiotic UAV and UGV system for precision agriculture,” IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1498–1511, 2016.
[4] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and
cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, 2007.
[5] A. Ryan, M. Zennaro, A. Howell, R. Sengupta, and J. K. Hedrick, “An
overview of emerging results in cooperative UAV control,” in Decision
and Control, 2004. CDC. 43rd IEEE Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE,
2004, pp. 602–607.
[6] L. Bertuccelli, M. Alighanbari, and J. How, “Robust planning for
coupled cooperative UAV missions,” in Decision and Control, 2004.
CDC. 43rd IEEE Conference on, vol. 3. IEEE, 2004, pp. 2917–2922.
[7] X. Wang, V. Yadav, and S. Balakrishnan, “Cooperative UAV formation flying with obstacle/collision avoidance,” IEEE Transactions on
control systems technology, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 672–679, 2007.
[8] D. M. Stipanović, G. Inalhan, R. Teo, and C. J. Tomlin, “Decentralized
overlapping control of a formation of unmanned aerial vehicles,”
Automatica, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1285–1296, 2004.
[9] K.-K. Oh, M.-C. Park, and H.-S. Ahn, “A survey of multi-agent
formation control,” Automatica, vol. 53, pp. 424–440, 2015.
[10] B. D. O. Anderson, B. Fidan, C. Yu, and D. Walle, “UAV formation
control: Theory and application,” in Recent advances in learning and
control. Springer, 2008, pp. 15–33.
[11] J. M. Montenbruck, D. Zelazo, and F. Allgöwer, “Fekete points,
formation control, and the balancing problem,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1606.08203, 2016.

(a) t = 131secs

(c) t = 162secs

(b) t = 145secs

(d) t = 410secs

Fig. 3: Screenshots from the Paparazzi ground control station showing the evolution of the circular formation.

Inter-vehicle angle errors eθ1 and eθ2
e θ1
e θ2

150

[23]

Error [degrees]

100
50

[24]

0
−50
−100

[25]

−150
140

150

160

170
Mission time [s]

180

190

200

Fig. 4: Inter-vehicle error angle evolution. The zone ±10
degrees is between the dashed lines. Each dot represents the
calculated error by one of the airplanes once it receives the
position of its neighbor. The density of points is different
due to lost communications. However, the algorithm seems
robust enough against such an issue as it drives both errors
close to zero within a band ±10 degrees.

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

[12] B.-H. Lee and H.-S. Ahn, “Distributed formation control via global
orientation estimation,” Automatica, vol. 73, pp. 125–129, 2016.
[13] Z. Lin, B. Francis, and M. Maggiore, “Necessary and sufficient graphical conditions for formation control of unicycles,” IEEE Transactions
on automatic control, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 121–127, 2005.
[14] D. V. Dimarogonas and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “On the rendezvous
problem for multiple nonholonomic agents,” IEEE Transactions on
automatic control, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 916–922, 2007.
[15] J. A. Marshall, M. E. Broucke, and B. A. Francis, “Pursuit formations
of unicycles,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2006.
[16] M. I. El-Hawwary and M. Maggiore, “Distributed circular formation
stabilization for dynamic unicycles,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 149–162, 2013.
[17] N. E. Leonard, D. A. Paley, R. E. Davis, D. M. Fratantoni, F. Lekien,
and F. Zhang, “Coordinated control of an underwater glider fleet in an
adaptive ocean sampling field experiment in monterey bay,” Journal
of Field Robotics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 718–740, 2010.
[18] J. D. Anderson Jr, Fundamentals of aerodynamics. Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, 2010.
[19] E. W. Justh and P. Krishnaprasad, “Equilibria and steering laws for
planar formations,” Systems & control letters, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 25–38,
2004.
[20] R. Sepulchre, D. A. Paley, and N. E. Leonard, “Stabilization of planar
collective motion: All-to-all communication,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 811–824, 2007.
[21] ——, “Stabilization of planar collective motion with limited communication,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.
706–719, 2008.
[22] G. S. Seyboth, J. Wu, J. Qin, C. Yu, and F. Allgöwer, “Collective
circular motion of unicycle type vehicles with non-identical constant

[31]

[32]

[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]

velocities,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 1,
no. 2, pp. 167–176, 2014.
L. Briñon-Arranz, A. Seuret, and C. C. De Wit, “Cooperative control
design for time-varying formations of multi-agent systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 2283–2288,
2014.
Z. Sun, G. S. Seyboth, and B. D. O. Anderson, “Collective control of
multiple unicycle agents with non-identical constant speeds: Tracking
control and performance limitation,” in Control Applications (CCA),
2015 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 1361–1366.
C. Wang, G. Xie, and M. Cao, “Forming circle formations of anonymous mobile agents with order preservation,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 3248–3254, 2013.
F. Bullo, J. Cortés, and S. Martinez, Distributed control of robotic networks: a mathematical approach to motion coordination algorithms.
Princeton University Press, 2009.
C. Wang, G. Xie, and M. Cao, “Controlling anonymous mobile
agents with unidirectional locomotion to form formations on a circle,”
Automatica, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1100–1108, 2014.
G. Hattenberger, M. Bronz, and M. Gorraz, “Using the paparazzi UAV
system for scientific research,” in IMAV 2014, International Micro Air
Vehicle Conference and Competition 2014, 2014, pp. pp–247.
F. Kendoul, “Survey of advances in guidance, navigation, and control
of unmanned rotorcraft systems,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 29,
no. 2, pp. 315–378, 2012.
P. Sujit, S. Saripalli, and J. B. Sousa, “Unmanned aerial vehicle
path following: A survey and analysis of algorithms for fixed-wing
unmanned aerial vehicless,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 34, no. 1, pp.
42–59, 2014.
Y. A. Kapitanyuk, A. V. Proskurnikov, and M. Cao, “A guiding vector
field algorithm for path following control of nonholonomic mobile
robots,” 2016, iEEE Transactions on Control System Technology,
accepted. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.04391
H. G. de Marina, Y. A. Kapitanyuk, M. Bronz, G. Hattenberger, and
M. Cao, “Guidance algorithm for smooth trajectory tracking of a
fixed wing uav flying in wind flows,” in Accepted in the 2017 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017.
S. Guattery and G. L. Miller, “Graph embeddings and laplacian
eigenvalues,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications,
vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 703–723, 2000.
R. Sepulchre, M. Jankovic, and P. V. Kokotovic, Constructive nonlinear control. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
Paparazzi. UAV open-source project. [Online]. Available: http:
//wiki.paparazziuav.org/
S. Mou, M.-A. Belabbas, A. S. Morse, Z. Sun, and B. D. O. Anderson,
“Undirected rigid formations are problematic,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 2821–2836, 2016.
H. G. de Marina, J. Siemonsma, B. Jayawardhana, and M. Cao,
“Design and implementation of formation control algorithms for fully
distributed multi-robot systems,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, Submitted, 2017.

