Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-type Quadrotors are highly nonlinear systems that are difficult to control and stabilize outdoors, especially in a windy environment. Many algorithms have been proposed to solve the problem of trajectory tracking using UAVs. However, current control systems face significant hurdles, such as parameter uncertainties, modeling errors, and challenges in windy environments. Sensitivity to parameter variations may lead to performance degradation or instability. Modeling errors arise from simplifications, causing disparities between assumed and actual behavior. Classical controls may lack adaptability to dynamic changes, necessitating adaptive strategies. Limited robustness in handling uncertainties can result in suboptimal performance. Windy environments introduce disturbances, impacting system dynamics and precision. The complexity of wind modeling demands advanced estimation and compensation strategies. Tuning challenges may necessitate frequent adjustments, posing practical limitations. Researchers have explored advanced control paradigms, including robust, adaptive, and predictive control, aiming to enhance system performance amidst uncertainties in a scientifically rigorous manner. Our approach does not require knowledge of UAVs and noise models. Furthermore, the use of the Type-2 controller makes our approach robust in the face of uncertainties. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is clear from the obtained results. In this paper, robust and optimal controllers are proposed, validated, and compared on a quadrotor navigating an outdoor environment. First, a Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC) combined with a PID is compared to a Type-1 FLC and Backstepping controller. Second, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is proposed to provide the optimal PID-Type-2 FLC tuning. The Backstepping, PID-Type-1 FLC, and PID-Type-2 FLC with GA optimization are validated and evaluated with real scenarios in a windy environment. Deep robustness analysis, including error modeling, parameter uncertainties, and actuator faults, is considered. The obtained results clearly show the robustness of the optimal PID-Type-2 FLC compared to the Backstepping and PID-Type-1 FLC controllers. These results are confirmed by the numerical index of each controller compared to the PID-type-2 FLC, with 12% for the Backstepping controller and 51% for the PID-Type-1 FLC.