Robust Adaptive Sliding-Mode Control for Damaged Fixed-Wing UAVs

Johannes Autenrieb; Lennart Kracke; Mark Spiller

arxiv: 2602.17504 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-19 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Robust Adaptive Sliding-Mode Control for Damaged Fixed-Wing UAVs

Mark Spiller , Lennart Kracke , Johannes Autenrieb This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 20:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords robust adaptive sliding mode controlfixed-wing UAVaerodynamic damagecontrol surface lossLyapunov stabilitygain adaptationattitude control

0 comments

The pith

Robust adaptive sliding mode control stabilizes fixed-wing UAVs after aerodynamic damage by adapting gains to known uncertainty bounds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a robust adaptive sliding-mode controller for fixed-wing UAVs facing aerodynamic perturbations and control surface damage. It builds a damage-aware dynamics model to study impairment effects and designs the controller to track references reliably. An adaptation law keeps control effort low in normal flight but raises gains when damage appears. Lyapunov analysis provides stability guarantees as long as uncertainty bounds are known in advance. Simulations confirm bounded errors and stability even with major damage, and the method fits into standard autopilot structures.

Core claim

The RASMC ensures reliable tracking and stabilization while a gain adaptation law maintains low control effort under nominal conditions and increases the gains as needed in the presence of aerodynamic damage, with Lyapunov-based stability guarantees under formulated assumptions on admissible uncertainty bounds.

What carries the argument

The robust adaptive sliding-mode controller (RASMC) together with its gain adaptation law, which uses sliding surfaces for robustness and adjusts gains dynamically based on detected damage levels within pre-set uncertainty bounds.

Load-bearing premise

Admissible bounds on the aerodynamic coefficient perturbations and control-surface effectiveness loss must be known beforehand for the adaptation law and stability proofs to remain valid.

What would settle it

A test case in which the actual perturbations exceed the assumed uncertainty bounds, checking whether tracking errors grow unbounded or the system loses stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17504 by Johannes Autenrieb, Lennart Kracke, Mark Spiller.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Controller performance evaluation of RASMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Many unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can remain aerodynamically flyable after sustaining structural or control surface damage, yet insufficient robustness in conventional autopilots often leads to mission failure. This paper proposes a robust adaptive sliding mode controller (RASMC) for fixed-wing UAVs subject to aerodynamic coefficient perturbations and partial loss of control surface effectiveness. A damage-aware flight dynamics model is developed to systematically analyze the impact of such impairments on the closed-loop behavior. The RASMC is designed to ensure reliable tracking and stabilization, while a gain adaptation law maintains low control effort under nominal conditions and increases the gains as needed in the presence of aerodynamic damage. Lyapunov-based stability guarantees are derived, and assumptions on admissible uncertainty bounds are formulated to characterize the limits within which closed-loop stability and performance can be ensured. The proposed controller is implemented within an existing UAV autopilot framework, where outer-loop guidance and speed control modules provide reference commands to the RASMC for attitude stabilization. Simulations demonstrate that, despite significant damage, all closed-loop states remain stable with bounded tracking errors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

RASMC for damaged UAVs works within known bounds but needs more validation on performance gains.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors have put together a robust adaptive sliding-mode controller, called RASMC, for fixed-wing UAVs facing damage. It uses a gain adaptation law to adjust control effort based on the damage level, all while providing Lyapunov-based stability under formulated uncertainty bounds. They do well in creating a systematic damage-aware flight dynamics model that lets them study how impairments affect the closed-loop system. Integrating this into an existing UAV autopilot, with outer-loop modules providing commands, shows practical thinking. The simulations suggest that even with significant damage, states remain stable and tracking errors bounded. Where it is softer is in the central assumption that the uncertainty bounds on aerodynamic changes and control effectiveness are known ahead of time. If actual damage exceeds them, the stability result does not apply. Also, without explicit baseline comparisons or detailed error metrics in the abstract, it is hard to gauge how much the adaptation improves things over simpler controllers. The choice of bounds seems to come from the problem setup rather than extensive validation. This paper is for control engineers and researchers focused on making UAVs more resilient to in-flight damage. A reader looking for an implementable method to enhance autopilot robustness will find the formulation and integration steps helpful. It is worth a serious referee because the core contribution is a clean application of known techniques to a relevant problem, with potential for real-world use once the validation is strengthened. Recommendation: Yes, route it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a robust adaptive sliding-mode controller (RASMC) for fixed-wing UAVs subject to aerodynamic coefficient perturbations and partial loss of control-surface effectiveness. It develops a damage-aware flight dynamics model, designs the RASMC with a gain adaptation law that keeps effort low under nominal conditions, derives Lyapunov-based stability guarantees under explicit assumptions on admissible uncertainty bounds, integrates the controller into an existing autopilot framework, and presents simulations claiming that all closed-loop states remain stable with bounded tracking errors despite significant damage.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a practical adaptive SMC approach that maintains stability guarantees while modulating control effort, which could enhance UAV resilience to structural or actuator damage. The use of standard Lyapunov arguments combined with an adaptation law is a methodological strength, and the integration into an existing autopilot framework aids applicability; however, the conditional nature of the guarantees limits broader impact without further validation of the bounding assumptions.

major comments (2)

[Lyapunov stability guarantees and assumptions on admissible uncertainty bounds] The Lyapunov stability analysis and gain adaptation law are derived under the assumption that aerodynamic coefficient perturbations and control-surface effectiveness losses remain within pre-specified admissible bounds (as formulated in the stability guarantees and abstract). No procedure is provided for selecting, estimating, or validating these bounds from damage models or flight data, rendering the boundedness of the sliding variable and closed-loop signals non-guaranteed if actual damage exceeds the assumed set; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim of handling 'significant damage'.
[Simulations section] The simulation results claim reliable tracking and bounded errors but provide no quantitative error metrics (e.g., RMS tracking errors or control effort norms), no explicit comparisons to non-adaptive sliding-mode baselines, and no sensitivity analysis on the chosen uncertainty bounds, leaving the performance claims without the necessary supporting evidence to substantiate the adaptation law's benefits.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from including at least one quantitative performance metric (e.g., maximum tracking error or control effort reduction) to make the simulation claims more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Lyapunov stability guarantees and assumptions on admissible uncertainty bounds] The Lyapunov stability analysis and gain adaptation law are derived under the assumption that aerodynamic coefficient perturbations and control-surface effectiveness losses remain within pre-specified admissible bounds (as formulated in the stability guarantees and abstract). No procedure is provided for selecting, estimating, or validating these bounds from damage models or flight data, rendering the boundedness of the sliding variable and closed-loop signals non-guaranteed if actual damage exceeds the assumed set; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim of handling 'significant damage'.

Authors: We agree that the admissible uncertainty bounds are central to the Lyapunov guarantees and that explicit guidance on their selection would improve practicality. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (in the stability analysis section) that outlines a systematic procedure: bounds are obtained by combining worst-case aerodynamic deviations from published damage models with a margin derived from Monte-Carlo simulation of representative structural failures. We will also describe how flight-test data, when available, can be used to tighten or validate the bounds via residual analysis. This addition preserves the original theoretical development while making the assumptions actionable. revision: yes
Referee: [Simulations section] The simulation results claim reliable tracking and bounded errors but provide no quantitative error metrics (e.g., RMS tracking errors or control effort norms), no explicit comparisons to non-adaptive sliding-mode baselines, and no sensitivity analysis on the chosen uncertainty bounds, leaving the performance claims without the necessary supporting evidence to substantiate the adaptation law's benefits.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current simulation section would benefit from quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will augment the results with (i) RMS tracking errors and L2-norm control-effort metrics for all tested damage cases, (ii) direct side-by-side comparisons against a standard non-adaptive sliding-mode controller (same nominal gains, no adaptation), and (iii) a sensitivity study that varies the uncertainty bounds around the nominal values and reports the resulting tracking and effort statistics. These additions will provide concrete evidence of the adaptation law’s advantages. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard Lyapunov derivation under explicit a priori assumptions

full rationale

The paper's core derivation develops a damage-aware model, designs the RASMC with gain adaptation, and proves stability via a standard Lyapunov function whose negative-definiteness holds only inside the pre-specified admissible uncertainty bounds. These bounds are stated as modeling assumptions rather than fitted from the same data or derived from the closed-loop result itself; the adaptation law parameters are chosen to satisfy the Lyapunov inequality under those bounds, not tuned to match validation trajectories. No equation reduces to a self-definition, no prediction is a renamed fit, and no load-bearing step collapses to a self-citation chain. The result is therefore conditional on external knowledge of the bounds but is not circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Lyapunov stability theory for sliding-mode systems and on the existence of known bounds for aerodynamic uncertainties; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

uncertainty bounds
Admissible bounds on aerodynamic coefficient perturbations and control-surface effectiveness loss are required for the adaptation law and stability guarantees; these are formulated but not derived from first principles.

axioms (2)

standard math Lyapunov stability theory applies to the closed-loop system under the stated uncertainty bounds
Invoked to derive stability guarantees for the RASMC.
domain assumption The damage effects can be represented as bounded perturbations on aerodynamic coefficients and control effectiveness
Core modeling assumption used to construct the damage-aware flight dynamics model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1422 out tokens · 41448 ms · 2026-05-15T20:52:56.101660+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Lyapunov-based stability guarantees are derived, and assumptions on admissible uncertainty bounds are formulated to characterize the limits within which closed-loop stability and performance can be ensured.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Extended observer based on adaptive second order sliding mode control for a fixed wing UA V,

H. Casta ˜neda, O. S. Salas-Pe ˜na, and J. de Le ´on-Morales, “Extended observer based on adaptive second order sliding mode control for a fixed wing UA V,”ISA transactions, vol. 66, pp. 226–232, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Incremental backstepping sliding mode fault-tolerant flight control,

X. Wang and E.-J. Van Kampen, “Incremental backstepping sliding mode fault-tolerant flight control,” inAIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019, p. 0110

work page 2019
[3]

Incremental sliding- mode fault-tolerant flight control,

X. Wang, E.-J. v. Kampen, Q. Chu, and P. Lu, “Incremental sliding- mode fault-tolerant flight control,”Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 244–259, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Design of a fixed-wing UA V controller based on adaptive backstepping sliding mode control method,

C. Bao, Y . Guo, L. Luo, and G. Su, “Design of a fixed-wing UA V controller based on adaptive backstepping sliding mode control method,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 157 825–157 841, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Fault tolerant control for damaged aircraft based on sliding mode control scheme,

J. Zhao, B. Jiang, P. Shi, and Z. He, “Fault tolerant control for damaged aircraft based on sliding mode control scheme,”International journal of innovative computing, information and control, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 293–302, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

Reconfigurable nonlinear dynamic inversion for attitude control of a structurally damaged aircraft,

Q. He, Y . Tan, X. Liu, Q. Jia, and J. Liu, “Reconfigurable nonlinear dynamic inversion for attitude control of a structurally damaged aircraft,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 199 931–199 943, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Flight test of a flying-wing type UA V with partial wing loss using neural network controller,

K. Kim, J.-M. Ahn, S.-K. Kim, D.-M. Kim, J. Suk, H. Lim, G.-b. Hur, N. Kim, and B.-s. Kim, “Flight test of a flying-wing type UA V with partial wing loss using neural network controller,” inAIAA guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) conference, 2013, p. 5169

work page 2013
[8]

Guidance and control of airplanes under actuator failures and severe structural damage,

G. Chowdhary, E. N. Johnson, R. Chandramohan, M. S. Kimbrell, and A. Calise, “Guidance and control of airplanes under actuator failures and severe structural damage,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1093–1104, 2013

work page 2013
[9]

Fault-tolerant control for fixed-wing aircraft with asymmetric damage: Model, method, and experiment,

Z. Du, Y . Lyu, X. Zhai, J. Shi, and X. Qu, “Fault-tolerant control for fixed-wing aircraft with asymmetric damage: Model, method, and experiment,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1004–1024, 2025

work page 2025
[10]

Flight dynamics and hybrid adaptive control of damaged aircraft,

N. Nguyen, K. Krishnakumar, J. Kaneshige, and P. Nespeca, “Flight dynamics and hybrid adaptive control of damaged aircraft,”Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 751–764, 2008

work page 2008
[11]

Modeling and model reference adaptive control of aircraft with asymmetric damage,

Y . Liu, G. Tao, and S. M. Joshi, “Modeling and model reference adaptive control of aircraft with asymmetric damage,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1500–1517, 2010

work page 2010
[12]

Multivariable adaptive control of NASA generic transport aircraft model with damage,

J. Guo, G. Tao, and Y . Liu, “Multivariable adaptive control of NASA generic transport aircraft model with damage,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1495–1506, 2011

work page 2011
[13]

Dynam- ics and adaptive control for stability recovery of damaged asymmetric aircraft,

N. Nguyen, K. Krishnakumar, J. Kaneshige, and P. Nespeca, “Dynam- ics and adaptive control for stability recovery of damaged asymmetric aircraft,” inAIAA Guidance, navigation, and control Conference and Exhibit, 2006, p. 6049

work page 2006
[14]

Modified model reference adaptive control of UA V with wing damage,

Y . Xiao, Y . Fu, C. Wu, and P. Shao, “Modified model reference adaptive control of UA V with wing damage,” in2016 2nd International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR). IEEE, 2016, pp. 189–193

work page 2016
[15]

Flight test of flying-wing type unmanned aerial vehicle with partial wing- loss,

K. Kim, S. Kim, J. Suk, J. Ahn, N. Kim, and B.-S. Kim, “Flight test of flying-wing type unmanned aerial vehicle with partial wing- loss,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 233, no. 5, pp. 1611–1628, 2019

work page 2019
[16]

P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun,Robust adaptive control. PTR Prentice-Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996, vol. 1

work page 1996
[17]

Aerodynamic effects and modeling of damage to transport aircraft,

G. Shah, “Aerodynamic effects and modeling of damage to transport aircraft,” inAIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, 2008, p. 6203

work page 2008
[18]

J.-J. E. Slotine, W. Li,et al.,Applied nonlinear control. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, vol. 199, no. 1

work page 1991
[19]

Adaptive sliding-mode control for nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters,

Y .-J. Huang, T.-C. Kuo, and S.-H. Chang, “Adaptive sliding-mode control for nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters,”IEEE Trans- actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 534–539, 2008

work page 2008
[20]

DLR UAS test platform for morphing wings,

M. Radestock, J. Tikalsky, H. Geyr von Schweppenburg, L. F. Kracke, S. Cain, and J. C. Dauer, “DLR UAS test platform for morphing wings,” inASME’s Premier Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures, and Intelligent Systems, September

work page
[21]

Available: https://elib.dlr.de/200325/

[Online]. Available: https://elib.dlr.de/200325/

work page
[22]

Athena vortex lattice,

M. Drela, “Athena vortex lattice,” Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology, Tech. Rep., 2000, available at: http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/

work page 2000
[23]

Automatic selection of methods for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary differential equations,

L. Petzold, “Automatic selection of methods for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary differential equations,”SIAM journal on scientific and statistical computing, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 136–148, 1983

work page 1983

[1] [1]

Extended observer based on adaptive second order sliding mode control for a fixed wing UA V,

H. Casta ˜neda, O. S. Salas-Pe ˜na, and J. de Le ´on-Morales, “Extended observer based on adaptive second order sliding mode control for a fixed wing UA V,”ISA transactions, vol. 66, pp. 226–232, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Incremental backstepping sliding mode fault-tolerant flight control,

X. Wang and E.-J. Van Kampen, “Incremental backstepping sliding mode fault-tolerant flight control,” inAIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019, p. 0110

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Incremental sliding- mode fault-tolerant flight control,

X. Wang, E.-J. v. Kampen, Q. Chu, and P. Lu, “Incremental sliding- mode fault-tolerant flight control,”Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 244–259, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Design of a fixed-wing UA V controller based on adaptive backstepping sliding mode control method,

C. Bao, Y . Guo, L. Luo, and G. Su, “Design of a fixed-wing UA V controller based on adaptive backstepping sliding mode control method,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 157 825–157 841, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Fault tolerant control for damaged aircraft based on sliding mode control scheme,

J. Zhao, B. Jiang, P. Shi, and Z. He, “Fault tolerant control for damaged aircraft based on sliding mode control scheme,”International journal of innovative computing, information and control, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 293–302, 2014

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Reconfigurable nonlinear dynamic inversion for attitude control of a structurally damaged aircraft,

Q. He, Y . Tan, X. Liu, Q. Jia, and J. Liu, “Reconfigurable nonlinear dynamic inversion for attitude control of a structurally damaged aircraft,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 199 931–199 943, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Flight test of a flying-wing type UA V with partial wing loss using neural network controller,

K. Kim, J.-M. Ahn, S.-K. Kim, D.-M. Kim, J. Suk, H. Lim, G.-b. Hur, N. Kim, and B.-s. Kim, “Flight test of a flying-wing type UA V with partial wing loss using neural network controller,” inAIAA guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) conference, 2013, p. 5169

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Guidance and control of airplanes under actuator failures and severe structural damage,

G. Chowdhary, E. N. Johnson, R. Chandramohan, M. S. Kimbrell, and A. Calise, “Guidance and control of airplanes under actuator failures and severe structural damage,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1093–1104, 2013

work page 2013

[9] [9]

Fault-tolerant control for fixed-wing aircraft with asymmetric damage: Model, method, and experiment,

Z. Du, Y . Lyu, X. Zhai, J. Shi, and X. Qu, “Fault-tolerant control for fixed-wing aircraft with asymmetric damage: Model, method, and experiment,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1004–1024, 2025

work page 2025

[10] [10]

Flight dynamics and hybrid adaptive control of damaged aircraft,

N. Nguyen, K. Krishnakumar, J. Kaneshige, and P. Nespeca, “Flight dynamics and hybrid adaptive control of damaged aircraft,”Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 751–764, 2008

work page 2008

[11] [11]

Modeling and model reference adaptive control of aircraft with asymmetric damage,

Y . Liu, G. Tao, and S. M. Joshi, “Modeling and model reference adaptive control of aircraft with asymmetric damage,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1500–1517, 2010

work page 2010

[12] [12]

Multivariable adaptive control of NASA generic transport aircraft model with damage,

J. Guo, G. Tao, and Y . Liu, “Multivariable adaptive control of NASA generic transport aircraft model with damage,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1495–1506, 2011

work page 2011

[13] [13]

Dynam- ics and adaptive control for stability recovery of damaged asymmetric aircraft,

N. Nguyen, K. Krishnakumar, J. Kaneshige, and P. Nespeca, “Dynam- ics and adaptive control for stability recovery of damaged asymmetric aircraft,” inAIAA Guidance, navigation, and control Conference and Exhibit, 2006, p. 6049

work page 2006

[14] [14]

Modified model reference adaptive control of UA V with wing damage,

Y . Xiao, Y . Fu, C. Wu, and P. Shao, “Modified model reference adaptive control of UA V with wing damage,” in2016 2nd International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR). IEEE, 2016, pp. 189–193

work page 2016

[15] [15]

Flight test of flying-wing type unmanned aerial vehicle with partial wing- loss,

K. Kim, S. Kim, J. Suk, J. Ahn, N. Kim, and B.-S. Kim, “Flight test of flying-wing type unmanned aerial vehicle with partial wing- loss,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 233, no. 5, pp. 1611–1628, 2019

work page 2019

[16] [16]

P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun,Robust adaptive control. PTR Prentice-Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996, vol. 1

work page 1996

[17] [17]

Aerodynamic effects and modeling of damage to transport aircraft,

G. Shah, “Aerodynamic effects and modeling of damage to transport aircraft,” inAIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, 2008, p. 6203

work page 2008

[18] [18]

J.-J. E. Slotine, W. Li,et al.,Applied nonlinear control. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, vol. 199, no. 1

work page 1991

[19] [19]

Adaptive sliding-mode control for nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters,

Y .-J. Huang, T.-C. Kuo, and S.-H. Chang, “Adaptive sliding-mode control for nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters,”IEEE Trans- actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 534–539, 2008

work page 2008

[20] [20]

DLR UAS test platform for morphing wings,

M. Radestock, J. Tikalsky, H. Geyr von Schweppenburg, L. F. Kracke, S. Cain, and J. C. Dauer, “DLR UAS test platform for morphing wings,” inASME’s Premier Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures, and Intelligent Systems, September

work page

[21] [21]

Available: https://elib.dlr.de/200325/

[Online]. Available: https://elib.dlr.de/200325/

work page

[22] [22]

Athena vortex lattice,

M. Drela, “Athena vortex lattice,” Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology, Tech. Rep., 2000, available at: http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/

work page 2000

[23] [23]

Automatic selection of methods for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary differential equations,

L. Petzold, “Automatic selection of methods for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary differential equations,”SIAM journal on scientific and statistical computing, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 136–148, 1983

work page 1983