Next Article in Journal
Flutter Analysis of Telescopic Wing Structures Based on Non-Matching Grid Contact Equivalence
Previous Article in Journal
Unsteady Buzz Characteristics of a Dorsal Supersonic Bump Inlet Based on Wind-Tunnel Tests and Numerical Simulations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Conditioned Sequence Models for Warm-Starting Sequential Convex Trajectory Optimization in Space Robots
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dynamics Modeling of a Rigid–Flexible Coupled Flapping-Wing Robot and Diffeomorphism-Based Disturbance Rejection Attitude-Constrained Control

1
College of Astronautics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China
2
China Logistics Group Co., Ltd., Beijing 100073, China
3
China Logistics Group Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Bejing 100073, China
4
National Key Laboratory of Aerospace Mechanism, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aerospace 2026, 13(7), 632; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace13070632
Submission received: 3 June 2026 / Revised: 6 July 2026 / Accepted: 9 July 2026 / Published: 12 July 2026

Abstract

Lightweight flapping-wing robots are affected by structural flexibility, wind disturbances, and static friction in basal passive joints during perching and attitude-holding tasks. These coupled effects can make conventional PID and sliding mode control (SMC) produce error amplification, torque fluctuation, flexible-response excitation, and attitude-boundary violation. This study establishes an ADAMS–Simulink co-simulation platform for a rigid–flexible coupled flapping-wing robot and proposes a diffeomorphism-based attitude-constrained controller. The inverse hyperbolic tangent mapping transforms bounded physical errors into unbounded virtual errors, allowing smooth small-error regulation and stronger constraint enforcement near safety boundaries. Wind-free tracking, compound wind rejection, pulse wind scanning, mapping-parameter sensitivity, and a CBF-QP safety-filtered baseline are evaluated. In manuscript parameter-synchronized ADAMS 2024 reruns under a 2 m/s steady wind with a 1 m/s pulse, PID and SMC show runaway angular excursions of 1602.56° and 381,330.03°, whereas the proposed method remains bounded at 23.58° with an RMSE of 2.943° and no boundary violation. The CBF-QP baseline still violates the boundary at 1394°. The results show improved tracking accuracy, boundary protection, measured-channel flexible-excitation attenuation, and stable disturbance recovery.
Keywords: rigid–flexible coupling; flapping-wing robot; diffeomorphic mapping; constrained attitude control; ADAMS–Simulink co-simulation; wind disturbance rigid–flexible coupling; flapping-wing robot; diffeomorphic mapping; constrained attitude control; ADAMS–Simulink co-simulation; wind disturbance

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rong, G.; Yang, J.; Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Wang, J. Dynamics Modeling of a Rigid–Flexible Coupled Flapping-Wing Robot and Diffeomorphism-Based Disturbance Rejection Attitude-Constrained Control. Aerospace 2026, 13, 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace13070632

AMA Style

Rong G, Yang J, Chen J, Wang J, Wang J. Dynamics Modeling of a Rigid–Flexible Coupled Flapping-Wing Robot and Diffeomorphism-Based Disturbance Rejection Attitude-Constrained Control. Aerospace. 2026; 13(7):632. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace13070632

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rong, Guang, Jingyuan Yang, Jinbao Chen, Jian Wang, and Jianyuan Wang. 2026. "Dynamics Modeling of a Rigid–Flexible Coupled Flapping-Wing Robot and Diffeomorphism-Based Disturbance Rejection Attitude-Constrained Control" Aerospace 13, no. 7: 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace13070632

APA Style

Rong, G., Yang, J., Chen, J., Wang, J., & Wang, J. (2026). Dynamics Modeling of a Rigid–Flexible Coupled Flapping-Wing Robot and Diffeomorphism-Based Disturbance Rejection Attitude-Constrained Control. Aerospace, 13(7), 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace13070632

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop