7 visualizações

Enviado por flausen

- physicsinprogramming
- Quad With Tilt Rotor
- Maths Assigment 2003 New
- units.pdf
- Lifting Ell_q-optimization Thresholds
- Phy
- FS03N_0
- Himmelstein Torque Sensor
- Maths Assigment
- 1st Year Physics m.c.q Sindh Board
- Rotational Motion.doc
- InertiaDynamics ACMotor RearMt Specsheet
- formula
- Step Shaft Design - Final
- 3
- FWLec1
- quiz_2
- Singularity Parallel Scara
- PH212 Reading Ch12
- hp vs tourque

Você está na página 1de 6

Abstract A path following controller is presented for a can be found in [5] and [6] which both present attitude,

quadrotor helicopter model. The controller relies on input position and trajectory tracking controllers implemented on

dynamic extension and feedback linearization. The controller a testbed to obtain experimental results. Quaternion-based

allows the designer to specify the speed profile of the quadrotor

on the path and its yaw angle as a function of the displacement. attitude control is presented in [7] while quadrotor maneuvers

are explored in [8] and [9]. Specifically, [8] has a quadrotor

fly through openings and perch on angled surfaces while [9]

I. I NTRODUCTION presents a learning strategy for flips.

Applications for search and rescue, exploration, security The main issue with the trajectory tracking method is that

and inspection are often dangerous or time consuming for a if the quadrotor loses track of the reference signal, it may

human operator to perform. One solution is to have a model leave the path and collide with off-course objects. For this

sized quadrotor helicopter do the task. That is, command reason, we will focus on the path following approach.

a quadrotor to follow a predefined path while meeting The goal of the path following approach is to stabilize a set

additional specifications regarding its motion such as speed of permitted trajectories where the quadrotor is on the path

or orientation. For instance, the quadrotor may orient itself to and meets additional specifications regarding its speed and

point an on-board camera or tool in a desired direction as a orientation as a function of its displacement. The advantage

function of displacement along the path. Two methods to ac- of the path following method comes from its invariance

complish this are trajectory tracking and path following while properties where if the quadrotor begins on a permitted

secondary problems may deal with disturbance rejection trajectory, it will remain on it for all time. However, even

(e.g., wind in outdoor environments), unmodelled dynamics if the quadrotor is not exactly on a permitted trajectory or

(e.g., aerodynamic effects) and parameter uncertainties. has been perturbed slightly off of one, it will at least converge

In the trajectory tracking case, the quadrotor tracks a time towards nearby points on the path rather than chasing a

parameterized reference signal that moves along the path distant reference signal. This contrasts the trajectory tracking

while simultaneously specifying yaw angle. The majority approach where this invariance property does not hold.

of the literature for quadrotor trajectory tracking uses a The development in this paper uses a feedback lineariza-

hierarchical method called backstepping. For instance, in [1] tion method inspired by the work of Chris Nielsen in [10].

and [2], the controller is split into an outer translational As in [4], we rely on an input dynamic extension to design a

control loop and an inner rotational control loop. In the path following controller. Besides solving the path following

outer loop, the reference signal is the desired displacement problem, our control design allows one to specify the speed

along the path and the control input is the thrust. There profile and yaw angle of the quadrotor along the path.

are also additional virtual inputs that together with the Notation. Throughout the paper, we will use the shorthand

desired yaw angle, become the reference signals for the inner c := cos , s := sin , t := tan , se := sec . By dfx we

rotational loop. In this inner loop, the remaining control will denote the Jacobian of a function f at x. If f is a real-

inputs representing body torques are assigned. In [1] a model valued function, the gradient of f with respect to the vector

predictive controller is used for the translational subsystem x = col (x1 . . . xn ) will be denoted by (x1 ,...,xn ) f , or more

whereas a robust nonlinear H controller is used for the concisely x f . Note that x f = dfx for a real-valued f .

rotational subsystem. In [2] a sliding-mode controller is used Finally, v w denotes the Euclidean inner product between

for both subsystems where neural networks are used for vectors v and w R3 .

disturbance rejection. In [3], the approach has three control

steps. The first step uses the thrust input and yawing torque II. BACKGROUND

to control the quadrotor height and yaw angle respectively. The quadrotor model developed in this section is standard.

In the second step, the pitching torque is used to control For instance, see Mokhtari, Benallegue, and Orlov in [4]. A

y-position and pitch angle. In this step, a nested saturation quadrotor helicopter consists of four rotors connected to a

control is used to bound the pitching torque. The third step rigid frame, as shown in Figure 1. Denote the inertial frame

is similar to the second, where the rolling torque is used by I, the body frame attached to the quadrotor centre of

to control x-position and roll angle. In [4], the authors mass by B and the distance from the centre of mass to the

use a feedback linearization approach where the path and rotors by d. Corresponding to each rotor is a thrust force

yaw specifications are described through the system outputs fi acting along the zb axis and a reaction torque ri that

and disturbance rejection is provided through an adaptive opposes the direction of rotation. To produce a thrust fi in

estimator. Other relevant work regarding quadrotor control the negative zb (i.e., upward) direction, the rotors on the xb

P

where Fext is the sum of external forces composed of a

gravity force and thrust force, m is the quadrotor

T mass, g is

the acceleration due to gravity, e3 = 0 0 1 and R is

the rotation matrix from B to I given by,

c c c s s c s c c s + s s

R = c s s s s + c c c s s c s .

s c s c c

the quadrotor system are given by,

0 s se c se

axis rotate in the clockwise direction and the rotors on the = 0 c s

yb axis rotate in the counter-clockwise direction. 1 s t c t (2)

The control inputs to the system are u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 where X T

J + J = Text = u2 u3 u4

u1 is the total thrust along the zb axis and u2 , u3 , u4 are the

torques about the xb , yb , zb axes respectively. The physical

P

where Text is the vector of external torques in B and J is

inputs are the motor torques applied to the rotors denoted the symmetric inertia matrix in B with diagonal elements Ix ,

by 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 . Using the development from Castillo, Iy and Iz . The state vector is taken as = col (X, , V, )

Lozano, and Dzul in [3], the rotor dynamics are given by X := R12 and the system model can be represented in the

Irz ri = b2ri +i where Irz is the rotor moment of inertia control-affine form,

about the rotor z-axis, ri is the angular speed of rotor i and

b is a coefficient of friction due to aerodynamic drag on the = f () + g () u, y = h()

rotor. There is also an algebraic relationship between the with the definitions of f, g derived from equations (1)

rotor thrust and rotor speed given by, fi = 2ri where and (2).

is a parameter that can be experimentally measured. If we

assume steady-state rotor dynamics such that ri = 0 then III. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT

fi = (/b)i = ci where c = /b is the algebraic scaling The objective of the path following problem is to control

factor between the rotor thrust and the applied motor torque. the quadrotor helicopter to follow a predefined path in R3

Using this fact, it is readily seen that the relationship between while attaining a desired velocity and yaw angle as it travels

the control inputs and the motor torques is given by along this path. This is stated more precisely below.

u1 c c c c

1 Path Following Problem (PFP): Consider the system given

u2 0 cd 0 cd 2 by equations (1) and (2). Given a Jordan curve C in R3 , find

u= u3 = cd

= M . a continuous feedback u = col (u1 , . . . , u4 ) such that under

0 cd 0 3

u4 1 1 1 1 4 appropriate initial conditions, the closed-loop system meets

the following goals:

In the above, the total thrust is equal to the summation G1 The quadrotor asymptotically converges to C

of the four rotor thrusts; the torque about the xb axis is G2 The velocity asymptotically converges to a specified

proportional to the differential thrust of the two rotors on the value dependent on the quadrotor displacement along C

yb axis, f4 f2 ; the torque about the yb axis is proportional to

the differential thrust of the two rotors on the xb axis, f1 f3 ; G3 The yaw angle asymptotically converges to a specified

and the torque about the zb axis is equal to the summation value dependent on the quadrotor displacement along C.

of the four reaction torques ri which are equal and opposite

to the applied motor torques i . Therefore given u, one can The path, velocity and yaw specifications are formulated in

determine the required motor torques by = M 1 u. Let the terms of system outputs that we would like to asymptotically

states of the quadrotor system be given by, zero out.

X = col (x, y, z): position in I Definition 3.1: A path specification is a smooth function

= col (, , ): orientation (yaw, pitch, and roll) col (h1 (X), h2 (X)), R3 R2 , such that the path C = {X :

V = col (u, v, w): velocity in I h1 (X) = h2 (X) = 0} is a Jordan curve in R3 and X h1 ,

= col (p, q, r): angular velocity in B. X h2 are linearly independent on C (i.e., zero is a regular

value of col (h1 , h2 )).

We now model the system dynamics neglecting gyroscopic

The enforcement of the path specification meets goal G1

effects and disturbances. Using Newtons equation, the trans-

in PFP. Next, we would like to define velocity and yaw

lational dynamics of the quadrotor system are given by,

specifications.

Definition 3.2: A velocity specification is a

X = V

X (1) smooth function X R defined as h3 () =

mV = Fext = mge3 u1 Re3 (X h1 X h2 ) / kX h1 X h2 k V (X) where

the smooth function (X) 6= 0 specifies the velocity along A. Investigation of vector relative degree conditions

C. Taking time derivatives of the four outputs in (3) along the

For each point X C and each velocity vector V R3 , the vector fields of the control system (1)-(2), one can check that

vector (X h1 X h2 ) / kX h1 X h2 k V represents the the control inputs first appear in d2 s1 /dt2 , d2 s2 /dt2 , ds3 /dt,

component of V tangent to the path C at X. Thus, h3 () and d2 s4 /dt2 suggesting that if vector relative degree were

expresses the requirement that when X C the component well-defined it would be given by {2, 2, 1, 2}. However, one

of the quadrotors velocity tangential to C be equal to a can check that the corresponding decoupling matrix D has

desired value given by (X). The magnitude of (X) is the form

the desired speed, and its sign indicates the desired direction 0 0 0

of travel along C (clockwise or counter-clockwise). Hence, 0 0 0

D= 0 0 0 ,

the enforcement of the velocity specification meets goal G2

in PFP. 0

Definition 3.3: A yaw specification is a smooth function so that D is always singular, implying that the vector relative

X R defined as h4 () = (X). degree {2, 2, 1, 2} is not well-defined anywhere. Interest-

In the above, the desired yaw angle at a point X along C ingly, the same problem arises when one wants to address

is given by (X). The enforcement of the yaw specification the tracking problem, a fact pointed out in [4], although in

meets goal G3 in PFP. this case the output function is completely different. Here,

Let s := col(s1 , . . . , s4 ) and define : X R3 as as in [4], we achieve a well-defined vector relative degree

(X, , V, ) = X. Defining the output function h : X through the technique of input dynamic extension [11].

R4 as Specifically, we add two integrators at the thrust input u1 ,

h1 (())

while leaving the remaining inputs unchanged. That is, we

h2 (()) let

s = h() := k h h k V (X) ,

X h 1 X h 2

(3)

X 1 X 2 u1 = , = u1 , u2 = u2 , u3 = u3 , u4 = u4 (4)

(X)

where u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 are the new control inputs. The quadro-

the objective of PFP can be restated as that of designing a tor model with dynamic compensation is given by equa-

feedback such that, for a suitable set of initial conditions, tions (1), (2),

and (4) with the augmented state vector defined

h((t)) 0 along solutions of the closed-loop system. In as = col X, , V, , , X := X R2 . The system

other words, we want the set = h1 (0) to be attractive for model can be represented in the control-affine form,

the closed-loop system. Attractivity alone, however, is not

desirable in path following applications because any slight = f () + g () u, y = h(),

perturbation of the quadrotor off of may result in system

with the definitions of f, g derived from equations (1),

behaviour where the quadrotor initially diverges significantly

(2), and (4). Letting : X X be the projection

from the path before converging back to it. Rather, we would

(X, , V, , , ) 7 (X, , V, ), the new output function

like to be asymptotically stable. This, however, is not

h : X R4 is simply given by

possible since is not controlled invariant, i.e., it cannot be

made invariant by any choice of feedback. To illustrate, if h() = h (), (5)

the system is initialized on but the velocity vector V (0) is

with h given in (3).

not tangent to C, the quadrotor will leave C, and hence , no

To solve PFP for the augmented system, we want to stabi-

matter what feedback we choose. In light of this observation,

lize the maximal controlled invariant subset of = h1 (0).

we will stabilize the maximal controlled invariant subset of

The following lemma outlines the conditions under which

which we call the path following manifold introduced

the vector relative degree is well-defined for the augmented

in [10]. The path following manifold is simply the zero

system.

dynamics manifold of system (1), (2) with output (3), and it

Lemma 4.1: The augmented quadrotor system given by

will be characterized in the next section.

equations (1), (2) and (4) with output (5) has a well-defined

IV. S OLUTION OF PFP vector relative degree {r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 } := {4, 4, 3, 2} at a point

= (X, (, , ), V, , , ) if and only if 6= 0 and 6=

The simplest way to stabilize the zero dynamics of a non- 2 .

linear control system is to use, when feasible, input-output Proof: The determinant of the decoupling matrix D of

feedback linearization [11]. In the context of PFP, in order to the augmented system is given by

apply this technique we need to find conditions under which

d3 2 ( h4 ) c

the output h() in (3) yields a well-defined vector relative det(D) = (X h1 X h2 ) V h3 .

degree. We begin by finding conditions under which a vector m3 I x I y I z c

relative degree is well-defined. Then, we design a controller It follows from the definitions of h1 , h2 , h3 that X h1 , X h2

based on input-output feedback linearization, and we prove and V h3 form a linearly independent set. This is because

that it solves PFP. X h1 and X h2 are linearly independent, kV h3 k = 1 6= 0,

and V h3 = (X h1 X h2 ) / kX h1 X h2 k is perpen- from which we have that || m (g K1 (K1 C + K2 )),

dicular to X h1 and X h2 . It follows from the definition of and thus for all K1 (K1 C + K2 ) < g, || > 0, implying

h4 that h4 = 1 6= 0. Therefore det(D) 6= 0 if and only if that property (i) above is satisfied. We also have that ||

6= 0 and 6= 2 . m (g + K1 (K1 C + K2 )). In other words, is bounded from

It follows that the system has well-defined vector relative above on . Using the fact that |w| = |g /m(c c )|

degree at any point where the conditions 6= 0 and 6= kV k K1 (K1 C + K2 ), we have

2 are satisfied because the decoupling matrix D has full g K1 (K1 C + K2 ) g K1 (K1 C + K2 )

rank and Lgj Lkfhi = 0 for i, j {1, . . . , 4}, k {0, . . . , ri |c c | = .

max m g + K1 (K1 C + K2 )

2}.

Note also that, in addition to the conditions of the lemma It thus follows that if K1 (K1 C + K2 ) < g, |c c | > 0, and

above, we must impose 6= 2 as this presents a singularity thus and are bounded away from 2 on , implying

in the model inherited by the singularity in the Euler angle

representation. Consider the set given by p property (ii) above holds. In conclusion, setting K =

that

g/(1 + C), for all K (0, K ) the augmented quadrotor

= { : Ljfhi = 0, j = 0, . . . , ri 1, i = 1, . . . , 4}, (6) system has a well-defined vector relative degree on .

Proposition 4.2 states that if the velocity specification is

where {r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 } := {4, 4, 3, 2}. If the augmented chosen so that the desired tangential velocity (X) and

quadrotor system has a well-defined vector relative degree dX (X) have a sufficiently small upper bound K, then

{4, 4, 3, 2} at each point , then it follows that the augmented quadrotor system has a well-defined vector

is the maximal controlled invariant subset of , which is relative degree on , and therefore this set is the path

precisely the set we wish to stabilize. In light of Lemma 4.1, following manifold we wish to stabilize to solve PFP. The

in order to have a well-defined vector relative degree on path following manifold is one-dimensional since n (r1 +

we need to determine whether, on , 6= 0, 6= /2, r2 + r3 + r4 ) = 14 (4 + 4 + 3 + 2) = 1 where n = 14 is

and 6= /2. This is the subject of the next proposition. the number of states for the augmented system.

Proposition 4.2: For the augmented quadrotor system Remark 4.3: Recall the function V = (X)(X) in (7)

given by equations (1), (2), and (4), with output (5), there which expresses the velocity of the quadrotor in terms of

exists K > 0 such that for all K (0, K ), if the velocity its displacement X when , and its time derivative

specification is chosen so that max XC |(X)| K and V = dX 2 + dX (). If one computes K1 (K1 C +

max XC kdX (X)k K the system has a well-defined K2 ) := maxXC kV k, then the proof of Proposition 4.2

vector relative degree {r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 } = {4, 4, 3, 2} on . provides the upper bounds K1 and K2 satisfying K1 (K1 C +

Proof: Let K1 = maxXC |(X)| and K2 = K2 ) < g. Since C is a closed curve, the computation of

maxXC kdX (X)k. The constants K1 and K2 exist and C, and hence of K1 and K2 , can be easily carried out

are finite because is smooth and C is compact. From numerically.

Lemma 4.1, the system has well-defined vector relative

degree and no Euler angle singularities are encountered on B. Controller Design

if and only if, From now on we will assume that the velocity speci-

(i) is bounded away from 0 on . fication has been chosen so that maxXC |(X)| < K

(ii) , are bounded away from 2 on . and maxXC kdX (X)k < K . The design of an input-

By definition, on we have h1 () = h2 () = 0 output feedback

h linearization controller

iT is standard. Let

r1 r4

and Lfh1 () = Lfh2 () = 0 or, recalling that = b() := Lf h1 () . . . Lf h4 () and define the feed-

(X, , V, , , ), h1 (X) = h2 (X) = 0 and X h1 (X) V = back transformation

X h2 (X)V = 0. The latter two identities imply that, on ,

u = D1 () (b() + v) , (8)

V is orthogonal to the vectors X h1 (X) and X h2 (X). We

also have h3 () = 0, or (X h1 X h2 )/ kX h1 X h2 k where v = col (v1 , . . . , v4 ) is the new control input,

V = (X). Since V is orthogonal to both X h1 and X h2 , and where D() is the decoupling matrix with entries

the above identity implies that on , Dij = Lgj Lrfi 1 hi , i, j {1, . . . , 4}. Let i =

h iT

X h1 X h2 hi () . . . Lrfi 1 hi () , i = 1, . . . , 4, and choose vi

V = (X)(X), (X) := . (7)

kX h1 X h2 k as

In particular, V = + = dX 2 + dX ()

vi = kri 1 ri i k0 1i , i = 1, . . . , 4 (9)

where kk 1 and therefore, kV k kdX kK12 + K1 K2 . such that sr + kri 1 sri 1 + + k0 has roots in the open

Since dX is continuous and X C, a compact set, it left-half plane. The resulting control system is illustrated in

follows that, on , kV k K1 (K1 C+K2 ), for some C > 0. Figure 2. Now the problem is whether the controller just

On we have designed indeed stabilizes the path following manifold .

In view of the fact that

1

0 m (c c s + s s )

0 + 1 (c s s + c s ) K1 (K1 C+K2 )

kV k = m i 0 Iri 1 i 0ri 11

= + vi , (10)

1 (c c )

g 01ri1 0 1

m

linearly independent from h1 and h2 or, what is the

same, if {X h1 , X h2 , X } is a linearly independent set,

where X = (). That this is indeed the case on

follows from the fact that is the displacement along C and

Fig. 2: Control system block diagram. hence, X is tangent to C and perpendicular to X h1 and

X h2 . To show (ii) consider the restriction of to , | =

col(0, . . . , 0, | ). The map | is smooth and surjective

The input-output linearizing feedback guarantees that solu- because it is the composition of four smooth surjective maps,

tions of the closed-loop system originating in a neighbour- : X X , : X R3 , p : R3 C, and : C

hood of are such that i ((t)) 0, i = 1, . . . , 4, S 1 . Therefore | is also smooth and surjective. Since :

provided that there are no finite escape times. Besides having C S 1 is a diffeomorphism, proving injectivity of | is

to show that the closed-loop system has no finite escape equivalent to proving injectivity of (p )| : C.

times in a neighbourhood of , there is another issue that Thus, we must show that given a point X C, we can

requires some analysis. Although = { : i () = 0, i = construct uniquely such that p () = X. Since

1, . . . , 4}, the fact that i ((t)) 0, i = 1, . . . , 4, does not on we have hi () = 0, i = 1, . . . , 4, given a point X C

imply, in general, that (t) . To illustrate, consider the we know that V = (X)(X), where was defined in (7),

function () = /(1 + 2 ), and suppose that (t) = t. and = (X). Moreover, V = dX 2 + dX ().

Then, () 0 but (t) does not tend to { : () = 0}. From the identity

In order to address the two issues described above we

define a diffeomorphism valid in a neighbourhood of u /m(c c s + s s )

which maps the system into a standard normal form. In order V = v = /m(c s s s c ) ,

to do that, we need some preliminary definitions. w g /m(c c )

Let L denote the length of the curve C, and denote by S 1

the set of real numbers modulo L (this set is diffeomorphic letting a(X) = m V col(0, 0, g) , we can ex-

to the unit circle). Fix a point o on C, and define the map press , , as smooth functions of X with =

: C S 1 as X 7 , where is the arc length of the ka(X)k, = sin1 (s a1 (X) c a2 (X)) and =

portion of C from o to X found moving in the counter- sin1 (c a1 (X) + s a2 (X)/c ) where > 0, 2 ,

clockwise direction. Since C is a Jordan curve, the function 2 hold from Proposition 4.2. Hence, , , are specified

is a diffeomorphism C S 1 . Let p(X) be the function through smooth functions of X. Also, = dX V =

mapping a point X R3 to the closest point on C. Note dX (X)(X). Finally, we observe the relationship between

that p|C is the identity map. On some neighbourhood U of C and given by,

the function p : U C is well-defined and smooth. Finally,

0 s se c se

recall the definition of and = 0 c s = Y

X

X

X R3 1 s t c t

construction, is a smooth function in a neighbourhood of smooth function of X because Y 1 , , and are smooth

{h1 () = h2 () = 0}, and hence in a neighbourhood of . functions of X, proving that | is injective and its inverse

Now define the coordinate transformation is smooth.

iT iT The important feature of Lemma 4.4 is the fact that the map

.. ..

h h

. = ( ) := 1 4

() . . . () . () (11) is proved to be a diffeomorphism in a neighbourhood of

the entire set , rather than just in a neighbourhood of a

Lemma 4.4: Under the conditions of Proposition 4.2, the

point. We now present the main result of this paper.

function () : X R13 S 1 is a diffeomorphism of a

Theorem 4.5: For the augmented quadrotor system given

neighbourhood of onto its image, and is diffeomorphic

by equations (1), (2), and (4), with output (5), and with

to S 1 .

the feedback (8)-(9) there exists K > 0 such that for all

Proof: According to the generalized inverse function

K (0, K ), if the velocity specification is chosen so that

theorem in [12], we must show that,

max XC |(X)| K and max XC kdX (X)k K the

(i) for all , d is an isomorphism path following manifold in (6) is exponentially stable

(ii) | : S 1 is a diffeomorphism. for the closed loop system, and hence PFP is solved in a

For each , d has determinant, neighbourhood of .

4 ( h4 )2 c2 3 Proof: By Proposition 4.2, the feedback (8)-(9) is

det(d ) = 6

h1 h2 h3 well-defined in a neighbourhood of . By Lemma 4.4 the

m c function () : X R13 S 1 is a diffeomorphism of a

h1 h2 .

neighbourhood of onto its image, and is diffeomorphic

Under the conditions of proposition 4.2, 6= 0 and , 6= to S 1 , and hence compact. In (, ) coordinates, the set

2 on . Therefore, det(d ) 6= 0 if and only if is is given by ( ) = {(, ) : = 0}. The subsystem

20

speed (m/s)

speed (m/s)

22 4 22

21 21

z

10

z

2

20 20

10 10 10

0 10 0 0 0

0 0

y 10 10 x 0 20 40 60 y10 10 x 0 5 10 15

time (s) pitch time (s)

angle (degrees)

300 50

angle (degrees)

Thrust (zeta)

Thrust (zeta)

roll 200 yaw

50 yaw 100

20

0

0

18 100 0

0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

time (s) time (s) time (s) time (s)

Fig. 3: Case 1: simulation results for = 3. Fig. 4: Case 2: simulation results for = 15.

in (10) is LTI and the feedback (8)-(9) makes it exponentially VI. C ONCLUSIONS

stable. Thus, for all (0) near or, what is the same, for We have presented a basic path following controller which

all (0) near 0, (t) 0 exponentially as long as there relies on input dynamic extension and feedback lineariza-

are no finite escape times. There cannot be finite escape tion to solve the path following problem for a quadrotor

times because (t) is bounded and (t) S 1 , a compact helicopter. Our controller allows the designer to specify a

set. Hence, ( ) is exponentially stable, which implies that speed profile on the path and the yaw angle of the quadrotor

is exponentially stable as well. as a function of its displacement along the path. In future

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS research we will investigate the solution of the same problem

without employing input dynamic extension, and we will

In this section, simulation results are presented for the address issues of robustness against unmodelled effects such

quadrotor specified to travel at a constant speed along a as aerodynamic drag forces and parametric uncertainties.

circular path of radius r parallel to the x y plane, at

a height of z = 20m and yaw angle of 0 . That is, the R EFERENCES

specifications p are given by h1p= x2 + y 2 r2 , h2 = z 20, [1] G. V. Raffo, M. Ortega, and F. Rubio, An integral predici-

2 2

h3 = uy/ (x + y ) vx/ (x2 + y 2 ) and h4 = . tive/nonlinear H control structure for a quadrotor helicopter, Au-

tomatica, vol. 46, pp. 2939, 2010.

The initial conditions are taken as = mg, = 0, (x, y, z) = [2] A. Das, F. Lewis, and K. Subbarao, Backstepping approach for

(0, 10, 20)m, (u, v, w) = (1, 0, 0)m/s and (, , ) = controlling a quadrotor using lagrange form dynamics, Journal of

( 8 , 8 , 2 )rad. The parameters are chosen as in [4] to be m = Intelligent Robot Systems, vol. 56, pp. 127151, 2009.

[3] P. Castillo, R. Lozano, and A. Dzul, Stabilization of a mini rotorcraft

2Kg, Ix , Iy , Iz = 1.2416N m/rad/s2 , d = 0.1m and g = with four rotors, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, pp. 4555, 2005.

9.81m/s2 . On , theprelationship V = (X)(X) in (7) [4] A. Mokhtari, A. Benallegue, and Y. Orlov, Exact linearization and

T

is given by V = / x2 + y 2 y x 0 . Therefore sliding mode observer for a quadrotor unmanned arial vehicle,

T International Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. 21, no. 1, pp.

V = 2 /(x2 + y 2 ) x y 0

and maxC kV k = 3949, 2006.

2 /r, which corresponds to the centripetal acceleration of [5] N. Michael, D. Mellinger, Q. Lindsey, and V. Kumar, The grasp mul-

tiple micro-UAV testbed, IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine,

the quadrotor moving around a circle at constant speed ||. vol. 17, pp. 5665, 2010.

Following Remark 4.3, we must choose so that 2 /r < g, [6] G. Hoffmann, H. Huang, S. Waslander, and C. Tomlin, Precision

or || < rg. Taking r = 10m, we must pick || < 9.9. flight control for a multi-vehicle quadrotor helicopter testbed, Control

Engineering Practice, vol. 19, pp. 10231036, 2011.

Two simulation cases are considered where the quadrotor [7] A. Tayebi and S. McGilvray, Attitude stabilization of a VTOL

travels around the path with a constant speed of = 3m/s quadrotor aircraft, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,

and = 15m/s respectively. Therefore, the first case meets vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 562566, 2006.

[8] D. Mellinger, N. Michael, and V. Kumar, Trajectory generation and

the conditions above but the second does not. control for precise aggressive maneuvers with quadrotors, in Pro-

Figures 3 and 4 show simulation results for case 1 and ceedings of the International Symposium on Experimental Robotics,

case 2 respectively. In both cases, the quadrotor successfully 2010.

[9] S. Lupashin, A. Schollig, M. Sherback, and R. DAndrea, A simple

converges to the path C. Also, the velocity and yaw angle learning strategy for high-speed quadrocopter multi-flips, in Proceed-

converge to the desired values. One difference between the ings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and

two cases are the roll and pitch angles. In the first case, Automation, May 3-8 2010, pp. 16421648.

[10] C. Nielsen, Set stabilization using transverse feedback linearization,

the two angles have a maximum magnitude of 5.25 while Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 2009.

for the second, the maximum magnitude is 66.45 . Another [11] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, 3rd ed. Springer Verlag, 1995.

difference is an increased thrust input for the second case. In [12] V. Guillemin and A. Pollack, Differential topology. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall, 1974.

neither case does the quadrotor hit a point where , = /2

or = 0 and therefore, the controller is well-defined for the

specific initial conditions we have considered. Note, however,

that in case 2 there is no guarantee that for any initial

condition near the solution does not cause singularities

in the controller.

- physicsinprogrammingEnviado porapi-243328714
- Quad With Tilt RotorEnviado porSri Sai
- Maths Assigment 2003 NewEnviado porRyan Yee
- units.pdfEnviado porMike Alex
- Lifting Ell_q-optimization ThresholdsEnviado porcrocoali000
- PhyEnviado porJaimin Senta
- FS03N_0Enviado porJoãoMiguelLacRoehe
- Himmelstein Torque SensorEnviado porsatheez3251
- Maths AssigmentEnviado porRyan Yee
- 1st Year Physics m.c.q Sindh BoardEnviado porMudasir Soomro
- Rotational Motion.docEnviado porGaviola 018
- InertiaDynamics ACMotor RearMt SpecsheetEnviado porElectromate
- formulaEnviado poralageshvijay
- Step Shaft Design - FinalEnviado porNanda Afrilyan
- 3Enviado porWaqar Ali Shah
- FWLec1Enviado porbstrong1218
- quiz_2Enviado porKevin Chen
- Singularity Parallel ScaraEnviado porRickieBaade
- PH212 Reading Ch12Enviado porBilly
- hp vs tourqueEnviado porshivrajmal
- disk_engEnviado porLeonardo Candito
- VectorEnviado porLouisiana Sollestre
- Intersection Line Circle 2Enviado pormadajisa
- ENGG1400_Tutorial1_2016Enviado porLala Quarky
- Torsion of Circular ShaftsEnviado pormatteo_1234
- Fisdas Pert 4Enviado porRidwan Marup
- Simulink - Simon AMBOISEEnviado porSimon Amboise
- OFITE EP Lubricity Tester 112-00Enviado porHenry
- 181828435449E5EAC7794E9.pdfEnviado portornoman
- Physics for You 10 2016Enviado porPhan Hồ Nghĩa

- Quad CoptersEnviado porcrennydane
- Controlo e Simulação de um Quadrirotor Convencional.pdfEnviado porflausen
- PROGRAMA FCTCAPES – 2009 RAC - Robótica Autônoma Cooperativa Modelos, Algoritmos e Aplicações.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Estudo e Aplicação de Técnicas de Controle Embarcadas Para Estabilização de Vôo de QuadricópterosEnviado porflausen
- Projeto e Controle de um UAV Quadrirotor (2).pdfEnviado porflausen
- Projeto e Controle de um UAV Quadrirotor (2).pdfEnviado porflausen
- mongkhun_qetkeaw_1Enviado portensazangetsubleach
- BOOK11.psEnviado porflausen
- Sintonia Automática dos Parâmetros de um Controlador para um Quadrirrotor de Modelo Desconhecido em Vôo Pairado.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Sintonia Automática dos Parâmetros de um Controlador para um Quadrirrotor de Modelo Desconhecido em Vôo Pairado.pdfEnviado porflausen
- VOO AUTÔNOMO E ESTABILIZAÇÃO DE CÂMERA EM UM VEÍCULO AÉREO NÃO-TRIPULADO TIPO QUADRIRROTOR.pdfEnviado porflausen
- QUADCOPTEREnviado porAvirup Sarkar
- Quadcopter Dynamics, Simulation, And ControlEnviado porFajar Prima
- UnB desenvolve helicóptero de 4 hélices.pdfEnviado porflausen
- The Matlab Ode SuiteEnviado porflausen
- Quadcopter Full ControlEnviado porSandeepsrivatsa
- Estudo Do Potencial de Um Veículo Aéreo Não Tripulado (Quadrirotor) Como Plataforma Na Obtenção de Dados CadastraisEnviado porflausen
- MODELAGEM E IDENTIFICAÇÃO DE UM VEÍCULO AÉREO NÃO TRIPULADO DO TIPO QUADRIRROTOR.pdfEnviado porflausen
- CONCEPÇÃO DE UM VEÍCULO AÉREO NÃO-TRIPULADO DO TIPO QUADRIRROTOREnviado porPhilippeLippe
- Desenvolvimento de um controlador fuzzy para quadrotores.pdfEnviado porflausen
- ANÁLISE DE REQUISITOS DE HARDWARE EM PROJETO DE UAV QUADROTOR.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Desenvolvimento de Um Veículo Aéro Quadrirotor Com Sistema de Estabilização Baseado No Filtro de KalmanEnviado porflausen
- PLANO PARA MONTAGEM DE PROTÓTIPO DE UM VEÍCULO AÉREO NÃO TRIPULADO.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Design and Control of a Miniature Quadrotor.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Construção, Modelagem Dinâmica e Controle Pid Para Estabilidade de Um Veículo Aéreo Não Tripulado Do Tipo QuadrirotorEnviado porflausen
- Design and Control of an Autonomous Variable-Pitch Quadrotor HelicopterEnviado porflausen
- Nonlinear Vibrations of Paramertically Excited Complex Mechanical Systems.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Modelo Matemático e Controle de um Robô Móvel.pdfEnviado porflausen
- Linear and Nonlinear Control of Small-Scale Unmanned Helicopters.pdfEnviado porflausen

- DNVGL-RP-0005_2014-06Enviado porvietnampetrochemical
- 459Enviado porchiduk
- Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads.pdfEnviado porAnonymous atZc0NC
- FTFS Chap23 P054Enviado porAbdulAbdul
- motion quick checkEnviado porapi-261954479
- HMT R08 Nov Dec 2011Enviado porbalakalees
- Fluid Lecture W4Enviado porAmirul Fadlin
- 582-2016-2Enviado porDaviddeMiguel
- TATA Blue BookEnviado pormrswcecivil
- L05_EMwaves-v9Enviado porBita Moghaddam
- Pace_EM08.pdfEnviado poralice boa
- Online Engineering Mechanics Test - Engineering Mechanics Test - RandomEnviado porडॉ. कनिष्क शर्मा
- steel DesignEnviado porMohammad Tawfiq Wara
- Cap 13Enviado porLuis Alberto Cortes Guillen
- Необходимость Учета Плато Людерса в Расчетах Трубопровода На Тектонических РазломахEnviado porPGP
- 12212086 Thesis 1 15 September 2016 FinalEnviado porAndreas Ansen Vitalis
- Statics of Robotic Systems - Ch. 12Enviado porClearMind84
- BallisticsEnviado porAttique Muzaffar
- hw4_EM1_2018Enviado por卓宇
- Phy10l b2 e104Enviado porJeff Cruz
- Process Control Formula SheetEnviado porJohn Gawalt
- 2011-11-09 Diana and AtenaEnviado porrelu
- TurbulenceEnviado porAzharuddin_kfupm
- 23 - Electromagnetic InductionEnviado porKamran Khursheed
- CFD Parametric Investigation for Two Phase Flow of Refrigerant 134a In an Adiabatic Capillary tubeEnviado porInfogain publication
- Wing MorphingEnviado porganesh
- Magnetism Fr AnswersEnviado porKairel Edwards
- Chapter 1Enviado porWan Hafiza
- as6Enviado porTrip Adler
- Oil Whirl and Whip Instabilities - Within Journal BearingsEnviado porChristopher Garcia