Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ee Ce 665 Presentation
Ee Ce 665 Presentation
Ee Ce 665 Presentation
3DOF Hover
Yves Georgy Daoud, Ramzi Haddad, Elias Khalife
! 9
1
7
8 2
Elias - #3
Dynamic Modelling
Euler Equation:
where
Ramzi - #4
Dynamic Modelling
Ramzi - #5
Dynamic Modelling
Ramzi - #6
Controller Design – Proportional Controller
The gains for each subsystem are concatenated to produce system gain
Ramzi - #7
Controller Design – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator
Discretized Process/Plant:
2DOF Controller:
Elias - #8
Controller Design – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator
Diophantine Equation:
Elias - #9
Controller Design – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator
Elias - #10
Controller Design – MRAC Full State Feedback
System Reference
Control Law
Error Dynamics
Lyapunov Function
Yves - #11
Controller Design – MRAC Output Feedback
System Reference
Control Law
Diophantine Equation
Yves - #12
Controller Design – MRAC Output Feedback
Adaptation Laws
Yves - #13
Controller Design – MRAC with Disturbance Rejection
Estimated Disturbance
Yves - #14
Simulation Results – Proportional Controller
Fig. 1. Plot showing the reference command input uc, and the Fig. 3. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
actual output y for the Pitch/ Roll with Proportional Controller values for the Pitch/ Roll with Proportional Controller
Fig. 2. Plot showing the reference command input uc, and the Fig. 4. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
actual output y for the Yaw with Proportional Controller values for the Yaw with Proportional Controller
Elias - #15
Simulation Results – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator
Fig. 1. Plot showing the reference command input uc, and the Fig. 3. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
actual output y for the Pitch/ Roll with ISTR. values for the Pitch/ Roll with ISTR.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the reference command input uc, and the Fig. 4. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
actual output y for the Yaw with ISTR. values for the Yaw with ISTR.
Ramzi - #16
Simulation Results – MRAC Full State Feedback
Yves - #17
Simulation Results – MRAC Full State Feedback
Fig. 1. Plot showing the reference command input uc, the Fig. 3. Plot showing the output tracking error e=y-ym for the
reference output ym, and the actual output y for the Pitch with Pitch with MRAC Full State Feedback.
MRAC Full State Feedback.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the reference command input uc, the Fig. 4. Plot showing the output tracking error e=y-ym for the
reference output ym, and the actual output y for the Yaw with Yaw with MRAC Full State Feedback.
MRAC Full State Feedback. Yves - #18
Simulation Results – MRAC Full State Feedback
Fig. 1. Plot showing the control input u for the Pitch with MRAC Fig. 3. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
Full State Feedback. values for the Pitch with MRAC Full State Feedback.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the control input u for the Yaw with MRAC Fig. 4. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
Full State Feedback. values for the Yaw with MRAC Full State Feedback.
Yves - #19
Simulation Results – MRAC Output Feedback
Yves - #20
Simulation Results – MRAC Output Feedback
Fig. 1. Plot showing the reference command input uc, the Fig. 3. Plot showing the output tracking error e=y-ym for the
reference output ym, and the actual output y for the Pitch with Pitch with MRAC Output Feedback.
MRAC Output Feedback.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the reference command input uc, the Fig. 4. Plot showing the output tracking error e=y-ym for the
reference output ym, and the actual output y for the Yaw with Yaw with MRAC Output Feedback.
MRAC Output Feedback. Yves - #21
Simulation Results – MRAC Output Feedback
Fig. 1. Plot showing the control input u for the Pitch with MRAC Fig. 3. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
Output Feedback. values for the Pitch with MRAC Output Feedback.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the control input u for the Yaw with MRAC Fig. 4. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
Output Feedback. values for the Yaw with MRAC Output Feedback.
Yves - #22
Simulation Results – MRAC with Disturbance Rejection
Yves - #23
Simulation Results – MRAC with Disturbance Rejection
Fig. 1. Plot showing the reference command input uc, the Fig. 3. Plot showing the output tracking error e=y-ym for the
reference output ym, and the actual output y for the Pitch with Pitch with MRAC Disturbance Rejection.
MRAC Disturbance Rejection.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the reference command input uc, the Fig. 4. Plot showing the output tracking error e=y-ym for the
reference output ym, and the actual output y for the Yaw with Yaw with MRAC Disturbance Rejection.
MRAC Disturbance Rejection. Yves - #24
Simulation Results – MRAC with Disturbance Rejection
Fig. 1. Plot showing the control input u for the Pitch with MRAC Fig. 3. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
Disturbance Rejection. values for the Pitch with MRAC Disturbance Rejection.
Fig. 2. Plot showing the control input u for the Yaw with MRAC Fig. 4. Plot showing the parameter estimates and their actual
Disturbance Rejection. values for the Yaw with MRAC Disturbance Rejection.
Yves - #26
Conclusions
Controller Performance
Proportional • Overshoot
• Oscillating error ±20°
Indirect STR • Signal tracking
• No parameter convergence
MRAC Full State and Output • Reference model tracking
Feedback • 𝑒 𝑡 → 0 𝑎𝑠 𝑡 → ∞
• 𝑢(𝑡) PE ⇒ parameter convergence
MRAC Disturbance Rejection • Reference model tracking
• Disturbance estimation
• Disturbance rejection in ≤ 4𝑠
Elias - #27