A unified approach to configuration-based dynamic analysis of quadcopters for optimal stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A special type of rotary-wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), called Quadcopter have prevailed to the civilian use for the past decade. They have gained significant amount of attention within the UAV community for their redundancy and ease of control, despite the fact that they fall under an under-actuated system category. They come in a variety of configurations. The “+” and “x” configurations were introduced first. Literature pertinent to these two configurations is vast. However, in this paper, we define 6 additional possible configurations for a Quadcopter that can be built under either “+” or “x” setup. These configurations can be achieved by changing the angle that the axis of rotation for rotors make with the main body, i.e., fuselage. This would also change the location of the COM with respect to the propellers which can add to the overall stability. A comprehensive dynamic model for all these configurations is developed for the first time. The overall stability for these configurations are addressed. In particular, it is shown that one configuration can lead to the most statically-stable platform by adopting damping motion in Roll/Pitch/Yaw, which is described for the first time to the best of our knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".