Modeling and Control of a Quadcopter Flying in a Wind Field: A Comparison Between LQR and Structured ℋ<sub>∞</sub> Control Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the stationary flight control problem of an Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (UAV) flying in a wind field. The main objective is to develop a robust control law to stabilize the drone flying under real-life outdoor conditions while maintaining adequate flight performances. To do so, a generic nonlinear dynamic model of the quadcopter is firstly developed; this model is then completed with the modeling of the wind disturbances, which allows the simulation of the proposed control algorithms. Two approaches for the synthesis of the control laws are compared: the first one uses Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) synthesis and the second one uses structured H <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">∞</sub> synthesis. Simulations are conducted to evaluate the performances of both control laws when subjected to a nominal wind step input varying from 0 to 14 m/s. This particular input choice makes it possible to analyze the performance of the controllers in both transient (wind gust) and steady states (sustained wind). The results show that better performances are obtained with the structured H <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">∞</sub> synthesis using the robust control theory than with the LQR synthesis using the optimal control theory. Furthermore, it is shown that the simplicity of use of the Robust Control Toolbox of MATLAB favors the usage of more complex control architectures without impacting the workload of the control engineer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it