MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392367289 · doi:10.32920/25336339

Analysis of the Dynamics and Control of a Morphing Quadrotor

2024· preprint· en· W4392367289 on OpenAlexaff
Jann Cristobal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingControl theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)Moment of inertiaLinear-quadratic regulatorInertiaPosition (finance)Rotor (electric)ThrustComputer scienceMoment (physics)Variable (mathematics)Stability (learning theory)MathematicsEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsMathematical analysisAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This paper will model a morphing quadrotor that is based on the works of Falanga etal [1]. It starts with the dynamics of a fixed geometry quadrotors. Getting a good understanding of the equations of motion for the system can help determine how each of the parameters can affect the system response. The use of multiple frames allows for simplification of the equation. This mixed frame approach and the use of rotation matrices significantly make the problem easier to solve. After learning about how each of the parameters affect the system, the inclusion of variable geometry means that the moment of inertia, the attitude controller gains, and the actuator controller methods require modifications. Using point masses to represent the major components of the quadrotor, estimation for the changing Moment of Inertia as a function of the morphing angle βk is calculated. Using Linear Quadratic Regulator, an adaptive attitude control allows for the changing gains to be possible mid-flight for better stability. Using the position vectors of the rotors with respect to the center of mass, the mapping for controller input, [T, Mφ, Mθ, Mψ]T, and rotor speed are determined. When comparing the simulation results with Falanga etal [1], the response follow a similar trend. Overall, the simulation response is adequate in showing the system behaviour when changing geometry mid-flight. Analysis in the variable thrust coefficient can get the simulation closer to the experimental results.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdaptive Control of Nonlinear SystemsFrench-language works237,207