Adaptive Control of the Quanser

3DOF Hover
Yves Georgy Daoud, Ramzi Haddad, Elias Khalife

EECE665/MECH654 American University of Beirut Dr. Naseem Daher

 Outline
• Introduction & Literature Review
• Dynamic Modelling
• Control Design
• Proportional Controller
• Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator
• MRAC Full State Feedback
• MRAC Output Feedback
• MRAC with Disturbance Rejection
• Simulation Results
• Proportional Controller
• Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator
• MRAC Full State Feedback
• MRAC Output Feedback
• MRAC with Disturbance Rejection
• Conclusions
#2
 Introduction & Literature Review
3

! 9

1
7

8 2

Elias - #3
 Dynamic Modelling

Euler Equation:

where

Ramzi - #4
 Dynamic Modelling

Choosing the moment of inertia matrix to be:

The following three equations are obtained:

System is linearized around the equilibrium point:

Ramzi - #5
 Dynamic Modelling

Choosing the states, inputs, and disturbances to be:

The system can be represented in state space as follows:

Ramzi - #6
 Controller Design – Proportional Controller

CL poles for each decoupled subsystem are chosen based on

20% overshoot and settling time of 1s.

The gains for each subsystem are concatenated to produce system gain

Ramzi - #7
 Controller Design – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator

Discretized Process/Plant:

Desired Process using and :

2DOF Controller:

Elias - #8
 Controller Design – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator

Diophantine Equation:

Elias - #9
 Controller Design – Indirect Self-Tuning Regulator

Diophantine Equation to find :

Controller Polynomial are:

Elias - #10
 Controller Design – MRAC Full State Feedback
System Reference

Control Law

Error Dynamics

Lyapunov Function

Barbalat’s Lemma Adaptation Law

Yves - #11
 Controller Design – MRAC Output Feedback
System Reference

Control Law

Diophantine Equation

Yves - #12
 Controller Design – MRAC Output Feedback

Filtered Error Error Augmentation

Control Input Augmented Error

Adaptation Laws

Yves - #13
Controller Design – MRAC with Disturbance Rejection

Estimated Disturbance

Updated Control Input

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

Controller Initialization for 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

Controller Initialization for 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

Controller Initialization for 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 disturbance estimate and its actual

value for the Pitch with MRAC Disturbance Rejection.

Fig. 2. Plot showing the disturbance estimate and its actual

value for the Yaw with MRAC Disturbance Rejection.
Yves - #25
 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

Comparison of performance between the proposed controllers

Elias - #27