1 / 22

Visual servoing using 2-dof helicopter

Maryam Alizadeh April 27 th 2011. Visual servoing using 2-dof helicopter. Contents:. Quick Review Proportional Controller Results Proportional + Derivative Controller Conclusion Future Works. Quick Review. Considered Parameters. Initial position of ball Camera location

constance-wilkerson
Download Presentation

Visual servoing using 2-dof helicopter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MaryamAlizadeh April 27th 2011 Visual servoing using 2-dof helicopter

  2. Contents: • Quick Review • Proportional Controller Results • Proportional + Derivative Controller • Conclusion • Future Works

  3. Quick Review

  4. Considered Parameters • Initial position of ball • Camera location • Sampling rate of camera • ECG

  5. This system is considered as a second-order system • By finding poles of this system, that system would be a known system and its response todifferent situations can be predictable. • The following plots show pole trajectory by changing one the considered parameters (Sampling rate of Camera and ECG)

  6. Pole Trajectory by changing sampling rate of camera

  7. Pole Trajectory by changing ECG

  8. Comparison between Pole Trajectory by changing sampling rate of camera & ECG

  9. Proportional Controller (Kp) Plant ECG performs as Proportional controller gain

  10. Proportional + Derivative Controller

  11. Derivative Controller (Kd) Proportional Controller (Kp) Plant PD controller

  12. Kd=0.05 Kd=0.01 Kd=0.1 Kd=0.1 Kd=0.01 Kd=0.05 Pole trajectory by changing Kd in Yaw controller, ECG=0.1

  13. Kd=0.01 Kd=0.05 Kd=0.1 Kd=0.1 Kd=0.05 Kd=0.01 Pole trajectory by changing Kd in Pitch controller, ECG=0.1

  14. These two trajectories show that there is an optimum value for kd(≈0.05). • With this proportional controller gain, controller is more stable. • By increasing the gain, the system is going toward unstability. • Next figures show how unstable the system is for kd=0.12

  15. Ball trajectory in Y direction(pitch), Kd=0.12 Ball trajectory in X direction(Yaw), Kd=0.12

  16. Comparison between P & PD controllers: • In next step, Kd is chosen equals to 0.05 and ECG is changed. • The purpose is finding the effect of adding a derivative controller to the system

  17. ECG=0.01 ECG=0.1 ECG=0.1 ECG=0.1 ECG=0.1 ECG=0.1 Comparison between pole trajectories in P & PD controller by changing ECG , Kd=0.05

  18. Conclusion: • Above plot illustrates the effect of adding a derivative controller to our system. • As it is expected , PD controller’s poles are further away from imaginary axis .It confirms that PD controller is more stable than a proportional controller in the same situations.

  19. Future Work • Changing ECG & Kd in a wider range to collect more information about system behaviour in different situations. • Applying a more systematic approach instead of ECG in order to define a trajectory and precisely track that.

  20. ?

More Related