Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Alignment of quadcopter reference frames, showing the alignment between body and inertial frames.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Controller architecture for quadrotor, including position, altitude, and virtual control input designs.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Diagram of position controller for maintaining quadrotor trajectory along x, y, and z axes.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Altitude controller diagram for maintaining desired quadrotor altitude.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Flowchart of PSO algorithm used for tuning quadrotor sliding surface parameters.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 1.

Plant parameter [40].

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Design parameter for ASTSMC.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Design parameter of adaptation law.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Design parameter for PSO SMC.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison of roll angle tracking performance between the proposed controller and other controllers.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Pitch angle tracking performance, highlighting the tracking response of the proposed controller compared to other controllers.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Yaw angle tracking performance comparison, showing similar tracking performance.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Altitude tracking performance: The proposed adaptive controller shows minimal deviation.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 5.

ITAE table for tracking performance for t = 15 seconds.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 10.

Roll angle performance under disturbances, demonstrating the high disturbance rejection of the proposed controller.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Pitch angle performance, highlighting high disturbance rejection and minimal steady state error of proposed controller.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Yaw angle performance under disturbances, highlighting the minimal oscillation of the proposed controller.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Altitude performance under disturbances, showcasing the high disturbance rejection of the proposed controller.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Control effort U1 for altitude control, demonstrating efficient use of control inputs.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Control effort U2 for roll motion control, showing minimal and smooth control by the proposed controller.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Control effort U3 for pitch control, showing minimal and smooth effort by the proposed controller.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Control effort U4 for yaw control, highlighting minimal effort by the proposed controller.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Table 6.

Results of control performance.

More »

Table 6 Expand