Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

Arts et humanités
Business
Informatique
Science des données
Technologies de l'information
santé
Mathématiques et logique
Développement personnel
Sciences physiques et ingénierie
Sciences sociales
Apprentissage des langues
Diplômes
Certificats

Explorez l'intégralité de Coursera

Parcourir
Rechercher
For Enterprise
Connexion
Inscrivez-vous gratuitement

Motion Planning for Quadrotors

Loading...

Robotics: Aerial Robotics

Université de Pennsylvanie

4.5 (2,037 notes) | 80K étudiants inscrits

Cours 1 de 6 dans Robotique Spécialisation

How can we create agile micro aerial vehicles that are able to operate autonomously in cluttered indoor and outdoor environments? You will gain an introduction to the mechanics of flight and the design of quadrotor flying robots and will be able to develop dynamic models, derive controllers, and synthesize planners for operating in three dimensional environments. You will be exposed to the challenges of using noisy sensors for localization and maneuvering in complex, three-dimensional environments. Finally, you will gain insights through seeing real world examples of the possible applications and challenges for the rapidly-growing drone industry. Mathematical prerequisites: Students taking this course are expected to have some familiarity with linear algebra, single variable calculus, and differential equations. Programming prerequisites: Some experience programming with MATLAB or Octave is recommended (we will use MATLAB in this course.) MATLAB will require the use of a 64-bit computer.

Visualiser le programme de cours

Compétences que vous apprendrez

Motion Planning, Robotics, Quadcoper, Matlab

Avis

4.5 (2,037 notes)

5 stars
1,391 ratings
4 stars
470 ratings
3 stars
97 ratings
2 stars
40 ratings
1 star
39 ratings

CG

Feb 12, 2016

Well balanced mix of theory and practical applicability. Explanation of the material is also very good.\n\nThe assignments are nicely built on the taught material to stimulate understanding.

AJ

Nov 22, 2017

Exceptional Material, not only are the concept are explained well, the supplementary material are provided for all possible requirement along side. Advance course with minimum prerequisite

À partir de la leçon

Planning and Control

Welcome to Week 3! We have developed planar and three-dimensional dynamic models of the quadrotor. This week, you will learn more about how to develop linear controllers for these models. With this knowledge, you will be required to complete the second programming assignment of this course, which focuses on controlling the quadrotor in two dimensions. We encourage you to start working on the assignment soon. This week ends with a discussion on motion planning for quadrotors.

Time, Motion, and Trajectories9:08

Time, Motion, and Trajectories (continued)9:23

Motion Planning for Quadrotors12:04

Supplementary Material: Minimum Velocity Trajectories from the Euler-Lagrange Equations2:12

Supplementary Material: Solving for Coefficients of Minimum Jerk Trajectories5:57

Supplementary Material: Minimum Velocity Trajectories3:44

Supplementary Material: Linearization of Quadrotor Equations of Motion5:47

Enseigné par

Vijay Kumar
Nemirovsky Family Dean of Penn Engineering and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics

Transcription

We're now ready to apply what we have learned to quadrotors.

Let's recall again the dynamic equations of motion,

the two sets of inputs, u1 and u2.

And remember, we're now trying to generate trajectories

in terms of the quadrotor position and trying to figure out

how we want to control the motors to drive the vehicle to those trajectories.

The quadrotor controller consist of two loops,

first the outer position control loop that specifies u1 and

then second, an inner attitude control loop that determines u2.

In order to control the position, the inner loop,

the attitude control loop has to work perfectly.

Back to the equations, u1 and u2 are the two inputs.

You can see from the first set of equations

that the second derivative position depends on u1.

u1 is a scalar quantity, there's only one input in u1, but

you're trying to control the x, y and z components of acceleration.

Also notice that the rotation matrix R, depends on roll, pitch, and yaw angles.

The second set of equations relates the angular velocities,

p, q, and r to the derivatives of the roll, pitch, and yaw angles.

The third set of equations at the bottom relates the input u2 to

the rate of change of angular velocity.

From the two sets of equations at the bottom,

it is clear that the second derivative of the rotation matrix depends on u2.

Now, if I turn my attention back to the first set of equations,

you can see that the derivative of velocity, or the acceleration,

depends on u1, and this dependence is linear.

But through R it also depends on u2.

If I take into account the fact that this dependence of R on u2

is through the second derivative, as you see on the bottom, then I can combine

these facts to show that the fourth derivative of position depends on u2.

This might be easier to see if you look at the linearized model of the system.

In the linearized model, the rotation matrix is the identity.

The angular velocities are related to the rates of change of roll,

pitch and yaw, through an identity matrix.

And the non linear inertia dependent terms at the bottom disappear.

You should be able to go through these equations and convince yourself

that the second derivative of position is proportional to u1 and

the fourth derivative of position is proportional to u2.

In summary, the position control loop involves attitude control and

because of that, the position control system leads to a fourth order system.

To specify trajectories, we want to consider only those trajectories

that are differentiable at least four times.

This motivates the use of a minimum snap trajectory, which tries to minimize

the fourth derivative of position integrated over the time history.

We use minimum snap trajectories for motion planning for quadrotors.

I want to show you several examples of minimum snap trajectories.

I want to to remind you that all of this only works if you have a robust

inner attitude control loop.

Here you can see the vehicle being launched into the air from a variety of

inertial conditions, and the vehicle settles to a hover position,

independent of the initial configuration.

Here, the vehicle starts off from a given configuration and

then goes to an end configuration through an intermediate point.

These circular trajectories are also minimum snap trajectories.

In this example, the minimum snap trajectory has been

designed to go through circular hoops, insuring that

the result trajectory is dynamically feasible and safe.

The same idea can be applied to other problems involving quadrotor flight.

Here, inspired by birds that are able to gracefully coordinate their wings and

their limbs, this quadrotor vehicle is able to coordinate its flight and

a gripper at the end to grasp objects as it flies through the air

at speeds of up to 2 to 3 meters per second.

As another example, here,

a quadrotor equipped with a special gripper at the end,

is able to perch on near vertical surfaces to vertical surfaces.

Again, planning minimum snap trajectories to reach the desired end

configuration at a close to 0 velocity, but with the right attitude.

Let's think a little bit about what happens when you have

obstacles in the environment.

Here is an example of a safe minimum snap trajectory.

A rectangular robot is guided through

a set of walls from an initial configuration to a final configuration.

This trajectory is obtained by splicing together many minimum snap trajectories.

This is very reminiscent of what we looked at earlier, where we synthesized

cubic splines or nth order splines to go through many different wave points.

In this case,

there are no wave points, instead the robot knows where the obstacles are.

How do you synthesize minimum snap trajectories in a known environment?

Here's the simple approach to think about these problems.

Imagine you have obstacles, and in this case I'm going to assume there's more than

one quadrator flying through the obstacle filled environment at the same time.

We're going to box off these quadrotors inside

virtual rectangular parallel pipettes.

We assume that these rectangular parallel pipettes are known, and

we want to make sure that they don't intersect each other.

In addition, there are many obstacles.

We assume that every obstacle is convex and

there are polyhedral models that can characterize the extent of each obstacle.

If the obstacles are non-convex,

we can always describe them as a union of convex obstacles.

Let's consider a generic obstacle, obstacle o.

Because each obstacle is a convex polyhedron,

we want to look at collisions in terms of the rectangular parallel pipe that

characterizes the quadrotor, and each of the faces characterizing the obstacle.

For a generic face f on an obstacle o, for

a generic time instant t sub k, we want to make sure

that the convex polyhedron characterizing the robot,

and the face f, do not intersect.

That fact is written as a linear inequality.

The inequality restricts the positions R that can be occupied by the robot,

it of course assumes that we know exactly where the obstacle is and

we know the normal N for each face F for

all obstacles, in this case considering obstacle o.

We can write similar equations for every phase, for

every obstacle, and every robot.

This gives us the set of equations at the top, except I've

modified this equation by adding a positive term on the right hand side.

This positive term consists of a large,

positive constant M and a binary variable B.

This binary variable is characterized by the obstacle o, the face f,

and the time instant t sub k.

The reason we want this extra term is quite simple.

In order for the robot to avoid a particular obstacle o,

it is enough that this inequality be satisfied for any one of the faces.

It is not necessary that this inequality be satisfied for

every face on the obstacle.

That fact is captured in the inequality at the bottom of your screen.

If there are n sub f faces, we want to make sure that

at least one of these binary variables is 0.

And that is captured in this inequality.

This approach has now been used to synthesize trajectories for

suspended payloads, where the vehicle is carrying a payload and

the length of the suspended payload

is larger than the height of the window it needs to go through.

By carefully designing minimum snap trajectories, the robot is able to carry

the payload through the narrow window without colliding with the environment.

This same technique can be extended to multiple quadrotors.

Imagine you have obstacles, you want quadrotor 1 to go to position 1,

quadrotor 2 to go to position 2, quadrotor 3 to go to position 3, and

you don't want these to intersect.

Here's a simple example in which two quadrotors coordinate their flight

in an obstacle filled environment, doing so safely.

Once again, every trajectory that you see here is a minimum snap trajectory.

This approach has now been extended to 16 to 20 quadrotors.

Again, these trajectories are all a minimum snap trajectories, and

they're guaranteed to be collision free.

[SOUND]

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play

Coursera
À propos
Direction
Carrières
Catalogue
Certificats
Certificats MasterTrack™
Diplômes
For Enterprise
For Government

Communauté
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

Se connecter
Blog
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
Blog Tech

Plus
Conditions
Confidentialité
Aide
Accessibilité
Presse
Contact
Répertoire
Filiales