複合外乱分離と予測制御による航空機搭載電光ジンバルの制約付き指向制御
Physics-Informed and Data-Driven Composite Disturbance Separation and Predictive Control for Airborne Electro-Optical Gimbals with Multiple Constraints
周期性・非周期性の複合外乱を受ける航空機搭載ジンバルに対し、周期外乱をMPC内で予測補償し非周期外乱を別途補償する分離型モデル予測制御を提案し、UAV搭載2軸ジンバル実験で精度を検証した論文。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの?
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい?
3. 技術・手法の肝は?
4. どうやって有効だと検証した?
5. 議論はある?
6. 次に読むべき論文は?
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Yaokun Lu, Yifan Li, Zhixuan Zhang, Enmei Wang, Hao Teng, Jianzhong Qiao
分類: cs.RO, eess.SY
原文アブストラクト
This paper studies the constrained pointing control problem of airborne electro-optical gimbals subjected to composite periodic and aperiodic disturbances. Under carrier vibration, input delay, and actuator constraints, achieving line-of-sight stabilization and tracking is challenging. A disturbance-separated model predictive control (MPC) scheme is proposed to compensate these heterogeneous disturbances according to their physical characteristics. An adaptive periodic observer predicts multi-harmonic vibrations over the MPC horizon using linear-regression frequency estimation. A linear observer estimates the aperiodic disturbance, and a bounded long short-term memory (LSTM) network predicts its change over the input delay. Embedding periodic predictions into the MPC model while applying aperiodic compensation outside the optimizer limits amplification of aperiodic estimation errors and improves pointing accuracy under frequency changes and parameter mismatch. On the stated headroom envelope, input-set tightening provides feasible commands within the prescribed limits, and a regional practical tracking bound is established under explicit input-sequence and predicted-state margin conditions. A UAV-mounted two-axis gimbal platform is assembled for comparative indoor hovering experiments, complemented by simulations under frequency changes and parameter mismatch. In the reported trials, the proposed method achieves yaw and pitch relative-angle root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of 0.770 degrees and 0.350 degrees, reducing tracking errors by 25.1% and 45.9% compared with linear active disturbance rejection control.