CONTROL & ESTIMATION / SIMULATION PROJECTS

Advanced Vehicle and Quadcopter Control

I compared vehicle tracking controllers and showed that adaptive quadcopter control retained stable height tracking at 70% single-motor thrust loss, where LQR could not.

My roleVehicle controller and estimator development; quadcopter model-reference adaptive control and simulation comparison.

PID / LQR / MPC
State estimation
Adaptive control
Webots

Simulated ground vehicle tracking a curved road in Webots. — Ground-vehicle tracking simulation

3Vehicle control approaches · PID, LQR, MPC

70%Single-motor thrust loss · stable MRAC tracking in simulation

2Platforms · ground vehicle and quadcopter

01 / ENGINEERING PROBLEM

Track a path as the dynamics change

The ground-vehicle study compared tracking and state-estimation approaches on a road course. The quadcopter study examined how a controller responded when one motor lost thrust. I used simulated motion and response plots to compare nominal tracking with behavior under the fault.

02 / METHODS & ANALYSIS

Tracking, estimation, and fault response

Simulation recordings and response plots
Click images to enlarge

Follow the ground-vehicle trajectory

20 s excerpt · source recording at its original playback speed.

I compared PID, LQR, and MPC control and used an extended Kalman filter for localization. The recording shows a tracking run; it is a qualitative demonstration, not a controlled ranking of the three controllers.

Compare LQR and MRAC under thrust loss

18 s simulation excerpt · the response plots below compare the thrust-loss cases.

Quadcopter height tracking: LQR and MRAC at 50% single-motor thrust loss. — 50% thrust loss · both LQR and MRAC maintained height tracking.

Quadcopter height tracking: LQR loses stable tracking at 70% single-motor thrust loss while MRAC retains it. — 70% thrust loss · LQR lost stable tracking; MRAC retained it, with larger transients.

I compared a linear-quadratic regulator (LQR) with model-reference adaptive control (MRAC) at 50% motor thrust loss, then increased the loss to 70%. Both tracked at 50%; at 70%, LQR could no longer provide stable tracking, while MRAC still could.

03 / RESULTS & OUTCOME

Adaptive control retained tracking at 70% thrust loss

SIMULATION ONLY · NO PHYSICAL FLIGHT TEST

50%Thrust loss · LQR and MRAC maintained tracking

70%Thrust loss · MRAC retained stable tracking; LQR did not

The simulations demonstrated ground-vehicle path following and the benefit of adaptive control under a larger quadcopter motor fault. MRAC maintained stable height tracking at 70% thrust loss, though its response showed larger transients. These results have not been validated in physical flight.