4.2 Article

Power-based modelling and control: experimental results on a cart-pole double inverted pendulum

出版社

Tubitak Scientific & Technological Research Council Turkey
DOI: 10.3906/elk-2006-68

关键词

Analogy; Brayton-Moser; double inverted pendulum; linear quadratic regulator; optimal control; real time control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a modeling framework based on power and control for mechanical systems with nonlinear, unstable, and under-actuated characteristics. By using an analogy between mechanical and electrical systems, the framework allows for precise transfer of results from electrical circuit synthesis to the mechanical domain. Experimental results validate that this framework is a new and advantageous modeling method, serving as a convenient alternative to the Lagrangian framework.
This paper is concerned with the modeling framework based on power and control for a mechanical system that has nonlinear, unstable, and under-actuated characteristic features, based on an analogy, which is developed by using the Brayton and Moser's (BM) equations between mechanical and electrical systems. The analogy is based on a mixed-potential function generalized for BM. The mixed-potential function for a cart -pole double inverted pendulum (CPDIP) system is used as a new building block for modeling, analysis, and controller design. The analogy allows for the exact transfer of results from electrical circuit synthesis and analysis to the mechanical domain. This paper focuses mainly on the development of the electrical equivalent circuit of CPDIP inspired by the power-based modeling framework. In this brief, a real time CPDIP experimental setup was modeled by using this framework and a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) controller was designed for the stabilization of the system. Experimental results validated that this framework can be used as a new and advantageous modeling method and is a convenient and practical alternative to the Lagrangian framework.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据