2017
DOI: 10.1109/tmech.2017.2758603
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disturbance Rejection MPC for Tracking of Wheeled Mobile Robot

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
59
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 115 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
59
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the case of ω 0 = 0, the heading error isθ 0i = {0, π} no matter whether the speed v 0 is time-varying or constants. From (15), one concludes that ω i = 0 and v i = v 0 for vehicle i, i = 1, · · · , n. This proves (iii).…”
Section: Remarksupporting
confidence: 59%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…For the case of ω 0 = 0, the heading error isθ 0i = {0, π} no matter whether the speed v 0 is time-varying or constants. From (15), one concludes that ω i = 0 and v i = v 0 for vehicle i, i = 1, · · · , n. This proves (iii).…”
Section: Remarksupporting
confidence: 59%
“…For the case ofx 0 0i = 0, the heading error isθ 0i = {0, π} no matter whether the speeds v 0 , ω 0 are time-varying or constants. From (15), one concludes that ω i = ω 0 and v i = v 0 − ω 0ȳ 0 0i for vehicle i, i = 1, · · · , n and the speed ratios v i /ω i for each vehicle (i = 0, 1, · · · , n) do not have to be constants. This proves (ii).…”
Section: Remarkmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Taking also into account that the computation time for feedback linearization or control signal generation by the inverse model or MPC techniques is non-negligible, these simplified hypotheses make the above mentioned techniques not always reliable (see [4][5][6]8,10,14,15,20,[23][24][25]29,31,33,37,40,41]. In some cases, the control system can even be unstable, as can be verified with simple examples (see also Appendix A).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%