Engineering topics

Maghami, P. G.

Publications and source records attributed to Maghami, P. G..

25 records · Page 2

NASA NTRS1991

Sensor-actuator placement for flexible structures with actuator dynamics

A novel approach for placement of sensors and actuators in control of flexible space structures is developed. Using an approximation of the control forces and output measurements by spatially continuous functions, the approach follows a nonlinear programming technique to determine optimal locations for sensors and actuators. Two different criteria are considered for the placement of sensors and actuators. The first criterion optimizes the location of the sensors and actuators in order to move the transmission zeros of the system farther to the left of the imaginary axis. The second criterion, however, places the sensors and actuators to optimize a function of the singular values of the Hankel matrix, which includes both measures of controllability and observability. Moreover, the effect of actuator dynamics in the placement of sensors and actuators is investigated.

Maghami, P. G.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Dynamic dissipative compensator design for large space structures

Control system design is considered for attitude control and vibration suppression of flexible space structures. The problem addressed is that of controlling both the zero-frequency rigid-body modes and the elastic modes. Model-based compensators, which employ observers tuned to the plant parameters, are first investigated. Such compensators are shown to generally exhibit high sensitivity to the knowledge of the parameters, especially the elastic mode frequencies. To overcome this problem a class of dynamic dissipative compensators is next proposed, which robustly stabilize the plant in the presence of unmodeled dynamics and parametric uncertainties. An analytical proof of robust stability is given, and a method of implementing the controller as a strictly proper compensator is given. Methods of designing such controllers to obtain optimal performance and robust stability are presented. Numerical and experimental results of application of the methods are presented, which indicate that dynamic dissipative controllers can simultaneously provide excellent performance and robustness.

Joshi, S. M.↗

NASA NTRS1991

A comparison of controller designs for an experimental flexible structure

Control systems design and hardware testing are addressed for an experimental structure that displays the characteristics of a typical flexible spacecraft. The results of designing and implementing various control design methodologies are described. The design methodologies under investigation include linear quadratic Gaussian control, static and dynamic dissipative controls, and H-infinity optimal control. Among the three controllers considered, it is shown, through computer simulation and laboratory experiments on the evolutionary structure, that the dynamic dissipative controller gave the best results in terms of vibration suppression and robustness with respect to modeling errors.

Lim, K. B.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Integrated controls-structures design - A practical design tool for modern spacecraft

An integrated controls-structures design approach is developed for a class of flexible spacecraft. The integrated design problem is posed in the form of simultaneous optimization of both the structural and the control design variables. The approach is demonstrated by application to the integrated design of a geostationary platform and to a ground-based flexible structure experiment. The numerical results obtained indicate that the integrated design approach can yield spacecraft designs that have substantially superior performance over the conventional design approach wherein the structural design and control design are performed sequentially.

Maghami, P. G.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Sensor/actuator placement for flexible space structures

A new approach for the placement of sensors and actuators in the active control of flexible space structures is developed. The approach converts the discrete nature of the sensor and actuator positioning problem to a nonlinear programming optimization through approximation of the control forces and output measurements by spatially continuous functions. The locations of the sensors and actuators are optimized in order to move the transmission zeros of the system farther to the left of the imaginary axis. The criterion for sensor/actuator placement can be quite useful for optimal regulation and tracking problems, as well as for low-authority controller designs. Two performance metrics are considered for the optimization and are applied to the sensor/actuator positioning of a large-order flexible space structure.

Maghami, P. G.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Dissipative compensators for flexible spacecraft control

The problem of controller design for flexible spacecraft is addressed. Model-based compensators, which rely on the knowledge of the system parameters to tune the state estimator, are considered. The instability mechanisms resulting from high sensitivity to parameter uncertainties are investigated. Dissipative controllers, which use collocated actuators and sensors, are also considered, and the robustness properties of constant-gain dissipative controllers in the presence of unmodeled elastic-mode dynamics, sensor/actuator nonlinearities, and actuator dynamics are summarized. In order to improve the performance without sacrificing robustness, a class of dissipative dynamic compensators is proposed and is shown to retain robust stability in the presence of second-order actuator dynamics if acceleration feedback is employed. A class of dissipative dynamic controllers is proposed which consists of a low-authority, constant-gain controller and a high-authority dynamic compensator. A procedure for designing an optimal dissipative dynamic compensator is given which minimizes a quadratic performance criterion. Such compensators offer the promise of better performance while still retaining robust stability.

Joshi, S. M.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Integrated controls-structures design methodology development for a class of flexible spacecraft

Future utilization of space will require large space structures in low-Earth and geostationary orbits. Example missions include: Earth observation systems, personal communication systems, space science missions, space processing facilities, etc., requiring large antennas, platforms, and solar arrays. The dimensions of such structures will range from a few meters to possibly hundreds of meters. For reducing the cost of construction, launching, and operating (e.g., energy required for reboosting and control), it will be necessary to make the structure as light as possible. However, reducing structural mass tends to increase the flexibility which would make it more difficult to control with the specified precision in attitude and shape. Therefore, there is a need to develop a methodology for designing space structures which are optimal with respect to both structural design and control design. In the current spacecraft design practice, it is customary to first perform the structural design and then the controller design. However, the structural design and the control design problems are substantially coupled and must be considered concurrently in order to obtain a truly optimal spacecraft design. For example, let C denote the set of the 'control' design variables (e.g., controller gains), and L the set of the 'structural' design variables (e.g., member sizes). If a structural member thickness is changed, the dynamics would change which would then change the control law and the actuator mass. That would, in turn, change the structural model. Thus, the sets C and L depend on each other. Future space structures can be roughly divided into four mission classes. Class 1 missions include flexible spacecraft with no articulated appendages which require fine attitude pointing and vibration suppression (e.g., large space antennas). Class 2 missions consist of flexible spacecraft with articulated multiple payloads, where the requirement is to fine-point the spacecraft and each individual payload while suppressing the elastic motion. Class 3 missions include rapid slewing of spacecraft without appendages, while Class 4 missions include general nonlinear motion of a flexible spacecraft with articulated appendages and robot arms. Class 1 and 2 missions represent linear mathematical modeling and control system design problems (except for actuator and sensor nonlinearities), while Class 3 and 4 missions represent nonlinear problems. The development of an integrated controls/structures design approach for Class 1 missions is addressed. The performance for these missions is usually specified in terms of (1) root mean square (RMS) pointing errors at different locations on the structure, and (2) the rate of decay of the transient response. Both of these performance measures include the contributions of rigid as well as elastic motion.

Maghami, P. G.↗