NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONTROL SYSTEMS LAB Georgios Rekleitis A Comparison of the Use of a Single.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introductory Control Theory I400/B659: Intelligent robotics Kris Hauser.
Advertisements

ABS Control Project Ondrej Ille Pre-bachelor Project.
Analysis of a Deorbiting Maneuver of a large Target Satellite using a Chaser Satellite with a Robot Arm Philipp Gahbler 1, R. Lampariello 1 and J. Sommer.
Benoit Pigneur and Kartik Ariyur School of Mechanical Engineering Purdue University June 2013 Inexpensive Sensing For Full State Estimation of Spacecraft.
Chapter 3 Dynamic Modeling.
Professor Walter W. Olson Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering University of Toledo Lumped Parameter Systems.
Outline: Introduction Solvability Manipulator subspace when n<6
1 Singularity Handling on PUMA in Operational Space Formulation Author: Denny Oetomo*, Marcelo Ang Jr*, Lim Ser Yong** * National University of Singapore,
Automotive Research Center Robotics and Mechatronics A Nonlinear Tracking Controller for a Haptic Interface Steer-by-Wire Systems A Nonlinear Tracking.
Thruster failure recovery strategies for libration point missions Maksim Shirobokov Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics Moscow Institute of Physics.
Neural Network Grasping Controller for Continuum Robots David Braganza, Darren M. Dawson, Ian D. Walker, and Nitendra Nath David Braganza, Darren M. Dawson,
Design Concepts and Process Analysis for Transmuter Fuel Manufacturing
Motion Planning of Multi-Limbed Robots Subject to Equilibrium Constraints. Timothy Bretl Presented by Patrick Mihelich and Salik Syed.
A De-coupled Sliding Mode Controller and Observer for Satellite Attitude Control Ronald Fenton.
1 Toward Autonomous Free-Climbing Robots Tim Bretl Jean-Claude Latombe Stephen Rock CS 326 Presentation Winter 2004 Christopher Allocco Special thanks.
A Study on Object Grasp with Multifingered Robot Hand Ying LI, Ph.D. Department of Mechanical Engineering Kagoshima University, Japan.
Efficient Methodologies for Reliability Based Design Optimization
The Next Step SPACE ROBOTICS INITIATIVE TIM Robotic Assembly and Maintenance of Space Solar Power Facilities Red Whittaker The Robotics Institute.
Fast and Robust Legged Locomotion Sean Bailey Mechanical Engineering Design Division Advisor: Dr. Mark Cutkosky May 12, 2000.
CS 326A: Motion Planning Kynodynamic Planning + Dealing with Moving Obstacles + Dealing with Uncertainty + Dealing with Real-Time Issues.
QUALITY CONTROL OF POLYETHYLENE POLYMERIZATION REACTOR M. Al-haj Ali, Emad M. Ali CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT KING SAUD UNIVERSITY.
Performance Guarantees for Hazard Based Lateral Vehicle Control
Adaptation of TDMA Parameters Based on Network Conditions Bora Karaoglu Tolga Numanoglu Wendi Heinzelman Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Geometric Probing with Light Beacons on Multiple Mobile Robots Sarah Bergbreiter CS287 Project Presentation May 1, 2002.
Newton’s Laws. Newton-1: Law of Inertia Newton’s First Law inertial reference frameAn object subject to no external forces is at rest or moves with a.
Intelligent Steering Using PID controllers
On-Orbit Assembly of Flexible Space Structures with SWARM Jacob Katz, Swati Mohan, and David W. Miler MIT Space Systems Laboratory AIAA
Gravitational Potential energy Mr. Burns
A Randomized Approach to Robot Path Planning Based on Lazy Evaluation Robert Bohlin, Lydia E. Kavraki (2001) Presented by: Robbie Paolini.
Goal Directed Design of Serial Robotic Manipulators
Simulation of Robot Soccer Game Kuang-Chyi Lee and Yong-Jia Huang Department of Automation Engineering National Formosa University.
Lecture VII Rigid Body Dynamics CS274: Computer Animation and Simulation.
Optimal Low-Thrust Deorbiting of Passively Stabilized LEO Satellites Sergey Trofimov Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, RAS Moscow Institute of.
Constraints-based Motion Planning for an Automatic, Flexible Laser Scanning Robotized Platform Th. Borangiu, A. Dogar, A. Dumitrache University Politehnica.
Mechatronic group at UiA 15 full time employed in teaching and labs. Mechatronic profile at UiA characterized by: High power / Power Mechatronics Dynamic.
Optimization-Based Full Body Control for the DARPA Robotics Challenge Siyuan Feng Mar
ICRA ’07 Space Robotics Workshop A Form Based Control Algorithm for Reducing the Complexity of an Attitude Control System at ICRA 2007 Space Robotics Workshop.
Belief space planning assuming maximum likelihood observations Robert Platt Russ Tedrake, Leslie Kaelbling, Tomas Lozano-Perez Computer Science and Artificial.
Outline: 5.1 INTRODUCTION
Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Hybrid Systems: Modelling, Analysis and Control Yan Pang Department of Mechanical.
100% of B-TOS architectures have cost increase under restrictive launch policy for a minimum cost decision maker Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture.
RESEARCH ON SPACE DOCKING HIL SIMULATION SYSTEM BASED ON STEWART 6-DOF MOTION SYSTEM Junwei Han Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin CHN.
Control Systems Engineering
DARPA Robotics Challenge Day 1.
SPHERES Reconfigurable Control Allocation for Autonomous Assembly Swati Mohan, David W. Miller MIT Space Systems Laboratory AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
COMP322/S2000/L281 Task Planning Three types of planning: l Gross Motion Planning concerns objects being moved from point A to point B without problems,
Lecture 25: Implementation Complicating factors Control design without a model Implementation of control algorithms ME 431, Lecture 25.
Workspace Analysis in Multirobot Manipulation International Symposium on Robotics Stockholm, Sweden. Oct 7-11, 2002 Workspace Analysis in Multirobot Manipulation.
Outline: Introduction Solvability Manipulator subspace when n<6
Behavior-based Multirobot Architectures. Why Behavior Based Control for Multi-Robot Teams? Multi-Robot control naturally grew out of single robot control.
Research Topics Dr. Ming Liu Force control Non-linear control systems Decentralised control Dynamic vision Real-time image processing.
Enchaînement de tâches robotiques Tasks sequencing for sensor-based control Nicolas Mansard Supervised by Francois Chaumette Équipe Lagadic IRISA / INRIA.
City College of New York 1 John (Jizhong) Xiao Department of Electrical Engineering City College of New York Mobile Robot Control G3300:
CS274 Spring 01 Lecture 7 Copyright © Mark Meyer Lecture VII Rigid Body Dynamics CS274: Computer Animation and Simulation.
Adaptive Optimal Control of Nonlinear Parametric Strict Feedback Systems with application to Helicopter Attitude Control OBJECTIVES  Optimal adaptive.
Review of PMP Derivation We want to find control u(t) which minimizes the function: x(t) = x*(t) +  x(t); u(t) = u*(t) +  u(t); (t) = *(t) +  (t);
1 NAXOS - GREECE HEP 2014 S. Maltezos NAXOS - GREECE HEP 2014 S. Maltezos DESIGN OF THE MM GAS SYSTEM NTUA T. Alexopoulos, S. Maltezos, S. Karentzos, V.
Intelligent Robot Lab Pusan National University Intelligent Robot Lab Chapter 7. Forced Response Errors Pusan National University Intelligent Robot Laboratory.
Space Robotics Seminar On
INVERSE MANIPULATOR KINEMATICS
Presentation at NI Day April 2010 Lillestrøm, Norway
Balanduino Supervisor: Dr. Raed Al-Qadi Prepared by: Nadeen Kalboneh Nardeen Mabrouk.
Matching of Propulsion Systems for an Aircraft
Advisor:Nortren Tsai Speaker:B.Y. Wu
Dimitris Valeris Thijs Ratsma
Presentation of Final Project – Gergely Gyebrószki Supervisors:
Chapter 4 . Trajectory planning and Inverse kinematics
Stefan Oßwald, Philipp Karkowski, Maren Bennewitz
Chris Leonard and Baylor Howard Advisor: Dr. Jing Wang
Presentation transcript:

NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CONTROL SYSTEMS LAB Georgios Rekleitis A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing Georgios Rekleitis Evangelos Papadopoulos May 17, 2013

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Motivation On-οrbit Servicing / OOS (construction, maintenance, docking, inspection, orbital debris handling/disposal) Currently done by astronaut EVA Robotic OOS can relieve astronauts from risky activities Successful OOS experiments: ETS VII, Orbital Express. 10/10/2015 2

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos OOS object handling can be done by a number of servicers with on-off thrusters and manipulators This results in improved performance in terms of accuracy and fuel consumption, compared to pure on-off control Is the performance better when the passive object is handled by a number of small servicers or by a single, large one? Problem Statement 10/10/2015 3

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Manipulation by free-flying servicers Space Robotic System Dynamics and Control One Large vs. Several Small Servicers Simulation Results Conclusions RoadMap 10/10/2015 4

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Single manipulator servicers. Point contact / firm grasp between end-effectors and object. Deactivated thrusters towards the object. Manipulation by Free-Flying Servicers 10/10/2015 5

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 10/10/ Space Robotic System Dynamics and Control- 1 (1)

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Passive object Model Based Control Constraints: (1) Friction constraints: For the point contact case (2) Manipulator repulsive force. Space Robotic System Dynamics and Control- 2 10/10/ (2)

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Constraints notwithstanding, the redundancy of the system leads to the absence of analytical solution. Constrained nonlinear optimization, as a force distribution method ̶ Design parameters: the components of the end-effector generalized forces Space Robotic System Dynamics and Control- 3 10/10/2015 8

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos i th – Servicer Controller: apply the required generalized force maintaining base desired position and attitude take into account workspace and collision avoidance requirements. Model Based Control Switching strategy for the on-off thrusters No need for asymptotic stability Space Robotic System Dynamics and Control- 4 10/10/2015 9

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos For the case of a number of small servicers: Thrusters facing the passive object are turned off. Additional manipulator force to push the servicer away from the passive object. The other servicer manipulator forces compensate, keeping total applied force on the object as in Eq. (2). One Large vs. Several Small Servicers /10/

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos For the case of a single, large servicer: No other servicers to compensate for additional manipulator force. 10/10/ One Large vs. Several Small Servicers - 2 Appropriate servicer base configuration. Simpler controller Force components opposing each other.

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 10/10/ One Large vs. Several Small Servicers - 3 New switching strategy for the single, large servicer case: Calculate the required continuous control force fi at the base frame. Examine if the force components exceed a preset threshold. Far fewer components opposing each other

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Other differences between the two cases: 1. Contact type between passive object and manipulator: Number of small servicers: Both point contact and firm grasp are feasible. Single, large servicer: Firm grasping is required. 10/10/ One Large vs. Several Small Servicers - 4

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 2. Servicer size limitations The single, large servicer case can be affected, whenever very large objects have to be handled. In the several small servicers case, we only need to add more servicers. 10/10/ One Large vs. Several Small Servicers - 5

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 3. Robustness in servicer performance failure In the several small servicers case, failure in the performance of one servicer may not be catastrophic ̶ The remaining servicers may be able to compensate In the single, large servicer case, there are no other robots to compensate for any performance failures. 10/10/ One Large vs. Several Small Servicers - 6

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 10/10/ Simulation Results Several small servicers case m 0 = 180 Kg, m i = 70 Kg, i = 1,2,3 f m = 20 N, f t = 10 N Single large servicer case m 0 = 180 Kg, m 1 = 210 Kg, f m = 60 N, f t = 25 N

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Simulation Results 10/10/ Thruster and reaction wheel forces/torques (both cases)

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos Three small servicers: More frequent but less powerful thrusting. More flexible in terms of gain tuning, servicer base position tuning and thrusting application. Single large servicer: More scarce but more powerful thrusting. Simulation Results 10/10/

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 10/10/ Manipulator reach for both cases Simulation Results

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos 10/10/ Conclusions Post-docking manipulation of a passive object in zero-g, utilizing manipulator equipped free-flyers, was studied. The case of passive object handling by a number of small servicers was compared to handling by a single large servicer. Several small servicers case was found superior, since: 1. It is more robust in terms of contact type requirements, size limitations and servicer performance failures. 2. It is more flexible in terms of gain tuning, servicer base position tuning and thrusting application 3. Superior performance in terms of fuel consumption, for the same object tracking errors.

National Technical University of Athens Department of Mechanical Engineering A Comparison of the Use of a Single Large vs. a Number of Small Robots in On-Orbit Servicing G. Rekleitis & E. Papadopoulos THANK YOU! 10/10/