Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Article: Reconfigurability Analysis Method For Spacecraft Autonomous Control
Research Article: Reconfigurability Analysis Method For Spacecraft Autonomous Control
Research Article: Reconfigurability Analysis Method For Spacecraft Autonomous Control
Research Article
Reconfigurability Analysis Method for
Spacecraft Autonomous Control
Copyright 2014 D. Wang and C. Liu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
As a critical requirement for spacecraft autonomous control, reconfigurability should be considered in design stage of spacecrafts
by involving effective reconfigurability analysis method in guiding system designs. In this paper, a novel reconfigurability analysis
method is proposed for spacecraft design. First, some basic definitions regarding spacecraft reconfigurability are given. Then,
based on function tree theory, a reconfigurability modeling approach is established to properly describe systems reconfigurability
characteristics, and corresponding analysis procedure based on minimal cut set and minimal path set is further presented. In
addition, indexes of fault reconfigurable degree and system reconfigurable rate for evaluating reconfigurability are defined, and the
methodology for analyzing systems week links is also constructed. Finally, the method is verified by a spacecraft attitude measuring
system, and the results show that the presented method cannot only implement the quantitative reconfigurability evaluations but
also find the weak links, and therefore provides significant improvements for spacecraft reconfigurability design.
Gyro Y Y
Redundant
x1 x2 xn x1 x2 xn
Determining
MRU1 MRU2 MRU3 MRU
(a) AND gate (b) OR gate
Figure 2: Structure decomposition of gyro. Figure 4: AND gate and OR gate.
Function
decomposition Measure and data Power supply Measure and data
Power supply process process Branches
where|R( )|, = 1, 2, . . . , , is the cardinal number of R( ), Table 1: Fault severity level definition.
which corresponds to the MPS number of the MPS family for
the subfunction . Level Definition
Although C() or R() derived by (3) to (6) may not be I System function is lost or service life is shortened seriously.
MCS family or MPS family, the MCS and MPS are needed II System function is degraded seriously or service life is
in the upper level function analysis according to (3) to (6). reduced by 1/4 to 1/2.
Consequently, the MCS and MPS of function can be III System function is degraded partially or service life is
calculated by the following steps. reduced below 1/4.
IV There is little affection in system function and service life.
Step 1. Initialize Cmin () or Rmin () to be a null set.
Table 2: Fault occurrence probability definition.
Step 2. Choose Cmin () or Rmin () with a minimum cardinal
number in all sets in C() or R() and transform it into Level Definition
Cmin () or Rmin (). A MRU fault probability 20% total fault probability
20% total fault probability > MRU fault probability
Step 3. Check all remaining sets in C() or R(). If there is a B
10% total fault probability
set containing all the MRUs in Cmin () or Rmin (), delete it
10% total fault probability > MRU fault probability 1%
from C() or R() and go back to Step 2 otherwise. C
total fault probability
Step 4. Execute Steps 2 and 3 repeatedly until C() or R() D 1% total fault probability > MRU fault probability 0.1%
turns to a null set. Then elements C () or R () in Cmin () total fault probability
or Rmin () are the expected MCS or MPS. E MRU fault probability < 0.1% total fault probability
Table 3: matrix.
4. Reconfigurability Evaluation Indexes
Based on the reconfigurability model constructed in the
I II III IV
preceding section, reconfigurability evaluation indexes for
A 1 1/3 1/7 1/13
spacecrafts are given as follows.
B 1/2 1/5 1/9 1/16
C 1/4 1/6 1/11 1/18
4.1. Fault Reconfigurable Degree (FRD). FRD describes
D 1/8 1/10 1/14 1/19
whether the system has available resources and methods for
reconfigurations after certain faults as E 1/12 1/15 1/17 1/20
tolerate without loss of system functions. SFTD reflects the Then, the linearization form of the attitude dynamic
system reconfigurability as function can be derived based on (11) and (12) as
= min (R ) 1 R R, = 1, 2, . . . , |R| , (10)
+ [( ) 02 0 ]
where denotes SFTD, R is the th minimal path set of the
function tree, |R | is the cardinal number of R .
+ [( ) 0 ]
In a system, the path set with the minimum number
of MPSs is the weakest link. And for this part, necessary
= + 0 + ,
redundancy or special reliability design should be considered
according to the subfunctions of MRUs in the MPS. + ( + 0 ) ( 0 ) = + , (13)
The four indexes proposed above are closely connected
to each other. Let be a fault whose corresponding recon- + [( ) 02 0 ]
figurable degree is equal to zero, = 0; namely, the corre-
sponding MRU cannot be reconfigured; then the importance [( ) 0 ]
degree of the MRU will be equal to one and the system
fault tolerance degree will become zero. Otherwise, if all = 0 + .
fault reconfigurable degrees are one, namely, all the MRU can
be reconfigured, then we can conclude that all the importance
degrees will be less than one, the system fault tolerance degree Accordingly, the dynamic function of the spacecraft can
will be not less than one, and the system reconfigurable rate be expressed by a state space form, as shown in (1), with the
will be equal to 100%. following notations:
6. Empirical Results
= [ ] ,
In this section, we focus on the practical performance of
the proposed method. Our experiment is presented for the 0 1 0 0 0 0
reconfigurability analysis of an attitude measuring system in [21 0 0 0 0 26 ]
[ ]
a spacecraft. The dynamic functions regarding momentum [ 0 0 0 1 0 0 ]
=[
[41 42
],
devices are shown in (11). The spacecraft is considered as rigid
[ 0 0 45 46 ]
]
body systems, and the body coordinate system coincides with [ 0 0 0 0 0 1 ]
the principle axes of inertia as
[ 0 62 0 0 65 0 ]
( ) + = + , 21 = 1 [( ) 02 0 ] ,
( ) + = + , (11) 26 = 1 [( ) 0 ] ,
(14)
( ) + = + , 41 = 1 0 ,
where , and are moments of inertia along axes ,
42 = 1 ,
and , respectively; = [ , , ] is the angular
velocity vector; h = [ , , ] is the synthesizing angular 45 = 1 0 ,
momentum vector of all the momentum devices; T =
[ , , ] is the control torque vector applied on the 46 = 1 ,
spacecraft except for the torque from the momentum devices.
Therefore, the control torque vector T = [ , , ] in 62 = 1 [( ) 0 ] ,
(11) includes torques from thrusters, other space torques, and
disturbing torques. 65 = 1 [( ) 02 0 ] .
If all attitudes vary in a small scale, the dynamic functions
can be simplified as
Matrixes and in (1) can be determined according
= 0 , to the detailed configuration of the system. For example, a
system, with two infrared earth sensors, three orthogonal
= 0 , (12) gyros, and one main backup thruster, can be described as
= + 0 ,
where , and are Euler angles; 0 denotes the orbit () = [1 2 1 2 1 2 ] ,
angular velocity with which the spacecraft circles around the
center body. () = [1 1 2 2 ] ,
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Attitude
measure
M1 M2
ESP
ESP Gpower Gx Gy Gz
ES1 ES2
are summarized. Theoretical research and empirical study [5] K. Zhou and Z. Ren, A new controller architecture for high per-
both illustrate the benefit of the constructed methodology for formance, robust, and fault-tolerant control, IEEE Transactions
spacecraft reconfigurability design on reliability criterions. on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 16131618, 2001.
[6] Z. Mao and B. Jiang, Fault identification and fault-tolerant
Conflict of Interests control for a class of networked control systems, International
Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, vol.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests 3, no. 5, pp. 11211130, 2007.
regarding the publication of this paper. [7] L. Meng and B. Jiang, Robust active fault-tolerant control for
a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with actuator faults,
Acknowledgments International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and
Control, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 26372644, 2010.
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and [8] X. Gao, K. Lay Teo, and G. Duan, An optimal control approach
the editor for their critical and constructive comments on to robust control of nonlinear spacecraft rendezvous system
this paper. This study was supported by the National Natural with -D technique, International Journal of Innovative Com-
Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 61203093 and puting, Information and Control, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 20992110,
11202011). 2013.
[9] R. Qi, L. Zhu, and B. Jiang, Fault-tolerant reconfigurable
References control for MIMO system using online fuzzy identification,
International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and
[1] T. Kreider and J. Ross, Re-configurable spacecraft software: Control, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 39153928, 2013.
demands and solution, in Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace [10] S. P. Joshi, Z. Tidwell, W. A. Crossley, and S. Ramakrishnan,
Conference Proceedings, pp. 23642369, March 2004. Comparison of morphing wing strategies based upon aircraft
[2] W. D. Nadir, I.-Y. Kim, D. Hauser, and O. L. De Weck, performance impacts, in Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME
Multidisciplinary structural truss topology optimization for /ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
reconfigurability, in Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Mul- Conference, AIAA-2004-1722, pp. 23482354, Palm Springs,
tidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, pp. 472 Calif, USA, April 2004.
487, New York, NY, USA, September 2004.
[3] Y. Zhang and J. Jiang, Bibliographical review on reconfigurable [11] C. W. Frei, F. J. Kraus, and M. Blanke, Recoverability viewed
fault-tolerant control systems, Annual Reviews in Control, vol. as a system property, in Proceedings of the European Control
32, no. 2, pp. 229252, 2008. Conference (ECC 99), Karlsruhe, Germany, 1999.
[4] D. U. Campos-Delgado and K. Zhou, Reconfigurable fault- [12] N. E. Wu, K. Zhou, and G. Salomon, Control reconfigurability
tolerant control using GIMC structure, IEEE Transactions on of linear time-invariant systems, Automatica, vol. 36, no. 11, pp.
Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 832838, 2003. 17671771, 2000.
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
International
Journal of Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Discrete Mathematics
Sciences