Hardware-in-the-loop simulations of two interacting bodies are often accompanied by a time delay. The time delay, however small, may lead to instability in the hardware-in-the-loop system. The present work investigates the source of instability in a two spacecraft system model with a time-delayed contact force feedback. A generic compliance-device-based contact force model is proposed with elastic, viscous, and Coulomb friction effects in three dimensions. A 3D nonlinear system model with time delay is simulated, and the effect of variations in contact force model parameters is studied. The system is then linearized about a nominal state to determine the stability regions in terms of parameters of the spring-dashpot contact force model by the pole placement method. Furthermore, the stability analysis is validated for the nonlinear system by energy observation for both the stable and unstable cases.
PolitesME. An assessment of the technology of automated rendezvous and capture in space, Springfield, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, 1998.
2.
FehseW. Automated rendezvous and docking of spacecraft, 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
3.
Zimpfer D, Kachmar P and Tuohy S. Autonomous rendezvous, capture and in-space assembly:past, present and future. In: 1st space exploration conference: continuing the voyage of discovery, 30 January 2005, 2523p.
4.
Flores-AbadAMaOPhamK, et al.A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing. Prog Aerosp Sci2014; 68: 1–26.
5.
YoshidaK. ETS-vii flight experiments for space robot dynamics and control. In: Experimental robotics VII, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2001, pp. 209–218.
6.
FriendRB. Orbital Express program summary and mission overview. In: Sensors and systems for space applications II2008; vol. 6958Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp. 695–803.
7.
ColeshillEOshinowoLRembalaR, et al.Dextre: improving maintenance operations on the international space station. Acta Astronaut2009; 64(9–10): 869–874.
8.
StollEWalterUArtigasJ, et al.Ground verification of the feasibility of telepresent on-orbit servicing. J Field Robot2009; 26(3): 287–307.
ZebenayMBogeTKrennR, et al.Analytical and experimental stability investigation of a hardware-in-the-loop satellite docking simulator. Proc IMechE, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering2015; 229(4): 666–681.
11.
ChapleauSLMartinEBaronL. Results and verification of spacecraft docking emulation using hardware-in-the-loop simulation. In: Romansy 16: robot design, dynamics, and control, Vienna: Springer, 2006, pp. 397–404.
12.
PaulJDettmannAGiraultB, et al.INVERITAS: a facility for hardware-in-the-loop long distance movement simulation for rendezvous and capture of satellites and other autonomous objects. Acta Astronaut2015; 116: 1–24.
13.
RybusTSewerynK. Planar air-bearing microgravity simulators: review of applications, existing solutions and design parameters. Acta Astronaut2016; 120: 239–259.
14.
RegoliLHerrmannCRavandoorK, et al.New testing facility for proximity operations in space. IFAC Proc Vol2013; 46(19): 353–358.
15.
MaOFlores-AbadABogeT. Use of industrial robots for hardware-in-the-loop simulation of satellite rendezvous and docking. Acta Astronaut2012; 81(1): 335–347.
16.
Mandal N and Payandeh S. Experimental evaluation of the importance of compliance for robotic impact control. In: Second IEEE conference on control applications, Vancouver, BC, 13 September 1993, pp.511–516. New York: IEEE.
17.
GilardiGSharfI. Literature survey of contact dynamics modelling. Mech Mach Theory2002; 37(10): 1213–1239.
18.
Ma O. Contact dynamics modelling for the simulation of the space station manipulators handling payloads. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Nagoya. vol. 2, 1995, pp.1252–1258.
19.
MaOWangJ. Model order reduction for impact-contact dynamics simulations of flexible manipulators. Robotica2007; 25(4): 397–407.
20.
Bondoky K, Janschek K, Rathke A, et al. Analysis of hardware-in-the-loop setup without artificial compliance for docking contact dynamics of satellites. In: AIAA SPACE and astronautics forum and exposition, 12–14 September 2017, Orlando, FL, pp.51–83.
21.
Chang T, Cong D, Ye Z, et al. Time problems in HIL simulation for on-orbit docking and compensation. In: 2nd IEEE conference on industrial electronics and applications, Harbin, 2007, pp.841–846. New York: IEEE.
22.
OsakiKKonnoAUchiyamaM. Delay time compensation for a hybrid simulator. Adv Robot2010; 24(8–9): 1081–1098.
23.
AbikoSSatakeYJiangX, et al.Delay time compensation based on coefficient of restitution for collision hybrid motion simulator. Adv Robot2014; 28(17): 1177–1188.
24.
QiCZhaoXGaoF, et al.Contact stiffness and damping identification for hardware-in-the-loop contact simulator with measurement delay compensation. Acta Astronaut2016; 123: 171–180.
25.
QiCGaoFZhaoXRenA, et al.A force compensation approach toward divergence of Hardware-in-the-Loop contact simulation system for damped elastic contact. IEEE Trans Indus Electron2017; 64(4): 2933–2943.
26.
Wahbah M. On the dynamics and control of space contact simulators. In: Guidance, navigation, and control conference, American institute of aeronautics and astronautics, Baltimore, MD, USA, 1995, pp.1518.
27.
GlockerCPfeifferF. Complementarity problems in multibody systems with planar friction. Arch Appl Mech1993; 63(7): 452–463.
28.
Zebenay M, Boge T and Choukroun D. Modeling and stability analysis of a hybrid docking simulator. In: Guidance, navigation, and control conference, American institute of aeronautics and astronautics, Boston, MA, USA, 2013.
29.
MarshallJEGoreckiHKorytowskiA, et al.Time-delay systems: stability and performance criteria with applications, 1st ed. London: Ellis Horwood, 1992.
30.
KhalilHK. Nonlinear systems, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
