Dynamic Inversion

© All Rights Reserved

2 tayangan

Dynamic Inversion

© All Rights Reserved

- An Invariance Principle in the Theory of Stability
- Adaptive Controller and Synchronizer Design for Hyperchaotic Zhou System with Unknown Parameters
- ITFS Volume 17 Issue 2 April 2009
- Bibliography
- 10. M.E. Electrical Control Systems.pdf
- Aerospace Science and Technology.pdf
- GU320Acontrol Panel Operation Manual_EN_A4
- Power Plant Automation-Internet
- A 288610
- PhDThesisRaimondo
- Ines2012 Submission 24
- ch25
- aut02
- 10_TrajectoryControl
- Efficiency Optimized Model Reference Adaptive Control System for a dc Motor
- 11422multiple choice2_0
- A design methodology for switched discrete time linear systems with applications to automotive roll dynamics control.pdf
- Lecture 1 Feedback Control System Sept 2012
- SRM_Speed Control
- ijaceee

Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Revised on 19th July 2009

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

ISSN 1751-8644

Asymptotic generalised dynamic inversion

attitude control

A.H. Bajodah

Aeronautical Engineering Department, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

E-mail: abajodah@kau.edu.sa

Abstract: This study introduces a generalised dynamic inversion control methodology for asymptotic spacecraft

attitude trajectory tracking. An asymptotically stable second-order servo-constraint attitude deviation dynamics is

evaluated along spacecraft equations of motion, resulting in a linear relation in the control vector. A control law

that enforces the servo-constraint is derived by generalised inversion of the relation using the Greville formula.

The generalised inverse in the particular part of the control law is scaled by a decaying dynamic factor that

depends on desired attitude trajectories and body angular velocity components. The scaled generalised

inverse uniformly converges to the standard MoorePenrose generalised inverse, causing the particular part

to converge uniformly to its projection on the range space of the controls coefcient generalised inverse, and

driving spacecraft attitude variables to nullify attitude deviation. The auxiliary part of the control law acts on

the controls coefcient nullspace, and it provides the spacecraft internal stability with the aid of the null-

control vector. The null-control vector construction is made by means of novel semidenite nullprojection

control Lyapunov function and state-dependent null-projected Lyapunov equation. The generalised dynamic

inversion control signal is multiplied by an exponential factor during transient closed-loop response to

enhance the control signal in terms of magnitude and rate of change. Illustrating examples show efcacy of

the methodology.

1 Introduction

Non-linear dynamic inversion (NDI) is a transformation

from a non-linear system to an equivalent linear system,

performed by means of a change of variables and through

feedback. The theory of NDI was initially formalised by Su

[1] and Hunt et al. [2], and its rst reported application to

spacecraft attitude control problem is due to Dwyer [3].

The methodology is widely accepted among control system

practitioners because it substantially facilitates control

system design. Additionally, it preserves the non-linear

nature of plants dynamics and thus it avoids limitations of

linearising approximations.

Classical NDI is based on constructing inverse mapping of

the controlled plant and augmenting it within the feedback

control system. Therefore the linearising transformation

depends heavily on the nature of the plant, and it becomes

difcult or impossible as complexity of the plant increases.

For this reason it may become necessary to introduce

simplifying approximations to the plants mathematical

model in order to obtain the NDI linearising

transformation, which adversely affects closed-loop control

system stability and performance characteristics in real

implementations of the transformation. Additionally, NDI

in particular situations must be local in state space, as it is

the case for spacecraft attitude dynamics [3].

A paradigm shift was made to NDI by Paielli and Bach in

[4] in the context of spacecraft attitude control. Their

approach aims to impose a prescribed dynamics on the

errors of spacecraft attitude variables from their desired

trajectory values. Rather than inverting the mathematical

model of the spacecraft, the desired attitude error dynamics

is inverted for the control variables that realise the

dynamics. The transformation is global and does not

involve deriving inverse equations of motion. It involves

simple mathematical inversions of terms that include

motion variables and control system design parameters, and

therefore it is easier and more systematic than its counterpart.

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 827

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

Nevertheless, a commonfeature betweenthe above-mentioned

NDI approaches is that the linearising transformation eliminates

non-linearities from the transformed closed-loop system

dynamics without distinguishing between types of non-

linearities. For instance, a non-linearity may cause the spacecraft

at a particular time instant to accelerate in a manner that is in

favour of the control objective, for example, in performing a

desired manoeuvre. Yet a needless control effort is made to

eliminate that non-linearity, and an additional control effort is

made to satisfy the control objective. This can be extremely

disadvantageous as large control signals may cause actuator

saturation and control systems failure.

It is therefore desirable to come up with a dynamic

inversion control design methodology that provides a global

linearising transformation, gets around the difculty of

plants mathematical model inversion and requires less

control effort to perform the inversion by avoiding blind

cancelation of dynamical systems non-linearity. These

features are offered by generalised non-linear dynamic

inversion (GNDI) control. Some basic elements of GNDI

were introduced by the author in [5, 6], together with

particular GNDI control designs. Every design exhibits

different characteristics in terms of closed-loop system

stability, performance and control signal behaviour.

The GNDI methodologies add the exibility of non-square

inversion to the simplicity of NDI by observing that although

the inverse mathematical model of a plant is unique, the

inverse dynamics problem is a problem with non-unique

solution, that is, there exist innite sets of values for the state

and control variables that satisfy a specic dynamics at a

specic time instant. Therefore the original philosophy of

dynamic inversion is quite restrictive, and there must exist

innite generalised inversion control laws that realise a

servo-constraint dynamics, that is, the differential equation

in systems state variables that has its steady-state solution

satises the control design objective.

A GNDI spacecraft control design begins by dening a norm

measure function of attitude error fromdesired attitude trajectory.

An asymptotically stable second-order linear differential equation

in the norm function is prescribed, resembling the desired

servo-constraint dynamics. The differential equation is then

transformed to a relation that is linear in the control vector by

differentiating the norm measure function along the trajectories

dened by solution of the spacecrafts state-space mathematical

model. The Greville formula [7] is utilised thereafter to invert

this relation for the control law required to realise desired stable

linear servo-constraint dynamics.

The Greville generalised inversion formula exhibits useful

geometrical features of generalised inversion. It consists of

auxiliary and particular parts, residing in the nullspace of

the inverted matrix and the complementary orthogonal

range space of its transpose, respectively. The particular

part involves the standard MoorePenrose generalised

inverse (MPGI) [8, 9], and the auxiliary part involves a free

null-vector that is projected onto nullspace of the inverted

matrix by means of a nullprojection matrix.

The Greville formula is capable of modelling solution

non-uniqueness to problems where requirements can be

satised in more than one course of action. For that reason, the

formula had remarkable contributions towards advancements

in science and engineering. In the arena of robotics, it has been

extensively used in analysis and design of kinematically

redundant manipulators [10]. Utilisation of the formula in the

eld of analytical dynamics was made by deriving the

UdwadiaKalaba equations of motion for constrained

dynamical systems [11]. Other applications include the

evolving subject of pointwise optimal control in the sense

of Gauss principle of least constraint [12], see for example,

[1315].

However, a fundamental shortcoming of the Greville

formula for matrices containing dynamic elements is MPGI

singularity. This problem is well known in applications of

the formula, and it has been thoroughly investigated in

the subject of inverse kinematics, for example, [16]. The

reason for MPGI singularity is that a matrix with

continuous function elements has discontinuous MPGI

function elements. These discontinuities occur whenever the

inverted matrix changes rank. Moreover, these discontinuous

elements approach innite values at discontinuities.

Accordingly, the corresponding solutions provided by the

Greville formula must also be discontinuous and unbounded.

The MPGI singularity forms an obstacle in the way of

utilising the Greville formula in engineering solutions.

Several remedies for the problem of generalised inversion

instability due to MPGI singularity have been offered in

the literature of robotics and control moment gyroscopic

devices, in what has become known as the singularity

avoidance problem. Remedies are either nullspace

parametrisation-based, made by proper choices of the null-

vector in the auxiliary part of the Greville formula, for

example, [1719] or approximation-based, made by

modifying the denition of the generalised inverse itself in

the particular part of the formula, for example, [2022].

A few solutions to the generalised inversion instability

problem have been provided in the context of GNDI

control. One solution is made by deactivating the particular

part of the Greville formula-based control law in the

vicinity of singularity, resulting in discontinuous control

laws [23]. Another solution is presented in [5], made by

modifying the denition of MPGI by means of a damping

factor, resulting in uniformly ultimately bounded attitude

trajectory tracking and a trade-off between generalised

inversion stability and closed-loop system performance.

This paper introduces a novel concept of generalised

inversion by which the Greville formula is modied for

guaranteed generalised inversion stability and asymptotic

tracking. The concept is based on replacing the MPGI

828 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

matrix in the Greville formula by a growth-controlled

dynamically scaled generalised inverse (DSGI) matrix, such

that the DSGI matrix elements converge uniformly to the

standard MPGI matrix elements, resulting in uniform

asymptotic convergence of spacecraft attitude parameters to

their desired values in time.

The procedure begins by dening a reference angular

velocity vector that depends on desired attitude trajectory

vector function and its time derivative. The reference angular

velocity vector has the property that its convergence to

spacecrafts body angular velocity vector implies spacecrafts

attitude vector convergence to desired attitude vector.

The DSGI is constructed by adding a dynamic scaling

factor to the controls coefcients squared norm in the

denominators of MPGIs elements. The dynamic scaling

factor is the pth integer power of the vector p norm of error

between spacecraft body angular velocity and reference

angular velocity. The null-control vector in the auxiliary

part of the control law is designed to nullify the dynamic

scaling factor such that the DSGI asymptotically recovers

the structure of the MPGI. This causes the particular part

of the control law to converge to its projection on the range

space of the controls coefcients MPGI, which drives the

attitude variables to satisfy desired servo-constraint stable

dynamics, resulting in global asymptotic attitude trajectory

tracking.

The GNDI paradigm makes it possible to merge dynamic

inversion with other control system design methodologies to

enhance control system design features. This is achieved

through construction of the null-control vector that appears

explicitly in the auxiliary part of the control law. The null-

control vector provides by its afne parametrisation of

controls coefcients nullspace a convenient way to stabilise

internal dynamics of the closed-loop control system

without affecting servo-constraint realisation.

In particular, Lyapunov control design can be augmented

with GNDI to reduce control effort required by dynamic

inversion. Lyapunov control design has a successful history

in spacecraft control, and is well known to consume less

energy than dynamic inversion. This fact is veried in the

context of GNDI in [6], and it makes merging the two

methodologies quite promising for control engineering

practice.

This paper utilises some attractive geometrical features of

generalised inversion with a novel type of positive

semidenite control Lyapunov functions [24, 25] for null-

control vector design. The control Lyapunov function

involves the controls coefcient nullprojection matrix, and

applying Lyapunov direct method [26] yields a controls

coefcient null-projected Lyapunov equation. The equation

is solved to obtain a simple control law for global

asymptotic stability of internal spacecraft dynamics.

Despite the excellent performance of GNDI control design,

heavy controls load at initial closed-loop control time causes

relatively big initial control signal magnitude compared to

control signal magnitudes at later stages of closed-loop

control times. Moreover, for the control system to enforce

desired servo-constraint dynamics, a rapid decrease of

control signal magnitude follows. This causes undesirable

high-frequency behaviour of spacecraft angular velocity and

may excite un-modelled structural modes, which adversely

affects spacecraft closed-loop dynamics. In order to avoid the

possible corrupting of spacecraft functionality, the GNDI

control signal is multiplied by an exponential factor during

transient closed-loop control system response, resulting in

substantial enhancement of control signal behaviour in terms

of initial magnitude and rate of change.

The contribution of this article is two-fold. First, the

GNDI methodology is modied for global asymptotic

attitude trajectory tracking and globally asymptotically

stable internal dynamics. Second, the control design is

enhanced to reduce control signal magnitude and rate

during transient closed-loop control system response.

2 Spacecraft mathematical model

The spacecraft mathematical model is given by the

following system of kinematical and dynamical differential

equations

r = G(r)v, r(0) = r

0

(1)

v = J

1

v

J v +t, v(0) = v

0

(2)

where r [ R

31

is the spacecraft vector of modied Rodrigues

attitude parameters (MRPs) [27], v [ R

31

is the vector of

spacecraft angular velocity components in its body reference

frame, J [ R

33

is the spacecrafts symmetric body

moments of inertia matrix and t := J

1

u [ R

31

is the

vector of scaled control torques, where u [ R

31

contains

the applied gas jet actuator torque components about the

spacecrafts principal axes. The cross product matrix x

31

is skew symmetric

of the form

x

=

0 x

3

x

2

x

3

0 x

1

x

2

x

1

0

31

R

33

is nite and invertible for any value of r [ R

31

, and is

given by

G(r) =

1

2

1 r

T

r

2

I

33

r

+rr

T

(3)

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 829

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

3 Servo-constraint attitude

deviation dynamics

Let r

r

(t) [ R

31

be a prescribed desired spacecraft attitude

vector such that r

r

(t) is twice continuously differentiable

in t. The spacecraft attitude error vector from r

r

(t) is

dened as

r(r, t) := r(t) r

r

(t) (4)

Consequently, the scalar attitude deviation norm measure

function f: R

31

[0, 1) [0, 1) is dened to be the

squared norm of r

f(r, t) = r(r, t)

2

(5)

Therefore a servo-constraint on the attitude dynamics that

represent the control design objective is given by

f(r, t) ; 0 (6)

The rst two time derivatives of f along the spacecraft

trajectories given by the solutions of (1) and (2) are

f =

f

r

G(r)v +

f

t

(7)

= 2 r

T

(r, t)[G(r)v r

r

(t)] (8)

and

f = 2[G(r)v r

r

(t)]

T

[G(r)v r

r

(t)]

+2 r

T

(r, t)[

G(r, v)v +G(r)[ J

1

v

J v +t] r

r

(t)]

(9)

where

G(r, v) is the time derivative of G(r) obtained by

differentiating the individual elements of G(r) along the

kinematical subsystem given by (1). The desired

dynamics of f that leads to asymptotic realisation

of the servo-constraint given by (6) is described to

be stable second-order in the general functional form

given by

f = L(f,

f, t) (10)

where L is continuous in its arguments. With f,

f and

the pointwise-linear form

A(r, t)t = B(r, v, t) (11)

where the vector valued function A(r, t) : R

31

[0, 1) R

13

is given by

A(r, t) = 2 r

T

(r, t)G(r) (12)

and the scalar valued function B(r, v, t) : R

31

R

31

[0, 1) R is given by

B(r, v, t) = 2[G(r)v r

r

(t)]

T

[G(r)v r

r

(t)]

2 r

T

(r, t)[

G(r, v)v +G(r)J

1

v

J v r

r

(t)]

+L(f(r, t),

f(r, v, t), t)

(13)

The row vector function A(r, t) is the controls coefcient

of the attitude deviation norm measure dynamics given by

(10) along the spacecraft trajectories, and the scalar

function B(r, v, t) is the corresponding controls load.

3.1 Linear attitude deviation dynamics

A special choice of L(f,

f, t) is

L(f,

f, t) = c

1

f c

2

f (14)

where c

1

and c

2

are positive scalars. With this choice of

L(f,

f, t), the stable attitude deviation servo-constraint

dynamics given by (10) becomes linear in the form

f +c

1

f +c

2

f = 0 (15)

The corresponding controls load B(r, v, t) given by (13)

becomes

B(r, v, t) =2[G(r)v r

r

(t)]

T

[G(r)v r

r

(t)]

2 r

T

(r, t)[

G(r, v)v+G(r)J

1

v

J v r

r

(t)]

2c

1

r

T

(r, t)[G(r)v r

r

(t)] c

2

r(r, t)

2

(16)

4 Realisability of attitude

deviation dynamics

Realisability of attitude deviation dynamics is a pointwise

assessment of the control system for the ability to enforce a

servo-constraint on the controlled spacecraft.

Denition 1 (Realisability of attitude deviation

servo-constraint dynamics): For a given desired

spacecraft attitude vector r

r

(t), the linear attitude deviation

norm measure dynamics given by (10) is said to be

realisable by spacecraft equations of motion (1) and (2) at

specic values of r and t if there exists a control vector t

that solves (11) for these values of r and t. If this is true

for all r and t such that r(r, t) =0

31

, then the linear

attitude deviation norm measure dynamics is said to be

globally realisable by the spacecraft equations of motion.

Realisability of a prescribed attitude dynamics judges on

the existence of control vector values that enforce that

dynamics for every attitude state and at every time instant.

830 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

This distinguishes the notion from the equivalent notion of

controllability, which evaluates the ability of driving a state

from one point to another in the state space. The algebraic

form of (11) is a substitute for the differential form of (10),

and realisability of the dynamics given by (10) by spacecraft

equations of motion (1) and (2) for a given desired

spacecraft attitude vector r

r

(t) at specic values of r and t

is equivalent to the existence of a control vector t that

solves (11) for these values of r and t.

Proposition 1 (Global realisability of servo-constraint

dynamics): The attitude deviation servo-constraint

dynamics given by (10) is globally realisable by spacecraft

equations of motion (1) and (2).

Proof: The existence of a vector t that solves (11) at specic

values r

w

, v

w

and t

w

is equivalent to the fact that

B(r

w

, v

w

, t

w

) is in the range space of A(r

w

, t

w

). This is

possible for any value that B(r

w

, v

w

, t

w

) may take, provided

that not all elements of A(r

w

, t

w

) vanish, for which the

equation is said to be consistent. Since G(r) is of full rank for

all r [ R

31

, the expressiongivenby (12) for A(r, t) implies that

A(r, t) = 0

13

r(r, t) = 0

31

(17)

which proves realisability of (10) for all r and t such that

r(r, t) =0

31

. A

5 Reference angular velocity

and acceleration

Invertibility of the matrix G(r) in (1) makes it possible to

solve explicitly for the vector v, which takes the form

v = G

1

(r) r (18)

Therefore a vector of reference angular velocity v

r

(t) is

obtained by substituting the desired vector of attitude

variables r

r

(t) and its time derivative r

r

(t) in place of r and

r, respectively, in (18), such that

v

r

(t) = G

1

(r

r

(t)) r

r

(t) (19)

A vector of reference angular acceleration v

r

(t) at

t = t(r, v

r

, t) is obtained from (2) by substituting v

r

(t) in

place of v such that

v

r

(t) = J

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t) +t(r, v

r

, t) (20)

6 Generalised dynamic inversion

attitude control

The MPGI-based Greville formula is used now to obtain a

preliminary form of GNDI spacecraft attitude control laws.

Proposition 2 (Linearly parameterised attitude

control laws): The innite set of all control laws that

globally realise the attitude deviation servo-constraint

dynamics given by (10) by the spacecraft equations of

motion is parameterised by an arbitrarily chosen null-

control vector y [ R

31

as

t = A

+

(r, t)B(r, v, t) +P(r, t)y (21)

where A

+

stands for the MPGI of the controls coefcient

(abbreviated as CCGI), and is given by

A

+

(r, t) =

A

T

(r, t)

A(r, t)A

T

(r, t)

, A(r, t) =0

13

0

31

, A(r, t) = 0

13

(22)

and P(r, t) [ R

33

is the corresponding controls coefcient

nullprojector (CCNP), given by

P(r, t) = I

33

A

+

(r, t)A(r, t) (23)

Proof: Multiplying both sides of (21) by A(r, t) recovers the

algebraic system given by (11). Therefore t enforces the

attitude deviation servo-constraint dynamics given by (10)

for all A(r, t) =0

13

. A

The controls coefcient nullprojector P(r, t) projects the

null-control vector y onto the nullspace of the controls

coefcient A(r, t). Therefore the choice of y does not

affect realisability of the linear attitude deviation norm

measure dynamics given by (10). Nevertheless, the choice

of y substantially affects transient state response and

spacecraft internal stability, that is, stability of the closed-

loop dynamical subsystem

v = J

1

v

J v +A

+

(r, t)B(r, v, t) +P(r, t)y (24)

obtained by substituting (21) into (2) [28].

7 Perturbed controls coefcient

nullprojector

Denition 2 (Perturbed controls coefcient

nullprojector): The perturbed CCNP

P(r, d, t) is given by

P(r, d, t) := I

33

h(d)A

+

(r, t)A(r, t) (25)

where h(d) : R

11

R

11

is any continuous function such

that

h(d) = 1 if and only if d = 0

7.1 Properties of perturbed controls

coefcient nullprojector

The rst and second properties below are proven in [5]. The

third property is veried by direct evaluation of P(r, t) and

1.

P(r, d, t) is of full rank for all d =0.

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 831

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

2.

P

1

(r, d, t)P(r, t) = P(r, t)

P

1

(r, d, t) = P(r, t).

3. P(r, t)

P(r, d, t) =

8 Generalised inverse instability

The expression given by (12) for the controls coefcient

implies that if the dynamics given by (10) is globally

realisable by the spacecraft equations of motion, then

lim

f0

A(r, t) = 0

13

(26)

Accordingly, the expression of A

+

(r, t) given by (22) implies

that for any initial condition r

0

=r

r

(0), state trajectories of

the closed-loop control system given by (1) and (24) must

evolve such that

lim

f0

A

+

(r, t) = 1

31

(27)

That is, A

+

(r, t) must go unbounded as the spacecraft

dynamics approaches steady state. This is a source of

instability for the closed-loop system because it causes the

control law expression given by (21) to become unbounded.

One solution to this problem is made by switching the

value of the CCGI according to (22) to A

+

(r, t) = 0

31

when the controls coefcient A(r, t) approaches singularity,

which implies deactivating the particular part of the control

law as the closed-loop system reaches steady state, leading to

a discontinuous control law [23].

Alternatively, a solution is made by replacing the MPGI in

(21) by a damped generalised inverse [5], resulting in

uniformly ultimately bounded trajectory tracking errors, and

a trade-off between generalised inversion stability and

steady-state tracking performance. A solution to this

problem that avoids control law discontinuity and provides

asymptotic attitude tracking is made by replacing the

MPGI in (21) by the growth-controlled DSGI introduced

in the next section.

9 Dynamically scaled generalised

inverse

The notion of dynamically scaled generalised inversion is

crucial for internally stable asymptotic generalised inverse

attitude control.

Denition 3 (DSGI): The DSGI A

+

s

(r, v, t) : R

31

R

31

[0, 1) R

31

is given by

A

+

s

(r, v, t) =

A

T

(r, t)

A(r, t)A

T

(r, t) +v v

r

(t)

p

p

(28)

where the positive integer p is the generalised inversion

dynamic scaling index, and

p

is the vector p norm.

9.1 Properties of DSGI

The following properties can be veried by direct evaluation

of the CCGI A

+

(r, t) given by (22) and its dynamic scaling

A

+

s

(r, v, t) given by (28).

1. A

+

s

(r, v, t)A(r, t)A

+

(r, t) = A

+

s

(r, v, t).

2. A

+

(r, t)A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t) = A

+

s

(r, v, t).

3. (A

+

s

(r, v, t)A(r, t))

T

= A

+

s

(r, v, t)A(r, t).

4. lim

vv

r

(t)

p

0

A

+

s

(r, v, t) = A

+

(r, t).

10 DSGI control

The DSGI control law is obtained by replacing the CCGI in

the particular part of the expression given by (21) by the

DSGI as

t

s

= A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t) +P(r, t)y (29)

resulting in the following spacecraft closed-loop system

equations

r = G(r)v, r(0) = r

0

(30)

v = J

1

v

J v +A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t)

+P(r, t)y, v(0) = v

0

(31)

Proposition 3 (Bounded trajectory tracking error): If

the null-control vector y in the control law expression given

by (29) is chosen such that the angular velocity vector v of

the closed-loop system given by (30) and (31) satises

v v

r

(t)

p

, 1, t 0 (32)

then the resulting closed-loop attitude trajectory error vector

r(r, t) is bounded.

Proof: Since the matrix G(r) has nite elements for any

attitude vector r, then it is evident from the expression of

the controls coefcient A(r, t) given by (12) that A(r, t) is

bounded if and only if r(r, t) is bounded. Therefore

assuming on the contrary that there exists a null-control

vector y that causes the closed-loop angular velocity vector

v to satisfy (32) such that

lim

t1

r(r, t) = 1 (33)

then it follows that

lim

t1

A(r, t) = 1 (34)

which implies from (28) and (32) that

lim

t1

A

+

s

(r, v, t) = A

+

(r, t) (35)

832 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

It accordingly follows from the expression of t

s

given by

(29) that

lim

t1

t

s

= t (36)

where t is given by (21), causing the closed-loop system

trajectories to asymptotically satisfy the stable servo-

constraint dynamics given by (15), and resulting in

lim

t1

f = 0 (37)

which contradicts (33). Therefore the control law t

s

given by

(29) must yield

r(r, t) , 1 (38)

and must yield bounded elements of A(r, t). A

Proposition 4 (Asymptotic attitude trajectory

tracking): If the null-control vector y in the control law

expression given by (29) is chosen such that the angular

velocity vector v of the closed-loop system given by (30)

and (31) satises (32) and such that

lim

t1

v = v

r

(t) (39)

then the attitude vector r asymptotically converges to the

desired attitude vector r

r

(t).

Proof: Let f

s

be a norm measure function of the

attitude deviation obtained by applying the control law

given by (29) to the spacecraft equations of motion (1)

and (2), and let

f

s

,

f

s

be its rst two time derivatives.

Therefore

f

s

:= f

s

(r, t) = f(r, t) (40)

f

s

:=

f

s

(r, v, t) =

f(r, v, t) (41)

f

s

:=

f

s

(r, v, t

s

, t) =

s

A(r, t)t (42)

where t and t

s

are given by (21) and (29), respectively.

Adding c

1

f

s

+c

2

f

s

to both sides of (42) yields

f

s

+c

1

f

s

+c

2

f

s

=

f+c

1

f+c

2

f+A(r, t)t

s

A(r, t)t (43)

= A(r, t)[t

s

t] (44)

Therefore the boundedness of A(r, t) inferred from

Proposition 3 in addition to satisfaction of (39) imply that

lim

t1

[

f

s

+c

1

f

s

+c

2

f

s

] = lim

t1

[A(r, t)[t

s

t]] = 0 (45)

resulting in

lim

t1

f

s

= 0 (46)

and therefore

lim

t1

r = r

r

(t) (47)

for all r

0

[ R

3

. The same conclusion is obtained by

multiplying both sides of (29) by A(r, t), resulting in

A(r, t)t

s

= A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t) (48)

where

A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t) =

A(r, t)A

T

(r, t)

A(r, t)A

T

(r, t) +vv

r

(t)

p

p

(49)

Therefore

0 , A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t) 1 (50)

and

lim

vv

r

(t)

A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t) = 1 (51)

Dividing (48) by A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t) yields

A(r, t)

t = B(r, v, t) (52)

where A(r, t) and B(r, v, t) are the same controls coefcient

and controls load in (11), and

t =

t

s

A(r, t)A

+

s

(r, v, t)

(53)

Furthermore, (51) implies that

lim

vv

r

(t)

t = lim

vv

r

(t)

t

s

= t (54)

Therefore

t in the algebraic system given by (52)

asymptotically converges to t, recovering the algebraic

system given by (11), and resulting in asymptotic

convergence of f

s

(t) to f

s

= f = 0, and r to r

r

(t). A

Proposition 4 states that employing the DSGI A

+

s

(r, v, t)

in the attitude control law yields the same attitude

convergence property that is obtained by employing the

CCGI A

+

(r, t), provided that the conditions given by (32)

and (39) are satised. A design of the null-control vector y

is made in the next section to guarantee global satisfaction

of the conditions given by (32) and (39).

Remark 1: It is well known that topological obstruction of

the attitude rotation matrix precludes the existence of globally

stable equilibria for the attitude dynamics [29]. Therefore

although the servo-constraint attitude deviation dynamics

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 833

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

given by (10) is globally realisable, there exists no null-control

that renders the spacecraft attitude dynamics globally stable.

In particular, if r

r

(t) ; 0

31

then for any null-control

vector y there exists an attitude vector r

0

such that the

closed-loop system given by (30) and (31) is unstable in the

sense of Lyapunov.

11 Nullprojection Lyapunov

control design

A Lyapunov-based design of null-control vector y is

introduced in this section to enforce spacecraft internal

stability. Let y be chosen as

y = K(v v

r

(t)) (55)

where v

r

(t) is given by (19), and K [ R

33

is a matrix gain

that is to be determined. Hence, a class of control laws that

realise the attitude deviation norm measure dynamics given

by (10) is obtained by substituting this choice of y in (29)

such that

t

s

= A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t) +P(r, t)K(v v

r

(t)) (56)

Consequently, a class of spacecraft closed-loop control

systems that realise the servo-constraint dynamics given by

(10) is obtained by substituting the control law given by

(56) in (2), and it takes the form

r = G(r)v, r(0) = r

0

(57)

v = J

1

v

J v +A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t)

+P(r, t)K(v v

r

(t)), v(0) = v

0

(58)

The closed-loop reference angular acceleration vector v

r

(t) is

obtained by replacing v by v

r

(t) in (58), resulting in

v

r

(r, t) = J

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t) +A

+

s

(r, v

r

(t), t)B(r, v

r

(t), t)

+P(r, t)K(v

r

(t) v

r

(t))

(59)

= J

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t) +A

+

(r, t)B(r, v

r

(t), t) (60)

By introducing the angular velocity error variable

v(t) ; v(t) v

r

(t), the error dynamics

v is obtained from

(58) and (60) as

v = J

1

v

J v J

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t)

+A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t)

A

+

(r, t)B(r, v

r

(t), t) +P(r, t)K v (61)

The matrix gain K is synthesised by utilising the positive-

semidenite control Lyapunov function

V(r, v, t) = v

T

P(r, t) v (62)

Evaluating the time derivative of V(r, v, t) along solution

trajectories of the error dynamics given by (61) yields

V(r, v, t) =2 v

T

P(r, t)[ J

1

v

J vJ

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t)

+A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t) A

+

(r, t)B(r, v

r

(t), t)]

+2 v

T

P(r, t)K v+ v

T

P(r, v, t) v (63)

Skew symmetry of the cross product matrix [

.

]

, the

nullprojection property of P(r, t), and the second property

of A

+

s

(r, v, t) imply that the rst term in the above

equation is the zero matrix. Therefore the equation can be

written in the symmetrical form

V(r, v, t) = v

T

[P(r, t)K +K

T

P(r, t)

+

P(r, v, t)] v (64)

Because V(r, v, t) is only positive semidenite, it is

impossible to design a matrix gain K that renders

that renders

V(r, v, t) negative semidenite guarantees

global Lyapunov stability of v = 0

31

if it asymptotically

stabilises v = 0

31

over the invariant set of r, v, and t

values on which V(r, v, t) = 0. Moreover, the same gain

matrix globally asymptotically stabilises v = 0

31

if and

only if it asymptotically stabilises v = 0

31

over the largest

invariant set of r, v, and t values on which

V(r, v, t) = 0

[24].

Proposition 5: Let K = K(r, v, t) be a full-rank

normal matrix gain, that is, KK

T

= K

T

K for all t 0.

Then the equilibrium point v = 0

31

of the closed-loop

error dynamics given by (61) is asymptotically stable over

the invariant set of r, v, and t values on which

V(r, v, t) = 0.

Proof: Since the matrix P(r, t) is idempotent, the function

V(r, v, t) can be rewritten as

V(r, v, t) = v

T

P(r, t) v = v

T

P(r, t)P(r, t) v (65)

which implies that

V(r, v, t) = 0 P(r, t) v = 0

31

(66)

Therefore

V(r, v, t) = 0 v [ N(P(r, t)) (67)

where N() refers to matrix nullspace. Since the matrix

K(r, v, t) is normal and of full-rank, it preserves

matrix range space and nullspace under multiplication.

Accordingly,

N(P(r, t)) = N(P(r, t)K(r, v, t)) (68)

834 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

which implies from (66) that

V(r, v, t) = 0 P(r, t)K(r, v, t) v = 0

31

(69)

Therefore the last term in the closed-loop error dynamics

given by (61) is the zero vector, and the closed-loop error

dynamics becomes

v = J

1

v

J v J

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t)

+A

+

s

(r, v, t)B(r, v, t)

A

+

(r, t)B(r, v

r

(t), t) (70)

On the other hand, since [30, 11]

N(P(r, t)) = R(A

T

(r, t)) (71)

it follows from (67) that

V(r, v, t) = 0 v [ R(A

T

(r, t)) (72)

Accordingly, V(r, v, t) = 0 if and only if there exists a

continuous scalar function a(t), t 0, satisfying

0 , |a(t)| , 1 (73)

such that

v = a(t)A

T

(r, t) (74)

Therefore assuming that v goes unbounded, then A

T

(r, t)

also goes unbounded, both expressions of A

+

(r, t) and

A

+

s

(r, t) given by (22) and (28) must go to zero, and the

closed-loop error dynamics given by (70) approaches the

Lyapunov-stable uncontrolled dynamics

v = J

1

v

J v J

1

v

r

(t)J v

r

(t) (75)

implying boundedness of v, in contradiction with the

original argument. Therefore, the trajectory of v must

remain in a nite region, and it follows from the Poincare

Bendixon theorem [31] that the trajectory goes to the

equilibrium point v = 0

31

.

Theorem 1 (CCNP Lyapunov control design): Let the

controls coefcient nullspace-projected gain matrix be

P(r, t)K(r, v, t) = vec

1

{[

P(r, d

1

, t)

P(r, d

1

, t)]

1

vec[

P(r, v, t) +P(r, t)U(r, v, t)]}

(76)

where the operation is the kronecker sum of matrices,

vec and vec

21

are the matrix vectorising and inverse

vectorising operators [30, p. 251],

P(r, v, t) is obtained by

differentiating the elements of P(r, t) along attitude

trajectory solutions of the closed-loop kinematical

subsystem given by (57), d

1

=0 is an arbitrary scalar, and

U(r, v, t) : R

31

R

31

[0, 1) R

33

is orthogonal

and positive-denite. Then the equilibrium point v = 0

31

of the closed-loop error dynamics given by (61) is globally

asymptotically stable, and the attitude vector r of closed-

loop system equations (57) and (58) is globally

asymptotically convergent to r

r

(t).

Proof: The existence of a matrix gain K that renders the

expression of

V(r, v, t) given by (64) negative semidenite is

guaranteed because the range space of

P(r, v, t) is a subset

from the range space of P(r, t). This is shown by writing

P(r, t) = P(r, t)P(r, t)

P(r, v, t)

= 2P(r, t)

P(r, v, t) (77)

so that

R[

P(r, v, t)] = R[P(r, t)

P(r, v, t)] # R[P(r, t)] (78)

where R() refers to matrix range space. Negative

semideniteness of

V(r, v, t) is equivalent to the existence of

a positive-semidenite matrix function Q(r, v, t) : R

31

R

31

[0, 1) R

33

such that

P(r, t)K +KP(r, t) +

P(r, v, t) +Q(r, v, t) =0

33

(79)

Furthermore, if the above equation is consistent then every term

in the equation must map into the range space of P(r, t), which

implies that a polar decomposition of Q(r, v, t) is given by

Q(r, v, t) = P(r, t)U(r, v, t) (80)

where U(r, v, t) is orthogonal and positive denite.

Substituting (80) into (79) and using the third property of

P(r, d, t) yields

P(r, d

1

, t)P(r, t)K +KP(r, t)

P(r, d

1

, t)

+

P(r, v, t) +P(r, t)U(r, v, t) = 0

33

(81)

The unique solution of the above equation for the gain matrix

nullprojection P(r, t)K is given by [30]

P(r, t)K(r, v, t) = vec

1

{[I

33

P(r, d

1

, t)

+

P(r, d

1

, t) I

33

]

1

vec[

P(r, v, t) +P(r, t)U(r, v, t)]}

(82)

where denotes the kronecker product of matrices.

Equation (82) can be written in the compact form given

by (76). Solution uniqueness of (81) implies that the

symmetric matrix gain K(r, v, t) remains non-singular for

all t 0. Accordingly, K(r, v, t) satises the condition of

Proposition 5. Hence, in addition to rendering V(r, v, t)

negative semidenite, K(r, v, t) guarantees asymptotic

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 835

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

stability of vover the invariant set of r, vand t values on which

V(r, v, t) = 0, and Lyapunov stability of v = 0

31

follows

[24]. Since V(r, v, t) is radially unbounded with respect to

v, Lyapunov stability of v = 0

31

is global. Moreover, it is

noticed from the expression of

V(r, v, t) given by (63) and

from (78) that the largest invariant set of r, v and t on

which

V(r, v, t) = 0 is the same invariant set on which

V(r, v, t) = 0, implying global asymptotic stability of the

equilibrium point v = 0

31

[24]. Global asymptotic

convergence of the attitude vector r to the desired attitude

vector r

r

(t) follows from Proposition 4. A

Since the orthogonal positive-denite matrix function

U(r, v, t) is arbitrary, it follows from (77) that there is no

loss of generality in writing

where Q [ R

33

is an arbitrary orthogonal and positive-

denite constant matrix. Accordingly, the gain matrix

nullprojection P(r, t)K given by (82) can be rewritten as

PK(r, t) = vec

1

{[

P(r, d

1

, t)

P(r, d

1

, t)]

1

vec[P(r, t)Q]} (84)

Increasing the magnitude of Q causes faster convergence of v

to the origin, at the attendant cost of increasing the relative

magnitude of the auxiliary part in the control law.

12 Damped controls coefcient

nullprojector

Although the CCNP has bounded elements, dependency of

CCNP on the unbounded vector A

+

(r, t) may cause

undesirable behaviour of the auxiliary part in the control

law t

s

during steady-state tracking response of time-varying

trajectories. For this reason, a damped controls coefcient

nullprojector (DCCN) P

d

(r, e, t) is used in place of

P(r, t) in (56). The DCCN is dened as

P

d

(r, e, t) := I

33

A

+

d

(r, e, t)A(r, t) (85)

where e is a small positive number, and A

+

d

(r, e, t) is given by

A

+

d

(r, e, t) :=

A

T

(r, t)

A(r, t)A

T

(r, t) +e

(86)

Therefore

lim

f0

A

+

d

(r, e, t) = 0

31

(87)

and consequently

lim

f0

P

d

(r, e, t) = I

33

(88)

Hence, the DCCN maps the null-control vector to itself in

steady-state phase of response, during which the auxiliary

part of the control law converges to the null-control vector.

Independency of nullprojection on the attitude state of the

spacecraft substantially eliminates unnecessary abrupt

behaviour of the control vector.

13 Exponentially factored GNDI

control

The GNDI control design does not guarantee an acceptable

behaviour of the GNDI control signal. If the initial value of

controls load B(r

0

, v

0

, 0) is big, then the magnitude of initial

control signal must be big also. Moreover, continuation of

servo-constraint dynamics enforcement causes a rapid decay

of control signal by one or more orders of magnitude in a

very short time compared to transient response time. Such

control signal characteristics are extremely undesirable from

several technical aspects. For instance, if the control

actuators magnitude or rate limits are met, then the control

system fails to provide the required GNDI control signal. In

order to avoid unnecessarily big GNDI control signal

magnitude and rate of change, the GNDI control signal is

exponentially factored during early closed-loop control time as

t

e

= [1 exp(ht)]t

s

(89)

The control signal t

e

starts at zero values at t 0 and then

converges to t

s

given by (56), where h . 0 determines the

rate of convergence.

Increasing the magnitude of the parameter h causes more

suppression of the control signal in the very early stage of

closed-loop response, but it causes a rapid decay of the

exponential term, which limits the benet of the

exponentially factored design as the control load B(r, v, t)

may remain big after the exponential term vanishes. On the

other hand, excessive decrease in magnitude of the

parameter h causes the closed-loop control signal to remain

small for a long time, which adversely affect the tracking

performance of the control system by delaying steady-state

phase of response. A suitable compromise for the value of

h is in the order of 0.1.

To ensure continuity of the control signal, the

exponentially factored signal t

e

is applied for a sufciently

big time interval before the GNDI signal t

s

takes over.

14 Control system design

procedure

The GNDI control system design methodology for tracking

smooth attitude trajectories is summarised in the following

steps:

1. A desired spacecraft attitude trajectory r

r

(t) is prescribed,

where r

r

is at least twice differentiable in t. The desired

angular velocity vector v

r

(t) is given by (19), where G(r) is

given by (3).

836 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

2. The attitude deviation norm measure dynamics given by

(10) is specied such that the dynamics of f is

asymptotically stable. A special choice is given by (15),

where both c

1

and c

2

are strictly positive.

3. The expressions given by (12) and (13) for A(r, t) and

B(r, v, t) are obtained, where r(r, t) is given by (4).

4. The control law t

s

given by (56) is obtained, where

A

+

s

(r, v, t) is given by (28), the controls coefcient null-

projected gain matrix P(r, t)K is given by the expression of

(84), the perturbed CCNP

P(r, d, t) is given by (25) and

the constant matrix Q is arbitrary but orthogonal and

positive denite.

5. The exponentially factored control law t

e

given by (89) is

used in (2) until the exponential term vanishes, and the

control law t

s

is applied afterwards.

6. Equations (1) and (2) are integrated to obtain the closed-

loop trajectories of r(t) and v(t).

15 Numerical simulations

The rst manoeuvre considered is a rest-to-rest slew

manoeuvre, aiming to reorient a spacecraft at an initial

attitude given by r(0) to a different attitude given by r

r

(T),

where T is the duration of the manoeuvre. The spacecraft

has principal moments of inertia I

11

200 kg m

2

,

I

22

150 kg m

2

, I

33

175 kg m

2

and the control torque

actuators are mounted along principal axes. To insure

smooth transition to the new state, it is required that the

spacecraft attitude variables follow the MRPs trajectories

given by the following fth-order polynomial [32]

r

r

(t) = r

r

(0) + 10

t

T

3

15

t

T

4

+6

t

T

5

[r

r

(T) r

r

(0)] (90)

where r

r

(0) = [0 0 0]

T

, r

r

(T) = [0.70 0.80 1.20]

T

, and

T 180 s. To avoid oscillatory closed-loop state response

induced by underdamped servo-constraint dynamics, it is

preferred to choose values of c

1

and c

2

that yield

overdamped second-order servo-constraint dynamics.

Additionally, damping ratio of the servo-constraint

dynamics should be sufciently big to produce a relatively

short duration of the transient response, which can be

obtained by choosing c

1

to be of an order of magnitude

larger than c

2

. Values of second-order attitude deviation

dynamics constants are chosen to be c

1

= 1.0 and c

2

= 0.1,

resulting in an overdamped servo-constraint dynamics with

damping ratio equals to 1.58. The orthogonal positive-

denite Lyapunov matrix Q is selected to be the identity

matrix, and the function h(d) is taken to be

h(d) =

1

1 +d

(91)

where a design value d = 0.1 is chosen. With

r(0) = [0.25 0.20 0.10]

T

and a dynamic scaling index

p 2, Figs. 1 and 2 show r and v trajectories, respectively.

Fig. 3 shows time history of the GNDI control variables

t

s

1

and t

s

2

, and compares with time history of the

exponentially factored GNDI control variables t

e

1

and t

e

2

,

where h 0.1 is selected. The control vector t

s

takes

initial value t

s

(0) = [7.41 10

2

2.47 10

2

4.94

10

2

]

T

(not shown), and drops rapidly in magnitude to the

order of 10

25

in less than 10 s. The exponential factoring

lasts for the rst 40 s, and it has a minor effect on

spacecraft state response. However, it substantially improves

Figure 2 Rest-to-rest slew manoeuvre: angular velocity

components against t

Figure 1 Rest-to-rest slew manoeuvre: MRPs attitude

parameters against t

Figure 3 Rest-to-rest slew manoeuvre: control torques

against t

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 837

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

the control signal by reducing its magnitude and rate of

change. No discontinuities in the control variables at

t 40 s are tangible because t

e

converges to t

s

in shorter

time. Similar plots of t

s

3

and t

e

3

are obtained, but are not

shown.

The second manoeuvre considered is a trajectory tracking

manoeuvre. The desired attitude trajectory is dened by

reference attitude parameters

r

ri

(t) = cos 0.1t, i = 1, 2, 3 (92)

The spacecraft has principal moments of inertia

I

11

100 kg m

2

, I

22

60 kg m

2

, I

33

75 kg m

2

. For

control torque actuators mounted along principal axes,

dynamic scaling index p 4, d = 0.1, h(d) given by (91),

e = 10

5

, Q = I

33

, r(0) = [0.5 0.4 0.8]

T

and v(0) =

[0.2 0.7 0.4]

T

. Figs. 4 and 5 show time response of the

components of attitude and angular velocity vectors r and

v, respectively. Transient and asymptotic behaviours of

attitude and angular velocity variables indicate excellent

closed-loop control system performance. Fig. 6 shows time

history of attitude deviation scalar f for different values of

dynamic scaling factor p. It is observed that increasing p

has a favourable inuence on attitude deviation and

tracking performance. This is because the expression given

by (28) provides better approximations of the controls

coefcients MPGI for higher values of p as steady-state

response is approached, that is, as the controls coefcient

squared norm in the denominator of the expression

vanishes. However, it is noticed from Fig. 6 that no further

improvement of tracking performance is achieved by

increases p over 4, and that the value of f starts to oscillate

within the order of e. Accordingly, more tracking

performance enhancement requires decreasing e. Finally,

Fig. 7 shows time history of GNDI control variables t

s

1

and t

s

2

and exponentially factored GNDI control variables

t

e

1

and t

e

2

, where h = 0.1 is selected. The t

s

signal suffers

from a high initial magnitude and a rapid rate of decay.

The exponential factoring lasts for the rst 5 s, and it

substantially improves control signal by reducing its

magnitude and rate of change with no major effect on

spacecraft state response or tangible discontinuities in the

control vector components. Similar plots of t

s

3

and t

e

3

are

obtained, but is not shown.

16 Conclusion

Driven by the advantages that generalised dynamic inversion

provide over classical dynamic inversion, this paper builds

on the recently developed GNDI control paradigm by

improving the control law to yield asymptotic tracking of

desired smooth trajectories. The DSGI in the particular

Figure 4 Trajectory tracking manoeuvre: MRPs attitude

parameters against t

Figure 5 Trajectory tracking manoeuvre: angular velocity

components against t

Figure 6 Trajectory tracking manoeuvre: f against t,

e 10

25

Figure 7 Trajectory tracking manoeuvre: control torques

against t

838 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

part of the control law is capable of overcoming controls

coefcient generalised inversion singularity, and it

converges to the standard MPGI as the dynamic scaling

factor decays and closed-loop steady-state response

approaches. The null-control vector in the auxiliary part of

the control law is designed by means of novel semidenite

control Lyapunov function and nullprojected control

Lyapunov equation that utilise geometric features of the

GNDI control laws structure. The exponentially factored

GNDI control signal replaces the GNDI control signal in

early stage of the control time to improve control signal

quality. Perfect plant mathematical modelling and an ideal

control environment are assumed for the purpose of

constructing the null-control vector. The present

construction of the null-control vector can be used as a

base for designing adaptive and robust GNDI control laws

in the presence of input disturbances, measurement noises

and modelling uncertainties.

17 References

[1] SU R.: On the linear equivalents of nonlinear systems,

Syst. Control Lett., 1982, 2, pp. 4852

[2] HUNT L.R., SU R., MEYER G.: Global transformations of

nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1983, AC-

28, pp. 2431

[3] DWYER III T.: Exact nonlinear control of large angle

rotational maneuvers, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1984,

29, (9), pp. 769774

[4] PAIELLI R.A., BACH R.E.: Attitude control with realization of

linear error dynamics, J. Guidance, Control, Dyn., 1993, 16,

(1), pp. 182189

[5] BAJODAH A.H.: Singularly perturbed feedback

linearization with linear attitude deviation dynamics

realization, Nonlinear Dyn., 2008, 53, (4), pp. 321343

[6] BAJODAH A.H.: Generalized dynamic inversion spacecraft

control design methodologies, IET Control Theory Appl.,

2009, 3, (2), pp. 239251

[7] GREVILLE T.N.E.: The pseudoinverse of a rectangular or

singular matrix and its applications to the solutions of

systems of linear equations, SIAM Rev., 1959, 1, (1),

pp. 3843

[8] MOORE E.H.: On the reciprocal of the general algebraic

matrix, Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 1920, 26, pp. 394395

[9] PENROSE R.: A generalized inverse for matrices, Proc.

Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1955, vol. 51, pp. 406413

[10] SICILIANO B., KHATIB O.: Springer handbook of robotics

(Springer, 2008)

[11] UDWADIA F.E., KALABA R.E.: Analytical dynamics, a new

approach (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996)

[12] GAUSS C.F.: Ueber ein neues algemeines grundgesetz

der mechanik, Zeit. Fuer reine angew. Math., 1829, 4,

pp. 232235

[13] DE SAPIO V., KHATIB O., DELP S.: Least action principles and

their application to constrained and task-level problems in

robotics and biomechanics, Multibody Syst. Dyn., 2008, 19,

(3), pp. 303322

[14] UDWADIA F.E.: Optimal tracking control of nonlinear

dynamical systems, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 2008, 464,

pp. 23412363

[15] PETERS J., MISTRY M., UDWADIA F., NAKANISHI J., SCHAAL S.: A

unifying framework for robot control with redundant

DOFs, Auton. Robots, 2008, 24, (1), pp. 112

[16] BAKER D.R., WAMPLER II C.W.: On inverse kinematics of

redundant manipulators, Int. J. Robot. Res., 1988, 7, (2),

pp. 321

[17] LIEGEOIS A.: Automatic supervisory control of the

conguration and behavior of multi-body mechanisms,

IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernet., 1977, 7, (12),

pp. 868871

[18] MAYORGA R.V., JANABI-SHARIFI F., WONG A.K.C.: A fast approach

for the robust trajectory planning of redundant robot

manipulators, J. Robot. Syst., 1995, 12, (2), pp. 147161

[19] YOON H., TSIOTRAS P.: Singularity analysis of variable-

speed control moment gyros, J. Guidance, Control, Dyn.,

2004, 27, (3), pp. 374386

[20] NAKAMURA Y., HANAFUSA H.: Inverse kinematic solutions

with singularity robustness for robot manipulator control,

J. Dyn. Syst. Meas., Control, 1986, 10, (8), pp. 163171

[21] WAMPLER II C.W.: Manipulator inverse kinematic

solutions based on vector formulations and damped

least-squares methods, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybernet.,

1986, SMC-16, pp. 93101

[22] OH H.S., VADALI S.R.: Feedback control and steering laws

for spacecraft using single gimbal control moment gyros,

J. Astronaut. Sci., 1991, 39, (2), pp. 183203

[23] BAJODAH A.H.: Stabilization of underactuated

spacecraft dynamics via singularly perturbed feedback

linearization, J. King Abdulaziz Univ. Eng. Sci., 2006, 16,

(2), pp. 3553

[24] IQQIDR A., KALITINE B., OUTBIB R.: Semidenite Lyapunov

functions stability and stabilization, Math. Control, Signals

Syst., 1996, 9, (2), pp. 95106

IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840 839

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

[25] BENSOUBAYA M., FERFERA A., IQQIDR A.: Stabilization

of nonlinear systems by use of semidenite

Lyapunov functions, Appl. Math. Lett., 1999, 12, (7),

pp. 1117

[26] KHALIL H.K.: Nonlinear systems (Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

2002, 3rd edn.)

[27] SHUSTER M.D.: A survey of attitude representation,

J. Astronaut. Sci., 1993, 41, (4), pp. 439517

[28] BAJODAH A.H., HODGES D.H., CHEN Y.H.: Inverse dynamics of

servo-constraints based on the generalized inverse,

Nonlinear Dyn., 2005, 39, (12), pp. 179196

[29] BHAT S., BERNSTEIN D.: A topological obstruction to

continuous global stabilization of rotational motion and

the unwinding phenomenon, Syst. Control Lett., 2000, 39,

(1), pp. 6370

[30] BERNSTEIN D.: Matrix mathematics: theory, facts, and

formulas with application to linear system theory

(Princeton University Press, 2005)

[31] SLOTINE J.E., LI W.: Applied nonlinear control (Prentice-

Hall, 1991)

[32] MCINNES C.R.: Satellite attitude slew manoeuvres using

inverse control, Aeronaut. J., 1998, 102, pp. 259265

840 IET Control Theory Appl., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 5, pp. 827840

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2009.0008

www.ietdl.org

Copyright of IET Control Theory & Applications is the property of Institution of Engineering & Technology

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

- An Invariance Principle in the Theory of StabilityDiunggah olehcastrojp
- Adaptive Controller and Synchronizer Design for Hyperchaotic Zhou System with Unknown ParametersDiunggah olehAlejandro Carver
- ITFS Volume 17 Issue 2 April 2009Diunggah olehchandakhitesh
- BibliographyDiunggah olehnguyenhoatk16
- 10. M.E. Electrical Control Systems.pdfDiunggah olehDevi Priya
- Aerospace Science and Technology.pdfDiunggah olehSuko Ariaswanto
- GU320Acontrol Panel Operation Manual_EN_A4Diunggah olehpresertec
- Power Plant Automation-InternetDiunggah olehtuki07
- A 288610Diunggah olehzeeshanbabar112
- PhDThesisRaimondoDiunggah olehFaridun Naim Tajuddin
- Ines2012 Submission 24Diunggah olehwdsdas
- ch25Diunggah olehgatzke
- aut02Diunggah olehfahri_amirullah
- 10_TrajectoryControlDiunggah olehPhạm Ngọc Hòa
- Efficiency Optimized Model Reference Adaptive Control System for a dc MotorDiunggah olehkondezz
- 11422multiple choice2_0Diunggah olehUsman Ubair
- A design methodology for switched discrete time linear systems with applications to automotive roll dynamics control.pdfDiunggah olehCordos Nicolae
- Lecture 1 Feedback Control System Sept 2012Diunggah olehMohd Ikram Solehuddin
- SRM_Speed ControlDiunggah olehChinnu Chinni
- ijaceeeDiunggah olehijaceee
- ijaceeeDiunggah olehijaceee
- The International Journal of Applied Control, Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJACEEE)Diunggah olehijaceee
- Qian FinalDiunggah olehKarad Karadias
- Robustness of Continuous-time Adaptive Control Algorithms Inthe Presence of Unmodelede DynamicsDiunggah olehleandro_soares2000
- s7300 Fm355 2 Operating Instructions en en-USDiunggah olehRino Ismael Simancas
- 19162808Diunggah olehhanshyam
- Padula VisiDiunggah olehShubham Maurya
- Course DescriptionsDiunggah olehHet
- marwan hDiunggah olehganeen hahgdha
- capitulo_14Diunggah olehLeonardo Olan Valdivieso

- Book AnnouncementsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- trajectoryDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 2011_Adaptive Optimal Control for an Air-breathing Hypersonic VehicleDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Home Assignment BETDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17090190Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- RadarDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Airplane Performance Sensitivities to Lateral and Vertical ProfilesDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Reduced-Order Observers Applied to State and Parameter Estimation Ofhydromechanical ServoactuatorsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Comment on _Active Flutter Control Using Generalized Unsteady Aerodynamic TheoryDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Effect of Thrust Speed Dependence on Long-period Dynamics in Supersonic FlightDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Config Aero SizeDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Control Systems ApplicationDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Dynamic Programming MatlabDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- ControlDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17076587Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17058089Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17053019Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- 17076591Diunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Dynamic Inversion With Zero-dynamics Stablization for Quadrotor ControlDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Flight SimulationDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- AerospaceDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Loop Shapind Design ProcedureDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Fractional Order Phase Shaper Design With Routh’sDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Fixed-Structure H∞ Controller Synthesis Based onDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Design of Robust Fuzzy Controllers for Aerospace ApplicationsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Design of Reduced Order H-Inf ControllersDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Damage-mmgating Control of Aerospace SystemsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- Autopilot Design for Missile With Morphing WingsDiunggah olehRitesh Singh
- An Nvstigation Op Adaptive ControlDiunggah olehRitesh Singh

- MathematicsDiunggah olehSaqib Rehan
- Trigonometric Identities.pdfDiunggah olehVhan Perez
- Matematika_Ekonomi_perslinier_matrix.pptDiunggah olehAnnisa Rahma
- WORKSHEET-Partial Differentiation, ApplicationsDiunggah olehjhdmss
- msc_marc_courseDiunggah olehnonmivieneinmente
- DFT TutorialDiunggah olehSatish Rath
- Maths Course TopicsDiunggah olehteja09347
- Saha Ray, Santanu - Numerical analysis with algorithms and programming (2016, CRC Press).pdfDiunggah olehDivyanshu Raj
- Haar Measure on the Unitary GroupsDiunggah olehDialid Santiago
- Chag Ce50p Co1 LaplaceDiunggah olehMark Dones
- 2004 MTAP Elimination (Q and a)Diunggah olehFermo Gadayan Ramos
- floatpointsDiunggah olehsocmaster
- Math 062 Glossary_English Language Document_United States_English Glossary ReviewDiunggah olehRachel Sakhi
- Sequences and SeriesDiunggah olehNaveen Kanchi
- blasiusDiunggah olehNaris Vongtyanuvat
- Quiz 01aae Measuringerror AnswersDiunggah olehAwais Aslam
- Expansion form and the Continuum HypothesisDiunggah olehPhilip White
- A Romp Tour of Trigonometry rompDiunggah olehCharles Rambo
- Math 1010 Chapter 9Diunggah olehyinkaibironke
- Data Presentation ProblemsDiunggah olehree_san
- Course DiaryDiunggah olehbuttermasala
- Cubic EquationsDiunggah olehTrustful Eyes
- Group Axioms and PropertiesDiunggah olehSalman Habib
- Matrices and Determinants PDFDiunggah olehARANGWALA
- Mathematics Model PaperDiunggah olehapi-3699388
- 81-E-(CCE RR).pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous nOHgdkcU
- BIRFosDiunggah olehClyde Labay
- F2 Maths Annual Scheme of Work_2011Diunggah olehAzlin Congo
- sostools.pdfDiunggah olehpalasscribd
- C1 05 Jan MSDiunggah olehCollinAllen