Abstract
This paper proposes a novel nonlinear disturbance observer (NDO)-based control approach for spacecraft formation flying (SFF) subject to non-vanishing disturbances. The external disturbance from the space environment and modeled/unmodeled uncertainties are aggregated as a lumped unknown external disturbance. A novel NDO is designed to provide an estimation of unknown external disturbance. The adaptive robust control approach is combined with the NDO-based control approach to get a composite adaptive controller. In the resulting controller, the disturbance estimation is utilized as feed-forward to attenuate the disturbance effects. The asymptotic stability of the proposed composite adaptive controller is proved using the Lyapunov theorem. In previous NDO-based controllers designed for nonlinear systems, either the time derivative of external disturbance is assumed to be equal to zero, or the knowledge of external disturbance upper-bound is required to be known. However, the proposed controller neither makes presumption on the magnitude of the disturbance nor its time derivatives. Furthermore, compared with some existing NDO-based controllers, the conditions of previous methods on the magnitudes of controller parameters are relaxed. Simulation results, along with comparisons, are included to verify the effectiveness of the proposed control scheme. Compared to the previous NDO-based control methods, the proposed method provides better tracking performance in the presence of external disturbances, besides relaxing the restrictions of previous NDO control methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Scharf DP, Keim JA, Hadaegh FY (2010) Flight-like ground demonstrations of precision maneuvers for spacecraft formations. Part I. IEEE Syst J 4:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2010.2042532
D’Amico S, Ardaens JS, Larsson R (2012) Spaceborne autonomous formation-flying experiment on the PRISMA mission. J Guid Control Dyn 35:834–850. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.55638
Di Mauro G, Lawn M, Bevilacqua R (2018) Survey on guidance navigation and control requirements for spacecraft formation-flying missions. J Guid Control Dyn 41:581–602
Lee D (2018) Nonlinear disturbance observer-based robust control for spacecraft formation flying. Aerosp Sci Technol 76:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.01.027
Mok SH, Choi YH, Bang HC (2010) Collision avoidance using linear quadratic control in satellite formation flying. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 11:351–359. https://doi.org/10.5139/IJASS.2010.11.4.351
Li J, Xi XN (2012) Fuel-optimal low-thrust reconfiguration of formation-flying satellites via homotopic approach. J Guid Control Dyn 35:1709–1717. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.57354
Clohessy WH, Wiltshire RS (1960) Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. J Aerospace Sci 27:653–658. https://doi.org/10.2514/8.8704
Vaddi SS, Vadali SR, Alfriend KT (2003) Formation flying: accommodating nonlinearity and eccentricity perturbations. J Guid Control Dyn 26:214–223. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5054
Liu H, Li J, Hexi B (2006) Sliding mode control for low-thrust Earth-orbiting spacecraft formation maneuvering. Aerosp Sci Technol 10:636–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2006.04.008
Sun R, Wang J, Zhang D, Shao X (2018) Neural network-based sliding mode control for atmospheric-actuated spacecraft formation using switching strategy. Adv Space Res 61:914–926
Yi H, Liu M, Li M (2019) Event-triggered fault tolerant control for spacecraft formation attitude synchronization with limited data communication. Eur J Control 48:97–103
Lim HC, Bang H (2009) Adaptive control for satellite formation flying under thrust misalignment. Acta Astronaut 65:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.01.022
Zhang Y, Sun J, Liang H, Li H (2018) Event-triggered adaptive tracking control for multiagent systems with unknown disturbances. IEEE Trans Cybernet 50:890–901
Huang X, Yan Y (2017) Saturated backstepping control of underactuated spacecraft hovering for formation flights. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 53:1988–2000
De Queiroz MS, Kapila V, Yan Q (2000) Adaptive nonlinear control of multiple spacecraft formation flying. J Guid Control Dyn 23:385–390. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.4549
Sun Y, Ma G, Chen L, Wang P (2018) Neural network-based distributed adaptive configuration containment control for satellite formations. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerospace Eng 232:2349–2363
Massari M, Bernelli-Zazzera F, Canavesi S (2012) Nonlinear control of formation flying with state constraints. J Guid Control Dyn 35:1919–1925. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.55590
Li B, Qin K, Xiao B, Yang Y (2019) Finite-time extended state observer based fault tolerant output feedback control for attitude stabilization. ISA Trans 91:11–20
Zhang J, Ye D, Biggs JD, Sun Z (2019) Finite-time relative orbit-attitude tracking control for multi-spacecraft with collision avoidance and changing network topologies. Adv Space Res 63:1161–1175
Ni Q, Huang YY, Chen XQ (2017) Nonlinear control of spacecraft formation flying with disturbance rejection and collision avoidance. Chin Phys B 26:014502
Yeh HH, Nelson E, Sparks A (2002) Nonlinear tracking control for satellite formations. J Guid Control Dyn 25:376–386. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.4892
Hui L, Li J (2009) Terminal sliding mode control for spacecraft formation flying. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 45:835–846. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2009.5259168
Lin X, Shi X, Li S, Nguang SK, Zhang L (2020) Nonsingular fast terminal adaptive neuro-sliding mode control for spacecraft formation flying systems. Complexity 20:15
Yang J, Chen WH, Li S (2011) Non-linear disturbance observer-based robust control for systems with mismatched disturbances/uncertainties. IET Control Theory Appl 5:2053–2062. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0616
Homayounzade M, Alipour M (2019) Output feedback adaptive control of dynamically positioned surface vessels: A disturbance observer-based control approach. Int J Robot Autom. https://doi.org/10.2316/J.2019.206-5572
Homayounzade M, Khademhosseini A (2019) Disturbance observer-based trajectory following control of robot manipulators. Int J Control Autom Syst 17:203–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-017-0544-x
Lee K, Back J, Choy I (2014) Nonlinear disturbance observer based robust attitude tracking controller for quadrotor UAVs. Int J Control Autom Syst 12:1266–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-014-0145-x
Wang Z, Wu Z (2015) Nonlinear attitude control scheme with disturbance observer for flexible spacecrafts. Nonlinear Dyn 81:257–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-015-1987-3
Ye D, Zhang J, Sun Z (2017) Extended state observer–based finite-time controller design for coupled spacecraft formation with actuator saturation. Adv Mech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017696413
Li S, Yang J, Chen W-H, Chen X (2014) Disturbance observer-based control: methods and applications, 1st edn. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton
Chen M, Yu J (2015) Disturbance observer-based adaptive sliding mode control for near-space vehicles. Nonlinear Dyn 82:1671–1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-015-2268-x
Liu S, Liu Y, Wang N (2017) Nonlinear disturbance observer-based backstepping finite-time sliding mode tracking control of underwater vehicles with system uncertainties and external disturbances. Nonlinear Dyn 88:465–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-016-3253-8
Feng Y, Han F, Yu X (2016) Reply to comments on ‘chattering free full-order sliding-mode control’ [automatica 50 (2014) 1310–1314]. Automatica 72:255–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2014.01.004
Chen M, Chen W-H (2010) Sliding mode control for a class of uncertain nonlinear system based on disturbance observer. Int J Adapt Control Signal Process 24:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/acs.1110
Yang J, Li S, Yu X (2013) Sliding-mode control for systems with mismatched uncertainties via a disturbance observer. IEEE Trans Industr Electron 60:160–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.2183841
Su J, Yang J, Li S (2014) Continuous finite-time anti-disturbance control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems. Trans Inst Meas Control 36:300–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331213499182
Ginoya D, Shendge PD, Phadke SB (2014) Sliding mode control for mismatched uncertain systems using an extended disturbance observer. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 61:1983–1992. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2013.2271597
Li S, Sun H, Yang J, Yu X (2015) Continuous finite-time output regulation for disturbed systems under mismatching condition. IEEE Trans Autom Control 60:277–282. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2014.2324212
Yang J, Li S, Su J, Yu X (2013) Continuous nonsingular terminal sliding mode control for systems with mismatched disturbances. Automatica 49:2287–2291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2013.03.026
Yang J, Su J, Li S, Yu X (2014) High-order mismatched disturbance compensation for motion control systems via a continuous dynamic sliding-mode approach. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 10:604–614. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2013.2279232
Rabiee H, Ataei M, Ekramian M (2019) Continuous nonsingular terminal sliding mode control based on adaptive sliding mode disturbance observer for uncertain nonlinear systems. Automatica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2019.108515
Acknowledgements
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Data availability
Authors agree to make data and Materials supporting the results or analyses presented in their paper available upon reasonable request.
Appendices
Appendix A
Differentiating the definition of \({\varvec{z}}_{1}\) by Eq. (8), we obtain
Considering the definition of \({\varvec{e}}_{2}\) by Eq. (8), we can rewrite Eq. (47) as
Considering the definition of \({\varvec{z}}_{2}\) by Eq. (9), we can rewrite Eq. (48) as
Differentiating the definition of \({\varvec{z}}_{2}\) by Eq. (9), we obtain
Substituting for \(\ddot{\varvec{\rho }}\) from Eq. (1) in Eq. (50) and substituting for \(\dot{\varvec{z}}_{1}\) from Eq. (49), we obtain
Considering \({\varvec{f}}\left( . \right)\) calculated by Eq. (11), the Eq. (51) can be rewritten as
Appendix B
As mentioned in [15], the right-hand side of Eq. (11) can be linearly parameterized as
where \({\varvec{\xi}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{3}\) is the dummy variable which is a function of the desired position, velocity and acceleration of the follower spacecraft with respect to the leader one, \({\varvec{W}}\left( {{\varvec{\xi}},{\varvec{z}}_{1} ,{\varvec{z}}_{2} , \omega ,{\varvec{r}}_{c} ,{\varvec{u}}_{l} } \right) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{3 \times 3}\) represents the regression matrix, and \({\varvec{\theta}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{3}\) the system parameters. Consequently, \(\overline{\varvec{d}}\left( t \right)\), calculated by Eq. (10), can be rearranged by
where \({{\varvec{\Gamma}}} = {\varvec{\theta}} - \overline{\varvec{\theta }}\) represents the deviation of system parameters (i.e., \({\varvec{\theta}}\)) from their nominal magnitudes (i.e.,\(\varvec{ \overline{\theta }}\)). In other words, \({{\varvec{\Gamma}}}\) represents uncertainties in system parameters.
Equation (54) can be upper-bounded as
The regression matrix \({\varvec{W}}\), as defined in Eq. (53), is the function of leader spacecraft control input, position, and rotation rate (i.e., \({\varvec{u}}_{l} , {\varvec{r}}_{c} , \omega\)), and the desired trajectories (i.e., \({\varvec{\rho}}_{d} , \dot{\varvec{\rho }}_{d} , \ddot{\varvec{\rho }}_{d}\)), and the position and velocity tracking errors of the leader spacecraft with respect to follower one (i.e., \({\varvec{z}}_{1} ,{\varvec{z}}_{2}\)).
The position, rate of orientation, and control input of the leader spacecraft are bounded inputs that are set by the leader spacecraft, and the desired trajectories are bounded vectors that are prescribed based on the desired demand. Let’s define the augmented vector \({\varvec{z}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\varvec{z}}_{1} } \\ {{\varvec{z}}_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right]\). As mentioned in [15], it can be stated that if the position and velocity tracking error of the follower spacecraft remain in the bounded set \(\Omega_{3} = \left\{ {\left. {\varvec{z}} \right|\varvec{ }\left\| {\varvec{z}} \right\| \le \ell } \right\}\), we have \(\left\| {{\varvec{W}}\left( . \right)} \right\| \le \mu\). where \(\mu\) is a positive constant. As long as the external disturbance and parametric uncertainties remain bounded, i.e. \(\left\| {\varvec{d}} \right\| \le \gamma\) and \(\left\| {{\varvec{\Gamma}}} \right\| \le \varphi\), it can be stated that
where \(\gamma , \varphi , \delta\) are positive constants. In Sect. 4, it is proved that any trajectories initialized within \(\Omega_{1} = \left\{ {{\varvec{X}}{|} \left\| {{\varvec{X}}\left( t \right)} \right\| \le \frac{{A_{m} }}{{A_{M} }}\ell } \right\} \subset \Omega_{3}\) will remain within \(\Omega_{2} = \left\{ {{\varvec{X}}{|} \left\| {{\varvec{X}}\left( t \right)} \right\| \le \ell } \right\} \subset \Omega_{3}\) and consequently the assumption (56) is consistent.
It is worth highlighting that the proposed control method does not require the knowledge of \(\delta\) and just requires its existence. In fact, the adaptive robust estimator estimates the upper-bound \(\delta .\)
Appendix C
Substituting Eqs. (22), (25), (29), (18) in Eq. (31) we obtain
Equation (57) can be rearranged by
Substituting Eq. (27) in the result to obtain
Considering that for any arbitrary vectors \({\varvec{a}}\) and \( {\varvec{b}}\), we have \({\varvec{a}}^{T} {\varvec{b}} \le \left\| {\varvec{a}} \right\| \left\| {\varvec{b}} \right\| \le \frac{1}{2}\left( {\left\| {\varvec{a}} \right\|^{2} + \left\| {\varvec{b}} \right\|^{2} } \right)\), and \({\varvec{a}}^{T} {\varvec{a}} = \left\| {\varvec{a}} \right\|^{2}\), we have
where \({\Lambda }_{m} ,k_{1m} , k_{2m}\) represent the minimum eigenvalues of matrices \({{\varvec{\Lambda}}},\varvec{ K}_{1} ,\varvec{ K}_{2}\). Considering Eq. (60), the Eq. (59) can be upper-bounded as
Considering the definition given in Eq. (28), we have
moreover, it can be easily verified that
Considering Eqs. (62) and (63), we can simplify Eq. (61) as
Consequently, if the control gains are selected such that conditions in Eq. (33) are satisfied, we have
where \(\lambda_{1}\) and \(\lambda_{2}\) are positive constants.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Homayounzade, M. Adaptive robust nonlinear control of spacecraft formation flying: a novel disturbance observer-based control approach. Int. J. Dynam. Control 10, 1471–1484 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-021-00898-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-021-00898-x