What is the stability proof for a PI controller in a formation flying system?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the stability proof for a proportional integral (PI) controller used in a formation flying system with two satellites affected by differential drag. The user seeks assistance in proving the stability of their controller, which aims to maintain the satellites' formation by minimizing the along-track position error. Suggestions include exploring Ragazzini's method for guaranteed performance and analyzing the system's pole locations in the s-plane through locus plots. Understanding the relationship between pole locations and stability requires knowledge of ordinary differential equations (ODE) and Laplace transforms. The conversation emphasizes the importance of stability analysis in nonlinear systems.
fernandoz
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have two satellites flying in formation geverned by the equations of motion including J2 and drag. Now, one of the satellites has more drag than the other so they become appart. I designed a controller (proportional integral) which meassures the along track position between them and gives Thrust values so the error, which is the difference in the along ttrack position between different orbits, will be zero (that means they will still fly in formation)
I have to give a stability proof for the controller, someone can help me? (the equations governing the system are nonlinear, of course).

thanks!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There are various techniques to design a controller. If you want guaranteed performance try searching for Ragazzini's method and of course I'm assuming you are trying to design a discrete controller.
 
Last edited:
If you insists on using a PI controller to see if it's stable you'll have to get the locus plot of the system (plant + controller) and see where the poles are located in the s-plane.

If you are puzzled as to why the poles' locations determine stability then you'll have to study ODE (as a good starting point) and its connection to Laplace transform.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top