Chapter 5 Robust Performance Tailoring with Tuning - SSL - MIT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[36] O. L. de Weck. Multivariable Isoperformance Methodology for Precision Opto- Mechanical Systems. PhD thesis, Massachuestts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, September 2001. [37] O. L. de Weck, S. A. Uebelhart, H. L. Gutierrez, and D. W. Miller. Performance and sensitivity analysis for large order linear time-invariant systems. In 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 4-6 2002. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. AIAA Paper 2002-5437. [38] M. Delbo, A. W. Harris, R. P. Binzel, P. Pravec, and J. K. Davies. Keck observations of near-earth asteroids in the thermal infrared. Icarus, 116:116– 130, 2003. [39] I. N. Egorov, G. V. Kretinin, and I. A. Leshchenko. Two approaches to multidisciplinary optimization problems. In European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, Barcelona, Spain, Septmber 2000. [40] Igor N. Egorov, G. V. Kretinin, and I. A. Leshchenko. How to execute robust design optimization. In 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimzation, page 7, Atlanta, Georgia, 4-6 September 2002. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. AIAA Paper 2002-5670. [41] I. Elishakoff. Convex versus probabilistic modelling of uncertainty in structural dynamics. InM.Petyt,H.F.Wolfe,andC.Mei,editors,Structural Dynamics: Recent Advances, pages 3–21. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1991. [42] I Elishakoff, R. T. Haftka, and J. Fang. Structural design under bounded uncertainty – optimization with anti-optimization. Computers & Structures, 53(6):1401–1405, 1994. [43] R. P. Feynman. What do You Care What Other People Think? Bantam Books, New York, New York, 1988. [44] R. Fletcher. Practical Methods of Optimization. John Wiley and Sons, 1987. [45] R. Fletcher and C. M. Reeves. Function minimization by conjugate gradients. Computer Journal, 7(2):149–154, July 1964. [46] R. M. Glaese and G. L. Bales. Demonstration of dynamic tailoring for gossamer structures. In 45th AIAA/ASME/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, page 12, Palm Springs, CA, April 19-22 2004. AIAA. 2004-1824. [47] S. C. O. Grocott, J. P. How, and D. W. Miller. A comparison of robust control technqiues for uncertain structural systems. In Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, pages 261–271, Scottsdale, AZ, August 1994. AIAA. 228
[48] S. C. O. Grocott, J. P. How, and D. W. Miller. Experimental comparison of robust h2 control techniques for uncertain structural systems. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 20(3):611–614, May 1997. Engineering Note. [49] R. Grogan and R. Laskin. On multidisciplinary modeling of the space interferometry mission. In Proccedings of the American Control Conference, pages 1558–1562, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 24-26 1998. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. [50] H. L. Gutierrez. Performance Assessment and Enhancement of Precision Controlled Strcutures During Conceptual Design. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, February 1999. [51] O. Hasancebi and F. Erbatur. Layout optimisation of trusses using simulated annealing. Advances in Engineering Software, 33:681–696, 2002. [52] T. Hasselman. Quantification of uncertainty in structural dynamic models. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 14(4):158 –165, October 2001. [53] T. Hasselman, J. D Chrostowski, and T. J. Ross. Interval prediction in structural dynamics analysis. In Proceedings of 33rd AIAA/ASME/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, pages 1272–1284, Reston, VA, 1992. AIAA. AIAA-92-2215. [54] E. Hecht. Optics. Addison Wesley, 2002. Fourth Edition. [55] F. M. Hemez. Can model updating tell the truth. In Proceedings 16th Intermational Modal Analysis Conference, volume 1, pages 7–Jan, Santa Barbara, CA, 1998. Society for Experimental Mechanics/SPIE. [56] L. Holzleitner and K. G. Mahmoud. Structural shape optimization using msc/nastran and sequential quadratic programming. Computers and Structures, 70:487–514, 1999. [57] D. J. Howell. Mutli-configuration model tuning for precision opto-mechanical systems. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambrdge, MA, February 2004. [58] C. A. Hummel. The practice of interferometry with npoi. In Pierre J. Lena and Andreas Quirrenbach, editors, Interferometry in Optical Astronomy, Proceedings of SPIE, pages 459–464. SPIE, 2000. [59] D. J. Hutter, N. M. Elias II, and C. A. Hummel. First astrometric results from the npoi. In Proccedings of the SPIE Conference on Astrononmical Interferometry, pages 452–460, Kona, Hawaii, March 1998. SPIE. [60] T. Janter and P. Sas. Uniqueness aspects of model updating procedures. AIAA Journal, 28:538–543, 1990. 229
Page 1:
Dynamic Tailoring and Tuning for Sp
Page 4 and 5:
Acknowledgments This work was suppo
Page 6 and 7:
3.2 RPT Formulation . . . . . . . .
Page 9 and 10:
List of Figures 1-1 Timeline of Ori
Page 11 and 12:
List of Tables 1.1 Effect of simula
Page 13 and 14:
Nomenclature Abbreviations ACS atti
Page 15:
dk optimization search direction f
Page 18 and 19:
1.1 Space-Based Interferometry NASA
Page 20 and 21:
unfettered by the Earth’s atmosph
Page 22 and 23:
the SCI, both the size and flexibil
Page 24 and 25:
maybethatitbecomescertain that the
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.1: Effect of simulation res
Page 28 and 29:
Table 1.2: Effect of simulation res
Page 30 and 31:
has been found that structural desi
Page 32 and 33:
precision telescope structure for m
Page 34 and 35:
attractive, and more conservative a
Page 36 and 37:
to solve the performance tailoring
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter 2 Performance Tailoring A c
Page 41 and 42:
ometer (SCI). In the following sect
Page 43 and 44:
The equations of motion of the unda
Page 45 and 46:
The frequency response functions fr
Page 47 and 48:
the output covariance matrix, Σz,
Page 49 and 50:
where the subscript indicates the i
Page 51 and 52:
2.3.3 Design Variables The choice o
Page 53 and 54:
and then, by inspection, the inerti
Page 55 and 56:
algorithms begin at an initial gues
Page 57 and 58:
at least locally optimal, and the s
Page 59 and 60:
initial design variable state, x =
Page 61 and 62:
and the RMS OPD is computed using E
Page 63 and 64:
# Designs 25 20 15 10 5 Accepted, b
Page 65 and 66:
does not provide information on why
Page 67 and 68:
energy is distributed almost evenly
Page 69 and 70:
also symmetric as seen in the figur
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter 3 Robust Performance Tailor
Page 73 and 74:
through careful and experienced mod
Page 75 and 76:
described above. However, one can r
Page 77 and 78:
ic, σz(�x, �p), that is depend
Page 79 and 80:
Magnitude, OPD/F x [µm/N] Magnitud
Page 81 and 82:
% Energy 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 2
Page 83 and 84:
metric to the cost function. Note,
Page 85 and 86:
tion: ∂hi (z,�x, �pi) ∂�x
Page 87 and 88:
values are chosen from their statis
Page 89 and 90:
Table 3.3: Algorithm performance: a
Page 91 and 92:
Statistical Robustness The statisti
Page 93 and 94:
Performance [µm] 1400 1200 1000 80
Page 95 and 96:
(Figure 3-6(b)). The nominal perfor
Page 97 and 98:
Norm. Cum. Var. [µm 2 ] PSD [µm 2
Page 99 and 100:
energy by mode for easy comparison.
Page 101 and 102:
Y−coordinate [m] Y−coordinate [
Page 103 and 104:
RMS performance, [µm] 400 350 300
Page 105 and 106:
The requirement chosen here is some
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter 4 Dynamic Tuning Robust Per
Page 109 and 110:
on a physical truss. Since tailorin
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4.1: Tuning parameters for SC
Page 113 and 114:
m 2 [kg] J ∗ # # time y ∗ [kg]
Page 115 and 116:
m 2 [kg] 800 700 600 500 400 300 20
Page 117 and 118:
configuration than the untuned, but
Page 119 and 120:
Norm. Cum. Var. [µm 2 ] PSD [µm 2
Page 121 and 122:
Performance Requirement [µm] 400 3
Page 123 and 124:
is considered. 4.2.1 Hardware-only
Page 125 and 126:
and added to the objective function
Page 127 and 128:
using either a decreasing step-size
Page 129 and 130:
for tailoring, but tuning parameter
Page 131 and 132:
tained by randomly choosing paramet
Page 133 and 134:
p [GPa] y ∗ [kg] Performance [µm
Page 135 and 136:
# Func. Evals Performance RMS (µm)
Page 137 and 138:
tion changes in the updated solutio
Page 139 and 140:
Data: initial iterate, p0, performa
Page 141 and 142:
the new tuning configuration is ver
Page 143 and 144:
Performing an AO tuning optimizatio
Page 145 and 146:
Uncertainty Bounds Test �y [kg] S
Page 147 and 148:
Table 4.6: Tuning results on fifty
Page 149 and 150:
eters are discussed. The optimizati
Page 151 and 152:
Chapter 5 Robust Performance Tailor
Page 153 and 154:
MPC optimization by allowing a diff
Page 155 and 156:
where the notation yij indicates th
Page 157 and 158:
(Table 4.1), and the uncertainty pa
Page 159 and 160:
Table 5.2: Performance and design p
Page 161 and 162:
it in the worst-case uncertainty re
Page 163 and 164:
The data in Figure 5-2 indicate tha
Page 165 and 166:
configuration. The tuned configurat
Page 167 and 168:
same requirement. The effect become
Page 169 and 170:
indicating that this requirement is
Page 171 and 172:
E 2 [Pa] 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 6.8 6.6
Page 173 and 174:
than the RPT design, 155.45µm to 5
Page 175 and 176:
have a very small nominal performan
Page 177 and 178: of these simulations fail to meet r
Page 179 and 180: and that it is the only design meth
Page 181 and 182: Chapter 6 Focus Application: Struct
Page 183 and 184: optical path differences between th
Page 185 and 186: Table 6.1: RWA disturbance model pa
Page 187 and 188: FRF Magnitude 10 1 10 0 10 −1 10
Page 189 and 190: Y Z Z X Y (a) w (c) w Y h Z Figure
Page 191 and 192: Table 6.6: Primary mirror propertie
Page 193 and 194: OP1 STAR Z OP2 OP3 Coll 1 Coll 2 Bu
Page 195 and 196: PSD OPD14 [m 2 /Hz] CumulativeOPD14
Page 197 and 198: 6.2 Design Parameters In order to a
Page 199 and 200: 6.2.2 Tuning The tuning parameters
Page 201 and 202: complex and the normal modes analys
Page 203 and 204: does not change with the design par
Page 205 and 206: (a) (b) (c) Figure 6-11: SCI TPF PT
Page 207 and 208: Table 6.14: Performance predictions
Page 209 and 210: performance trends similar to those
Page 211 and 212: Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommend
Page 213 and 214: a statistical robustness measure su
Page 215 and 216: and the worst-case performance is a
Page 217 and 218: - Consider uncertainty analysis too
Page 219 and 220: Appendix A Gradient-Based Optimizat
Page 221 and 222: such that the gradient direction is
Page 223 and 224: the descent direction. In some case
Page 225 and 226: Bibliography [1] Jpl planet quest w
Page 227: [24] Nightsky Systems Carl Blaurock
Page 231 and 232: [74] M. Lieber. Development of ball
Page 233 and 234: AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
show all

Chapter 5 Robust Performance Tailoring with Tuning - SSL - MIT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?