Smart Mater. Swct. 2 (1993)240-248.

Printed in me UK

I Shape adjustment of precision truss

1 structures: analytical and experimental
1 validation*
M Salama, J Umland, R Bruno and J Garba
Jet Propulsion Laboratocy, California institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109,
USA
Received 3 July 1993,in final form 30 September 1993

Abstract. The use of a limited number of actuatorisensor pairs to alter the shape
or behavior of a truss structure to other desired states is explored analytically
and experimentally. Feasibility of the concept is established by numerical
simulation. As a demonstration, a sequence of validation tests is performed and
the correlation with analysis is discussed. An existing full scale, space-erectabie
high precision truss structure is used for this purpose. For the most part, the
test results agreed well with the analysis. However, micron-level nonlineanties
were discovered in the truss behavior. The significanceof these nonlinearities
in precision structures and their impact on the basic premise of adaptivity is
discussed.

1. Introduction of an adaptive structure is that, by strategically placing

Adaptive structure concepts offer unique design altema-
tives for filled-aperture space-based astronomy missions
such as the proposed Sub-Millimeter Intermediate Mis-
sion and the Large Deployable Reflector. These missions
are intended to observe the infrared and sub-millimeter
wavelengths. They employ a large, segmented, filled-
aperture reflector supported by a truss structure. A re-
quirement of a diffraction limited telescope is that the
telescope wavefront error should be of the order of A/lO,
where A is the minimum wavelength of interest. The cor-
responding reflective surface error is then determined to
be half the wavefront error, i.e. h/20. Typically, 90%
of the surface error budget is allocated to the primary
reflector. Therefore, for such reflectors, where the wave
length of interest is in the 100-1000 micron range, the
surface accuracy of the primary reflector must be main-
tained to the order of a few microns.
To a large extent, the surface accuracy of a
segmented reflector is determined by the dimensional
accuracy of the structure supporting it. This is because
the reflector panels, which are made to within one
micron RMS of theii correct figure, are positioned above
the support structure by a panel actuation mechanism.
The minimum achievable reflector surface error is,
therefore, potentially limited by the range of motion
of the panel actuators coupled with the accuracy of
the support structure. In this context, the advantage
* The research described herein was performed at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. California Institute of Technology, under
contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
actuators in the support strucme, the surface shape can
be adjusted to minimize errors produced by uncertainties
in finite fabrication precision and/or on-orbit thermal
deformations. The same actuators may also be used
to prestress the joints of the truss structure in order to
remove nonlinearities that may exist due to small free-
play in the joints.
The shape control of mss structures has been
studied by several investigators. For example, in
reference [I] optimization of the support truss was
formulated so as to minimize the maximum actuator
input. This had the effect of equalizing the corrective
force among all actuators. The actuators were not
optimally placed-but many fixed actuators were used.
An approach for the optimal actuator placement was
considered in [Z] by first converting the discrete truss
structure model into a continuum model, for which the
optimum placement was sought. Using an equivalent
continuum model has the advantage of reducing the
computational cost of optimization in comparison with
discrete programming methods. However, applicability
of the resulting placement for the continuum model to
the actual truss is not straightforward. As an altemative
to rigorous discrete optimization, heuristic techniques
have been used at reasonable computational costs for
the optimal placement [3-5]. Specifically, reference [51
employed the simulated annealing heuristic to minimize
shape distortions as well as the effect of nonlinear joint
behavior. Prestressing or preloadmg the truss joints was
also studied in 161 with the objective of removing joint
nonlinearities.

0 1993 US Qovemment

Figure 1. Precision truss structure.
The analytical results referenced above investigated
the feasibility of using actuators to adaptively alter
the shape or behavior of the structure to other states.
Experimental studies, however, have concentrated
mostly on the field of adaptive optics, where the figure
of flexible mirrors is controlled by a number of discrete
actuators. For example, a test was performed 171
to verify the ability of piezoelectric film to create a
predetermined deformed shape of a composite panel. In
PI, nine force actuators were used to adjust the figure
of a 62 cm diameter spherical thin mirror.
Using an. existing full scale space-erectable "ss
structure, figure I , the objective of this paper is to show
analytical predictions and corresponding experimental
validations with regard to the ability of a limited number
of actuators to significantly reduce initial smctural shape
aberrations. The structure is a four meter diameter,
doubly curved tetrahederal erectable truss designed to
serve as a backup structure for a precision segmented
reflector. It has been the subject of extensive previous
testing and characterization [9, IO]. In the sections that
follow, the analysis methodology is first described along
with the simulation results, which the experiments will
aim to verify. We then summarize features of the
test structure, its active components, instrumentation,
Precision truss structures
and data acquisition system. Discussion of the test
sequence, results, and their correlation with the analysis
predictions, and the major findings will conclude the
paper.
2. Analysis
Considering the back-up truss shucture in figure I , on-
orbit static distortions can result from various sources
such as: (i) thermal variations and/or gradients due
to exposure to sun and shade, (ii) the presence of
gravity as the structure is assembled on-ground, and
(iii) finite manufacturing imprecision. But apart from
the source of aberrations, the aim here is to establish
the degree to which a limited number of strategically
placed actuators can restore the structural shape to a
desired configuration. Assuming a linear response, the
objective of the analysis is to find the best locations
and gains for a given number of actuators so that a
prescribed distortion can be corrected. The actuator gain
is defined here as the amount of travel or displacement
in an extensible axial member, i.e. active member. To
generate a realistic distorted shape of the structure in
241
M Salama et a/
figure I , a finite element analysis is first performed
to calculate the deformations at all degrees-of-freedom
(DOF) of the truss due to an initial 5 K m-' thermal
gradient in the horizontal plane of the truss. This thermal
profile is selected from a thermal analysis performed
in reference [ 111 for the Sub-Millimeter Intermediate
Mission. Subsequent analyses will then address the
problem of optimally placing a limited number of
actuators and selecting their gains to minimize this initial
distortion at selected degrees-of-freedom (or control
DOF) of the truss. This is equivalent to athermalizing
the structure. But rather than requiring the actuators
to restore the distorted structure to its original shape,
equivalently one may view the negative of the initial
distortion as the deformed state which we desire the
actuators to generate. In this paper, both the desired
and current configurations of the structure are assumed
to be known deterministically. If this is not the case, the
approach described herein can be modified in terms of
expected values and other statistical descriptors. In the
next section, we describe the analytical procedure used
to find the optimal actuator locations and gains required
to correct specific shape aberrations.
Let U * represent the vector of the desired deformation
state at a specified set of nd control DOF, and let U
represent the vector of deformation state induced at the
same control DOF by n, actuators which have been
arbitrarily placed and their gains arbitrarily set to a
displacement vector, Ao. For any such a set of actuators,
we adopt the error function, e, as a measure of the
actuator's ability to achieve the desired shape correction:
e = [(U' - u ) ~ ( u '- - U ) ] ' / * .
(1)
The optimal actuator locations and gains are those that
minimize e with respect to all possible locations and
gains.
If n is the total number of DOF and m is the
total number of members in a linear truss structure,
the relationship between the complete set of nodal
displacements U and the complete set of m member
length changes A is obtained by the displacement
method [I21 from
A=PU (2)
where ,!I is m x n geometric compatibility matrix.
Additionally, the deformations, U , at the control DOF
are
U = BdU (3)
where Ed is f l d x n matrix of zeros and ones that selects
the rows associated with the control DOF in question.
The relationship between the forces P in all members
and the length changes A. induced in a set of actuators
(i.e. actuator gains) is:
P = K(A - EaAo) (4)
where K is a diagonal matrix containing the axial
stiffness E A / L , and E, is m x n, matrix of zeros and
ones which selects the members associated with the
actuator locations.
242
From equilibrium
,!ITP= F (5)
in which F is a vector of extemal nodal forces. Since the
disturbance to the structure is due to the induced actuator
length changes Ao, and not due to extemal forces, then
setting F = 0, combining equations (2) through (3, and
defining K , = @'KB gives
U = SA0 (6)
s =B~K;'B~KB.. (7)
The matrix S is generally rectangular nd x n,. It
represents the actuators influence coefficients at the
control DOF, or the sensitivity of the control DOF to
a unit displacement gain in each of the actuators. In
addition to equation (6). its inverse form may be also
required in the minimization of equation (1). This can
be obtained from
Since the actuator locations are discrete variables,
a discrete optimization technique such as the simulated
annealing algorithm [4] may be used to provide a
computational framework for selecting the optimal
actuator locations and gains. This is summarized in
figure 2. Again, description of the actuator locations
is indicated by ones or zeros in the columns of the E ,
matrix. For the initial simulated annealing iteration and
all succeeding ones, the error function e, for a typical
iteration r is evaluated in the bold box of figure 2 as
follows:
(a) calculate S, from (7).
(b) assuming that U , = U * , compute an approximate set
of gains Aor from (81,
(c) given (a,b) above, find U , from the forward solution
in (6).
(d) evaluate e, for the current locations from (1).
Depending upon the relative magnitude of e, for
the current iteration and e,-, for the previous iteration,
and depending upon the current value of the annealing
parameter 0, the current candidate set of locations in
E. are either (i) accepted unconditionally if Ae, <
0, (ii) accepted only if it met the probability test
P = exp(-Ae,/O) 2 random, or (iii) rejected
if neither of the other two conditions is satisfied.
It is the probabilistic acceptance of non-improving
solutions in (ii) that allows the minimization process to
climb out of local minima, and therefore distinguishes
the simulated annealing algorithm from the traditional
iterative improving techniques. Acceptance of the
current actuator locations implies that these locations are
potentially optimal, and are therefore used as a basis
for comparison with future candidate locations, as well
as for generating a new set of candidate locations for
the next (r + I ) iteration. A new set of locations
is constructed by perturbing the lastly accepted set of

.. . .
dl) -11,- a,
I I
-.'I
wlor,
Figure 2. Simulated annealing optimization algorithm.
locations at only one site (selected randomly). That
site is replaced by one of the unoccupied sites. The
frequency of accepting non-improving locations, as well
as the iterative process itself are all govemed to a large
extent by the annealing parameter 0. Guidelines for the
initial selection of 0, and a strategy for its subsequent
reduction are discussed in [4].
The analysis procedure described above was applied
to the structure of figure 1. In figure 3, the result of
a parametric study is displayed in terms of the error
correction, e, which can be generated using various
numbers of n, optimally placed actuators. In this
example, the DOF to be controlled were chosen to consist
of the vertical deformation DOF at all 27 top nodes. The
magnitude of the initial error (corresponding to U* at the
control DOF) is that shown when no actuators are used,
i.e. when na = 0. A number of important observations
can be made in connection with figure 3.
First, for a statically indeterminate structure with n
deformable DOF and m members, where n < m , one
needs at least n actuators to produce exactly any desired
shape at all n DOF Locations of the n actuators must,
however, be optimally selected from among all possible
m member locations. Fewer DOF in the controlled set
allow one to use correspondingly fewer actuators to
provide the same degree of accuracy. From a practical
point, however, one does not need to achieve the desired
shape exactly, and therefore, one does not need to use
a large number of actuators, even if the number of DOF
in the controlled set is large. A remarkable degree of
closeness to the error correction, e, can be achieved by
strategically replacing a small percentage of the total
members by active members with optimized gains. For
example, figure 3 shows that 47%, 70% and 82% of
the initial error can be corrected respectively, with only
two, four, and six of the total 150 members being active.
Precision truss structures
. -
... .. .,,I-
20 x , . ..
"
0 , .. ~
x
0 5 10 75 20 25
N. U 01 Aclive Members
Figure 3. RMS error reduction with increasing number of
actuators. (27control WF).
In view of these results, the following experiments were
designed to verify the general trend exhibited by figure 3.
3. Test set-up
3.1. Testbed description
The test structure in figure 1 was designed and
fabricated as a support truss for a 2.4 m focal length
segmented reflector. The upper surface comer-to-comer
is nominally 3.9 m. The truss thickness is approximately
0.64 m. There are 150 graphiteepoxy struts, 300
aluminum erectable joint assemblies, and 45 aluminum
nodes forming the doubly curved tetrahedral truss. Of
the 45 nodes, 27 fall on the upper surface and 18 fall
on the lower surface. The structure is supported by
clamping the three central nodes of the lower surface
to a 1130 kg steel block, which represents ground. The
erectable joint and node assembly design [9] is a half-
scale version of the joint originally developed for the
Space Station Freedom. The use of this type of joint
allows for inspace erection of a precise, highly redundant
structure. The joint halves at opposite ends of a shut
have opposite thread directions, allowing the strut to
be used as a turnbuckle. Prior to installation, the strut
length is precisely adjusted and locked in place by jam
nuts. The nominal node center-to-node center lengths are
0.813 50 meter for the core struts, range from 0.771 47 to
0.814 15 meter for the upper surface members, and range
from 0.877 16 to 0.91661 meter for the lower surface
members. All lengths are set to within a tolerance of
f 5 microns.
Extensive testing was performed on this structure
during earlier studies [9, lo]. One significant result of
these tests, is the observed small nonlinearites, most
likely due to finite precision in the joints. The static
deflection test result in figure 4 is an example, where
the RMS of the distorted shape at the top surface nodes
is plotted versus the load applied at one of the comer
nodes. Two complete load/unload cycles are shown.
For the first cycle, the RMS of the distortion does not
retum to zero when the load is removed. For the second
243
M Salama et al
Figure 5. Lead screw active member.
cycle, the data points are nearly coincident-and when
unloaded, the RMS distortion retums to the new starting
point. m i s suggests that there is angu]ar reorienbtion
of the joints, and possible joint nonlinearities, which
are being closed/opened as the load/unload progresses.
The impact of these nonlinearities is discussed furrher in
subsequent sections.
3.2. Actuators and instrumentation
The actuators used throughout the experiments are
referred to as lead screw active members and are shown
In figure 5 as part of a complete assembly with adapters,
a load cell and erectable joints. The actuator consists of
a motorized micrometer as the primary component of an
embeddable active member. The motorized micrometer
contains an M10 x 0.5 lead screw driven by a DC
gearmotor. A DC load cell is placed mechanically in
series with the motorized micrometer to measure the
net load in the member. Each load cell signal is
conditioned by an amplifier. A magnetic encoder is
incorporated into the gearmotor assembly, but due to
rotational backlash in the gearhead, the encoder is a poor
displacement transducer. Instead, the DC load cell is
used as the feedback control sensor. This lead screw
active member is more suitable for the present static
application over piezoelectrically driven active members,
because actuator gains of the order of 1 mm are required
here. This is much larger than can be provided by
piezoelectric active members.
As in reference [IO], the structure is instrumented
with fifteen linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTS) to measure the vertical deformations in the
Z-direction at the 15-nodes indicated in figure 6. These
nodes fall on the three major diameters of the upper
surface and serve as the control DOF. The 15 control DOF
are a subset of the 27 control DOF used in the calculations
of figure 3. Their locations are chosen here only for
easy access. The LVDTS are positioned in place from a
244
Figure 6. LVDTS at 15 control DOF.
relatively rigid support structure (known as a ganhy-
not shown). Their nominal accuracy is f0.25 microns.
They are used with a IOW pass filter tO minimize noise
problems, and a signal conditioner whose bandwidth is
&250 Hz. In addition to the displacement transducers,
the structure is instrumented with 14 thermocouples to
monitor any thermal changes a m s s the upper surface
and through the thickness of the mSS.
33. Data aquisition system
To ensure fast and accurate data recording, an automated
data acquisition system (DAS) was used. It is capable
Of accepting Outputs from all LVDTs, load cells, and
thermocouples at once. It is also capable of initializing
the test as required. This includes zeroing the LVDT
signals, zeroing the load cell signals to give the
member force due to actuation alone, and recording
the thermocouple readings as the test progresses. As
the actuator forces are incrementally changed, the
force, displacement, and temperature data are acquired,
averaged over multiple samples, and stored. The DAS
is interfaced with a motor controller which operates
either in a manual mode to incrementally change the
force in the actuators, or in an automoted mode in
which the maximum force in each actuator is given
along with the number of increments. In the latter
mode, the DAS adjusts each actuator until the load cell
associated with each actuator reads that the desired level
has been achieved. An automatic ovemde. is built into
the DAS, which will cause the system to shut down if
the maximum force level is exceeded in any single load
cell.
4. Results: analysis and experiments
To demonstrate the shape control procedure described
in previous sections, a series of validation tests were
performed. They involved successive use of optimally
placed two, four, and six active members to create a
 Precision truss structures
Table I. Optimal 2, 4, 6 actuators and their gains.

2 actuators 4 actuators 6 actuators

Actuator no 38 103 34 97 98 99 34 36 64 97 98 99
Force (Ib) -50.0 22.7 -38.5 -46.0 -47.0 -50.0 -33.9 -18.0 3.0 -46.7 -50.0 -46.9

Table 2. Analysis detormations at the control DOF

(microns).
~

Coni01 DoF Oesired Number of actuators

2 4 6
1 -30.7 -26.0 -28.0 -31.0
2 -30.7 -32.0 -24.0 -29.0
3 -25.5 -27.0 -23.0 -26.0
4 -25.5 -24.0 -25.0 -27.0
5 -14.4 -20.0 -16.0 -15.0
6 -19.3 -20.0 -17.0 -19.0
7 -29.9 - 5.6 -30.0 -31.0
8 -29.9 - 4.3 -28.0 -27.0
9 -19.3
~~ - 9.0 -19.0 -19.0
10 -14.4 - 7.9 -16.0 -16.0
11 -23.5 + 1.0 -21.0 -24.0
12 - 7.2 + 0.7 - 2.8 - 5.0
13 - 7.2 -+ 0.8 - 4.4 - 7.9
14 + 4.7 + 4.7 + 4.0 + 4.0
15 + 4.7 - 0.7 + 5.0 + 3.5
RMS 82.68 63.4 76.98 78.9

incremental complete reversal of the loading, and

Figure 7. Optimal locations for 2,4. and 6 actuators
deformation pattem, U , at the 15 control DOF that closely
approximates the deformation pattem, U*, at the same
DOF. if the structure had been subjected to the 5 K m-’
thermal gradient in the Y direction. During testing,
no thermal changes of any magnitude were intended
to influence the structural deformation. The purpose of
the thermocouples was to monitor thermal changes-if
any-from the beginning to the end of each test.
As discussed in section 2, U and U * can be made
closest in an RMS sense if the actuators were optimally
located and their gains also optimized. These optimal
locations are depicted in figure 7 and table 1 for the
two, four and six groups of actuators. Notice that while
the optimal four-actuator configuration is a subset of the
six-actuator configuration, the two-actuator configuration
is not. The corresponding optimal gains for each of the
three configurations are also listed in table 1. Consistent
with these, the resulting Z deformations at the 15 control
W F were calculated. These are listed in table 2.
A series of four test configurations was conducted
which included (1) eight different single actuator
tests, (2) two actuators, (3) four actuators, and (4)
six actuators. Prior to each test all load cells
and displacement transducers were initialized to zero.
Each test then involved commanding the actuators
in question to adjust their lengths incrementally until
their load (measured by the load cells) reached the
maximum desired levels. This was followed by
then reversion to zero loads-also incrementally. In
each loadinglunloading direction, ten increments were
typically used and the loads in the individual actuators
were kept proportional. For each increment, the
actuator forces and the corresponding displacements at
the control DOF were recorded. The cyclic load/unload
procedure allowed the observation of nonlinearities
and/or residual deformations remaining when the
structure was completely unloaded.
The single-actuator tests consisted of placing one
actuator at a time at one of the eight locations of
table I and figure 7, then loadinglunloading the actuator
incrementally to f 5 0 Ib. These tests essentially
measured the actuator sensitivity matrix, S , of equation
(7). experimentally. Figure 8 is an example of the
test result for the actuator at location ‘97’. Residual
deformations of the order of 4 microns can be observed
when the load in the member is completely removed.
Other than this, the load deformation curve is typically
linear. With this preliminary characterization, the
following three tests aimed to emulate the analysis
conditions leading to the results of tables 1 and 2 for
the two-, four- and six-actuator configurations.
In the two-actuator test, one actuator was placed at
location ‘38’ and another was placed at location ‘103’ in
figure 7. These were then incrementally loadeflunloaded
simultaneously between (-50.0, +22.7) and (+50.0,
-22.7) pounds. The deformations at the 15 control
DOF at the maximum load are displayed in figure 9.
A negative sign indicates deformation in the positive Z
direction. The two values shown in each box correspond
to results of the test and analysis (table 2) respectively.

245
M Salama et a/
-19.8 -28.3
p-mq p3xq
-
-

.40-

.60-

.40 .zo 0 20 40
AclYalOl laas Ibl,

Figure 0. Sensitivity measurement for actuator at location

‘97’.
The third value (above each box) is obtained by
numerically combining the results of the appropriate Two Actuators @ 38, 103
singleactuator tests using equations (2).(4) and (6). In Figure 9. Tesffanalysiscomparison for two actuators.
the present case, these are the single-actuator tests for
location ‘38’, and for location ‘103’. The two missing
values are due to failure of the LVDT’s signal conditioner
at these locations during testing with actuator ‘103’. The
numerical combining of the two single-actuator tests
provides another method of correlating the analytical
and experimentally measured sensitivity matrix, S. The
two sets of experimentally derived values in figure
9 are quite consistent among themselves, and when
compared with the corresponding analytical prediction,
one finds generally good agreement. Deviations of
the order of 20% represent the norm, which is to be
expected. Another measure of the quality of agreement
is the RMS of the deformation at the control DOF for
the test, analysis, and desired state. These are 47.8,
63.4 and 82.7 microns respectively. To verify the
optimality of the analytically derived optimal actuator
pair (38,103), the experimental values of the single-
actuator tests for an arbitrarily chosen pair (38,98) were Fow Aclualos @ 34,97.98,99
combined numerically. Notice that actuator ‘38’ is Figure 10. Tesffanalysis comparison for four actuators.
common between the optimal and non-optimal pairs,
The resulting deformations at the 15 control DOF are: same figure by the second set of values inside each
(-7.9, 1.4, -2.4, 1.0, 0.36, 2.7, -0.75, 0.37, 1.8, 2.9, box. Clearly these two sets of results are in poor
-1.3, 2.8, 3.7, 3.8, 9.5). with RMS= 14.8. Compared correlation. However, it was observed during the test
with the desired values in table 2 with RMS= 82.7, the that at points of the loading path when the actuators
optimal actuator pair (38,103) with RMs= 47.8 is clearly were completely unloaded, residual deformations as
better than (38.98). large as 30 microns remained at some of the control
Except for the number of actuators used and their DOF. The possibility that thermal changes that may have
locations and gains (see tables 1 and 2 and figure 7), accrued over the test duration may have caused these
the four- and six-actuator test configurations proceeded deformations was discounted on the basis of analysis
in the same manner as in the two-actuator case. The of the thermal environment. Data recorded by the 14
results of the four-actuator test, figure 10, compare more thermocouples mounted throughout the structure showed
favorably with the analysis results than did the two- temperature changes of the order of 0.5 “C, which can
actuator test. Comparing the individual response values produce no more than a 5-10 micron deformation at
at the control DOF, deviations of the order of 7% are any DOF. Inherent joint nonlinearities are believed to be
typically observed. The RMS of these values for the test the only possible source for these residual deformations,
and analysis are, respectively, 81.5,77.0, compared with and since the analysis assumed a linear elastic behavior,
the desired value of 82.7 microns. subtracting the residual deformations from the total
The test results for the six-actuator configuration observed values (above each box) should provide a more
are shown in figure 11 at the control DOF above the rational basis for comparing the test and analysis results.
box, while results of the analysis are indicated in the The so-modified test results are represented by the first
246

41.2 68.8
)%XXiP 139.0:29.1(
Six Acmators @ 34,3664.9'7.98.99
Figure 11. TesUanalysis comparison for six actuators.
I
0 2 4
Nu"
6 8
0, Act"ill0rs
10 12
Figure 12. RMS error reduction with increasing number of
actuators comparison of analysis and test results for 15
control OOF.
value inside each box in figure 11. The blank spaces
indicate no data due to failure of the LVDT'S signal
conditioners at these locations. The modified test values
show greatly improved correlation with the analysis
values. The RMS of the modified test deformations are
now 88.4 microns compared with 78.9 for the analysis
and 82.7 for the desired deformations.
To summarize the comparison between analysis
and test results for the two-, four-, and six-actuator
cases in a form similar to figure 2, we take the RMS
of the difference between the desired and achieved
deformations at the 15 control DOF to represent the
remaining RMS error. The results are displayed in figure
12 as percentages of the RMS shape e m r still remaining
when one uses zero, two, four or six actuators to correct
the truss shape. It is encouraging that apart from
the nonlinearities described earlier, the present analysis
and test results correlated well; both confirming that a
limited number of strategically placed active members
could indeed be used to correct shape aberrations with
reasonable accuracy.
Precision truss structures
5. Discussion and conclusions
Using a realistic space erectable truss smcture, the
analysis and tests described herein demonstrated the
ability of a limited numbers of active members to
produce the desired shape corrections with reasonable
accuracy. In a series of tests, successively increasing
number of actuators were used to produce the desired
shape correction with successively increasing degree of
accuracy. Correlations with the analytical predictions
were good under all test conditions where nonlinearities
were negligible.
The most severe nonlinearities were observed in
the six-actuator test, where residual deformations of up
to 30 microns were observed when all actuators were
completely unloaded. In spite of the fact that joints of
this truss were specially designed and built to a high
degree of precision, they appeared to be the cause of
the observed micron level nonlinearities. Coupled with
random variations in the geometric dimensions of the
truss members, and angular tolerances in the orientation
of the various members meeting at a joint, it is plausible
that small nonlinearities in some of the joints would
react preferentially depending upon the load distribution
throughout the truss. This may explain the small residual
deformations (of the order of 5 microns) in cases of
single, two, and four actuators, where the relatively
localized loading could exercise only a few nonlinear
joints, as compared with the residual deformations of up
to 30 microns in the six-actuator case, where the loading
is more distributed and could have dominance over a
larger number of nonlinear joints.
I Although these micron level nonlinearities obscured
?d an otherwise good correlation with the linear analysis,
their presence adds special significance to the use of
adaptive concepts in precision structures. Adaptive
concepts are especially aimed at structures with such
sources of uncertainties in behavior. In a closed-loop
setting, once these residual deformations are sensed, they
can be corrected adaptively by the active members to any
desired degree of accuracy. The use of active members
in precision structures can also ease, and may even
provide an attractive altemative to, requirements that
certain structural or optical components be manufactured
from 100% dimensionally stable materials.
Acknowledgments
The assistance of several colleagues, R Helms, R Losey,
C Miller and D Moore, is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[I] Padula S L. Adelman H M and Bailey M C 1987
Inkgrated structure electromagnetic optimization of
large space antenna reflector NASA TM-89110.February
I987
[Z] Burdisso R A and Haflka R T 1989 Optimal location
of actuators for correcting distortions in large buss
structures AIAA J. 27 1406-11
247
M Salama et a/
I31 Haftka R T and Adelman H M 1985 Damping and control
of spacecraft structures: selection of actuator locations
for static shape control of large space structures by
heuristic integer programming Comput. Struct. 20
575-82
[41 Chen G S , Bruno R and Salama M 1991 Optimal
placement of activelpassive members in mss structures
using simulated annealing AIAA J . 29 1327-34
[SI Bruno R, Salama M and Carba J 1992 Actuator
placement for static shape control of nonlinear truss
structures Pmc. Third Int. CO$. on Adaptive Structures
(San Diego, CA, November 1992) (Lancaster, PA
Technomic) pp 433-45
161 Das S K, Utku S,Chen G-S and Wada B K 1990
A mathematical basis for the design and design
optimization of adaptive trusses in precision control
Pmc. First USlJapan Conf. on Adaptive Structures
(Maui. HI, November 1990) (Lancaster, P A Technomic)
pp 660-88
[7l Kuo C P and Bruno R 1990 Optimal actuator placement in
an active reflector using a modified simulated annealing
technique Proc. First USlJapan Conf. on Adaptive
Structures (Maui. HI.Navember 19901 . (Lancaster.
. PA
Technomicj pp 105G57
[81 Tabata M. Itoh N. Mivawaki K. Satori A. Ive M.
..
Yamashita Y,Noglchi T and Tanaka W i99O'Shape
248
control experiments with a functional model for
large optical reflectors Proc. First USlJapan Conf.
on Adaptive Structures (Maui, HI,November 1990)
(Lancaster, PA: Technomic) pp 615-30
[91 Bush H.Herstrom C, Heard W, Collins T, Fichter W,
Wallsom R and Phelps J 1990 Design and fabrication
of an erectable truss for precision segmented reflector
application 31st AIAA Structures Structural Dynamics
and Materials Conference (Long Beach, CA, April
19901 pp 45442
[lo] Umland J W and Lou M C 1992 Precision segmented
reflector primary support structural testing 33rd AIAA
Svuctures Structural Dynamics and Materials Cor&
(Dallas. TX,April 1992) paper 92-2535
[Ill Tsuyaki G and Mahoney M J 1991 The precision
segmented reflector program: on-orbit behavior of the
sub-millimeter imager and line survey telescope 26th
AIAA Thennophysics CO$. (Honolulu, HI,June 1991)
I121 Martin H C Introduction to Matrix Methoh of Structurol
Anulysis (New York McGraw-Hill) pp 298-9