‘STUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSIS OF SPACE ROBOT M. Taree LORE Cans RnL 1. Introduction Now a day numerous satellites launched and creates a crowded space. The increasing amount of the satellites on orbit creates problems for the space discovering, In addition, malfunctioning due to absence of energy or components disability turns the satellite into space debris. Debris impacts ‘may cause damages to spac> vehicles up to the point of loss of functionality ofthe entire spacecraft In order to mitigate the space debris different space industries studied on orbit servicing such as repairing or refueling a spacecraft, space debris disposal, and on-orbit assembly etc. To perform such tasks free floating space robot are design and discovered [1]. The use of free-floating space robots for contact tasks is very promising in space exploration and there are two major problems, namely, the maximum contact force and the base attitude disturbance caused by contact, that need to be focused on [2]. Disterent authors studied on the contact force and attitude disturbance minimization of free-floating space robot. By implementing literature review matrix table 16 papers reviewed that are directly related to free floating space robot contact force minimization, dynamic modeling and attitude control. However, these papers have various strength, they also have different limitations. The paper presented by [3] assumes a simplified model of the robot and the target as well as does not consider the impact of extetnal factors such as lighting conditions or communication delays, solar radiation, aerodynamic drag, extemal disturbances which could affect the robot's ability to capture the tumbling target. ‘The paper [4] assumes that the robot has full knowledge of the astercid's properties and does not consider the impact of uncertainties or errors in the sensor measurements. The paper [5] assumes a simplified model of the space flexible manipulator, which may not fully capture the complexities of the real-world scenario, And also, didn’t consider the external disturbances, gravity lightening, aerodynamic drag and solar radiation. The paper [6] does not consider the effect of other factors that can affect the contact force between the manipulator and its environment, such as the presence of other objects in the environment or the effects of external disturbances. The paper [7], [2], (8) [9], [10], [1], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16] assumes that the robot is operating in a static environment and does net consider the effects of dynamic forces or interactions with the environment on the effective mass. And these papers describe that the contact force will damage the target or the robot man:pulator, but they didn’t study the relationship between the mechanical strength of the target and robot manipulator with the maximum contact force generated from free floating space robot manipulator. But the paper (2] tried to Identify potential risks associated with‘STUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSIS OF SPACE ROBOT M. Taree LORE Cans RnL the contact task, these risks could include collisions with the target object or other obstacles, excessive forces or torques applied during the contact, or potential damage to the robot or the target object. But the authors dié not explicitly mention studying the maximum contact force or base attitude disturbance as parameters or variables. However, these factors were indirectly considered through the risk assessmen: model used in the approach, Therefore, in this particular rescarch it is intended to combine the mechanical design and the contact force minimization through robot manipulator configuration optimization by considering the real-world scenarios while simulating on Robot operating system (Gazebo) or MSe Software. It is assumed that the severity of the contact force based on the mechanical strength of the contacting bodies will be optimized through the comparison of the maximum contact force generated and the ultimate contact force that the robot manipulator end effector and the target can with stand. The optimization algorithm intended to be robust on behalf of the comparisons result. ‘That means if the contact force generated from the robot manipulator greater than that of the maximum contact force that the contacting bodies withstand additional optimization needed, but if it is less additional optimization is not needed. And similar analogy to the attitude disturbance of the robot manipulator base. 2. Statement of the problem In the future space robots will increasingly playing a key role in on-orbit servicing operations such as maintenance, assembly, transportation, refueling, deployment, retrieval. To perform on orbit servicing and overwhelm space debris different space industries designed and discovered free floating space robot. But as depicted [2], the contact foree and the attitude disturbance of the space robot manipulators are still challenging areas. The researchers studied on space robot contact force minimization and attitude control are essential but they are still infant. The maximum contact force tried to optimized by the previous articles but they didn’t combine the effect of this contact force with the mechanical strength of the contacting bodies. And also, for the simplicity of the simulation and analysis [1], [17], [18], [5]assumed that the robot is operating in astatic environment and does not consider the effects of dynamic forces or interactions with the environment on the effective mass. In this particular research a novel combination of the configuration optimization of the robot manipulator, the attitude disturbance by the generated contact force combined with the mechanical strength of the contacting bodies and the acceptable attitude disturbance of the robot manipulator‘STUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSIS OF SPACE ROBOT M. Taree LORE Cans RnL base. The simulation of the robot manipulator will include the external disturbances such as microgravity, solar radiation, aerodynamic drag, and the simulation is intended to be done on robot operating system (Gazebo) or MSe Software. 3. Rescarch Questions @® What are the factors that affects the contact force between the robot manipulator end effector and the target? @ How to optimize the contact force generated from the robot manipulator configuration? @ How the optimal contaet foree damages the space robot manipulator end effeetor and the target satellite? ® How to simulate the space robot contact force in real world scznario: 4. Objectives 4.1. General Objective To study the contact force minimization and contact analysis of spece robot manipulator’s end effector on target satellite. 4.2. Specific Objectives @ To modeling continuous contact force with updated hertzian contact theory. @ To optimize the corfiguration of the manipulator and minimize the contact force. ® To combine the optimal contact force with the mechanical strength of the space robot and target satellite. @ To simulate the configuration optimization and contact force minimization virtually. 5. Scope This particular research aimed to study the contact force minimization and contact analysis of space robot manipulator’s end effector on target satellite. Upon this target this research will utilizes analytical analysis, numerical analysis, virtual simulation on suitable software such as Robot operating system (Gazebo), MSc Adams, MATLAB, Python, And this analysis is intended to use numerical analysis by combining the contact force minimization and the strength analysis of ‘material contact, and it is expected to utilize adaptive opt ization techniques. 6. Literature review By utilizing review matrix table 18 papers reviewed that are directly related to free floating space robot contact force minimization, dynamic modeling and attitude control. Those papers have objectives, methodology, parameters findings and also limitation. The researchers studied onSTOgGned nt nN conan nee ion nen Taree LORE Cans RnL space robot contact force minimization and attitude control are essential but they are still infant. ‘And the research in space robot is new area right now. Based on the Suture studies of the articles and on Ethiopia context it is little bit difficult due to the scarcity of laboratory and advanced technologies On the intended research far the partial fulfilment of the doctar of philosophy thesis, let’s look on the limitatior. of those document, Most of those articles are based on simulation ied model of the analysis or simulation-based study The paper presented by [3] assumes a simpli robot and the target as well as does not consider the impact of extemal factors such as lighting conditions or communication delays, solar radiation, aerodynamic drag, extemal disturbances which could affect the robot's ability to capture the tumbling target. The paper [4] assumes that the robot has full knowledge of the asteroid’s properties and does not consider the impact of ‘uncertainties or errors in the sensor measurements. pli capture the complexities of the real-world scenario, And also, didn’t consider the extemal ‘The paper [5] assumes a sit :d model of the space flexible manipulator, which may not fully disturbances, gravity lightening, aerodynamic drag and solar radiation. The paper [6] does not consider the effect of other factors that can affect the contact force between the manipulator and its environment, such as the presence of other objects in the environment or the effects of external disturbances. And does not consider the impact of uncertainties or errors in the sensor measurements, which coud affect the accuracy of the proposed method. The paper does not consider the effect of other factors that can affect the contact force between the manipulator and its environment, such as the presence of other objects in the environment or the effects of external, disturbances. The paper [7] assumes that the robot is operating in a static environment and does not consider the effects of dynamic forces or interactions with the environment on the effective mass. The paper [8] assuries that the robot is operating in a static environment and does not consider the effects of dynzmic forces or interactions with other objects in the environment on the risk associated with the cortact task. The paper assumes that the task requirements and constraints are accurately identified and formulated, and does not consider the effects of uncertainty or variability in these factors. The paper assumes that the risk assessment model is accurate and comprehensive, and does not consider the effects of uncertainty or variability in the model parameters. ‘The paper (9] assumes that the target is a rigid body and does not consider the effects of flexibility or deformation on the capture process. The paper assumes that the robot operates in a static andSTOgGned nt nN conan nee ion nen Taree LORE Cans RnL predictable environment and does not consider the effects of dynamic forces or interactions with other objects in the environment on the capture process. The paper [10] assumes a static and predictable environment and does not consider the effects of dynamic forces or interactions with other objects in the environment on the execution of the task ‘The paper only considers the disturbance to the base attitude and does not address the effects of the task execution on other aspects of the robot's performance, such as the end-effector precision or the joint torques. The paper does not consider the effects of uncertainties or errors in the simulation model on the performance of the trajectory planning algorithm. ‘The paper [11] utilized Simplifying assumptions: The proposed alzorithm makes simplifying assumptions about the robot and environment models, such as assuming that the environment is linear and time-invariant. These assumptions may not hold in more complex scenarios. Sensor noise and calibration: The sccuracy of the proposed algorithm may be affected by sensor noise and calibration errors, which can be difficult to account for in practice. Computational complexity: The proposed algorithm can be computationally intensive, which may limit its real-time performance in some applications. ‘The paper [12] Simplifying assumptions: The proposed algorithm makes simplifying assumptions about the system model, such as assuming that the space robot and target satellite are rigid bodies and that the em ment is free of obstacles. These assumptions may not hold in more complex cludes on-orbit servicing scenaros, Limited experimental validation: While the paper simulations to validate the proposed algorithm, there is limited experimental validation of the algorithm in a real-world cn-orbit servicing environment. Further experimental testing would be required to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in practice. [13] Simplifying assumptions: The proposed gripper mechanism makes simplifying assumptions about the system model, such as assuming that the target object is a rigid body and that the environment is free of obstacles. These assumptions may not hold in more complex on-orbit servicing scenarios, Limited scope: The paper focuses specifically on the design and operation of a gripper mechanism for use in a berthing task. It does not address other important aspects of on- orbit servicing, such as vision-based navigation, obstacle avoidance, end docking. [14] The experiments were conducted in a simulated environment: Although the proposed framework is evaluated using a simulated environment, it is uncertain how well the proposed framework would perform in the real world, The simulation environment may not accuratelySTOgGned nt nN conan nee ion nen Taree LORE Cans RnL capture all aspects of the real-world environment, and the performance of the proposed framework may differ in the real world. [15] The proposed method does not account for uncertainties: The proposed method assumes that the parameters af the robotic manipulator and the environment are known with certainty. In reality, there may be uncertainties in these parameters, which could affect the accuracy of the contact- force model. [17] Simplifying assumptions: The mathematical model used ir the study makes several simplifying assumptions, such as assuming a rigid robot arm and negkeeting the effects of friction and other non-idealities. While these assumptions are necessary to simplify the model, they may limit the accuracy of the results. [18] Simplified model: The study uses a simplified model of the space manipulator and the payload, which may not accurately represent the real-world conditions. The simplified model ignores many complex factors, such as the dynamies of the space menipulator, the effects of the space environment, and the variability in the payload properties. Limited consideration of uncertainties: The study dozs not consider the uncertainties associated with the space environment and the payload properties, which could have a significant impact on the performance of the space manipulator. Limited validation: The study does not provide experimental validation of the proposed approach, and the simulation results may not accurately represent the real-world conditions. [19] Simplified model: The study uses a simplified model of the non-cooperative target and the spacecraft or manipulator, which may not accurately represent the real-world conditions. The simplified model ignores many complex factors, such as the dynamics of the spacecraft or manipulator, the effects of the space environment, and the variability in the target properties. Limited scenarios considered: The study focuses on a limited set of scenarios, and the simulation does not consider all poss ble scenarios that may be encountered in practice. For example, the simulation does not consider the effect of the non-cooperative target's motion on the contact dynamics and the relative motion estimation.‘STUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSIS OF SPACE ROBOT M. Taree LORE Cans RnL 7. Methodology The tactical methodology that is intended to perform for this particularresearch starts from reviews of previously published documents representation of the complex phenomenon contact dynamic ‘modeling that includes the contacting bodies material properties, hysteresis damping property of contacting material and the real working environment. Then after the effective mass of the robot manipulator will be determined from the kinematic analysis and Euler-LaGrange dynamic modeling. Then after the constraints that will affect the effective mass of the robot manipulator such as the joint position or configuration of the robot manipulator will stated and the optimal effective mass with the manipulator configuration will be determined. Then utilize the equation of motion to determine the optimal contact force with the constraints of the material capacity and manipulability or robot manipulator will determine. As well as the coefficient of restitution of the material is also another constraint. Finally verifying the analysis by software simulation and visualization will the concluding methodology.erogen Greed ATION AND CC Taner Continuous Contact dynamic Modeling Express The mass matrix as a function of joint angle Configuration Optimization algorithm Optimal Effective mass of Space robot Define the optimal contact force based on the effective mass ¥ Analyze the mechanical strength of the contacting bodies No. Yee Result and Discussion Validation Check fulfilment of Research Gaps Relative velocity Boundary condition Stites Restitution Coefficients Centriod imulate the space robot manipulator on ROS(Gazebo) Microgravity “Aerodynamics . Solar Radiation Figure 1:- The intended methodology of the research‘STUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSIS OF SPACE ROBOT M. Daas Preliminary work 8.1. The Euler Lagrangian Equation Itis necessary to investigate the dynamic behaviors of a manipulator so as to control it, to simulate it, and to evaluate its overall performance. A manipulator is most often an open-loop link ‘mechanism, which won't be a terrific shape from the viewpoint of dynamics ((it is usually not very rigid, positioning accuracy is poor, and there is dynamic coupling among its joint motions) This structure, however, allows us to derive a set of easy, easily understandable equations of movement, We will derive the dynamies equation of a three-link robot arm movement, ‘The following notations are used in the figure: the joint angle of joint-i, m= the mass of link-i, the moment of inertia of link-i about the axis that passes through the center of mass and is parallel to the Z-axis, and © Lixthe length of link-i 8.1.1. The velocity of the robot manipulator « D > Fig 2:- The 3-DOF RRR plarar uranipulato:.Sirona ATION AND CONTACT ANAL Eaeaeeoenucanos ‘Then to derive the velocity of the 3 degree of freedom robot manipulator, let’s start from the geometry of the robot menipulator, and Iet’s resolve each links of the robot manipulator to imaginary x and y axis and derivate with respect to time to get velocity of each joints. X, = cosh, 5 ‘i X72 = 17 6,'sin’, 2 ,2 ¥,? = L?,6;'cos?0, 216y°sin?0, + L716;°cos?a, v,? = L2,6;7(sin26, + cos) 6 L,c0s0, + L2cos(8, +2) ¥_ = Lysind, + Lasin(8, +62) X= —L,6,sin; — L2(6; + 2)sin(0,+62) Y, = L16;cos0; + L2(0; + 82)cos(6,+02) X,° = 17,6," sin0, + 1?2(0; + 6,)' sin*(@, +02) + L126 (8, + 6;)sinO,sin(, +0) ¥,? = 10," cos®O, | Ly(01 | 62)" cos*(0, 102) + LyLy01(01 4 62)cos0\cos(0, 102) rea 4% v2? = [L716,'sin®0, + 17,6, + 62) sin? (0, +02) + 2L1L26 (61 + 62)sind,sin(9,+62)] + [t?:0,"cos?o, + L2,(0, + 03)cos*(0,+02) + 2byL26(6, + 62)ces0,cos(0,+92)] vy? = 17,6," + 172(6 4 +62)" + 2h 41 264(6; + 62)c08B2 D = L,cos0, + L,cos(8,+8,) + Lscos(0, +8,-+05) H = L,sin6, + Lysin(8, 482) + Lysin(@,+6,+83) vy? = 17,64" + 122(; +62)" + L25(61 + Op +g)” + LiL20; (0; + 62)c0s8, + 141361 (61 + G2 + 63)COS(O, +02) + LyL3(61 + O2)(61 + G2 + O3)cOSO3eirogen PN ean en on eerste Taree LORE Cans RnL 8, ‘The Jacobian, The Jacobian matrix multidimensional form of the derivative. Suppose, for example, that we have six functions, each of which is a function of six independent variables: but in this particular robot manipulator we have three joints therefore we have three independent variables. In this section we derive the relationship between an open chain’s joint velocity vector and the end-effector’s spatial twist, hi ha Sis J(9) [: Jez tal Usi Js2 Iss: Jia = —Lsin(@, +82) — L,sin®, — Lzsin(0,+62+83) Jaa = —Lp8in(@,48,) — Lysin(@,+4,+4,) Jia = —hysin(0,+6)+83) Jax = L2cos(9,+62) + Ly2088, + Lacos(8,+6,+62) Jaa = 12c0s(A,+02) + 1y70s(A,+8,+M9) Jag = L3c0s(0,+62+02) Jas = Jaz = Js: ‘The squared velocities of the center of mass of the robot manipulators. Now the lengths of the robot manipulators will convert to the half of the total length. (0 + 6p + 63)" +226, (6; + 62)c0s02 + 4186 ,(6; + 82 + 63)c0s(0, +02) +212 (6; + 62) (61 + 62 + 63)cos0s 8.1.3. ‘The kinetic energy 126242162 Ky = 3m1?46," + 31,61 Zim; (1716, + 172(6, + 62)® + 241264 (6, + 62)cos02) + =1,(64 + 62)eirogen TON enon een cnn ney Taree LORE Cans RnL Ky = 3m [1701" + £22061 + 62)? + 175(61 + 62 + 6)? + 204126, (01 + 62)cose, + 2L4L361(01 + 6; + 63)cos(@,+02) + 2LzL5(61 + 62)(61 + 62 + 45)cos05| +5hOr+ 6, +63)" Ky = Ky + Ky + Ky K [Em (261° + £72(01 + 62)? + 2b L261(81 + [mt?s6,? +216,'] + 2)cos02) + =1,(61 + 8:)?| + [2s [L761 + L?2(y + 62)? + L?5(61 + 2 + 8)? + 214126, (6, + 62)cos@, + 214136, (6; + 62 + 63)cos(0,+0z) + 2LyL3(6, + 62)(6, + G+ 63)cos05] +2 1,(; + 62 + 63)" Potential energy ‘| : Uy = EmLigsin(6,) U, = mzg(Lysin(9,) + 05L,sin(0,+8,)) 1, = m3g(L,sin(9,) + L,sin(O,+6,) + 0.5L;sin(@,+8,+63)) The total potential energy. U, —U,+U, +U5 Up = Fm Lygsin(O,) + mag(L,sin(B,) + 0.5L,sin(6, +8,)) + msg (Lysin(6,) + L,sin(6,+62) + 0.5L3sin(8;+62+05)) 8.2. Computation of the Lagrangian The Lagrangian L of the rotot manipulator of n DOF is the difference between. K and its potential energy U that is; L=Kr—Ur L= [[gmatie,? +416," ] + [Eg (12,6,7 + 122(0, + 62)? + 2h (y + ,)cosO,) + +16," + G")| + [Ems [1216," + 122(6, + 6)? + L29(6; + 8 + 63)? + 2L41261(61 + 62)cosO, + 2141361 (6; + 62 + 63)cos(@;+O2) + 2LoL3(61 + O2)(O1 + 6, + 63)cos0s| + 2/5(0,' + 62" + 6;°)]| = [Emtagsin(6,) + mag(Lasin(Oy) + 0.5L,sin(6,+6,)) + maaiLysin(6,) + Lpsin(6,+4,) + 0.5Lasin(@,+0,+0,))| ‘Then after the Lagrangian equation of motion for the manipulator of n DOF are given by, [omen au(6,0) al a6, 00; December 18, 2023 4Sirona ATION AND CONTACT ANAL Eaeaeeoenucanos Where 1, correspond to the external forces and torques (delivered by the actuators) at each joint as well as to other (nonconservative) forces. In the class of nonconservacive forces we include those due to friction, the resistance to the motion of a solid in a fluid, and in general all those that depend on time and velocity and nat only on position 4 jouer) _ 108) aa, 1a, TE [mea _au(0.a) ae, TE spe a) __au(o. ‘Then the equation of motion or the torque on each joint of the manipulator calculated using Euler-LaGrange equations. 4 fauwoay] _ an(00) 2, 8, [1 thy tly mh? + jm,(l? + 1,7 + 2hl,cos0,) + fms(hy? +L? +1? + 2l;l,cos0, + 2lylscos(6; + 2) + 2lz13c0883)] 0+ fma(u? + 2 lacosOy) + 2ms (ly? + 2s + 2120056, + 2ly13c05(6, + 82) + Mz13c0s05)) 6; + [Ems (Is? + hlscos(O, + 82) + tylsc0505)| 83 [}mplalasinOy | Frm (InlasinOy | lilssin(Oy | 0:)) | tmgllssin(Oy | 62) 6.62 — [Emslytasin(o, + 62)] 0,2 — [Emslal3sinds + +msl,Lysin(O, + 2)] O63 — [Ematslasind, +4ma(Iylsind, + 2lylasin(O, + 05))] 42° — [Ema la(sin(@, + 02) + 2sinds)| 6265 — imslils65" sind, — [m,Lygcos(6,) + mag(L1cos(O,) + 0.5L,cos(@,+92)) + msg(Lycos(6;) + Lacos(8, +62) + 0.5L3c05(6,+8,+0,))] = [Fmetitecose, + 2ms(ly?+1s12c0802 + Iylacos(, + 62) + 2lz13c¢s63)] 6, + [lot ty + Emmgle? + Fg? + ly? + 2lylsc0s85)] 8; + Fmsl (Ly? + 2lglscos6s)] 6, — December 18,2023 BRSirona ATION AND CONTACT ANAL Eaeaeeoenucanos Aimshilasin@y + 6y)6,7 - [mats tsind, + ds (Inlpsindy + Llssin(y + #2) 6,6 - [Ematitssin6s] 6,45 — [msl lsind] 6265 — [Zmslzlssinds] 85° — [Fmzgl2cos(G,+82) + mzg(Lycos(6,) + Lacos(0;+02) + 0.5L,c05(0,+0s+62)) | = ta Smsl(ls? + llscos(0, + 82) + y1c0505)6, + (I, + lscos6,)6,] + (msl?) 5 - 1 Zing [tats sin, + 62) (6." + 6,42) + llgsinds 6,45 + 6265)| - :m,gLscos(0,+62+63) = Ts 8.3. The joint space equation of motion As depicted in article [19], [20], [21], [22] and [14] the joint space equation of motion can be expresses as follows. M(6)6 + V(6,0) + G(8) = where M(@) is the 3x3 mass matrix of the manipulator, V(6,0) is vector of centrifugal and Coriolis terms, and G (0) is vector of gravity terms. Each clement of M(9) and G(8) is a complex function that depends on 9, the position of all the joints of the menipulator. Each element of V(6.6) isacomplex functon of both 6 and 8. ‘The mass matrix M(0) is Mi Miz Myy M(@)=|Mzy M22 Mas Mz, M32 Mga, Myr = yt lp + ls + Emin? +3 ma(l? + Le? + 2ilacosd,) + Fs (ly? +L? + bs? + 2ly12cOS6, + 2ly1scos(O, + 82) + 2lg13c0S05) Myz = +m,(lz? + 2lyl,co38z) + ims(L," + Als + 2lylzcos6, + 2lylscos(, + 82) + 4lyl3cosO3) Myy = Fmg(ls? + IylscosiO, + 42) + Iylscos0s) May = FmglylpcosO, + ims(Is" +h lpcosB, + lylscos(8, + 8.) + Zlplscos6) Mozy = Ip +13 + imply? + Fmg(l,’ + ls? + Zlplscos0s) m3(ly” + 2lgl3c0s03) m3(Is + Llscos(8, + 82) + Lzl;cos0)ra Ourannen tener ES aCeOmn ean cnn: Msz = $ms(ts? + lolscus0s) 1 ymals? Mss = The centrifugal and Coriolis terms V(8.6) is expressed as: v(6,8), (6,8) =|v(4,4), v (6,4), Where V(6,0),, V(9,8),, and V(6, 0), are expressed as follows. v(6,8), =— [matitasina, +$mg(IyLpsind; + ysin(O, + 62) + img lsin(y + 62)] 8162 — [Zmslilssin(@; + 62)] 01? — [FmslalysinOs + Fmslylysin(Oy + 62)) 0105 — [i mplylpsind, + tms(lylsinO, + 2lssin(9, + 02))] 6 - [mottscsin@, +02) + 2sinds)| A285 — dangly Iga’ sind v(6,8), Lylssin(@ + 82))] 0182 ~ [Fmatitssinds] 0105 — [Lmslitssinds] 0205 — [fmstatssines] 6," V(6,0), = —Fms [lity sin(O, + 62) (6;" +0102) + yl,sin6s(6,43 + 6265)| The gravitational terms G(9) is | G@)= [ie G@)s 6), = — [EmyLygeos(&,) + mag(Lycos(@,) + 0.5L,cos(0,+82)) + mag(Lycos(O,) + Lcos(,+8,) + 0.5L,c0s(0,+8+04))] G(8), = — [mz gb .cos(@+8z) + msg(L,cos(G,) + Lacos(6,+8.) + 0.5L3c0s(0:+82+63)) ] G(6)3 = “bh +,+03) V(6.9),) rece, ~|v(6.9), feos] = [*] | v(6,6), G(O)s M(0)6 +V(6,0) + G(6)=7 : 9? ; aut igh bssin(, + 62)01" — [EmzlybysinO, + tmsil sind, + M21 M22 M23 [ns Mi Mis Ms: M32 M33 December 18, 2023STOgGned nt nN conan nee ion nen Taree LORE Cans RnL ‘The above equation indica‘ed that the joint space equation of motion and it show the torque and the mass, Coriolis component and the gravitational effect on each joirt of the robot manipulator. And in order to define the contact behavior of the manipulator end with the target this equation should he expressed with respect ta the aperational space equation of nation. In the expression of the operational space equation of motion the Jacobian matrix is involved and the operational space equation of motion is expressed as, HOOK + (XX) +P(XY)=F Where (%,X) and P(X) are, the centrifugal and Coriolis force veetor and the gravity force veetor acting in operational space respectively. As stated in literature [21] the relationship between the ‘operational space and joint space mass matrix is expressed as; H(X) = J (@)M(@)71@) M(8) = J"(@)H(X)(8) Where H(X) is the operational space mass snatrin wind M8) the ju space mass matin. And the relation between tke joint torque and the end effector contact force is expressed as follows 1 = J" (O)F or F = J~"(0)t where Tis the joint torque and F is the end effector force. 8.4. Effective Mass The integrated effective mass is taken from the literature [3] such thatthe inertial properties of the contacting bodies and tries to transform the complex contact process into the energy change of a virtual single body with integrated effective mass. Then as depicted in article [23] the dynamic equation of the space manipulator expressed as. M(0)6 +V(6,0) =T+JTR Where M (@) is the inertia matrix of space flexible manipulator, V includes the velocity-dependent nonlinear terms and the stiffness terms, And t = [Fp,te,0]", Fa is the force of base for free floating space robot. And as shown in article [5] the dynamics equaticn in operational space is, HOOK | = By tle Where H(X) = ("(@)M(9)-1J(8))~ is the inertia matrix used to describe the end-effector inertial properties of the rcbot manipulator when it is outside kinematic singularities. # contains the velocity-dependent nonlinear terms and the stiffness matrix of the robot manipulator in ional space. t = J" (0). It is assumed that no external force/torque is exerted on the endSiogenanr edn enna ise Daas effector except contact force when the SFM contacts with a target, and :hus F,. then, the generalized coordinates disturbance of the robot manipulator is obtained, M4 J" 0) when collision or contact occur, the joints are always under the state cf free swinging. X=MUTR ~p) The inertial properties perceived at the end-effector can be expressed as follows. 1 “TOMO TO As depicted in literature [3] from the moment and collision analysis the integrated effective mass me is given by the following formula. 1 Me = Un? (“Tap X Le Tay + me amme En ‘The numerical simulation of the effective mass. on MATAL.B R2019a. Effective mass of the 3-Do! ele clear ally Define the parameters Ll = sym(’L1", ‘rea: sym(1a", real’): rl = sym('rl', ‘real'); r2 = sym('r2", ‘real'); 3 = sym('r3", ‘real') mi = syn('ml', treal') m2 = sym('n2", ‘real') lanar robot % Author: Albee. m3 = sym(*mz", ‘real') TL = sym('Tl", ‘real'); 12 = sym('12", ‘real'); 13 = sym('T3", ‘real'); ym('thetal', 'real'); (theta2’, treal'); + teal"); ul 12 13 = el 2 3 mL m3 thetal = -B0*pi/180; theta2 ~ -45*pi/180; theta3 = -110*pi/1807Renae an eau ate aaa e % thetal = 2.35689009 2608: trad 3 chetaz 1767562594963; trad theta3 7601078867135; trad SThe main program MLL = ((mi/3) + mz + 3) * Linz +¢mz/3 4m) * Lenz 42 * (mZ/Z + m3) * LL * Le *cos (theta2) + m3 * 13 * (Li * cos (theta2 + theta3) + L2 * cos(theta3) + 13/3)5 ML2 = ((m2/3) + m3) * L2°2 + (m2/2 + m3) * L1 * L2 ¥ coc(theta2) + m3 * 13 +*((L1/2) * cos (theta? + theta3) + L2 * cos(theta3) + 13/3); M21 = ((m2/3) + m3) * L2°2 + (m2/2 + m3) * L1 * L2 * coe(thetaz) + m3 * 13 *((L1/2) * cos(theta2 + theta3) + L2 * cos(theta3) + 13/3); MI3-=m3.* L3-* ((L1/2) * cos(theta2 + theta3) + (L2/2) * cos(theta3) + (13/3); M31 = m3 * L3 * ((LL/2) * cos (theta? + theta3) + (L2/2) * cos(theta3) + {23/3)) M22 — ((u2/9)+ 49) + E2°2+ m9 * LI + (U2 * cos(thetad}+ (22/3), M23 = m3 * 13 * ((L2/2) * cos(theta3) + 13/3); M32 = m3 * 13 * ((L2/2) * cos(theta3) + 13/3); M33_= (m3 * 1372)/3; inertia = (M11 M12 uf M21 M22 M23; M31 M32 M331; UL1 = =L2 * sin(thetal + theta3) - 11 * sin(thetal) - L? *sin(thetal + theta2 + theta3) + JL2 = =L2 * sin(thetal + theta2) - 13 * sin(thetal + theta2 + theta3); JL3 = - 13 * sin(thetel + theta2 + theta3); J21 = L2 ¥ cos(thetal + thetaz) + LL * cos(thetal) + L3*cos(thetal + theta2 + theta3); 922 - 12 * cos(thetal + Ubeta2) + £3 * cus(thelel + theta? + thetad), J23 = 13 * cos(thetal + theta? + theta3); J31 = 1; 532 = 1; 33-1 Jacobian = [J11 J12 J13; J21 Jaz J2 w= [0-1 0)"7 Effective_mas 8.5. Continuous contact dynamics Continuous model is compliant contact model, that is utilized to overcome the problems associated 931 932 5331; /(trarspose (u) *Jacobian* inv (inertia) *trenspose (Jacobian) * u) with discrete models such that the presence of coulomb friction cases no solution or multiple solutions, the conservatior of energy principle violated during frictional impacts, and also the discrete approach is not easily extendible to generic multi body system [24]. Selecting the appropriate equation or constitutive law that is utilized to analyze and study the contact impact event by relating the geometry, the kinematics and the material properties of the contacting body is the crucial role for the researchers. The interaction between the contacting bodies needs accurate expression of the contact parameters such as ccntact stiffness and dampingSTOgGned nt nN conan nee ion nen Taree LORE Cans RnL coefficient that initiates numerous researchers, to deliver different expression of the damping factor and evolution of the Hertz contact theory [25] The article depicted by [26] expression for the cnntact-impaet process according to the coefficien’ of re ticize the previously done research works on formulating the jon and damping factor as the continuous contact model can represent the detail of the contact impact prosses if the damping factor A is fixed by the measured values of the coefficient of restitution and also if the continuous model is utilized to simulate the contact impact process the simulation value of the restitution coefficient can te calculated by the simulation values of the velocities before and after the collision. And also, in their work utilized the pre restitution coefficient as an input for calculating the damping factor and the simulation value is post restitution coefficient The article presented by the [27] utilizes the essential spring damper contact model based on the trend Hertz model in conjunction with the hysteresis damping function to simulate the impact between the end effector of the space robot manipulator and its environment. And also these authors consider dynamies model of the space manipulator, dynamic model of an orbital payload, contact dynamics model, and real time collision detection in the simulation of the free floating target capturing by space robot manipulator, and the simulation is based on the assumptions that the contact nature is point surface contact, the material is rigid and the initial parameters except mass and moment of inertia, such as initial relative linear and angular velocities is zero at the beginning of contact. ‘The researchers depicted by [28] utilized the Hertz model with hysteresis damping to analyze the contact force between two single bodies then after to find the expressicn for the continuous contact ‘model for the space manipulator its effective mass is derived based cn the whole system energy, and the collision effeets on space manipulator analyzed. Likely to many researchers the author depicted by the [29] also convinced on the nonlinear contact force equation that is expressed as a function of deformation(indentation) and indentation speed. The article called [23] utilizes the advantage of the nonlinear continuous dynamic model as a function of deformation and relative velocity of impact bodies and this dynamic model was based on the Herbert-MeWhannel nonlinear model that delivers the expression for the damping factor, The authors depicted by [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and [23] convinced on the nonlinear that the linear Kelvin and Voigt approach does not represent the physical nature of the energy transferredSTOgGned nt nN conan nee ion nen Taree LORE Cans RnL during the contact process, and they represent the contaet force by the pure elastic Herts's law combined with a nonlinear viscoelastic element such that; F, = K6" + 285" But the authors utilized different formulation to account for the loss of energy in contact-impact events that has the coefficient of restitution, through the damping coefficients. Their concern was to satisfy the expected hysteresis boundary conditions, that is, zero damping force at zero and ‘maximum relative indentation of contaet{25] ‘The approximation of the above contact force expression was started by the replacement of the indentation velocity & by equivalent velocity & and the target of the development of the new continuous contact models discover the expression for equivalent ve ocity 6 as well as compare and contrast the coefficient of restitution before and after impact [26]. Afier mathematical manipulation, integration and numerical simulation the authors stated by [26] forwarded the final approximated function of curve fiting, contact force expression and the damping factor as follows, 0.6181 e352 + 0,899¢0.090254 3k =) Ser + 0,899¢ "OPE, 8 3k(1 — ¢,)68" 2(O HIRI P52 + DRIGD ONE, A 2(06181e Fy = 6" + And for different values of the coefficient of restitution the value of maximum indentation and peak force have different values and based on this the simulation is conducted below. ‘The new contact model that is derived for the multibody dynamics of with the complex geometries and with energy dissipation the hysteresis damping is modeled by combining the energy balance and the law of conservation of linear momentum, and the capability 0° the new model is validated and compared by published experimental data and simulation result of the eight different contacts ‘models, and the new model is provide the best value to simulate contacting problems with complex contacting surface geometries and may be useful for multibody syster simulation. The impact dynamics was formulated by considering the spring damping force model based on the Hertz theory treat the contact impact phenomenon as continuous dynamics problems as the contact, force is equal to the spring damping model. Then [27] utilized Hunt and Crossley hysteresis damping coefficient.STUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSIS OF SPACE rod ia Oman ma Finally, the equation of motion is given as; Mid + Ab) + Kn |e absK pyr ‘Substituting 6 = 0 then the maximum deformation can be expressed as: yr" ‘Then the maximum contact force is calculated as Frnax = KS“ max Fax = K (agen (-280 + Kin ae HE LY “i (0; -1; 0) Figure 3:- The simulation of the effective mass for the contact directionSiogenanr edn enna ise Daas Deasia onto Figure 4:- The simulation of the effective mass for the contact direction u=[-1; -1; -1] The simulation of the analytical analysis on MATLAB and the result plotted by considering 0;, 8 and 8, as independent variables and Fmax and me as dependent variables. The value of 6, ranges from -360 to 360 degrees. And the numerical value shows that the maximum contact force and the effective mass at the end effector increases and decrease the as the value of @; varies. As the value of 8; approaches to -310, -180, 50, 180 degrees the maximum contact force and the effective mass of the space robot inereases. And for the rest of the @; values relatively minimum values but it needs further research and gptimization algorithm development. On behalf of this simulation, it is harsh to adjust the value of @; 310, -180, 50, and 180. This proves that the initial problem of the configuration optimization will affect the maximum contact force generated at the end effector of the space robot. As the parameters of the continuous contact force analysis both the status of the target satellite and the space robot should be included. And in this particular research tke parameters that describes both the space robot and the target satellite stated as follows. 1. Stiffness Parameters: The stiffiness parameters determine the rigidity of the contact interface between the robot and the target. They affect the deformation and response of the contact force. Different stiffness parameters can lead to variations in the contact force calculationSTUDY CONTACT FORCE MINIMIZATION AND CONTACT ANALYSI Dame Taree OREO RIC 2. Initial Relative Contact Velocities: The initial relative contact velocities refer to the velocities between the robot and the arget at the moment of contact. These velocities influence the contact force and can affect the capture process. 3. Restitution Coefficients: The restin ion coefficients deserihe the elasticity of the contact interface. They determine the amount of energy lost or retained during the contact between the robot and the target. Different restitution coefficients can impact the contact force behavior 4. Hysteresis Damping Factor: The hysteresis damping factor characterizes the energy dissipation during the contact process. It accounts for the damping e‘Tect caused by the material properties and contact dynamics. Various models exist for hysteresis damping factor calculation ‘These parameters are essertial for accurately analyzing and optimizirg the contact force in space robot applications. By understanding and controlling these parameters, researchers and engineers can improve the effi ‘iency and effectiveness of space robot capturing operations. As well as here are some key parameters for space robot contact force analysis that describe the target satellite. 1. Mass ‘The mass of the target satellite is an important parameter as it affects the magnitude of the contact force during the capturing operation. The mass of the satellite can be estimated based on its size, composition, and mission objectives. 2. Centroid Locatio ‘The centroid location of the target satellite refers to its center of mass. Knowing the precise location of the centroid is essential for accurate force analysis and control strategies during the capture process. 3. Geometric Shape: The geometric shape of the target satellite influences the contact force distribution during the capturing operation. Different shapes may result in varying force distributions and contaet points, which need to be considered for effective capture planning. 4, Motion State: Understanding the motion state of the target satellite is crucial for predicting its behavior during the capture process. Parameters such as translational and rotational velocities, accelerations, and angular rates provide valuable information for forceanalysis and control design. 9. Expected outcome (Scientific contribution) In this particular researct the development and application of a quasi-novel approach that combines mechanical design(strength) and configuration optimization techniques for free-floating space robots performing contact tasks