csi computer system/remote interface unit acceptance … · csi computer system/remote interface...

NASA Technical Memorandum 104218 _

//

CSI COMPUTER SYSTEM/REMOTEINTERFACE UNIT ACCEPTANCE TESTRESULTS

('_ASA-TM-IO431d) CSI CqMPUTE_, SYST_M/RFMQTE

I'vIrFRf;ACE UNIT ACCEPTANCt- I'E_T RESULTS

(t,_A_A) 17_ i-, CSCL 20K

G.3/..,9

Nq2-24)4_,

Dean W. Sparks, Jr.

March 1992

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research CenterHampton, Virginia 23665-5225

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19920015301 2018-07-16T20:20:29+00:00Z

Acronyms

The following acronyms are used throughout this document.

AID

A/D -

AP

CAMAC -

CSI -

CCS -

CDPP -

CEM -

COFS -

CPU -

D/A

IX_

DSP -

EDS

FIR

FSGB

GSE

GSET

HRM

UR

po

RIU

SED

SSRL

Analysis and Computation Division

Analog to Digital

Array Processor

Computer Automated Measurement and Control

Control/Su'uctures Interaction

CSI Computer System

Console Debugger/Prom Programmer

CSI Evolutionary Model

Control of Flexible Structures

Central Processing Unit

Digital to Analog

Direct Current

Digital Signal Processor

Excitation and Damping Subsystem Computer

Finite Impulse Response

Flight Software and Graphics Branch

Ground Support Equipment

Ground Support Equipment Terminal

High Rate Multiplexer

Inifinte Impulse Response

Input-Output

Remote Interface Unit

System Engineering Division

Space Structures Research Laboratory

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to report on the testing of the Control/Structures Interaction

(CSI) Computer System (CCS)/Remote Interface Unit (RIU), which was installed in the Space

Structures Research Laboratory (SSRL) for use in conducting real time control experiments on the

the CSI Evolutionary Model (CEM). The test work performed on the CCS/RIU in the SSRL is an

extension of the earlier test work performed on a duplicate CCS and the RIU in the Flight Software

and Graphics Branch (FSGB) Laboratory at the Analysis and Computation Division (ACD) in

March 1991. This document is organized in the following manner. First, a brief description of the

overall CCS/RIU system is given. Then, the various tests performed on the CCS/RIU - hardware

acceptance, software/control computations, open loop, closed loop, RIU digital filtering and RILl

standalone - are discussed. Next, a section outlining the system's development problems, their

solutions and recommendations for improvement is presented. Finally, a short summary section

closes the document.

System Description

The CCS is intended to allow researchers to conduct real time control tests on a computer

system with spaceflight qualified components. The CCS was manufactured by SCI of Huntsville,

Alabama, originally for the cancelled Control of Flexible Structures (COFS) flight project, and

consists of four major components: the Console Debugger/Prom Programmer (CDPP), the

Excitation and Damping System Computer (EDS)1, the Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and

the Ground Support Equipment Terminal (GSET). In addition, two other components, the Remote

Interface Unit (RIU) 2 and a dumb graphics terminal, have been interfaced with the CCS. The

function(s) of each component is briefly explained below:

Console Debugeer/Prom Proerammer (CPDD) - The CDPP consists of two parts: a PC

XT and a prom burning expansion chassis. The PC XT is primarily used to download software to

the EDS via a RS 422 serial interface, while the prom burner is used to re-program the proms on

the mass memory and MIL-STD 1750A Central Processing Unit (CPU) boards of the EDS, when

necessary. Another function of the CDPP is to provide the user access to the EDS for the pro'pose

of quickly halting the control law computations, and thus the control test, in case of emergencies.

Excitation and Damnin_ System rEDS) This unit is the 'brain' of the CCS,

performing the real time control computations. It houses 1750A CPU, mass memory, MIL-STD

1553B communication, and array processor (AP) boards, all of which are spaceflight qualified.

The AP performs the matrix control law computations, and is capable of handling controllers with

up to 100 states. Sensor signals and the computed actuator commands axe received and

transmitted, respectively, on 1553B data bus, which also has been qualified for space operations.

The EDS is unique in that it derives its power (112 W) from one of three direct era'rent (DC) power

supplies contained in the GSE (the other CCS components draw their power from standard 120

VAC wall socket sources).

2

Ground Sup m)rt Equipment fGSE) - The GSE was originally built to simulate a Shuttle

input-output (I/O) interface between the CCS and the experimental test article. It contains three DC

power supplies, 1750A CPUs and a High Rate Multiplexer (HRM) for I/O processing, 1553B and

IEEE 488 communication interfaces, and a 9-track magnetic tape drive system for test data storage.

The initial power requirement specifications for the GSE called for 240 VAC and 30 amps,

however, subsequent discussions with the manufacturer revealed that a standard 120 VAC wall

socket source supply was sufficient. During the CCS development phase, a decision was made to

bypass the I/O interfaces provided by the GSE for operations in the SSRL. It was felt, for the

purpose of testing in the SSRL, that the I/O functions could be handled more efficiently by the

GSET. Thus, in the current configuration, the one power supply which directly powers the EDS

is the only part of the GSE which will be used during normal test operations.

Ground Support Equipment Terminal eGSET) - The GSET is a 80286 based PC with

a 20 inch color monitor, and serves as the user interface to the CCS. Here, the user enters in the

parameters which define the real time control experiment to be conducted, i.e., sensor and actuator

selections, sampling rate and length of test, analog and digital filter selections, disturbance

excitation types and sources, control law matrices and instrument scale factors. The GSET also

communicates hardware and software error and warning messages to the user and computes pre-

test sensor biases. Finally, the GSET records the real time test data (sensor signals and actuator

commands) off of the 1553B data bus onto its hard disk drive, and converts it into ASCII format.

Currently, there is no analysis software on the GSET; an ETHERNET interface has been installed

to transfer the data to other systems for post-test analysis. The GSET has enough free hard disk

space (25 megabytes at present) to hold data from multiple test runs.

Remote Interface Unit (RIU) - The RIU performs the data acquisition and filtering duties

for the CCS. Built in-house, by the System Engineering Division (SED), this unit provides 16

input channels, multiplexed to a single 12-bit A/D converter, as well as 8 output channels,

multiplexed into two 12-bit D/A converters (4 channels each). The RIU also provides limited

analog low pass filtering, for anti-aliasing, and a Digital Signal Processor (DSP) board for digital

filtering. With the DSP, the RIU has the capability to perform real time control tests itself in a so

called "standalone" mode, i.e., with the CCS out of the loop. In the normal mode, the RIU

communicates with the CCS via the 1553B bus. A 28 VDC, 7 amp power supply, also built by

SED, provides the necessary power.

Granhics Terminal - A dumb graphics terminal has been provided, primarily for viewing

the test data. Via a standard ROLM phone/data link, the user can log on to other systems, to which

3

the test data has been previously sent (e.g., a VAX with PRO-MATLAB) for post-rest analysis

work.

Figure 1 shows the major components and their respective connections.

Figure 2 is a schematic showing the CCS/RIU system within the SSRL. The data flow is as

follows. Analog sensor signals come into the SSRL Control Trailer, through the safety PC and

signal conditioning amplifiers. The analog sensor signals are then sent from the main patch panel

to the RIU, where they are convened to digital signals and filtered as required. These signals are

then sent to the CCS back inside the Control Trailer via the 1553B bus for use in control law

computations. The resulting digital actuator commands are transmitted to the RIU down the

1553B, where they are convened to analog signals. These analog actuator commands are sent into

the Control Trailer and finally out to the CEM.

CCS Hardware, Acceptance Test

SCI has provided a detailed procedure for the express purpose of testing the functionality of

CCS hardware. The full hardware acceptance test was performed after initial system delivery into

the SSRL in August 1990, and a portion of this test was repeated to ensure that the CCS hardware,

specifically the EDS, was still functioning properly. Since the current CCS will not use the GSE

during actual operations, other than a power supply for the EDS, the GSE I/O tests were not

performed. Only those tests involving the EDS were conducted, and they covered the following:

- voltage and power supply

- array processor (AP)

- 1750A CPU

- 1553 bus communication

- shared memory between the AP and 1750A CPU

The hardware acceptance tests indicated that the EDS, as well as the other CCS components in

the SSRL, were functioning properly and were ready for further testing with the RIU. Appendices

A and B contain the general log and error log file printouts, respectively, for these CCS hardware

acceptance tests. The general log file reflects the user inputs and on-screen responses from the

tests, while the error log file contains a more detailed listing of test result messages.

4

Dummy Control Computation Tests

After the completion of the CCS hardware tests, a series of so called "dummy" control

experiments were executed on the CCS. These tests, nine in all, are referred to as "dummy"

experiments because they were designed to test the CCS software, specifically the EDS

computational software, and not as actual laboratory control experiments. All the control law

matrices were made up arbitrarily - since the computed actuator commands were never transmitted

to the CEM, little thought was given to the performance or stability of these control laws. Instead,

emphasis was placed on exercising the features of the CCS software. The sensor signals and CCS

computed actuator commands were recorded for each test for post-test analysis. Each set of

recorded sensor signals was transferred to a VAX workstation for use in a PRO-MATLAB

simulation of the corresponding "dummy" control experiment, with the CCS computed actuator

commands being compared to the actuator commands obtained in the simulation for verification

purposes.

Table 1 shows the major parameters that describe each of the "dummy" tests. The column

entries are as follows: column 1 contains the '!dummy" test number; columns 2 and 3, the number

of sensors and actuators used in the test, respectively; column 4, the CCS digital sampling rate;

column 5, the type of control feedback; column 6, the number of controller states; column 7, the

types of disturbance excitations which were used.

Table 1. Dummy computation control tests.

Test No. of No. of Sampling Control Control Excitation

No. Y.V.nt States1 4 8 150 output O p

2 1 1 150 state 2 none

3 1 8 100 output 0 s,p,r

4 8 8 100 state 100 s,p,r

5 8 8 100 state 2 p

6 8 1 150 output 0 s

7 8 1 150 state 50 none

8 8 6 150 state * 100 s,r

9 8 8 150 output ** 0 none

p - pulse; s - sine; r - random

* - The controller was not turned on during the test, thus, the actuator commands only

involved the defined excitations.

** - The control gain matrix was set equal to the identity matrix, i.e., the actuator commands

were equal to the sensor signals.

These "dummy" control experiments were actually executed twice on the CCS/RIU. For the

first time, a signal generator was connected directly to the RIU, and sine waves were used to

mimic sensor signals. A single constant frequency output from the signal generator was used, this

being split into the appropriate number of sensor channels for each test. It should be noted that

with this particular configuration, the data flow did not go through the SSRL Control Trailer (see

Figure 2), rather, the data flow was exclusively through the 1553B data bus. In all nine tests with

the signal generator, the EDS computed actuator commands matched their counterpart PRO-

MATLAB simulated actuator commands for the same set of re.corded sensor signals. The recorded

sensor signals themselves were checked by plotting their time histories on the VAX and visually

verifying the signals' frequencies and amplitudes against the known parameters set on the signal

generator.

The next round of tests was conducted with the CEM sensors, servo accelerometers #1-8,

connected to the RIU. The CEM actuators for the tests, though not yet physically connected to the

CCS/RIU, _were thrusters #1-8, referring to the eight air thruster pairs on the CEM 3. Since each

pair of thrusters act in unison, they will be referred to as single actuators for the remainder of this

document. The CEM was manually excited, and the free response data from the aocelerometers

were recorded and used in real time in the nine "dummy" control tests. Figures 3a-d show the time

histories of the first four accelerometers, respectively, for test #1, while Figures 4a-p show the

corresponding thruster command time histories, as computed by the CCS in real time and by thc

PRO-MATLAB simulation, respectively. Test #1 ran for 40 seconds, with the controller turned on

for the last 20 seconds. Note that the 1 lb spike at 20 seconds for thruster #1 (Figure 4a) reflects a

commanded 1 lb pulse (duration was 1 time sample, i.e., 0.0067 seconds) at the initiation of the

controller. The CCS actuator command and the PRO-MATLAB simulation actuator command

matched for each thruster. This result was true for the other eight "dummy" control experiments.

This indicated that the CCS software, particularly the EDS computational software, was

performing as desired, and that open loop tests with the CEM could commence.

As a further study into the computational capability of the CCS, another set of "dummy" control

experiments, each with 8 inputs and 8 outputs, but varying control matrices' sizes, were executed

6

todetermineachievablethroughputspeedson the CCS. Appendix C contains the details on these

particular tests.

Open Loop Tests with the CEM

Once the CCS control computational software tests were passed, the thrusters were connected to

the CCS/RIU for open loop command testing. For these tests, thruster commands were

transmitted from the CCS to the CEM, however, no control law computations were performed,

only the programmed excitation commands were used to drive the CEM. The current CCS

software is capable of commanding three different types of excitations for use as disturbances.

They are as follows: constant frequency sine waves, single pulses (of one sample period

duration), and uniform random excitation. In the CCS software, any actuator can be commanded

to output any of the above three excitations during a test, although each thruster can only be

commanded to perform one type of excitation per test.

Along with the digital accelerometer signals and thruster commands, which were recorded on

the GSET from each test, strip chart recordings of the corresponding analog accelerometer signals

and thruster commands were also available as further checks on the open loop tests. In fact, as a

precautionary measure, for the first few open loop tests, the thruster commands from the CCS

were not sent out of the Control Trailer to the CEM, but merely recorded on the strip charts to

verify the open loop commands. Only after these open loop commands were confirmed on the

strip charts, were they sent out to the CEM on subsequent tests.

All three types of excitation were tested on the CEM, and sample results for the 3 types are

given in the following paragraphs. The first type tested was sine wave excitations. The test

involved disturbing the CEM with four thrusters for the first seven seconds of the experiment, then

turningoff the excitations and allowing the CEM's motions to freely decay for the remaining 23

seconds of the test. Figures 5a-h show the time histories of accelerometers #1-8, respectively, for

this test. Note the open loop responses growing from 0 to 7 seconds, and the spikes in several

time histories at 7 seconds, indicating when the thrusters were commanded off. The four thruster

command time histories are shown in Figures 6a-d. The thruster sine wave commands were as

follows: thruster #3 - amplitude of 2 lbs, frequency of 11.9381 rad/s; thruster #4 - amplitude of

0.9 lbs, frequency of 10.6814 rad/s; thruster #6 - amplitude of 2 lbs, frequency of 0.9111 rad/s;

and thruster #7 - amplitude of 0.5 lbs, frequency of 0.9111 rad/s.

7

The next excitation test used single pulses to disturb the CEM. The same four thrusters used

above for the sine wave excitations were used here. The pulse commands, shown in a composite

plot in Figure 7, were as follows: thruster #3, 1 lbs at 5 seconds; thruster #4, 2 lbs at 10 seconds;

thruster #6, -1 lbs at 15 seconds; and thruster #7, 0.5 lbs at 20 seconds. The total run time for this

test was 30 seconds. Figures 8a and 8b show response time histories of accelerometers #7 and #8,

respectively. The responses to the pulses can be seen on both accelerometer plots.

The final excitation type to be tested was random excitation. Thrusters #3 and #7 were

commanded to produce outputs based on the following equation

Zk = a * (b*xk + c)

where zk was the kth sample thruster command output, in lbs, xk was the kth sample discrete

uniform random variable (between +/- 1.0), and a, b, c were scalar constants. The products of a

and b, along with the variance of distribution of the Xk'S, dictated the variance of the distribution of

the zk's, while the product of a and c dictated the mean of the distribution of the Zk'S. For this

test, the variables a and b were both set equal to 0.5, while the variable c was set to zero, for both

thrusters, which corresponded to the random zk's having a near zero mean distribution, since the

xk's also had a distribution with near zero mean. Figures 9a-b show the responses from

accelerometers #7 and #8, respectively, to these inputs, while Figures lOa-b show the command

time histories for thrusters #3 and #7, respectively; thruster #3 was on from 10 to 13 seconds, and

thruster #7 was on from 5 to 7 seconds, both outputing +/- 0.25 lbs force in amplitude. The total

run time of the test was 15 seconds.

Table 2 contains the mean and variance values for both the CCS computed and computer

simdatexl random commands. Column 1 identifies the thruster pair which received the random

commands, and columns 2 and 3 contain the mean and variance values, respectively.

Table 2. Mean and Variance of the open loop random thruster commands.

T.ht.ugrg.. Y-arJaag¢-.l 2i#3 (CCS computed) -0.001538 0.0062514#7 (CCS computed) 0.001102 0.0069927

#3 (simulation) 0.000998 0.0066179#7 (simulation) 0.005969 0.0076238

Although the statistical values between test and simulation were close, they did not match

exactly. This may be attributed to the differences in the random variables, per time sample,

between the EDS and the simulation.

During the open loop command testing phase, both the manual shutdown command and the

automatic safety shutdown features of the CCS software were tested. Manual shutdown

commands, issued by typing in "halt" on the CDPP, were successful in zeroing all the thruster

commands and stopping the control experiment, in all instances. The automatic safety shutdown

software keyed on the magnitude levels of the accelerometer signals. Each accelerometer was

assigne.d a maximum allowable signal level, called the critical value; if any accelerometer signal

magnitude exceeded its respective critical value during the test, all the thruster commands were

automatically zeroed and the experiment was terminated. In order to test this automatic shutdown

feature without exciting the CEM to a high (and potentially damaging) degree, artificially small

critical values were assigned to the accelerometers. These levels were easily reached using the sine

wave excitation commands mentioned above. Figure 11 a shows the response time history of

accelerometer #1, which was assigned a critical value of 0. lg. The plot shows that the 0.1g level

was exceeded at 4.5 seconds, at which time the experiment automatically stopped and the thrusters

were issued a zero command. Figure 11 b shows the results of a similar test, where accelerometer

#2's critical value was set to 0. lg; this experiment was stopped once this level was surpassed at

6.7 seconds. In both tests, messages indicating that a sensor limit was exceeded and the

experiment terminated were correctly displayed on the GSET.

Once the open loop testing was satisfactorily completed, the CCS/RIU system was deemed

ready for closed loop testing to begin.

Closed Loop Tests with the CEM

Confident that the sensor signals and actuator commands were being properly processed and

transmitted between the CCS/RIU and the CEM, closed looped tests were started. Three different

closed loop controllers, each a state feedback type involving accelerometers #1-8 and thrusters #1-

8, but varying in the number of states, were executed on the CCS/RIU. The performance goal, of

damping the vibrational motions of the CEM, was the same for all three controllers. Each test was

30 seconds long, and the same sine wave excitations which were described in the Open Loop Tests

section were used to disturb the CEM for the first 7 seconds of each run. After a period of 3

9

seconds of fre.¢ decay, the controller was then turned on and left on for the remainder of each test

run. The results for cach of tbe three tests arc presented in the following paragraphs.

The first closed loop controller was a 16 state de.coupled controller, digitally simulating second-

order mass-spring-damper systems at sensor/actuator pair locations which actively absorb

virbrational energy from the CEM 4. This controller was executed at 150 Hz and at 200 Hz, the

results of the latter test are presented here. For verification purposes, the same controller was

executed on the existing SSRL VAX 3200 workstation at 200 Hz; this VAX is used as the primary

real time control computer in the SSRL, and is tied into a Computer Automated Measurement and

Control (CAMAC) rack which performs the data acquisition and conversion duties. Figures 12a-p

show comparisons of the accelerometer response time histories from both the SSRL VAX and

CCS/RIU tests. Each accelerometer's time histories, from both tests matched, although the

accelerometer data from the CCS/RIU was noticeably more noisy. This was attributed to the fact

that the CAMAC A/D converters had 16-bit precision, as opposed to 12-bit for the A/D converter in

thc RIU; the CAMAC A/D's have 16 times the resolution of the RIU A/D, the CAMAC having

3276 counts per volt representation versus the RIU's 204 counts per volt. This in turn led to the

slight differences in thruster command time histories, as seen in Figures 13a-p, for the two tests.

Another factor to be considered, when comparing the CCS/RIU to the SSRL VAX, is

computational precision. The control law on the SSRL VAX was executed in double precision

(i.e., 64 bits), while the CCS was limited to 32-bit precision in its computations in the AP. As a

final check, the accelerometer time histories, from both tests, were fed through a PRO-MATLAB

simulation of the 16 state de.coupled controller. The resulting simulated thruster command time

histories for the two tests matched their respective CCS/RIU and SSRL VAX computed thruster

command time histories.

During the tests with the 16 state decoupled controller, the manual shutdown command from the

CDPP was tested again, to ensure that it can function during an actual closed loop control test. The

manual shutdown command was tried on several closed loop tests, always being issued after the

controller was working. In each case, the halt command successfully zeroed out all of the thruster

commands and terminated the control execution.

The second controller to be tested on the CCS/RIU was a 42 state H** controller. The controller

was executed at 200 Hz, and the resulting accelerometer response and thruster command time

histories can be seen in Figures 14a-h and in Figures 15a-h, respectively. The performance of this

controller was considerably better than the 16 state decoupled controller above.

10

The final closed loop controller which tested was another H.o controller, this time with 60

states. This controller was executed at 150 Hz and 200 Hz. The accelerometer response and

thruster command time history plots can be seen in Figures 16a-h and in Figures 17a-h,

respectively, for the 200 Hz test. It is obvious, from these plots, that the controller performance is

poor, and a 7 Hz mode has been excited. This 7 Hz mode has also been encountered previously in

control tests with the SSRL VAX. To circumvent this problem on the SSRL VAX, the controllers

were executed at higher sampling rates, rates at which the present CCS/RIU is incapable of

operating at. The sampling rate effect could be noticed when comparing the 150 Hz test results

with the 200 Hz test results for this controller. Although the performance was poor in both tests,

the 7 Hz instability was more pronounced in the 150 Hz test.

RIU Digital Filtering Tests

This section discusses the results of the RIU digital filtering tests which were performed.

Analog low pass filters are also available in the RIU to provide signal anti-aliasing prior to digital

filtering. The cutoff frequencies are automatically set by the selected RIU sampling rate, as shown

in Table 3.

Table 3. RIU sampling rate and corresponding analog filter cutoff frequencies.

Samnlin_ rate (Hz_ Cutoff freouencv (Hz)

60 16.7

600 166.7

6000 1666.7

Although the analog filters were activated for the digital filtering tests, they were not tested by

themselves.

As mentioned in the System Description section above, the RIU contains a DSP board for

digitally filtering selected sensor signals prior to transmission to the CCS. Currently, the RIU has

two pre-defined Finite Impulse Response (FIR) low pass filters which can be called by the user.

The first is the so called "structures filter", which has a filter length of 110 (i.e., 109 states), was

designed with a sharp roll off with little consideration given to phase shift. This f'dter will be

referred as 'Triter #2", in this document. A "filter #1" does exist and is termed the "null filter",

which simply means no digital filtering; this "null filter" must be defined since all sensor signals,

11

whether they are to be filtered or not, are sent to the DSP prior to transmission down the 1553B to

the CCS. Figures 18a-c show the frequency response plots of filter #2, for the three selectable

RIU sampling rates of 60, 600 and 6000 Hz, respectively. The second pre-defined filter has a

filter length of 54 (53 states) and was designed to introduce smaller phase shift, for use with

control law computations; hence, the name "control filter". For this document, this filter will be

called "filter #3". Figures 19a-c show the frequency response plots of filter #3 for the RIU

sampling rates of 60, 600 and 6000 Hz, respectively.

To test the RIU digital filters, the RIU input channels were disconnected from the CEM sensors

and connected to a signal generator. Fixed-frequency sine waves were then sent to the RIU to

mimic the sensor signals, as was done in the f'u'st part of the Dummy Control Computations tests.

The same sine wave was sent to all eight RIU sensor channels, however, different RIU digital

filters (using filters 1-3 described above) were selected for various channels. All the sensor

channels were recorded on the CCS's GSET for later analysis. This post test analysis involved the

comparison of the RIU digital filter outputs with PRO-MATLAB simulated filter outputs of the

known input sine wave. Several tests were made, involving different frequency sine wave inputs;

the results of three of these tests are presented here. In these cases, the RIU was set to sample at

600 Hz.

Figures 20a, 21a and 22a show time history plots of 0.1 Hz, 1.0 Hz and 8.0 Hz raw signal

generator sine waves, respectively, compared to RIU filter #2's outputs. Note that the RIU

OUtpUtShavc been scaled by the dc filter gain of 0.749, to account for the magnitude of the digital

filter. The phase shift became more pronounced at the higher signal frequencies. The group delay

effects of the initialization of the digital filter was not recorded because the RIU begins to process

the sensor signals in its DSP as soon as the RIU is fully configured, not when the CCS begins to

record the data (dme = 0 in the plots). There is a built-in five second delay between RIU software

configuration and the start of data recording on the GSET.

Figures 20b, 21 b and 22b show comparisons between the time history plots of RIU filter #2

outputs, and filter #2 PRO-MATLAB simulated outputs of 0.1 Hz, 1.0 Hz and 8.0 Hz sine wave

inputs, respectively. The 0.1 Hz and 1.0 I-Iz tests show excellent agreement, however, there are

larger differences between the filtered test data and simulated data for the 8.0 Hz case. This may

be attributed to the differences between the actual raw 8.0 Hz signal, used in the actual test, and the

"created" 8.0 Hz signal used in the corresponding PRO-MATLAB simulation. For all of these

filter tests, the GSET-recorded raw test sine waves could not be used directly in the PRO-

MATLAB simulations because of the slower sampling rates of the CCS. The RIU was sampling

12

thetest sine waves at a rate of 600 Hz since the digital filters were designed for that rate.

However, the CCS cannot operate at 600 Hz (see Appendix C) and was sampling andre, cording

the test data at 150 Hz. Thus, in order to properly simulate the RIU digital filter outputs at 600 I-h:,

test sine wave signals, sampled at 600 Hz, had to be created in PRO-MATLAB. These created

sine waves were based upon the measured raw test sine waves; the created sine waves were made

to match the actual test sine waves in terms of frequency, amplitude and phase, but contained 4

times the number of sample points over a given period of time. In the 8.0 Hz case, the created 600

Hz sampled signal did not match the measured signal as well as in the 0.1 Hz and 1.0 Hz cases,

which led to the slight differences in the filter test data and the PRO-MATLAB filtered data.

Figures 23a, 24a and 25a show time history plots of 0.1 Hz, 1.0 Hz and 8.0 Hz raw signal

generator sine waves, respectively, compared to RIU filter #3's outputs. Note, again, that the R1U

outputs have been scaled by the de filter gain of 0.913, to account for the magnitude of digital filter

#3. Also, it can be seen that the phase shift is much less for this filter. Figures 23b, 24b and 25b

show comparisons between the time history plots of RILl filter #3 outputs, and filter #3 PRO-

MATLAB simulated outputs of 0.1 Hz, 1.0 Hz and 8.0 Hz sine wave inputs, respectively.

One interesting point discovered during the digital filtering tests was that the output of RIU

channel #1 was a factor of 1.023 higher than other RIU channels with the same outputs. This held

true for all three frequency test cases, presented above. At present, there is no explanation of this.

RIU Standalone Tests

As previously mentioned, the RIU has the capability to execute control laws on its DSP with the

CCS out of the loop, although it is possible for the EDS to initially excit the CEM with open loop

commands. This is the so called "standalone" mode of the RILl. The RILl control laws take the

form of transfer functions, i.e., in the form of digital Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters, for

programming in the DSP; the coefficients are entered in on the GSET and transmitted to the RIU

via a standard PC serial interface. These control law transfer functions must be designed for one

of the three available RIU digital sampling rates - 60, 600 or 6000 Hz. Currently, the RIU control

laws are limited both in order, and in the number of sensor inputs and actuator outputs which can

he processed. Only three different control transfer functions, i.e., three different actuator/sensor

pairs, can be specified with the present RIU.

13

With the above limitations in mind, an appropriate control law was choosen to test the RIU

standalone mode. A six state decoupled controller, with three sensor inputs (accclerometers # 1, 3

and 8) and three thruster commands (thrusters # 1, 3 and 8) was selected. The orginal six state

matrices were transformed into 3 separate second order, single input, single out transfer functions,

using available routines in PRO-MATLAB; they were discretized at 600 Hz and are shown below:

thruster#I 2.4257 * 10 -4 z -I + 2.3344 * 10 -4 z -2

accel.#1 1.0000- 1.9940z -1 + 0.9943z -2

thruster#3

accel. # 3

-3.0964"10-4z-I+2.9472"10-4 z-2

1.0000-1.9924z-I+0.9927z-2

thruster#8

accel.#8

-2.3730"10 -3 z-I +2.3623,10-3 z-2

1.0000-1.9930z -l +0.9930z -2

Transfer functions of this control law, digitized for execution at 200 Hz, wcrc previously verified

in successful closed loop tests on the SSRL VAX 3200.

The above transfer functions were programmed into the DSP onboard the RIU with the GSET

via a RS 232 interface; for the RIU standalone tests, the only component of the CCS used was the

GSET, all the rest were turned off. Once the RIU was executing in standalone mode, the CEM

was manually excited to see if the control law could control the CEM. A problem with this

particular control law was encountered in the RIU, in repeated testing, the thrusters never fired.

Subsequent tests, with the RIU actuator command signals being monitored on an oscilloscope,

revealed that the RIU computed actuator values were always zero. Although no direct cause of the

problem has been discovered, the problem has been attributed to the small magnitudes of the

numerator coefficients, which presented numerical difficulties for the RIU.

Other RIU standalone tests, involving other transfer functions programmed in the DSP, have

been successfully tested. These tests used the pre-defined digital FIR filters available in the RIU,

programmed as transfer functions for 3 sensor/actuator pairs.

14

Development problems and recommendations

This section outlines the problems encountered during the development of the CCS/RIU system,

and some of the solutions which had to be implemented to make the CCS/RIU function as

effectively as possible. Both software and hardware problems reported here are categorized as

either being in the CCS (i.e, in one of its components), or in the RIU; they were as follows:

CCS Problems:

- How and where to store the real time experimental data.

_.Q.,L]dSI].Q_ - The initial plan called for using the existing HRM I/O interface of the GSE and

storing the data on the 9 track magnetic tape. The IEEE 488 interface would then be used to

transfer the test data to a PC for post test analysis. However, this would have entailed writing

additional complicated software which, in turn, would have delayed the delivery time of the CCS.

This plan was dropped in favor of simply using the GSET to capture the test data directly off of the

1553B bus and storing the data onto its hard disk. The hard disk had over 25 megabytes of

unused disk space which was ample to hold data sets from multiple test runs. This efficient

method was further enhanced by switching the GSET from Remote Terminal mode, in which it

would "talk" to the 1553B bus to Bus Monitor mode, where the GSET would just "listen" and

record all data transmissions offthe 1553B bus. This doubled the speed of real time data

recording.

- The 1553B interface card in the GSET PC had a tendency of misreading the data

transmissions off of the 1553 bus, which resulted in either single data words (single actuator or

single sensor values), or entire data transactions (all actuator or sensor values) associated with a

time sync not beingrecorded properly. Fortunately, these data drop outs were rare; on average,

only 1-3 data recording errors occurred over a test run containing recorded data for some 5000 time

syncs. However, the number of data recording errors which occurred in a test run tended to

increase at the higher sampling rates, i.e., above 200 Hz.

_,_).ld2.1_[.- The problem's cause was attributed to the fact that the 1553B interface card in the

GSET was of an old design from SCI, and its speed performance limitations were known. Neither

extra funds nor time were available to procure a better 1553B card (SCI planned to market an

improved 1553B interface card with better speed performance later in 1991). A post processing

15

software fix was introduced to help alleviate this problem, and worked as follows. After a test run

was completed, the file containing the recorded data transactions was checked for data errors.

Each data set associated with a time sync was compared with data sets of previous time syncs, and

any large deviations in data indicated missing words or whole transactions. If any error was

detected among the data of a given time sync, the software simply copied the appropriate

transaction (be it sensor or actuator) from the previous time sync. At the end of this post

processing, a file was made available to the user which listed the errors, their corresponding time

tags and what data was corrected.

P_R.QI]I,F,,_&:_ - The 1553B interface card in the GSET PC also caused errors in the recorded time

tags. This problem involved sudden jumps in the recorded time to some random value (sometimes

forward in time, sometimes backwards), which then incremented normally for several seconds,

then jumping back to the correct time.

- No satisfactorily solution was found for this problem. Fortunately, this problem

occurred very rarely.

_- Testing in the FSGB Laboratory revealed a third problem involving data

recording errors related to the 1553B interface in the GSET PC: Unlike the first two 1553B

interface problems, whose existences did not come as a surprise because of the known limitations

of the 1553B card design, this problem cropped up suddenly. The recorded test data (either

sensors or actuators, and sometimes both) were corrupted by equally spaced spikes, the magnitude

of these spikes were often much greater than the actual signals. Figure 26 shows a sample data

history plot which illustrates these data spikes; this problem was given the name "fencing",

because of the resemblance of the data spikes to boards in a fence. It should be noted that these

spikes only existed in the data files stored in the GSET. Whenever these spikes manifested

themselves in the GSET data, no spikes could be found in the corresponding sensor data coming

from or actuator commands going to the RIU. This was confumed with the PC monitoring the

sensor data in the RIU and by observing the computed actuator commands on an oscilloscope.

Thus, these_spikes affected neither the control law computations in the EDS, nor the data

transmissions to andfrom the RIU.

- The problem was traced to the 1553B card in the GSET PC. Personnel more

familiar with the 1553B were consulted about this problem, and they suggested that the data spikes

16

mayhavecomefrom theGSET,perhapsfrom a neighboring board or a bad PC power supply, or

from an external source in the lab. The exact source of the spikes was never discovered, and thus

no solution was ever found. After a week and a half from their first appearance, the spikes

suddenly disappeared and have not been seen since. It should be noted that these spikes may

return.

- How to speed up the EDS in performing control law computations at speeds up

to least 200 Hz. The main difficulty was in trying to speed up the data transfer in and out of the

1750A and the AP.

i,$..Q/,dd.,TI..Q_- A number of solutions were implemented, and the combination of these made it

possible to not only meet the 200 Hz closed loop sampling rate goal, but to exceed it. They were

as follows:

* Block data transfer commands for the 1750A CPU, written in assembly

language, replaced the single transfer commands which were in place.

* Minimized the number of clock interfaces of the 1750A.

* Added software code which allowed the boards in the EDS to run

concurrently.

* Improved the interrupts on the EDS internal bus and sped up the executive

I/O processing for the 1750A.

For state feedback control computations, a copy of the state vector was

stored directly in the AP's memory. This eliminated the need to transfer the

state vector in and out of the AP for every state vector update computation,

_d greatly sped up the total control law computations. In general, data

transfers within the EDS were minimized as much as possible.

* All disturbance excitations were pre-calculated and stored in the EDS memory

board for use at the appropriate times during the real time experiment.

17

Severalchanges to the software requirements were made: the elimination of the

requirement to display data graphically in real time, and the elimination of the

requirement to digitally f'flter the sensor data in the EDS prior to its use the

control computations. The digital filters could be incorporated with the actual

control law computations, which would increase the order of the state vector and

thus make more efficient use of the AP.

RIU Problems:

PROBLEM 06 - Spikes in the sensor data were introduced by the RIU; the separate PC which

monitored the sensor data sampled by the RIU prior to its transmission down the 1553B bus

conf'wrned the RIU as the source. The spikes were few in number (typically no more than 3-5

spikes per sensor channel for a 20-30 second test run), but unlike the data spikes of the 1553B

GSET "fencing" problem, these particular spikes were real and affected the control law

computations of the actuator commands.

- It was discovered that certain terminal resistors on the RIU's backplane were

loading down other chips on the same backplane. This caused the spikes. Once these resistors

were removed, the RIU data spike problem was eliminated.

- The RIU, when initially powered up, did not zero the outputs of its D/A

converters, thus, some unknown non-zero signals would exist until the converters were reset to

zero by the start of an experiment.

- Until the RILl was re-programmed to zero the D/A converters after power up, the

actuator signals to the CEM were disabled from inside the Control Trailer in the SSRL until the

first experiment was ready to be executed.

Recommendations:

The following general recommendations are suggested to improve the CCS/RIU system:

18

Replace the 1553B bus with the 1773 fiber optic bus. The 1773 bus offers two major

advantages over the current 1553B: greater effective bus length would be allowed, and faster

data u'ansmission rates (10 megabits per seconds versus the 1553B's 1 megabits per second).

Minimal modifications would be required to make the current software compatible with the

1773 bus.

Upgrade the existing GSET 286 PC to a 386, or higher, with more memory and hard disk

space. This would allow post test data analysis to be performed on the GSET, and not have

to ship the data to other computers.

Add more AP boards into the EDS to allow for parallel computations in real time. More mass

memory boards in the EDS would also be useful.

Replace the current 1553B interface card in the GSET with the improved 1553B card from

SCI. This should alleviate some of the data recording errors which occur with the present

system.

Expand current software to allow for more flexible programming. Currently, the only

available control computations are state and output feedback with time invariant matt'ices.

Also, more kinds of disturbance excitations, such as swept sine or user defined, should be

added.

- Expand the RIU standalone capability. Currently, only 3 sensors and 3 actuators can be used

in control laws executed in the RIU.

Summary

The CCS/RIU, a real time computer system based upon spaceflight qualified components, has

been installed in the SSRL. Initial acceptance tests, which have included system hardware,

computational software, open and closed loop tests with the CEM, RIU digital f'tltedng and RIU

standalone, have been passed satisfactorily. The open and closed loop tests, in particular, have

demonstrated that the CCS/RIU system is capable of performing useful real time control

experiments on actual laboratory test articles. Further improvements to the system, for laboratory

use, in terms of faster computational speeds, an increase in the number of input channels, and

19

better support equipment in general are all possible. Also, these initial tests results have indicated

that the EDS shows promise as a viable spaceflight computer, and further study in this direction is

warranted.

20

References

1. SCI Systems, Inc., MAST Final Report, SCI Report No. P007-001A, Jun. 1990.

. Borchardt, Jr., R. P., "Control Structures Interaction (CSI) Project Remote Interface Unit

(RIU) MIL-STD-1553B Interface Description", Version C, Sept. 1990.

o Belvin, W. K., Elliott, K. E., Bruner, A. M., Sulla, J. L., Bailey, J., "The LaRC Phase-0

Evolutionary Model Testbed: Design and Experimental Results", Proceedings of the Fourth

NASA/DoD Control/Structures Interaction Technology Conference, WL-TR-91-3031, Jan.

1991, pp. 594-613.

. Bruner, A. M., Belvin, W. K., Horta, L. G., Juang, J. N., "Active Vibration Absorber for

the CSI Evolutionary Model: Design and Experimental Results", Presented at the AIAA

32nd Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference, Apr. 1991, Paper No. 91-

1123.

21

m m mm mm m mm

m_'0

....__m--,

Z Im"

ffl

8)

r_

)e4

23

Figure 3a. Accelerometer #I time history for "dummy"

control computations test #I.

o.1 I I I

005111nln lllll li ll in0II IIIIVIIIIVTI;III VlI VII II I

-0.05 l-0.1

0 10 20 30 40

time (sec)

Figure 3b. Accelerometer #2 time history for "dummy"

control computations test #1.

o.ol I I I I

0.005

o) 0

-0.005

-0.01 I

0 10 20 30 40

time (sec)

24

Figure 3c. Accelerometer #3 time history of "dummy"

control computations test #I.

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

I I I

-o.o4 I I t0 10 20 30 40

time (sec)

Figure

0.1

3d. Accelerometer #4 time history for "dummy"

control computations test #1.

I I I

ooiiiiit11 1t1 11Io_ 0

oo+IIlllll lllr ll-0.1

0 10

IllLILIIAAIII AAtt Itt,AII1'ivlWUyvYVvv]VvvvIvvvvv

2O

time (sec)

3O 4O

25

e_m

Figure 4a. Thruster #1 command time history for "dummy" control

computations test #1, from CCS.

1

0.8--

0.6--

0.4--

0.2--

0

-0.2

0

l

1.0 Ib pulse,commanded

at time = 20 sec.

t t I10 20 30 40

time (sec)

Figure 4b.

.8 _-

0.6--

0.4--

0.2--

0

-0.2

0

Thruster #1 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #1, from simulation.

10

\1.0 Ib pulse,commandedat time = 20 sec.

2O

time (sec)

26

t3O

w

4O

m

Figure 4c. Thruster #2 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #1, from CCS.

0.03

0.015-

0

-0.015--

-0.03

0

I I I

I I I10 20 30 40

time (sec)

JDm

Figure 4d. Thruster #2 command time history for "dummy" control

computations test #1, from simulation.

0.03

0.015-

0

-0.015--

-0.03

0

I I I

I I10 20

time (sec)

27

40

¢Des

m

Figure 4e. Thruster #3 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #I, from CCS.

0.02

0.01 -

0

-0.01 -

-0.02

I I I

I I0 10 20 40

tlme (sec)

(n.Qm

Figure 4f. Thruster #3 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #1, from simulation.

0.02

0.01 -

0

-0.01 --

-0.02

0

I t I

I I I10 20 30

time (sec)

28

4O

¢D.Qm

Figure 4g. Thruster #4 command time history forcomputations test #1, from CCS.

0.008

0.004 --

0-

-0.004 --

-0.008 ....

0 10

I I20 30

time (sec)

"dummy" control

4O

¢D

R

Figure 4h. Thruster #4 command time history for "dummy"computations test #1, from simulation.

0.008 I I

10 20 30

time (sec)

29

control

40

We_

m

Figure 4i.

0.008

0.004 --

0

-0.004 --

-0.008

0

Thruster #5 command time history


t I I10 20 30

time (sec)

for "dummy" control

4O

m

Figure 4j.

0.008

0.004 - -

0

-0.004 --

-0.008

0

Thruster #5 command time history for


I I10 20 30

tlme (sec)

30

"dummy" control

4O

¢Dn

m

Figure 4k. Thruster #6 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #1, from CCS.

0.04

0.02 -

0

-0.02 -

.o.o4 I I0 10 20

time (sec)

I I

30 40

JDm

Figure 41. Thruster #6 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #1, from simulation.

0.04

0.02-

0

-0.02--

-0.04

0

I20 30 40

tlme (sec)31

Figure 4m. Thruster #7 command time history for "dummy" controlcomputations test #1, from CCS.

JOm

0.03

0.015-

0

-0.015-

-0.03

0

I t

I I10 20 30 40

time (sec)

u).0m

Figure 4n. Thruster #7 command time history for "dummy" control


0.03

0.015-

0

-0.015--

-0.03

0

I I I

I I I3O10 20 40

Ibs

32

.Om

Figure 40. Thruster #8 command time history for "dummy" control


0.02

0.01 --

0

-0.01 --

-0.02

0

I t I

I I t10 20 30

time (sec)

4O

¢).Dm

Figure 4p. Thruster #8 command time history for "dummy" control


0.02

0.01 -

0

-0.01 --

-0.02

0

I t I

I I20 30

time (sec)

33

4O

Figure 5a. Accelerometer #1 time history for open loop

sine wave excitation test.

0.15

0.1-

0.05 -

0-

-0.05 -

-0.1 -

I

-0.1 5- I-

___ine

-0.2 lexcitatio n

/0.25

Free decay

I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 5b. Accelerometer #2 time history for open loop


0.15

0.1

0.05

0

O)

-0.05

-0.1 --

-0.15-

-0.2

0

Free decay-Sine

excitation

I I10 20 30

time (sec)34

Figure 5c. Accelerometer #3 time history for open loop


U_

0

I t

y

Sine

excitationFree decay

I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 5d. Accelerometer #4 time history for open loopsine excitation test.

0.2

0.15

0.1 --

I ISine

excitation Free decay

o) O. O_

"0"05 T

-o._ t0 10

time (sec)

35

2o

v

3O

Figure 5e. Accelerometer #5 time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

0.05

m

-0.05

-0.1

Sine

excitationFree decay

I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 5f. Accelerometer #6 time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

01 IS,n, I I _0.08-_

0.06

0.04

o) 0.02

0

-0.02

0.04

0.06

0 10 20 30

time (sec)36

Figure 5g. Accelerometer #7 time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

0.15

0.1

0.05 -

o1

0

-0 05

-0.1

0

I ISineexcltatlon

Free

I10

time (sec)

decayF

20 30

Figure 5h. Accelerometer #8 time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

0.04 -

01

0

-0.04 -

-0.08

0.08 -

iI I

si°. t t |_excitation Free decay

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

37

ADm

Figure 6a. Thruster #3 command time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

2

0

-1

-2 II

0 10 20 30

tlme (sec)

u_.0

m

Figure 6b. Thruster #4 command time history for open loopsine excitation test.

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

I I

I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

38

.g2m

Figure 6c. Thruster #6 command time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

2

0

-1

-2

I I

J I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

(n.om

Figure 6d. Thruster #7 command time history for open loopsine wave excitation test.

0.25

0

I I

I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)39

¢lJ C/_om om

L0 0

J=0

¢_

_0o_

f_

Z,,a¢

1.1_J

11,¢

It)

If-"

I t

_J

1,1J¢

_1_

0

0

.¢

I_ _1_

|

|

tO

0

U)

(D

o Ein

IP"

0

sql

4O

Figure 8a. Accelerometer #7 time history for open loop

pulses excitation test.

OI

0.04 -

0.02 -

_

-0.02 -

-0.04 -

I I I

la|_._.a =+. ,_L= ;,..=i

! IV r'w

kl_ ..,k J L _,,I * J.*l Ok, dl,

'V Z" • r' +ml _--'_

I I I

0 5 10 15 20 25

time (sec)

Figure 8b. Accelerometer #8 time history for open loop

pulses excitation test.

0.03 I I I I

0.015-

01 _ 0

-0.015-

-0.03

....... . .... .. t.j_nq

•+ i- 11 ipll ir i i- i_ r,'ll1_ 11,,

L ,,,,,.-=.,...,,..Lk_+ _.J_LL .LLh.,L ,5., + L= +=,.,.=,d--J_

l_,-_?,qil- 111.,-rr-vt +1 qp,lql|'r-F'a+-rllr..,,Irl ,llt_lr- _11-.1._ .,r,,l,_

I I I I

_ht_. Jk-_lL+t,e,dL, d

0 5 10 15

time (sec)41

2O 25

Figure 9a. Accelerometer #7 time history for open looprandom excitation test.

0.015

0.01

0.005

i0

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

Iresponse to

random Inputs

I I0 5 10 15

time (sec)

Figure 9b. Accelerometer #8 time history for open looprandom excitation test.

0.02

0.015-

0.01 -

o_ 0.005-

0

-0.005 -

-0.01 -

-0.015

0

Iresponse to

random Inputs -1-

5 10 15

time (sec)42

¢DJ_i

Figure 10a. Thruster #3 command time history for open looprandom excitation test.

0.3

0.15-

__

-0.15--

-0.3

0

I J

I I5 10

time (sec)

15

J_m

Figure 10b. Thruster #7 command time history for open looprandom excitation test.

0.3

0.15-

__

-0.15-

-0.3

I J

I I

D

5

time (sec)43

10 15

Figure lla. Accelerometer #1 time history for open loop automaticsoftware shutdown test - critical value 0.1 g.

0.15 I I I Iexceeded critical

value level.1 __ I

o ooS /o-0.05

I-0.1

VI I

UI

--I

m I

-- n

0 1 2 3 4 5

time (sec)

Figure llb. Accelerometer #2 time history for open loop automaticsoftware shutdown test - critical value 0.1g.

U_

0.15

0.1 --

0.05 -

__

-0.05 -

-0.1

I I I I I Iexceeded critical

value level _k

JI I I I I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

time (sec)44

m--

--p

II

7

Figure 12a. Accelerometer #I time history for closed loop test with

16 state decoupled controller SSRL VAX.

0.05

0

O)

-0.05

-0.15:itation ree Controller on

decay[

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

O)

Figure 12b. Accelerometer #1 time history for closed loop test with16 state decoupled controller - CCS.

0.15 _ -

I0.1

0.05

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

Excitation Controller on

decay _ [

0 10 20

time (sec)45

3O

Figure 12g. Accelerometer #4 time history for closed loop test with

16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

0.15-

0.1

0.05

0

O)

-0.05

-0.1

t _ ____._._

- 0.1 5 xcitation Free

- 0.2 decay

Controller on

t0 10 20

time (sec)

m

3O

Figure 12h. Accelerometer #4 time history for closed loop test with

16 state decoupled controller - CCS.

-0.15-

-0.2

0

Excitation Free Controller on

decay

t I10 20 30

time (sec)46

Figure 12m. Accelerometer #7 time history for closed loop test with16 state decoupled controller SSRL VAX.

0.1 I I

-0.1

-0.15


decay

I I10 20 30

time (sec)

0

Figure 12n. Accelerometer #7 time history for closed loop test with


0.1

0.05 -

0

O)

-0 05

-0.1

-0.15

IExcitatio: Free _

decay I

Controller on

time (sec)47

0 10 20 30

Figure 12k. Accelerometer #6 time history for closed loop test with


o.os-_ t

0.04

o) 0 _-

-0 04 m

Controller on

"0 0 8 decaz-_

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 121. Accelerometer #6 time history for closed loop test with


o.o8_ 4 _ -

O.O4

O) 0 x i a n

-0 04

OO8

0 10 20 30

time (sec)48

Figure 12i. Accelerometer #5 time history for closed loop test with


0.08 -_ Free t-

0.0 6 __xeitation_

0.04 -

0.02

0

-0.02

-0.04 -

-0.06 -

m

Controller on

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 12j. Accelerometer #5 time history for closed loop test with


t t• . Free }. clta

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

-0.02

-O.04 --

-o.o6- t t_0 10 20 30

time (sec)49

Figure 12e. Accelerometer #3 time history for closed loop test with

0.2

16 state decoupled controller SSRL VAX.

I t

*0.2--

Excitation

-0.3

Free Controller ondecay

I I10 20 30

time (sec)

0

Figure 12f. Accelerometer #3 time history for closed loop test with


o.=1 t t0 1

-0.3-

0

m

Excitation Free

decay

10

Controller on

time (sec)50

30

Figure 12c. Accelerometer #2 time history for closed loop test with16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

0.15 1

0.1--

0.05 -

0

-0.05 -

-0.1 --I

I I

- 0.1 5 xcitatio: r_ Freedecay

-0.2 I

r

Controller on

I200 10 30

time (sec)

Figure 12d. Accelerometer #2 time history for closed loop test with16 state decoupled controller - CCS.

0.15 I I

o.1 0.05

-0.05

-0.1-]-

• -_ Free-0 1 5 xcitation decay

-0.2 [

Controller on

I0 10 20 30

time (sec)51

Figure 12o. Accelerometer #8 time history for closed loop test with


0.15-

0.1

Free

Excitation decay Controller on

-0 05--

-o.1- t _ -0 10 20 30

tlme (sec)

Figure 12p. Accelerometer #8 time history for closed loop test with

o.ls_ IFree

xcitatio_ decay

0.1

Controller on

0.05 -

O'J

0

-0 05

-0.1

0 10 20 30

tlme tsec)52


Figure 13a. Thruster #1 command time history for closed loopwith 16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

¢De_

m

0.4

0.3--

0.2--

0.1 --

0

-0.1 --

-0.2--

-0.3

0 10 20 30

tlme (sec)

test

.Qm

Figure 13b. Thruster #1 command time history for closed loop test

with 16 state decoupled controller CCS.

0.4

0.3--

0.2-

0.1--

0

-0.1 --

-0.2--

-0.3

0

l l

10 20 30

tlme (sec)_3

Figure 13c. Thruster #2 command time history for closed loop testwith 16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

W

e_i

0.5--

0

-0.5-

- 1 ----

-15--

i 2 mr

-2.5

0

I I10 20 30

time (sec)

W.Om

Figure 13d. Thruster #2 command time history for closed loop testwith 16 state decoupled controller - CCS.

0.5 --

0

-05--

-1.5--

-2.5

0

I

I I10 20 30

time (sec)54

esm

Figure 13e. Thruster #3 command time history for closed loop test

with 16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

2

0

-1

-2

Excitation

Controller

/

I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

¢R.Ql

Figure 13f. Thruster #3 command time history for closed test

with 16 state decoupled controller - CCS.

2 I

Excitation

1 _ Controller

0

-1

/

-2 I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)55

Figure 13g. Thruster #4 command time history for closed loop test


e_m

2

1.5

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

Excitation

I t

Controller

-I I

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

.Om

Figure

2

1.5

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

13h. Thruster #4 command time history for closed loop test


Excitation

Controller

I I0 10 20 30

time (sec)56

¢D.13m

Figure 13i. Thruster #5 command time history for closed loop testwith 16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

0.3

0.15 -

0

-0.15 -

t I10 20 30

tlme (sec)

.Qi

Figure 13j. Thruster #5 command time history for closed loop testwith 16 state decoupled controller CCS.

0.3

0.15-

0

-0.15--

-0.3

0

l I

10 20 30

tlme (sec)57

l i

esm

Figure 13k. Thruster #6 command time history for closed loop test


2 A

l j /0 ----

- 1 -]-2

0

l I

Excitation

Controller --

tI I

10 20 30

time (sec)

.Qm

Figure

2

__

O m

-1-

131. Thruster #6 command time history for closed loop test


A I I

/ Excitation

/ Controller --

U I I10 20 30

time ¢sec)58'

Figure 13m. Thruster #7 command time history for closed loop test


0.5

0.25-

u).a O-re

-0.25-

-0.5

m# t

t I

Excitation

I Controller

-4

0 30

/

10 20

time (sec)

JD

Figure 13n. Thruster #7 command time history for closed loop test


0.5

0.25-

__

-0.25 --

-0.5

0

A# L

e i

|

I-p

I

|

|

I I

Excitation

/ Controller

'o_

10 20 30

time (sec)59

fD.Dm

Figure 13o. Thruster #8 command time history for closed loop testwith 16 state decoupled controller - SSRL VAX.

4

w

_

m

0

-1-

-2-

-3

0 10

I I

I20 30

time (sec)

O_JDu

Figure 13p.

m_

2 _--

0

" 1 -- D

2 --

-3

0

Thruster #8 command time history for closed loop testwith 16 state decoupled controller - CCS.

I I

I I10 20

time (sec)6O

3O

Figure 14a. Accelerometer #1 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

0.2 I Fr.. I t I I JExcitation decay Controller on I

ol

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2 i I J i I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

time (sec)

Figure 14b. Accelerometer #2 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

0.2_ J Free I t I I ._J0.15 -Excitation decay Controller on

o1

0.1 --

0.05

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

V

I I i I I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

time (secl61

Figure 14c. Accelerometer #3 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

I I I I I

0

Excitation Controller on

"-Free'-

i d'c"Y I I I I5 10 15 20 25 3O

time (sec)

Figure 14d. Accelerometer #4 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

O1

°l0.05

-0.05

-0.1 I

-0.15

I I I I I

tttttttt111tllt11

Excitation Free Controller ondecay

I I I I I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

time62(sec)

Figure 14e. Accelerometer #5 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

oo6l t I I I I

0.04

0.02

o o-0.02

004 >

0 061 ]Excitat'°i ::::Y ' '

0 5 10 25 30

Controller on

I I15 20

time (sec)

Figure 14f. Accelerometer #6 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

U_

0.1

I I I I IFree

--Excitation decay Controller on

0.02 L At,. ,,,_..

0.06 I I I I0 5 10 15 20 25

_m .... ,11T

time (sec%63

r

m

3O

Figure 14g. Accelerometer #7 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

0.1 --

0.05-

0

-0.05

-0.1-

-0.15-

F + _ t ÷

Excitation

p------FreeController on

decay

F ÷ t t ÷5 10 15 20 25 30

time (sec)

Figure 14h. Accelerometer #8 time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

0.1

0.05-

0

-0.05-

-0.1

-0.15

I I I I I

_-


decay

I I I I

r

0 5 10 15 20

time (sec)

64

25 30

¢D.Dm

Figure 15a. Thruster #1 command time history for closed loop test

with 42 state H-infinity controller.

1.5

__

0.5--

0

-0.5-

-1-

-1.5

I tController "-

I I0 10 20 30

tlme (sec)

O_.Qm

Figure 15b. Thruster #2 command time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

0.8

0.4--

0

-0.4--

-0.8

0

t IController

t I

time (sec)65

10 20 30

Figure

¢#es

m

2

0

-1

15c. Thruster #3 command time history for closed loop test


-2

Excitation

Controllerr

' II

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

¢)JOl

Figure 15d. Thruster #4 command time history for closed loop test


0.5

0

-0.5

-1

I IExcitation

J_" Controller

I I

v

time (sec)66

0 10 20 30

Figure 15e. Thruster #5 command time history for closed loop test


¢D.¢2J

0.2

0,1 --

0

-0.1 --

-0.2--

-0.3

0

I l

Controller ,-'-

I I10 20

tlme (sec)

3O

¢h.Ql

Figure 15f. Thruster #6 command time history for closed loop test


2

m

R

-1-

I

-2

t t

Excitation

Controller

I I

time (sec)6"/

0 10 20 30

Figure 15g. Thruster #7 command time history for closed loop test


0.6] I I

0.3

u}.D 0m

-0.3

Excitation

Controller

I Iv

-0.6

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 15h. Thruster #8 command time history for closed loop testwith 42 state H-infinity controller.

0.5

0.25 -

,', 0w

-0.25 -

-0.5 I I0 10 20 30

time68(sec)

Figure 16a. Accelerometer #1 time history for closed loop test


0.15

0.1

0.05

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

Excitation ]_-_ Controller on

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 16b. Accelerometer #2 time history for closed loop test


0.2

0.15-

0.1 --

0.05O_

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

Free

Excitation decay

vvv

0

Controller on

I I10 20

time (sec)69

30

g_

Figure 16c. Accelerometer #3 time history for closed loop testwith 60 state H-infinity controller.

I, A IIIItlIIIIIIIIIIII 0 1

o ,_I 1

o,' vllllllllltlllllIItt v vvv-0.2--

-0.3

Excitation

0

Free Controller on

decay[ I

10 20 30

tlme (sec)

Figure 16d. Accelerometer #4 time history for closed loop test


0.15__ I0.1

°.o.o °f',vvvl !lllll!vv.o.11

0.15

IAA,A^,_^A_,....,,,,...,...o

m

Controller on

I0 10 20 30

time 70{sec)

Figure 16e. Accelerometer #5 time history for closed loop test


0.08 t t

O)

0.04 -

0

-0.04 -I-

Excitation Freedecay

-0.08 I

m

r

Controller on

I0 10 20 30

time (sec)

Figure 16f. Accelerometer #6 time history for closed loop testwith 60 state H-infinity controller.

0.08 1

0.04 --

o) 0

-0.04

-0.08

I I

t11tllt1111111111111t/111tlitt1111tllt1 ,-'VVVVtIVIVtlVIIIIIt rVVVVIV Vv''''''''''''''''

Excitation r Free"- Controller on

decay I I

0 10 20 30

time (sec)71

Figure 16g. Accelerometer #7 time history for closed loop test

with 60 state ll-infinity controller.

o.ls I tFree

Excitation decay0.1 _- ---1_"

Controller on

0.05

0

-0.05

-0.1

0 10 20 30

tlme (sec)

Figure 16h. Accelerometer #8 time history for closed loop test


0.12

0.06

o_ 0

-0.06

-0.12

I 1̧


decay

I I0 10 20

time (sec)72

3O

Figure 17a. Thruster #1 command time history for closed loop test


m

0.6

• 3 _m

0-

-0.3--

I

I

-o.6 i

0

]C_,n troller [ _'-

I I10 20 30

time (sec)

n

Figure 17b. Thruster #2 command time history for closed loop test


0.3

0.2--

0,1 --

0

-0.1 -

-0.2 -

-0.3-

-0.4

0

ontroller ]

I t10 20

time (sec)73

3O

We_

m

Figure 17c. Thruster #3 command time history for closed loop testwith 60 state H-infinity controller.

2

0

-1

-2

Excitation

Controller

I

0 10 20 30

tlme (sec)

¢).Ql

Figure 17d. Thruster #4 command time history for closed loop test


0.5

0

-0.5

-1

i 1Excitation

Controller

t I0 10 20

time (sec)74

3O

¢D.g2m

Figure 17e. Thruster #5 command time history for closed loop testwith 60 state H-infinity controller.

0.3

0.2--

0.1 --

0

-0.1 -

-0.2

I I

Controller

I t0 10 20 30

time (sec)

,Dm

Figure 17f. Thruster #6 command time history for closed loop test


2

0

-1

I IExcitation

-2

Controller

t I0 10 20 30

time (sec)75

Figure 17g. Thruster #7 command time history for closed loop testwith 60 state H-infinity controller.

ADm

06 I I

0.3

0

-0.3

Excitation

-o.6 i In

0 10 20 30

time (sec)

¢).Dm

Figure 17h. Thruster #8 command time history for closed loop testwith 60 state H:infinity controller.

0.3

0.15-

0

-0.15--

-0.3

0

I tController

t I10 20 30

tlme (sec)76

q)"0-I

4m¢m

C:O)m

E

Figure 18a. Magnitude and phase plots of frequency response of

RIU digital filter #2, sample rate = 60 Hz.

0.8

0°6 --

0.4 --

0.2--

0

0.01

l I I I IIIli I I i I 11 Ill I I I I IIIII I I I I I I11

! I _TIIYI. ! I I TIIII. : I ......... !::

i iiii i i ii iii

........ i i i i iiili ! i i i i]ili 1 i i i i ii! !il ...... L-..L.I.-Li._.I._ ........... _.-.-._.--._--.L.LI..L_J, ......... L....-_,.-..L-4--LJ,.i.l.i ........... i ...... i---.L..i..i.J.M.ii i --

i i i iiiiii i i i ii!i_ , i i i iiii!i i i i!!!!i........ i ...... _....L..I.._..L_._._ ........... _......i..--;.._.._.. Li._. _. .......... :,......L...I.--_-.L.LLI-_ ........... i ...... L...i..._.._.._.' '

........ ii ...... i ! ! !!iiiL...i...i.._..i._._._ ........... _----..i.-.._-..i.-.Li..L,_-!! i i il i ....... iL""L"'L"L'L4"LI'_i i iilii ........... i ...... i--..i.-.i.._..i.'i '

I '''"1 , I ' '''"1 ' ' ' '''"1

0.1 1 10 100

frequency (Hz)

A

"OV

¢1mr-

200

100

0

-100

-200

0.01

: : : : :::::

: : : : :::::

: : : : :::::

! :. :. :.i!!!!

! ! !! !!!!!

i: : : : ::1::

0.1

frequency

77

10

(Hz)

: : : : : ::

: : : : : ::

100

O

:3m

e,,.

m

E

Figure 18b. Magnitude and phase plots of frequency response ofRIU digital filter #2, sample rate = 600 Hz.

0.8

0.6-

0,4 -

0.2-

0

I Illl I i I i iiiii i i i i iiiil I I I I lill

.... ,,,,I , , , _,,,,. I I IIIIII. I I IIIIII

i iii!i i iiiii iili!

........ i ...... i....i---i..i..i.i.i.i ........... i.....i.-.i..i...i..i.-i _, D......... i..-.-.i--.*i..-i,-.i.-Li.;.i ........... i ...... I....I-..I..I..IA-I. --

........ i...... i...-i...i ,.i..i.i.i.i ........... i...-..,;,.....i...l...l..1.4..i..D .......... :..---.;....i..-L-i..l,-i.i-i ........... i ...... i-.-.i...i..i..i." '

........ i ...... i. - .i-.-i--i.-i.i.,i-i ........... i-...., i.... :...._i- -LI..L_._ ......... I....+..I...,i--D.-I.-i.I.I-I ........... i ...... I-..-I...H..I.' '

ii iiiiiii!i !O. 1 1 1 0 1 O0 1000

frequency (Hz)

0"C

0Wmr-Q.

200

100

0

-I00

-200

0.1 1 10

frequency

78

iii

iiii

100

(Hz)

: : : I : ::

" : i:::

• i i [ ill

...... ,o....... o

....... ,, . , o ....

, , , , , .,,

10 00

"O

m

e.-K_

E

Figure 18c.

0

1

Magnitude and phase plots of frequency response of

RIU digital filter #2, sample rate - 6000 Hz.

! ! ! !!!!! I I I i I llll I I I I I IIll I 1 I I IIIII I........ l I I l I I :: ................

: : : : : :::: ......... i i _ _ _!i_ : : : : : :

.................. : : : : ::::: _ i [ [ [[[[

! _ _ _i[!! : : : : ::::: : : : : ::::: : : : : ::::

......... : : : : : :::: ........

! _ i _ _ : : : : ::::: : : : : : :::: : : : : : :::: : : : : :::: i _ ! _ _[i : : : : : :::: : : : : : :::

l : : : : :::: : : : : ::::: : : : : : :::: : : : : :::: : : : : :::: : : : : ::::: : : : : : :::: _ i _ ! [!_

: : : : : :::: ......... i i ! _ _i_ : : : : : :

i : : : : :::: : : : : ::::: : : : : :::: : : : : ::

! ! ! [ i ii!i : : : : ::::: : : : : :::: : : : : ::......... : : : : ::::: i _ _ [_iii : : ; : ::: : : : : :::: : : : : : :::: : : : : :::: _ _ ! _ _ !

! _ _ i i!i_! : : : : ::::: : : : ::::: : : : : ::

.................. ! i _

10 100 1000

frequency (Hz)10000

A

'ID

¢)

.C

200

100

0

-100

l I I I I IIIII

I II!I I!J I l I I llli

! ! _!!!IIII

I I I I I IIIII I I I IIIII

I

ll::

-200

10 100

frequency

79

(Hz)

1000 10000

g)"lO

i

t-.O)coE

Figure 19a. Magnitude and phase plots of frequency response ofRIU digital filter #3, sample rate = 60 Hz.

i II I I i lilll I I J 1 I Jill

! ! ! !!!!_l ! ! ! !!!!II

......... : : : : :::1

: : : ::::. . . , . ..

: : : ::::: : : ::::

I 111!iii! i i i iiii_i i i i i ilii

........ i...... i-..._.--i.._-.H-_-i ........... _......_...._.._...L_._.L_ ...........

: : : : : ::','.

i ! i iiiii!: : : : : ::::

: : : : : ::::

: : : : : ::::

0.6: : : : :::::

: : : : :::::: : : : :::::

: : : : :::::

0.4

0.2: : : : :::::: : : : :::::: : : : :::::

: : : : :::::: : : : ::::'

0

0.01

: : ::::: : ::::: : ::::: : ::::

i iiilii i iili

! i '. '.

i iii::::

0.1 1 10

frequency (Hz)

! ! i iiiii i

, . . , • •

100

4)"0v

4)(4m¢-

200

100

0

-100

-200

0.01

: : : : :::

: : : : : ::::: : : : : ::::: : : : : ::::

: : : : : :::1

: : : : :::::

0.1 1

frequency

8O

(Hz)

10 100

4}"O:3

e-

elE

Figure 19b. Magnitude and phase plots of frequency response of

RIU digital filter #3, sample rate = 600 Hz.

I , , ,,,,,,I , ,, ,Jl j,, .... I , i ,J,,,,I1 i T I III1!!1 Y I _!I!!!1 I _ _11111, I ! !I!III

0 • 8 .......i ......i....i...i..i..i._._..........._.-....L._,..I.-¢._..L_;..........._ ....;....[..-L-L.-L_li-L...........i......i....i.-.i..i..i.''

0 6 ....... i...... _ ---i--+i-_--i-_-_-i........... _-----._--.-_.._..LL-L_,L........... L.....L --_-.-L-L..LLI-L........... _...... i -.._...i..L._.' '

o 4 .......!......i ii!!i!i ...........i+i !!HI...........i......i i+i!

0 2 .......!......]---.!.--i-.i--i-i-_._..........._......L..LL_._.._._-..........._....-._..--_-.._._-._.i._._...........i......_..--_--._-._.-_-_--

0 I ' ' '''"'1 ' ' ''''"1 ' ' '''"'1 ' ' ''''"

0.1 1 1 0 100 1000

frequency (Hz)

o_mJ_

200

100

0

-100

-200

0.1

: : : : : ::::

; : ; : :::::

: : : : :::::

i i !ii_.

10

frequency8]

100

(Hz)

1000

0"D--!

.m

e-

mE

Figure 19c. Magnitude and phase plots of frequency response of

RIU digital filter #3, sample rate -- 6000 Hz.

1

0.8-

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

I I | i Jill J | I I I lilJ I I I I I III

a I I Illll I I I a llila I I a I iilia I t e I llilai i i!iiii_ i i i iiiii_ i i i iiiii_ i i i iiiii

........ ;......_,..._-..i.._..;._-;_..........._.-..-.;-.-;-._..;._.._._"...........'; ...._----_---_-.;--_-;-;-_...........;......;...._...i.._..;._

........ ;......_...._,.,;.._..;._.;_..........._....,.;..._.._.._.L_.;..........._,....._..._..¢.._.¢._.i._...........i......_...._..-_.-;..'-_

........ i...... i..-.i...i..;-.i._-_ ........... ;_..... _-..._.- _-..LI.-LL ;_........... L ...... _...._..._ ._..Li-i4 ........... i ...... i...._...i.._..;._4-

i ii i i i iiiiiI t '''"'l ' ' ' ''"'i ' ' '''"'i ' ' ' ''"'

101 100 1000 10000

frequency (Hz)

I II ' i200 I I ;;;" I' ,,,,,,t ,, ,,,,I1 i 1 I i III I I i 1 i IJll I I I i I I lii

100

'ID

0O

.I=

-100

-200

10 100

frequency_2

(Hz)

1000 10000

o

I I I C_4

0

E

83

ePnl!uSetuepnl!ul_em

0

©Eem

84

I I

epnl!u6em

!

86

I0

apnl!uBemapnliuSem

I

-----2__

0 0| II

0

A

u

©.E

87

o o o|

epnlluBew epnllu6ew

88

om

r_

_m

0

b..=r_

L 0

[,.

¢=

¢_,.-

r/3 "_

P,I

°_ o o o

0 ¢q

o|

'¢1"

11"

o

epn_!uSetu m,ep pepJo0eJ

89

APPENDIX A - CCS Hardware Acceptance Test

General Log

90

:\GENERAL. LOG

04/12/91 03:25:45 PM

SYSTEM INITIALIZATION

04/12/91 03:25:45 PM

PC-1553 POWERUP STATUS

PASSED

PIOC POWERUP STATUS

RT REPORTED NO POWERUP ERRORS

HRMC POWERUP STATUS


ERROR LOG FILE SELECTION

04/12/91 03:26:37 PM

C :\ERROR. LOG

BATCH FILE SELECTION

04/12/91 03:35:26 PM

A:\JUMPADDR.BCH

PASSED

GSE INTERNAL PIOC JUMP TO ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 03:35:32 PM

0

0

80

PASSED

GSE INTERNAL HRMC JUMP TO ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 03:35:57 PM

0

0

80

PASSED

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS SELECT HSPC CHANNEL FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:16:49 PM

1

SET UUT TERMINAL ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:16:49 PM

EDS

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS POWER SUPPLY OUTPUT FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:17:32 PM

34.2

4.0

STEP COMPLETE

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS POWER RELAY ENABLE FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:17:53 PM

STEP COMPLETE

EDS CPU 5 POWERUP STATUS

COULD NOT READ POWERUP STATUS OF RT

FAILED


COULD NOT READ POWERUP STATUS OF RT

FAILED

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS CLEAR HSPC CHANNEL FUNCTION

91

04/12/91 04:19:01 PM

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:21:07 PM

23.2

4.0

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:21:28 PM

STEP COMPLETE



PASSED



PASSED

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS HSPC STATUS FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:22:08 PM

LOCAL CURRENT

2.15 A

LOCAL VOLTAGE

26.10 V

UUT INPUT VOLTAGE

23.40 V

UUT CURRENT MONITOR

2.14 A

UUT VOLTAGE MONITOR

19.90 V

UUT

5.30 V

UUT TEMPERATURE MONITOR

299 K

VOLT REFERENCE

9.99 V

BATTERY BACKUP DISABLED

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:23:13 PM

34.0

4.0

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:23:28 PM

LOCAL CURRENT

1.49 A

LOCAL VOLTAGE

36.40 V

UUT INPUT VOLTAGE

34.30 V

UUT CURRENT MONITOR

1.45 A

UUT VOLTAGE MONITOR

32.70 V

UUT

5.33 V

92

UUT TEMPERATURE MONITOR

300 K

VOLT REFERENCE

9.99 V

BATTERY BACKUP DISABLED

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:24:05 PM

19.9

4.0

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:24:34 PM

38.0

4.0

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:24:57 PM

39.0

4.0

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:25:24 PM

28.2

4.0

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:27:20 PM

A:\PWRTEST.BCH

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS POWER DROP OUT TEST

04/12/91 04:27:25 PM

1.0

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS PFI DURATION TEST

04/12/91 04:27:29 PM

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS PFI THRESHOLD TEST

04/12/91 04:27:38 PM

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS BATTERY BACKUP TEST

04/12/91 04:28:06 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:37:44 PM

A:\EDSJUMP.BCH

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS JUMP TO ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:37:51 PM

93

0

0

80

PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:04 PM

A:\IFUAUTO.BCH

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS SELECT CPU FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:46:08 PM

EDS CPU 5

STEP COMPLETE

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS WATCHDOG TIMER TEST

04/12/91 04:46:09 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS CPU TO CPU COI_MUNICATION TEST

04/12/91 04:46:17 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS EDAC TEST

04/12/91 04:46:20 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS MEMORY WRITE PROTECT TEST

04/12/91 04:46:22 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS OVERLAY MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:46:24 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS NON-OVERLAYMEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:46:32 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR MICROCODE RAM MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:48:00 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR DATA RAM MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:48:08 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR MATRIXMULTIPLY THROUGHPUT TEST

04/12/91 04:48:13 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR FIXED POINT VARIABLE MATRIX MULTIPLY TEST

04/12/91 04:48:21 PM

4

6

8

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:27 PM

94

4

6

8

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS SELECT CPUFUNCTION

04/12/91 04:48:30 PM

EDS CPU 4

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:48:32 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS CPU TO CPU COMMUNICATION TEST

04/12/91 04:48:39 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:42 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:44 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:46 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS NON-OVERLAY MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:48:54 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:24 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:31 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR MATRIX MULTIPLY THROUGHPUT TEST

04/12/91 04:50:35 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:43 PM

4

6

8

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR FIXXD POINT VARIABLE MATRIX MULTIPLY TEST

04/12/91 04:50:49 PM

4

6

8

PASSED

95

UUT I/0 FUNCTIONAL EDS EXTERNAL INTERRUPTS TEST

04/12/91 04:50:53 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B INTERNAL SELF TEST

04/12/91 04:50:55 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B ON-BOARD RAM TEST

04/12/91 04:50:57 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B BUS MONITOR MODE TEST

04/12/91 04:51:01 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B BUS CONTROLLER MODE TEST

04/12/91 04:51:06 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE RT TO RT TRANSFER TEST

04/12/91 04:51:10 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE BROADCAST COI_LEND TEST

04/12/91 04:51:12 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B RT MODE TERMINAL ADDRESS TEST

04/12/91 04:51:14 PM

RESET UUT TERMINAL ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:51:36 PM

STEP COMPLETE

UUT I/OFUNCTIONALEDS SELECT CPUFUNCTION

04/12/91 04:51:38 PM

EDS CPU 5

STEP COMPLETE

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS EXTERNAL INTERRUPTS TEST

04/12/91 04:51:39 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:41 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:43 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:46 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:52 PM

PASSED

UUTI/O FUNCTIONALEDS 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE RT TO RT TRANSFER TEST

04/12/91 04:51:57 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE BROADCAST CO_4AND TEST

04/12/91 04:51:59 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:52:01 PM


04/12/91 04:52:30 PM

STEP COMPLETE

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS SWITCH CONFIGURATION FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:52:35 PM

STEP COMPLETE

UUT INTERNALMDIS 1 CPU FUNCTIONS WATCHDOG TIMER TEST

04/12/91 04:52:39 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 CPU FUNCTIONS MEMORY WRITE PROTECT TEST

04/12/91 04:52:47 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 CPU FUNCTIONS EDAC TEST

04/12/91 04:52:49 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 OVERLAY MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:52:51 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MOIS 1 NON-OVERLAY MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:52:59 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 PROM TEST

04/12/91 04:53:59 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B INTERNAL SELF TEST

04/12/91 04:54:07 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B ON-BOARD RAM TEST

04/12/91 04:54:09 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B BUS MONITOR MODE TEST

04/12/91 04:54:12 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B BUS CONTROLLER MODE TEST

04/12/91 04:54:16 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE RT TO RT TRANSFER TEST

97

04/12/91 04:54:20 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE BROADCAST COMMAND TEST

04/12/91 04:54:22 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MOIS 1 1553B RT MODE TERMINAL ADDRESS TEST

04/12/91 04:54:24 PM


04/12/91 04:54:46 PM

STEP COMPLETE

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MOIS 1 EXTERNAL INTERRUPTS TEST

04/12/91 04:54:48 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MOIS 1 BIO 1 INPUT TEST 1

04/12/91 04:54:51 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 BIO 1 INPUT TEST 2

04/12/91 04:54:53 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:54:56 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:54:58 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 BIO 1 OUTPUT TEST

04/12/91 04:55:00 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:02 PM

PASSED

UUT l/o FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 BIO 2 INPUT TEST 2

D4/12/91 04:55:04 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:06 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:08 PM

PASSED

UUT I/0 FUNCTIONAL MOIS 1 BIO 2 OUTPUT TEST

04/12/91 04:55:10 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUXlADC ON-BOARD RAM TEST

04/12/91 04:55:13 PM

98

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC CALIBRATE TEST

04/12/91 04:55:14 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC RANGE TEST

04/12/91 04:55:16 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC CONVERSION RATE TEST

04/12/91 04:55:20 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC CHANNEL TEST

04/12/91 04:55:22 PM

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO NORMAL MESSAGE IN TEST

04/12/91 04:59:12 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 05:00:07 PM

A: kMDISS IO. BCH

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO ON-BOARD RAM TEST

04/12/91 05:00:11 PM

PASSED


04/12/91 05:00:13 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO NORMAL MESSAGE OUT TEST

04/12/91 05:00:16 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO PARITY ERROR MESSAGE TEST

04/12/91 05:00:19 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO CHANNEL ERROR MESSAGE TEST

04/12/91 05:00:21 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO SYNC ERROR MESSAGE TEST

04/12/91 05:00:23 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO MISSING TRANSITION MESSAGE TEST

04/12/91 05:00:25 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 SIO EXTRA TRANSITION MESSAGE TEST

04/12/91 05:00:27 PM

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 HRM CONFIGURATION RAM TEST

04/12/91 05:01:01 PM

99

APPENDIX B - CCS Hardware Acceptance Test

Error Log

I0O

:\ERROR. LOG

04/12/91 03:26:37 PM

SYSTEM INITIALIZATION

04/12/91 03:26:37 PM

INITIALIZING PC-1553B CARD

PC-1553B CARD IS INITIALIZED

PIOC POWERUP STATUS

PAS S ED

HRMC POWERUP STATUS

PASSED

GENERAL LOG ENABLED


04/12/91 03:35:26 PM

PASSED

GSE INTERNAL PIOC JUMP TO ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 03:35:32 PM

JUMP TO ADDRESS PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

PERFORM AS IS COMMAND PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

GSE INTERNAL HRMC JUMP TO ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 03:35:57 PM

JUMP TO ADDRESS PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS SELECT HSPC CHANNEL FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:16:49 PM

HSPC CHANNEL SELECT FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

STEP COMPLETE

SET UUT TERMINAL ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:16:49 PM

SET UUT TERMINAL ADDRESS PERFORMED BY PIOC

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:17:32 PM

POWER SUPPLY OUTPUT FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:17:53 PM

POWER RELAY ENABLED FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

STEP COMPLETE


TIMEOUT OCCURRED WAITING ON RT 1553 CARD RESPONSE


TIMEOUT OCCURRED WAITING ON RT 1553 CARD RESPONSE

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS CLEAR HSPC CHANNEL FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:19:01 PM

HSPC CHANNEL CLEAR FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

STEP COMPLETE

101


04/12/91 04:21:07 PM


STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:21:28 PM


STEP COMPLETE


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:22:08 PM

HSPC STATUS FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:23:13 PM


STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:23:28 PM

HSPC STATUS FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:24:05 PM


STEP COMPLETE

GSE I/OFUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS POWER SUPPLY OUTPUT FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:24:34 PM


STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:24:57 PM


STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:25:24 PM


STEP COMPLETE


04/12/91 04:27:20 PM

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS POWER DROP OUT TEST

04/12/91 04:27:25 PM

POWER SUPPLY DROPOUT TEST INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

POWER SUPPLY DROPOUT FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

PASSEDI02

POWER SUPPLY DROPOUT TEST CHECK PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS PFI DURATION TEST

04/12/91 04:27:29 PM

BATTERY BACKUP ON FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

PFI DURATION TEST INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

POWER RELAY DISABLED FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED

PFI DURATION TEST CHECK PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

BATTERY BACKUP OFF FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS PFI THRESHOLD TEST

04/12/91 04:27:38 PM

PFI THRESHOLD INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

PASSED

UUT POWER SUPPLY EDS BATTERY BACKUP TEST

04/12/91 04:28:06 PM

BATTERY BACKUP ON FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

BATTERY BACKUP TEST INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

BATTERY BACKUP TEST CHECK PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

BATTERY BACKUP OFF FUNCTION PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:37:44 PM

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS _ TO ADDRESS FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:37:51 PM

JUMP TO ADDRESS PERFORMED BY EDS CPU 4

PASSED

JUMP TO ADDRESS PERFORMED BY EDS CPU 5

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:04 PM

103

PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:08 PM

EDS CPU 5 SELECTED


04/12/91 04:46:09 PM

WATCHDOG TIMER TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS CPU TO CPU C_ICATION TEST

04/12/91 04:46:17 PM

CPU TO CPU COMMUNCATION TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:20 PM

EDAC TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:22 PM

MEMORY WRITE PROTECT TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:24 PM

OVERLAY MEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:46:32 PM

NON-OVERLAY MEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:00 PM

MICROCODE RAM MEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:08 PM

DATA RAM MEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL_EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR MATRIX MULTIPLY THROUGHPUT TEST

04/12/91 04:48:13 PM

MATRIX MULTIPLY THROUGHPUT TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:21 PM

FIXED POINT VARIABLE MATRIX TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:27 PM

FLOATING POINT VARIABLE MATRIX TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

I04


04/12/91 04:48:30 PM

EDS CPU 4 SELECTED


04/12/91 04:48:32 PM


PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS CPU FUNCTIONS CPU TO CPU COMMUNICATION TEST

04/12/91 04:48:39 PM

CPU TO CPU COMMUNCATION TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:42 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:44 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:46 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:48:54 PM

NON-OVERLAYMEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:24 PM

MICROCODE RAM MF2M_RY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:31 PM

DATA RAM MEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL EDS ARRAY PROCESSOR MATRIX MULTIPLY THROUGHPUT TEST

04/12/91 04:50:35 PM

MATRIX MULTIPLY THROUGHPUT TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:43 PM

FIXED POINT VARIABLE MATRIX TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:49 PM

FLOATING POINT VARIABLE MATRIX TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

105


04/12/91 04:50:53 PM

EXTERNAL INTERRUPTS INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

INTERRUPT RT PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

EXTERNAL INTERRUPTS TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:55 PM

1553B INTERNAL SELF TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:50:57 PM

1553B ON-BOARD RAM TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:01 PM

MONITOR MODE TEST PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

EVALUATE MONITOR MODE PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B BUS CONTP_LLERMODE TEST

04/12/91 04:51:06 PM

BUS CONTROLLER TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:10 PM

1553B RT TO RT TEST PERFORMED

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE BROADCAST C0_O4AND TEST

04/12/91 04:51:12 PM

BUS CONTROLLER TO REMOTE TERMINAL BROADCAST

PASSED


04/12/91 04 :51 :14 PM


PASSED

TERMINAL ADDRESS INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

TERMINAL ADDRESS TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

SET UUT TERMINAL ADDRESS PERFORMED BY PI0C

PASSED


PASSED


106

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


107

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


108

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:36 PM


STEP COMPLETE


STEP COMPLETE

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS SELECT CPU FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:51:38 PM

EDS CPU 5 SELECTED


04/12/91 04:51:39 PM


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:41 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:43 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:46 PM


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:52 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:51:57 PM


PASSED

109

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL EDS 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE BROADCAST COMMAND TEST

04/12/91 04:51:59 PM


PASSED


04/12/91 04:52:01 PM


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

110


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PAS SED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PAS SED

111


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:52:30 PM


STEP COMPLETE


STEP COMPLETE

GSE I/O FUNCTIONAL PIOC HEALTH AND STATUS SWITCH CONFIGURATION FUNCTION

04/12/91 04:52:35 PM


STEP COMPLETE


STEP COMPLETE


STEP COMPLETE

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 CPU FUNCTIONS WATCHDOG TIMER TEST

04/12/91 04:52:39 PM


PASSED

112

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 CPU FUNCTIONS MEMORY WRITE PROTECT TEST

04/12/91 04:52:47 PM


PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 CPU FUNCTIONS EDAC TEST

04/12/91 04:52:49 PM


PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 10VERLAYMEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:52:51 PM


PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 NON-OVERLAY MEMORY TEST

04/12/91 04:52:59 PM

NON-OVERLAY MEMORY TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT INTERNAL MDIS 1 PROM TEST

04/12/91 04:53:59 PM

PROM TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B INTERNAL SELF TEST

04/12/91 04:54:07 PM


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B ON-BOARD RAM TEST

04/12/91 04:54:09 PM


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B BUS MONITOR MODE TEST

04/12/91 04 :54 :12 PM


PASSED


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B BUS CONTROLLER MODE TEST

04/12/91 04:54:16 PM


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE RT TO RT TRANSFER TEST

04/12/91 04:54:20 PM


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B RT MODE RECEIVE BROADCAST COMMAND TEST

04/12/91 04:54:22 PM


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 1553B RT MODE TERMINAL ADDRESS TEST

04/12/91 04:54:24 PM


113

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PAS SED


PASSED


114

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


115

PASSED


PAS SED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:54:46 PM


STEP COMPLETE


STEP COMPLETE

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 EXTERNAL INTERRUPTS TEST

04/12/91 04:54:48 PM


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:54:51 PM

INPUTS 1 LOW TEST 1 PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

INPUTS 1 LOW PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:54:53 PM

INPUTS 1 HIGH TEST 1 PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

INPUTS 1 HIGH PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

116


04/12/91 04:54:56 PM


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04 :54 :58 PM


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:00 PM

PATTERN 1 OUT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

PATTERN 1 TEST PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED


04/12/91 04 :55 :02 PM

INPUTS 2 LOW TEST 1 PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

INPUTS 2 LOW PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:04 PM


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:06 PM


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:08 PM


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:55:10 PM

PATTERN 2 OUT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

PATTERN 2 TEST PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC ON-BOARD RAM TEST

04/12/91 04:55:13 PM

ON-BOARD RAM TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

117

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC CALIBRATE TEST

04/12/91 04:55:14 PM

CALIBRATE TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC RANGE TEST

04/12/91 04:55:16 PM

RANGE TEST 1 PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

RANGE TEST 1 PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC CONVERSION RATE TEST

04/12/91 04:55:20 PM

CONVERSION RATE TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

UUT I/O FUNCTIONAL MDIS 1 AMUX/ADC CHANNEL TEST

04/12/91 04:55:22 PM

OUTPUT VOLTAGE LEVEL TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

AMUX CHANNEL TEST PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

118


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PAS SED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

119


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

120


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED

121


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


PASSED


04/12/91 04:59:12 PM

NORMAL MESSAGE IN INIT PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED

NORMAL MESSAGE IN PERFORMED BY PIOC

PASSED

NORMAL MESSAGE IN VERIFY PERFORMED BY RT

PASSED


04/12/91 05:00:07 PM

122

APPENDIX C - CCS Computations Speed Test

123

APPENDIX C CCS Computation Speed Test

A set of 5 "dummy" control experiments were executed on the CCS to determine the achievable

sampling rates for state feedback controllers of varying sizes. For these tests, the CCS/RIU was

connected to the CEM, however, the computed actuator commands were not transmitted to the test

article since the "dummy" control law matrices were not taken from real controllers, but were

arbitrarily defined. Each of these test runs were the same, with the exceptions being the controller

size and the sampling rate. Each of the controllers used the 8 accelerometer signals to compute 8

thruster commands. The tests were of relatively short duration (10 seconds); the reason being that

finding the achievable sampling rate for the 5 controllers was done by trial and error, thus, in order

to speed up the process, the time length per test was deliberately rammed back.

Table C1 contains the achieved sampling rates for the 5 tests, and their corresponding controller

sizes; these values are also plotted in Figure C1.

Table C1. Achievable sampling rates on the CCS.

Test# Controller states Samnlin_ rate (Hz_1 16 255-2 30 2503 50 2294 70 2105 100 175

Several important points should be made here. First, the above values really represent the

fastest that the CCS, particularly the EDS, can process and compute a control law of a given size.

The above sampling rates, are the rates at which the CCS requests data updates from the RIU; the

current RIU, however, can only transmit updated I/O data to and from the CCS at a rate of 200

Hz. Thus, the controllers which were executed above this figure were not using fresh sensor data

in every CCS sample period. For this reason, the maximum practical CCS sampling rate, for

controllers with 70 states or less, is 200 Hz with the present system.

The second factor to be considered, regarding system speed, is the number of sensors and

actuators selected for the experiment, and just as importantly, how they are to be used. In the

above "dummy" tests, signals from each of the 8 accelerometers were used by the controllers to

compute the eight thruster commands, in what would be considered "typical" active control

experiments. The current CCS/RIU, however, allows more freedom in how sensors and actuators

can be used in experiments. For example, the RIU can digitally process a signal from a single

124

sensorwith multiple filters; each filter's output is considered as a distinct signal, to be mmsmit_

to the CCS. This, in effect, multiplies the amount of data which is received by the CCS. In

addition, not every sensor signal has to be used in the controller in the CCS. As for the actuators,

their computed controller commands may be augmented by pre-computed disturbance command

values. The use of these options will slow down the overall speed of the system.

The final point concerns the recording of test data in _ time. The GSET records the test data

(i.e., sensor signals, actuator commands and their time syncs) offof the 1553B bus and onto its

hard disk. The particular 1553B interface card in the GSET is an old design with known

limitations in the speeds at which it can correctly interpret the data. It has been observed

throughout the CCS/RIU development and test phases that sampling at the higher rates increases

the probability that data recording errors will occur in the GSET. For example, in the speeds tests

involving the 16 state decoupled controller, executed at 250+Hz, test runs with 6 and 9 data

recording errors, respectively, over a 10 second test period, have been noted. This is compared to

the occurrences, on the average, of only 1 or 2 data recording errors over a 30 second test period,

for the same controller executed at 200 Hz or less. It should be emphasized that these data

recording errors do not imply that the sensor signals used in the control law and the resulting

computed computed actuator commands are in error, and thus corrupting the experiment. The only

impact which these errors have is in recording the data.

125

fq

_0am

¢q fq ¢'4 w-_

(ZH) _u!ldm_ssalua

rq

cD

o1,1

,q.

fq

126

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OU8 No o7o4o1.,

i

Public reportmg burden for this collection of reformation is estlmatecl to average I hour Der response, _nduding the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and mamtammg the data needed, and comDletmg and revmw*ng the collection of intormatlon Send comments rec)arding this burden estimate or any other asDeCl: of thiscollection of reformation, *nduding suggestions for reducing this Durden, to Wash*ngton Headquarters Services. DirectOrate TOt Information Operations and ReDOes. 1215 Jeffer_,on

Daws Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington. VA 22202-4302, and 10 the Offi¢e of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-018R). Wash*ngton, OC 20S03.

1. AGENCYUSE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORTDATE | 3. REPORTTYPE AND DATESCOVERED

March 1992 I Technical Memorandum4. TITLEAND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

CST Computer System/Remote Interface Unit AcceptanceTest Results

6. AUTHOR(S)

Dean W. Sparks, Jr.

7. PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23665-5225

9. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

WU 590-14-61-01

8. PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONREPORTNUMBER

10. SPONSORING/ MONITORINGAGENCYREPORTNUMBER

NASA TM-I04218

11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES

Dean W. Sparks, Jr.: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665

112a.DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 39

13. ABSTRACT(Maximum 200 words)

12b. DISTRIBUTIONCODE

This work reports on the validation tests conducted on the Control/Structures

Interaction (CSI) Computer System (CCS)/Remote Interface Unit (RIU), which consists

of a commercially available, LaRC programmed, space flight qualified computer and

a flight llke data acquisition and filtering computer, developed at LaRC. The tests

were performed in the Space Structures Research Laboratory (SSRL) and included open

loop excitation, closed loop control, saflng, RIU digltal filtering and RIU stand

alone testing with the CSI Evolutionary MOdel (CEM) Phase-0 testbed. The test

results indicated that the CCS/RIU sytem is comparable to ground based systems in

performing real-time control-structure experiments.

14. SUmECTTERMS

Space Flight Computer System, 1750A,

Tests

17. SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF REPORT

Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 :

1553B, Real-Tlme Control

18. SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF THIS PAGE

Unclassifed

19. SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF ABSTRACT

15. NUMBEROF PAGES127

16. PRICECODEA07

20. LIMITATIONOFABSTRACT

Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)Pres£rlbed by ANSi Ltd. Z39-18296-102

csi computer system/remote interface unit acceptance … · csi computer system/remote interface...

Documents