Empirical characterization of test platform effects on single-axis CubeSat reaction wheel ADCS with IoT-based PID tuning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35335/int.jo.emod.v20i2.193Keywords:
Attitude Control, CubeSat, IoT, PID Controller, Reaction Wheel, StictionAbstract
Terrestrial testing of CubeSat Attitude Determination and Control System (ADCS) prototypes presents fundamental validation challenges because no laboratory platform perfectly replicates the free-floating microgravity condition of orbit. The empirical effect of such platform-induced dynamics on closed-loop reaction-wheel control performance, particularly for low-cost academic CubeSat programs, remains insufficiently characterized. This study aims to empirically compare two widely used low-cost test platforms a string suspension and a free bearing for a single-axis reaction-wheel ADCS prototype and to quantify how each platform’s parasitic dynamics constrain PID controller performance. A 1.5U CubeSat-class prototype with an ESP32-based controller, BNO055 IMU, and a Blynk Cloud IoT interface for real-time PID tuning was tested over five sessions (>1 hour of cumulative active testing). Performance was quantified using the Time-in-±5° metric, error standard deviation, settling time, and number of direction reversals. Quantitative results show that the string suspension yields a peak Time-in-±5° of 8.8% with error standard deviation of ±90.7–119.9°, driven by torsional-pendulum dynamics, while the free bearing yields a peak Time-in-±5° of only 1.2% with a stuck-and-jump signature characteristic of stiction. A Karnopp-friction simulation in Python reproduces a permanent steady-state error of ~5° under stiction, quantitatively validating stiction as the dominant non-linearity. The novelty of this work lies in the integrated combination of empirical multi-platform characterization, Karnopp-based stiction validation, and an open-source IoT-based PID tuning framework within a single low-cost experimental system, providing actionable guidance for academic CubeSat ADCS development under limited-facility conditions.
References
Bahu, R., & others. (2024). Reaction Wheel Test Platform Configuration for CubeSat Attitude Control. IEEE Access.
Carrara, V. (2014a). Comparison between means of validation of mathematical models for attitude control of artificial satellites. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/365925
Carrara, V. (2014b). Comparison between means of validation of mathematical models for attitude control of artificial satellites. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/365925
Dief, T. N., & others. (2023). Performance Enhancement of BLDC Motor Using PID Controller. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Espinoza-Nunez, D., & Roman-Gonzalez, A. (2022). Low-Cost CubeSat Attitude Determination and Control System Test Platform. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3141234
Hashemi, A., & others. (2024). Advanced Reaction Wheel Fault-Tolerant Control for Small Satellites. Acta Astronautica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.02.018
Helmy, M., Hafez, A. T., & Ashry, M. (2022). Modeling and Attitude Control of CubeSat Using Reaction Wheels. 2022 13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEENG). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEENG49683.2022.9781950
Huba, M., & others. (2021). PID Controller Design and Tuning Methods. IEEE Access.
Ismail, Z., & Varatharajoo, R. (2010a). A study of reaction wheel configurations for a 3-axis satellite attitude control. Advances in Space Research, 45(6), 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2009.11.004
Ismail, Z., & Varatharajoo, R. (2010b). A study of reaction wheel configurations for a 3-axis satellite attitude control. Advances in Space Research, 45(6), 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2009.11.004
Karnopp, D. (1985a). Computer simulation of stick-slip friction in mechanical dynamic systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107(1), 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3140698
Karnopp, D. (1985b). Computer simulation of stick-slip friction in mechanical dynamic systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107(1), 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3140698
Khan, A., & others. (2022). Satellite Attitude Control Using Reaction Wheels. Proceedings of the International Conference on Aerospace Systems.
Khan, A., & others. (2024). Reliable Attitude Control for Small Satellites Using Reaction Wheels. Aerospace Systems.
Krogstad, T. R., & Gravdahl, J. T. (2008). 6-DOF mutual synchronization of formation flying spacecraft. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 18(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.1212
Liddle, J. D., Holt, A. P., Jason, S. J., O’Donnell, K. A., & Stevens, E. J. (2020). Space science with CubeSats and nanosatellites. Nature Astronomy, 4(11), 1026–1030. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-020-01247-2
Modenini, D., Bahu, A., Curzi, G., & Togni, A. (2020a). A dynamic testbed for nanosatellites attitude verification. Aerospace, 7(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7030031
Modenini, D., Bahu, A., Curzi, G., & Togni, A. (2020b). A dynamic testbed for nanosatellites attitude verification. Aerospace, 7(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7030031
Olsson, H., Åström, K. J., de Wit, C., Gäfvert, M., & Lischinsky, P. (1998a). Friction models and friction compensation. European Journal of Control, 4(3), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0947-3580(98)70113-X
Olsson, H., Åström, K. J., de Wit, C., Gäfvert, M., & Lischinsky, P. (1998b). Friction models and friction compensation. European Journal of Control, 4(3), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0947-3580(98)70113-X
Ovchinnikov, M. Yu., Roldugin, D. S., Tkachev, S. S., & Penkov, V. I. (2018a). B-dot algorithm steady-state motion performance. Acta Astronautica, 146, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.02.029
Ovchinnikov, M. Yu., Roldugin, D. S., Tkachev, S. S., & Penkov, V. I. (2018b). B-dot algorithm steady-state motion performance. Acta Astronautica, 146, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.02.029
Park, J.-H., & others. (2023). IoT-Based PID Tuning and Monitoring System for Smart Motor Control. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23073421
Ramos, P., & others. (2024). Air-Bearing Testbed for CubeSat Attitude Control Validation. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3378123
Retagne, P., & others. (2024). Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Adaptive Attitude Control for Satellites. Acta Astronautica.
Schwartz, J. L., Peck, M. A., & Hall, C. D. (2003). Historical review of air-bearing spacecraft simulators. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 26(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5085
Sidi, M. J. (1997). Spacecraft dynamics and control: A practical engineering approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815652
Wertz, J. R. (1978). Spacecraft attitude determination and control. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9907-7
Xia, X., Sun, G., Zhang, K., Wu, S., Wang, T., Xia, L., & Liu, S. (2017a). NanoSats/CubeSats ADCS survey. Proceedings of the 29th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), 5151–5158. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC.2017.7979410
Xia, X., Sun, G., Zhang, K., Wu, S., Wang, T., Xia, L., & Liu, S. (2017b). NanoSats/CubeSats ADCS survey. Proceedings of the 29th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), 5151–5158. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC.2017.7979410
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bayu Nuar Khadapi Hasibuan, Dananjaya Ariateja, Satriya Utama, Rangga Taqwa, Ria Aprilianingsih
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
