1 / 54

Design, Analysis, Fabrication, and Testing of a Nanosatellite Structure

Design, Analysis, Fabrication, and Testing of a Nanosatellite Structure. Craig L. Stevens cls@vt.edu Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia. Thesis Defense May 28, 2002. Overview. 2. Introduction Design Fabrication Structural Verification Conclusions. 3.

carr
Download Presentation

Design, Analysis, Fabrication, and Testing of a Nanosatellite Structure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Design, Analysis, Fabrication, and Testing of a Nanosatellite Structure Craig L. Stevens cls@vt.edu Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia Thesis Defense May 28, 2002

  2. Overview 2 • Introduction • Design • Fabrication • Structural Verification • Conclusions 3 4

  3. Introduction Satellites • Thousands of satellite designs • Structural design depends upon: • Mission • Orbit • Launch vehicle • Technology

  4. Introduction • NASA Satellite History NASA Spacecraft Mass History 5 10 4 10 3 10 Mass, kg 2 10 1 10 0 10 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Launch Year

  5. Introduction • Commerical Satellite History Commercial Spacecraft Mass History 3000 2500 2000 Mass, kg 1500 1000 500 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Launch Year

  6. Introduction Previous Missions Explorer 1: Launched January 31, 1958 Size: 6 ft long Mass: 31 lbs First US satellite Discovered Van Allen Belts Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory: Launched April 5, 1991 Size: 12.5 ft diameter 25 ft long Mass: 34371 lbs Gathered data on galactic radiation

  7. Introduction Previous Missions Solar, Anomalous and Magnetic Particle Explorer (SAMPEX): Launched July 3, 1992 Size: 2.8 ft diameter 4.9 ft long Mass: 348 lbs Began NASA “faster, better, cheaper” program Measured galactic charged particles ORBCOMM: Constellation of 35 spacecraft Launched between 1995 and 2000 Size: 40” diameter 6” height Mass: 99 lbs Provide global two-way messaging

  8. Introduction • Virginia Tech Ionospheric Scintillation Measurement Mission (VTISMM) aka HokieSat • Ionospheric Observation Nanosatellite Formation (ION-F) • Utah State University • University of Washington • Virginia Tech • AFRL Multi-Satellite Deployment System (MSDS) • NASA Shuttle Hitchhiker Experiment Launch System (SHELS) • Sponsors: AFRL, AFOSR, DARPA, NASA GSFC, SDL Ionospheric Observation Nanosatellite Formation (ION-F) AFRL Multi-Satellite Deployment System (MSDS) NASA Shuttle Hitchhiker Experiment Launch System (SHELS)

  9. Introduction ION-F USUSat Dawgstar HokieSat Multiple Satellite Deployment System Configuration: Scenario:

  10. Design Design Process:

  11. Design Initial Criteria • Configuration • Stack of 3 spacecraft • HokieSat at base of stack • Lightband separation system • Hexagonal • Stiffness • SHELS Users Guide: payload natural frequency > 35 Hz • Mass • SHELS Users Guide: payload mass < 400 lbs • Cost • Minimize cost • Student program

  12. Design Objective Function: • Previous fabrication materials and methods investigated • List of criteria created • Criteria score, Sj, based on literature review and correspondence • Criteria weighting factors, Wj, selected for program

  13. Design Objective Function: • Three weighting factor conditions: • Structural engineer • Chief engineer • Student • Results: Metallic panels optimum choice for design

  14. Design Preliminary Design • Hexagonal prism • 18” major diameter • 11.5” height • Separation Systems • Lightband • Starsys • Isogrid construction • Manufacture using computer numerical controlled (CNC) milling machines • 200% increase in structural efficiency • Al 6061-T651 • High efficiency • Inexpensive • Good workability

  15. Design Final Design • 18.25” major diameter hexagonal prism • 11.725” tall • 39 lbs total mass • 13.5 lbs structural mass • Isogrid structure • Aluminum 6061 T-651 • Isogrid end panels • 0.25” isogrid • Composite side panels • 0.23” isogrid • 0.02” skins

  16. Fabrication Hardware • Isogrid panels manufactured using CNC milling machine • End panels machined from 0.25” aluminum plate • Side panels machined from 1” aluminum plate • Separation system flatness requirements verified • 0.0005” per inch tolerance • Final verification during assembly • Skin panels machined from 0.02” aluminum • Brackets machined from 0.063” and 0.25” aluminum • Treated with chromate conversion coating per MIL-C-5541C • #10-32 fasteners

  17. Fabrication Epoxy Process • Composite structure comprised of 0.23” isogrid and 0.02” skin • Used 3M 2216 Gray • Spaceflight heritage • Simple lay-up • Procedure: • Surfaces prepared • Scoured using steel wool • Methyl ethyl ketone • Isopropyl alcohol • Seven 0.005” monofilament lines placed across isogrid surface • Epoxy applied • Isogrid • Skin • Spatula used to evenly distribute • Cured for 120 minutes at 80° C

  18. Structural Verification Structural Verification Procedure • Establish structural requirements • Perform preliminary analysis • Isogrid • Modal analysis and testing of panels • Modal analysis and testing of assembly • Composite • Modal analysis and testing of side panels • Three-point-bend testing of side panels • Environmental testing of assembly • ION-F stack configuration • Strength and stiffness testing • Modal analysis of stack • Stress analyses

  19. Structural Verification Requirements • Withstand all inertial loading with limit load factors: (simultaneous, all permutations) • Margin of Safety (MS)  0, where • Factor of Safety (FS) • Fundamental frequency > 35 Hz

  20. Structural Verification Preliminary Analysis • Isogrid geometry b: width of web d: depth of web h: height of triangle a: length of web • Equivalent monocoque panel • Equivalent Young’s modulus, • Equivalent panel thickness = d • Stress analysis using open isogrid theory where Nx, Ny, Nxy are membrane stress resultants

  21. Structural Verification Preliminary Analysis • Finite element analysis to calculate stress resultants • Analysis demonstrates that 0.200” thick isogrid panels sufficient • HOWEVER, forced to increase panel thickness to 0.250” • Stiffness requirements • Model deficiencies • Integration Shell Elements thickness = d

  22. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Isogrid Structure Shell Elements • Linear beam elements: • 0.25” ×0.08” • 0.23” × 0.08” • Linear quadrilateral and triangular shell elements: • 0.25” thick • 0.23” thick • Separation system attachment points modeled • Thruster holes neglected • Flanges and overhangs • Side panel model • Neglected in assembly Beam Elements Attachment Points

  23. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Isogrid Side Panel Mode 1 fn = 131 Hz Mode 2 fn = 171 Hz

  24. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Isogrid End Panel Mode 1 fn = 105 Hz Mode 2 fn = 182 Hz

  25. Structural Verification Modal (tap) Testing of Panels • Panels tethered using bungee cords and tape • Hammer provides impulsive input at several points • Accelerometer measures accelerations at fixed point • Frequency response function magnitudes and phases examined • Verification of predictions of finite element analysis

  26. Structural Verification Modal Testing of Isogrid Side Panels Mode 1 fn = 131 Hz (vs 131 Hz predicted) Mode 2 fn = 169 Hz (vs 171 Hz predicted)

  27. Structural Verification Modal Testing of Isogrid End Panels Mode 1 fn = 111 Hz (vs 105 Hz predicted) Mode 2 fn = 193 Hz (vs 182 Hz predicted)

  28. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Isogrid Structural Assembly Mode 1 fn = 249 Hz

  29. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Isogrid Structural Assembly Mode 2 fn = 263 Hz

  30. Structural Verification Modal Testing of Isogrid Structural Assembly Mode 2 fn = 272 Hz (vs 263 Hzpredicted) Mode 1 fn = 245 Hz (vs 249 Hz predicted)

  31. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Composite Side Panel • Offset neutral axis nodes of isogrid panels • Linear shell elements created • 0.02” quadrilateral • 0.02” triangular • Rigid elements connect neutral axis nodes Beam Element Neutral Axis Rigid Element Shell Element Neutral Axis

  32. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Composite Side Panel Mode 1 fn = 159 Hz Mode 2 fn = 219 Hz

  33. Structural Verification Modal Testing of Composite Side Panels Chladni Patterns: Mode 2 fn = 220 Hz (vs 219 Hz predicted) Mode 1 fn = 159 Hz (vs 159 Hz predicted) Mode 1: fn = 159 Hz Mode 2: fn = 220 Hz Results demonstrate 22% gain in efficiency using skins

  34. Structural Verification Composite Panel Strength Test Results 600 Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 500 Side 4 Side 5 Side 6 400 Load, lbs 300 200 100 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Displacement, in Three-Point-Bend Testing of Composite Side Panels • Stiffness curves lie within 5% of mean • Verify bond strength • Verify assumption to neglect thruster holes • Supported on all edges • Load applied at center web • First loaded prototype panel to localized failure • Loaded flight panels to 70% failure load

  35. Structural Verification ION-F Random Vibration Spectrum 0 10 -1 10 ASD, G2/Hz -2 10 -3 10 1 2 3 4 10 10 10 10 Frequency, Hz Composite Structure Environmental Testing • Sine sweep test • Determines restrained fundamental frequency • 20-2000 Hz, 0.5 g • Sine burst test • Quasi-static strength test at less than one-third fundamental frequency • 23.8 g’s • Random vibration test • Verifies structural integrity • 9 g RMS, 1 minute duration • Power spectrum:

  36. Structural Verification Z X Y Prototype Environmental Testing Accelerometer Placement • Side panel 1 • Side panel 2 • Zenith panel • GPS (3 axis) • CEE (3 axis) • PPU (3 axis) • Battery box (3 axis)

  37. Structural Verification Zenith Panel FRF: Hzz(f) 1 10 Log H(f) 0 10 -1 10 2 3 10 10 Log Frequency, Hz Testing Results: • Structure survived all tests • Fundamental frequency: • 78 Hz • Zenith panel • Torque coil damaged • Modified integration scheme • Raise fundamental frequency • Prevent damage

  38. Structural Verification Z X Y Flight Environmental Testing Accelerometer Placement • Side panel 1 • Side panel 2 • Zenith panel • Honeycomb • GPS • GPS Preamp • CEE • PPT (3 axis) • Fuel bar support (3 axis) • Battery box

  39. Structural Verification Zenith Panel FRF: Hzz(f) 1 10 0 10 Log H(f) -1 10 -2 10 2 3 10 10 Log Frequency, Hz CEE FRF: Hzz(f) 1 10 Log H(f) 0 10 -1 10 2 3 10 10 Log Frequency, Hz Testing Results: • Structure survived all tests • Fundamental frequency: • 105 Hz • Nadir panel • Raised fundamental frequency 35% • Epoxied honeycomb • Relocation of GPS components

  40. Structural Verification Mass Properties Testing • Measured • Center of mass • Moments of inertia • Oriented in seven configurations to calculate principal moments of inertia • No data recorded for products of inertia Ixz and Iyz • Assumed z-axis is principal axis x y z

  41. Structural Verification Finite Element Analysis of Complete ION-F Stack • USUSat: • 0.25” thick linear shell • Non-structural point masses • Dawgstar • 0.12” thick linear quadrilateral shell elements • Linear beam elements • Nonstructural mass • Lightband • 0.15” thick linear quadrilateral shell elements • HokieSat • Nonstructural mass USUSat Lightband Dawgstar Lightband HokieSat

  42. Structural Verification Strength and Stiffness Test Truss loading fixture • Three cantilever tests • Truss • Isogrid • Composite • Evaluate gain in efficiency using composite structure • Determine boundary conditions Isogrid and composite structures

  43. Structural Verification Strength and Stiffness Test Load vs Displacement Plot • Experiment demonstrated a 32% gain in stiffness in the cantilever mode due to addition of skins • Skins added less than 8% to the total mass • Overall 22% gain in structural efficiency for cantilever mode Truss Isogrid & Truss 300 Composite & Truss 250 200 Load, p (lb) 150 100 50 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 Displacement, u (in)

  44. Structural Verification Boundary Condition Correlation • Model of truss fixture • 0.15” linear shell elements • Hexagonal protrusion • Attached at nodes simulating • Lightband attachment points Load vs Displacement of Truss Fixture 300 Test Analysis 250 200 • Correlation of truss data • Lightband attachment points fixed on end panel • Load applied at end • Young’s modulus modified • Stiffness curves correlate within 1% Load, p (lb) 150 100 50 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Displacement, u (in)

  45. Structural Verification Truss and Composite Structure Data 300 Test Analysis 250 200 Load, p (lb) 150 100 50 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 Displacement, u (in) Boundary Condition Correlation • Correlation of truss and composite data • Nadir Starsys attachment point node translations fixed (fixed base) • Flanges modeled using solid elements • End panels attach to flanges using rigid elements • Stiffness curves of model and test data correlate within 5%

  46. Structural Verification Modal Analysis of Complete ION-F Stack Mode 1 fn = 47 Hz Mode 2 fn = 48 Hz • Majority of strain energy concentrated in Lightband • Possible stiffness problems revealed

  47. Structural Verification Stress Analysis of Complete ION-F Stack • Apply uniform acceleration • Fixed base boundary conditions • Required design criteria: • Minimum MS = 0.094 > 0 • Sine burst stress analysis results • No yielding or buckling

  48. Conclusions • Aluminum isogrid increases structural performance at reduced mass • Modal testing verifies accuracy of isogrid and composite side panel finite element models within ~1% error • Modal testing demonstrates 22% increase in structural efficiency of side panel by adding thin aluminum skins • Three-point bend testing validates assumption to neglect thruster hole cutouts in model and verifies bond strength • Sine sweep testing demonstrates a fundamental frequency of 105 Hz for the restrained composite assembly • Strength and stiffness testing demonstrates 22% gain in structural stiffness of assembly by adding thin aluminum skins • Analyses and experiments verify structure survives Shuttle payload environment

  49. Acknowledgements • Professor C. Hall • Professor W. Hallauer • Professor E. Johnson • Air Force Research Laboratory • Air Force Office of Scientific Research • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency • NASA Goddard Space Flight Center • NASA Wallops Flight Facility Test Center • University of Washington • Utah State University • Virginia Tech • Professor A. Wicks • Professor B. Love • Members of structures team • Members of ION-F

  50. Design External Configuration Solar Cells Crosslink Antenna GPS Antenna LightBand Pulsed Plasma Thrusters Data Port Camera Uplink Antenna Downlink Antenna Science Patches

More Related