Chris Chrzanowski Charles Frohlich Swales Aerospace, Inc.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

AND ELEMENTS OF MACHINES

Advertisements

May 19, 2009JWST Partner's Workshop1 NIRCam Status Marcia Rieke University of Arizona JWST Partner’s Workshop Ottawa, Canada May 19, 2009 JWST-PRES

1 AN ALIGNMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ATST M2 Implementing a standalone correction strategy for ATST M2 Robert S. Upton NIO/AURA February 11,2005.

FEA of structures with insulation damage in fire A. M

Topsfield Engineering Service, Inc. Figure 1 Thermoelastic Analysis in Design William Bell & Paul-W. Young Topsfield Engineering Service, Inc. John Stewart,

Cylinders in Vs An optomechanical methodology Opti 521 Tutorial Yuming Shen December 2006.

Mechanical Systems Analysis Branch/Code 542 Goddard Space Flight Center Analysis of Damping Treatments Applied to the MAP Spacecraft Scott Gordon Code.

MICE RF Cavity Design and Fabrication Update Steve Virostek Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MICE Collaboration Meeting October 27, 2004.

M2 Assembly and Feed Optics Ron Price August 25, 2003.

Section 4: Implementation of Finite Element Analysis – Other Elements

Chris A. Mack, Fundamental Principles of Optical Lithography, (c) Figure 3.1 Examples of typical aberrations of construction.

Adaptive Optics for Wavefront Correction of High Average Power Lasers Justin Mansell, Supriyo Sinha, Todd Rutherford, Eric Gustafson, Martin Fejer and.

Copyright 2001, J.E. Akin. All rights reserved. CAD and Finite Element Analysis Most ME CAD applications require a FEA in one or more areas: –Stress Analysis.

Copyright © 2002J. E. Akin Rice University, MEMS Dept. CAD and Finite Element Analysis Most ME CAD applications require a FEA in one or more areas: –Stress.

Fiber Optics Defining Characteristics: Numerical Aperture Spectral Transmission Diameter.

1 Maestro Lens Mounting Lenses 4 and 6 –Mounting method: Potted on OD with elastomer (athermalized) –Lens diameter = inches –Lens CTE (  l ) = 3.5x10.

Thermally Deformable Mirrors: a new Adaptive Optics scheme for Advanced Gravitational Wave Interferometers Marie Kasprzack Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur.

1 MODELING DT VAPORIZATION AND MELTING IN A DIRECT DRIVE TARGET B. R. Christensen, A. R. Raffray, and M. S. Tillack Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

MCE 561 Computational Methods in Solid Mechanics

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN The functionality of SolidWorks Simulation depends on which software Simulation product is used. The functionality of different producs.

Figuring large off-axis segments to the diffraction limit Hubert Martin Steward Observatory University of Arizona.

Thermal Modeling and Model Correlation of the LORRI Telescope

1 RF-Structures Mock-Up FEA Assembly Tooling V. Soldatov, F. Rossi, R. Raatikainen

Active Seismic Isolation Systems for Enhanced and Advanced LIGO Jeffrey S. Kissel 1 for the LSC 1 Louisiana State University The mechanical system for.

The Finite Element Method

15/8/03Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. Optomechanical Design and Analysis of Adaptive Optical Systems using FEA and Optical Design Software Victor Genberg, Keith.

Solar orbiter – EUS instrument mechanical design Tim Froud and Doug Griffin.

SAM PDR1 SAM LGS Mechanical Design A. Montane, A. Tokovinin, H. Ochoa SAM LGS Preliminary Design Review September 2007, La Serena.

C osmic R Ay T elescope for the E ffects of R adiation Telescope Mechanical Design Albert Lin The Aerospace Corporation Mechanical Engineer (310)

ZTF Cryostat Finite Element Analysis Andrew Lambert ZTF Technical Meeting 1.

Geometrically Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of a Composite Reflector K.J. Lee, G.V. Clarke, S.W. Lee, and K. Segal FEMCI WORKSHOP May 17, 2001.

Current Progress on the Design and Analysis of the JWST ISIM Bonded Joints for Survivability at Cryogenic Temperatures Andrew Bartoszyk, Swales Aerospace.

Analyses of Bolted Joint for Shear Load with Stainless Steel Bushing and Frictionless Shim-Flange Interface Two cases of shim plates were investigated.

Jim Burge, Bill Anderson, Scott Benjamin,

ATLAS Pixel Detector Discussion of Tolerances November 12, 1998 Pixel Mechanics D. Bintinger, LBNL E. Anderssen, LBNL/CERN.

K-D-PR Fabrication and testing of KGMT FSM prototype Oct Ho-Soon Yang, Hak-Yong Kihm, Il-Kwon Moon, Jae-Bong Song, Yun-Woo Lee Korea.

Design of a Lightweight Mounted Tip/Tilt Mirror

Grid Thermal Distortion 16 September 2008 Martin Nordby, John Hodgson.

VG1 i T i March 9, 2006 W. O. Miller ATLAS Silicon Tracker Upgrade Upgrade Stave Study Topics Current Analysis Tasks –Stave Stiffness, ability to resist.

January 25, 2005GRETINA 2004 Review1 GRETINA 2004 Annual Review Steve Virostek Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Mechanical System.

Hertz Contact Stress Theory

Zero field The 25 ‑ m f /0.7 primary mirror for the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) is made of seven 8.4 ‑ m segments in a close packed array. Each of the.

4/20/2004s.e.mathews1 Steward Observatory Technical Division Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series Seminar #1 April 20, 2004.

Flat top beam profile cavity prototype J. Agresti, E. D’Ambrosio, R. DeSalvo, J.M. Mackowski, A. Remillieux, B. Simoni, M. G. Tarallo, P. Willems CNRS.

CLAS12-RICH Mechanical Design Status-Report CLAS12 RICH Review September 5-6 th 2013 S. Tomassini, D. Orecchini1 D. Orecchini, S. Tomassini.

Absolute Calibration of Null Correctors Using Dual-Computer- Generated Holograms (CGHs) Proteep Mallik, Jim Burge, Rene Zehnder, College of Optical Sciences,

The Adaptive Mirror for the E-ELT

Analyses of Bolted Joint for Bolt Preload and Shear Load

Design and Development of the FSM (Fast steering Secondary Mirror)

IRMOS Diffraction Grating Integral Tab Design  Performance of an optical system is highly sensitive to the surface distortion of the optics in the system.

1 HELMRI Primary Support General Requirements –OD = 1.7 m ( inches) –Thickness = cm (4.0 inches) –Rsph = 7.7 m ( inches) –Lateral Support:14°

Periscope Configuration

The MesoMill™ An Off-The-Shelf Small Milling Machine By Roger Cortesi MIT Precision Engineering Research Group.

Silicon-to-Titanium Bond Preload Determination of the JWST NIRSpec Micro Shutter Subsystem FEMCI Workshop 2006 Eduardo Aguayo Jim Pontius.

N A S A G O D D A R D S P A C E F L I G H T C E N T E R I n s t r u m e n t S y n t h e s i s a n d A n a l y s i s L a b o r a t o r y APS Formation Sensor.

CAD and Finite Element Analysis Most ME CAD applications require a FEA in one or more areas: –Stress Analysis –Thermal Analysis –Structural Dynamics –Computational.

J. H. Burgea,b, W. Davisona, H. M. Martina, C. Zhaob

JWST ISIM Primary Structure and Kinematic Mount Configuration Jonathan Kuhn, Tim Carnahan NASA/GSFC Code 542 Andrew Bartoszyk, Steve Hendricks, Charles.

C osmic R Ay T elescope for the E ffects of R adiation CDR v1 Telescope Mechanical Design Albert Lin The Aerospace Corporation Mechanical Engineer (310)

1 Cascina – October 19, 2011 ASPERA Forum Laurent Pinard Substrates, Polishing, Coatings and Metrology for the 2 nd generation of GW detector Laurent PINARD.

Development of Micro-Pore Optics at NAOC MPO research group X-ray Imaging Laboratory, NAOC Presented by Chen Zhang.

Integral Field Spectrograph Opto-mechanical concepts PIERRE KARST, JEAN-LUC GIMENEZ CPPM(CNRS),FRANCE.

Refractive error introduced in the application of a refractive surgical treatment and in the subsequent response of the ocular tissue Charles Campbell.

Lab 2 Alignment.

Finite element mesh and load definition

Telescope - Mechanical

CAD and Finite Element Analysis

FEA Introduction.

Vertical-flexure CCD module: Thermal and Dynamic FEA

Standardized CCD and MCT detector mounting configurations

Presentation transcript:

Using Nastran and Matlab to Predict Surface Figure Error of a Spherical Mirror Chris Chrzanowski Charles Frohlich Swales Aerospace, Inc. 5050 Powder Mill Rd. Beltsville, MD, 20705, USA CChrzanowski@swales.com CFrohlich@swales.com May 4-5, 2005

Introduction Two non-flight prototype mirrors for use on the JWST/NIRSpec instrument were received from Galileo Avionica (Florence, Italy), for optical testing at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center 1: Silicon Carbide (SiC), coated with SiC CVD 2: Carbon-reinforced Silicon Carbide (C/SiC), coated with Si-SiC CVD Spherical optical surface, ROC = 600mm Polished to microroughness of 3.5 nm RMS Lightweighted aft surface Integral mount C/SiC mounting plate also provided as an interface to the integral mount C/SiC Mirror May 4-5, 2005

Goals Design and build a mount to hold each mirror in a cryogenic dewar Hold in horizontal orientation (gravity perpendicular to optical axis) Maintain high thermal conductivity between mirror and dewar cold plate when cooling from room temperature to 20K Minimize surface figure error (SFE) induced by CTE mismatches among the materials; SiC and C/SiC have a very low CTE at cryo temperatures Use finite element analysis (FEA) in MSC.NASTRAN 2001 to predict the deformed mirror shapes Optical post-processing SigFit: characterize surface with Zernike polynomials for optical analysis Matlab: “best fit sphere” function to calculate SFE For this project, SFE defined as the deviation from a perfect sphere May 4-5, 2005

Kinematic Mount Design Kinematically constrains the mirror in six degrees of freedom (DOF), allowing the mirror to expand or contract, isolated from the CTE mismatch of the Copper cold plate Three low-friction ball bearings in a 3-2-1 configuration rest on a conical seat, V-groove, and flat surface, respectively Spring plungers preload the bearings to support the weight of the mirror in the horizontal configuration May 4-5, 2005

Kinematic Mount Design Low-stress Copper thermal straps used for thermal conductivity Belleville spring washers used on each fastener stack to maintain preload when going cold, or to prevent fastener from compressing mirror material SiC Mirror C/SiC Plate Spring Plunger Invar Bracket Spherical Bearing CRES Bracket Cu Thermal Strap Cu Mount Ring May 4-5, 2005

Mirror FEM Detailed finite element model (FEM) based on drawings and specifications from Galileo Avionica Constructed with FEMAP v8.1a for use in MSC.NASTRAN 2001 SiC Mirror: 45,000 elements; 34,000 nodes May 4-5, 2005

Mirror FEM SiC substrate modeled as solid elements SiC CVD modeled as thin plate elements 100 mm thick where deposited 40 mm thick on polished surface Solid masked from coating on 4 flat edges and tops of mounting feet Optical surface at least two solid elements thick May 4-5, 2005

Assembly FEM FEM comprised of parts that directly affect the SFE of the optical surface C/SiC mounting plate – solids Invar support brackets – plates Titanium fasteners – bars Ball bearings modeled as single point constraints, in appropriate DOF Analysis Load Cases Gravity (1G in the –Y axis) at room temperature Cooling from room temperature to 20K without gravity Cooling from room temperature to 20K with gravity May 4-5, 2005

Optical Analysis SFE defined as the change in figure error from unmounted R/T Initial figure error is zero; optical surface nodes aligned in FEMAP to a 600mm ROC sphere SigFit post-processing Deformed shape defined by NASTRAN data deck and nodal displacements, output in .PCH format Zernike polynomials fit to the deformed surface, after subtracting out the original undeformed surface “Subtract Best Fit Plane and Power” option also removes the first 3 Zernike terms (bias, tilt, and power) from the RMS calculations as an approximation of a sphere Matlab post-processing Deformed shape defined by FEMAP list of node locations and displacements, in .LST format Matlab function fits a sphere to the deformed shape using a least-squares method, and calculates the residual RMS error May 4-5, 2005

Zernike Polynomials A surface can be defined as the sum of Zernike polynomials Figure adapted from SigFit Reference Manual, v. 2003-R2, sec. 7.3.  Sigmadyne, Inc. May 4-5, 2005

Method Comparison - SigFit Mirror face test model Cooldown from R/T to 20K without gravity All elements have identical CTE Only deformation is ROC decrease SigFit contour with BFP and Power removed Shows the error after the original 600mm sphere and best fit paraboloid are subtracted from the new spherical shape SFE estimate: 0.0019 waves RMS Higher order spherical terms cannot be used to better approximate a sphere because they may remove real errors on the actual mirror Order Aberration Magnitude Residual Residual K N M (Waves) RMS P-V Input(wrt zero) 2.7154 1.7964 1 0 0 Bias -2.66502 .5186 1.7964 2 1 1 Tilt 0.00000 .5186 1.7963 3 2 0 Power (Defocus) -.89651 .0019 .0111 4 2 2 Pri Astigmatism 0.00000 .0019 .0111 5 3 1 Pri Coma 0.00000 .0019 .0111 6 4 0 Pri Spherical -.00413 .0005 .0062 7 3 3 Pri Trefoil 0.00000 .0005 .0062 8 4 2 Sec Astigmatism 0.00000 .0005 .0062 9 5 1 Sec Coma 0.00000 .0005 .0062 10 6 0 Sec Spherical -.00006 .0005 .0062 11 4 4 Pri Tetrafoil 0.00000 .0005 .0062 12 5 3 Sec Trefoil 0.00000 .0005 .0062 15 8 0 Ter Spherical -.00003 .0005 .0061 16 5 5 Pri Pentafoil 0.00000 .0005 .0061 17 6 4 Sec Tetrafoil 0.00000 .0005 .0061 21 10 0 Qua Spherical -.00001 .0005 .0061 22 12 0 Qin Spherical -.00004 .0005 .0061 May 4-5, 2005

Method Comparison - Matlab Order Aberration Magnitude Residual Residual K N M (Waves) RMS P-V Input(wrt zero) 2.7154 1.7964 1 0 0 Bias -2.66502 .5186 1.7964 2 1 1 Tilt 0.00000 .5186 1.7963 3 2 0 Power (Defocus) -.89651 .0019 .0111 4 2 2 Pri Astigmatism 0.00000 .0019 .0111 5 3 1 Pri Coma 0.00000 .0019 .0111 6 4 0 Pri Spherical -.00413 .0005 .0062 7 3 3 Pri Trefoil 0.00000 .0005 .0062 8 4 2 Sec Astigmatism 0.00000 .0005 .0062 9 5 1 Sec Coma 0.00000 .0005 .0062 10 6 0 Sec Spherical -.00006 .0005 .0062 11 4 4 Pri Tetrafoil 0.00000 .0005 .0062 12 5 3 Sec Trefoil 0.00000 .0005 .0062 15 8 0 Ter Spherical -.00003 .0005 .0061 16 5 5 Pri Pentafoil 0.00000 .0005 .0061 17 6 4 Sec Tetrafoil 0.00000 .0005 .0061 21 10 0 Qua Spherical -.00001 .0005 .0061 22 12 0 Qin Spherical -.00004 .0005 .0061 Matlab sphere fit SFE: 0.0005 waves RMS Identical to the error after SigFit subtracts higher order terms Mirror Radius R Undeformed 23.622055 Deformed 23.617219 Difference 0.004836 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 1.5387e-007 1.3948e-008 Microns 0.0039 0.0004 Waves 0.0060 0.0005 May 4-5, 2005

SiC Kinematic Results R/T, 1G 20K 20K, 1G May 4-5, 2005 Mirror Radius Undeformed 23.622053 Deformed 23.622053 Difference -0.000000 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 1.7595e-007 4.1885e-008 Microns 0.0045 0.0011 Waves 0.0068 0.0016 Mirror Radius R Undeformed 23.622055 Deformed 23.613960 Difference 0.008095 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 2.2950e-006 4.2734e-007 Microns 0.0583 0.0109 Waves 0.0893 0.0166 Mirror Radius R Undeformed 23.622055 Deformed 23.613959 Difference 0.008095 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 2.2329e-006 4.1600e-007 Microns 0.0567 0.0106 Waves 0.0869 0.0162 May 4-5, 2005

C/SiC Kinematic Results R/T, 1G 20K 20K, 1G Mirror Radius R Undeformed 23.621892 Deformed 23.621892 Difference -0.000000 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 1.7003e-006 3.6382e-007 Microns 0.0432 0.0092 Waves 0.0661 0.0142 Mirror Radius R Undeformed 23.621892 Deformed 23.616576 Difference 0.005315 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 8.5637e-007 1.9079e-007 Microns 0.0218 0.0048 Waves 0.0333 0.0074 Mirror Radius R Undeformed 23.621892 Deformed 23.616577 Difference 0.005315 Non-Spherical Mirror Deformations P to V RMS inches 1.9474e-006 4.1231e-007 Microns 0.0495 0.0105 Waves 0.0758 0.0160 May 4-5, 2005

Conclusions Kinematic mount shown to be an effective mechanism to support mirrors in a cryogenic dewar Mount CTE mismatches do not induce large SFE SFE for both mirrors predicted ~10.5nm RMS, near project goal of 10nm Matlab function shown to match proven optical post-processor Accurate measurement of SFE as a deviation from a perfect sphere Quick interaction between structural and optical analysis, with both visual and numeric output of SFE Simple data transfer from FEMAP Pre- & Post-Processor May 4-5, 2005