Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Study of Dust Detection System on a Micro Satellite Space Systems Dynamics Laboratory M2 Kyohei Nakashima.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Study of Dust Detection System on a Micro Satellite Space Systems Dynamics Laboratory M2 Kyohei Nakashima."— Presentation transcript:

1 Study of Dust Detection System on a Micro Satellite Space Systems Dynamics Laboratory M2 Kyohei Nakashima

2 2 Contents Objective Background Dust Detection System Acoustic Emission Method Experiments Results Conclusions

3 3 Objective Analysis and verification of dust detection system on a micro satellite using Acoustic Emission sensors

4 4 Background Space weather forecast is necessary because space disasters threaten human space activities. Space disasters Magnetic storm High energy particles radiation Space debris Sun flares Space debris Radiation Earth Magnetic storm

5 5 Dust Detection System Observation of surfaces of spacecrafts recovered Example: LDEF (Long Duration Exposure Facility,), EURECA (European Retrievable Carrier ), SFU (Space Flyer Unit) G. Drolshagen, ESA/TOS-EMA 21th IADC, 10-13 March 2003, Bangalore, India High cost Low Earth Orbit only

6 6 Acoustic Emission Method Acoustic Emission (AE) is an elastic wave motion phenomenon in a solid. AE occurs when an impact happens on a solid or when destruction happens in a solid. Impact destruction

7 7 Acoustic Emission Method Impact position can be detected by solving the following equations. S(x, y, z): Impact position T i (a i, b i, c i ): i th AE sensor position v e : Wave velocity t i : Arrival time of a wave at i th AE sensor z x y S (x, y, z) T 0 (a 0, b 0, c 0 ) T 1 (a 1, b 1, c 1 ) T i (a i, b i, c i ) T N (a N, b N, c N )

8 8 Experiments Two experiments were performed by free fall. a light gas gun. Experiments by free fall are in preparation for impacts by a gas gun. Experiments by a gas gun are representative of impacts in space.

9 9 Experiments Free fall type of panel dimensions ( mm) projectile Aluminum alloy panel ( A 5052 ) 150×160×5 A 2017 φ1 mm 1.4 mg CFRP layered panel ( 0/90 , 4 ply ) 150×150×0.8 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel150×150×12 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets150×150×10.8 4 different types of panel and 1 type of projectile were used in free fall. Projectiles were dropped from 380 mm above position of panels. Impact velocity was about 2.7 m/s.

10 10 Experiments Results of experiments by free fall Aluminum alloy panelCFRP layered panel

11 11 Experiments Results of experiments by free fall Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets

12 12 Experiments Gas gun type of panel dimensions ( mm) projectile Aluminum alloy panel ( A 5052 ) 400×200×5 A 2017 φ3.175 mm 45 mg CFRP layered panel ( 0/90 , 4 ply ) 400×200×0.8 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel400×200×12 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets400×200×10.8 4 different types of panel and 1 type of projectile were used in a gas gun. Impact velocity was about 668.4 m/s. Vacuum level was about 1.0*10 3 Pa

13 13 Experiments Results of experiments by a gas gun Aluminum alloy panelCFRP layered panel

14 14 Experiments Results of experiments by a gas gun Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets

15 15 Results compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by free fall Real Impact PositionCalculated Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) 000.70.00.70.0 10022.3-5.212.35.2 20026.7-2.86.72.8 30035.9-1.65.91.6 40042.42.41.0 50064.5-0.614.50.6 -100-0.40.59.60.5 -200-22.51.42.51.4 -300-30.92.10.92.1 -400-46.7-3.06.73.0 -500-62.9-2.512.92.5 -600-66.6-0.66.60.6 Aluminum alloy panel Average of errors6.81.8 Standard deviation4.51.4

16 16 Results compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by free fall Real Impact PositionCalculated Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) 002.10.62.10.6 1003.10.36.90.3 20018.41.11.61.1 30024.7-11.55.311.5 40041.53.21.53.2 50061.2-0.311.20.3 -100-2.7-0.27.30.2 -200-4.9-2.115.12.1 -300-44.64.314.64.3 -400-51.8-3.611.83.6 -500-62.1-3.412.13.4 -600-79.25.519.25.5 CFRP layered panel Average of errors9.13.0 Standard deviation5.63.1

17 17 Results compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by free fall Real Impact PositionCalculated Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) 000.5-0.40.50.4 10011.08.81.08.8 20017.84.02.24.0 30032.0-1.22.01.2 40029.80.910.20.9 50033.3-2.316.72.3 -100-3.7-3.16.33.1 -200-27.4-5.87.45.8 -300-17.9-2.112.12.1 -400-44.06.94.06.9 -500-41.32.98.72.9 -600-70.311.410.311.4 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel Average of errors6.84.2 Standard deviation4.83.3

18 18 Results compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by free fall Real Impact PositionCalculated Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) 000.0-1.90.01.9 1000.8-1.59.21.5 20026.1-2.66.12.6 30029.2-1.30.81.3 40035.5-1.34.51.3 50061.6-2.011.62.0 -100-0.2-1.99.81.9 -200-11.7-2.48.32.4 -300-25.6-3.34.43.3 -400-37.9-1.82.11.8 -500-39.1-9.910.99.9 -600-53.97.76.17.7 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets Average of errors6.23.1 Standard deviation3.72.6

19 19 Results Compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by a gas gun Real Impact PositionPredicted Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) -4.913.90.20.05.113.9 53.824.056.640.52.816.5 Real Impact PositionPredicted Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) 9.4-8.20.0-0.19.48.1 -14.08.10.00.114.08.0 Aluminum alloy panel CFRP layered panel Average of Errors 4.0 15.2 Average of Errors 11.7 8.1

20 20 Results Compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by a gas gun Real Impact PositionPredicted Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) -56.63.6-3.212.453.48.8 36.1-4.12.5-3.333.50.8 Real Impact PositionPredicted Impact PositionErrors x(mm)y(mm)x(mm)y(mm)Δx(mm)Δy(mm) -7.814.6-0.64.07.210.6 Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets Average of Errors 43.5 4.8

21 21 Results Aluminum alloy panel Error- 5.7 % of the distance of sensors CFRP layered panel Error- 8.4 % of the distance of sensors Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel Error- 5.7 % of the distance of sensors Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets Error- 7.6 % of the distance of sensors

22 22 Conclusions Dust detection system is possible by using AE sensors. It is more difficult to decide the arrival time accurately in panels using CFRP and honeycomb sandwich. Buffers are needed to relieve the impacts to AE sensors. There are little influence of holes by impacts to detect the impact points.


Download ppt "Study of Dust Detection System on a Micro Satellite Space Systems Dynamics Laboratory M2 Kyohei Nakashima."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google