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

Study of Dust Detection System on a Micro Satellite

Space Systems Dynamics Laboratory

M2 Kyohei Nakashima

2

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

3

Objective

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

4

Background

Space weather forecast is necessary because space disasters threaten human space activities. Space disasters

Magnetic storm High energy particles

radiation Space debris

Sunflares

Space debris

Radiation

Earth

Magnetic storm

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

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

Acoustic Emission Method

Impact position can be detected by solving the following equations.

iei

iiii

tvRR

zyxR

czbyaxR

0

2220

222

S(x, y, z): Impact position

Ti(ai, bi, ci): i th AE sensor position

ve: Wave velocity

ti: Arrival time of a wave at i th AE sensor

z

x

y

S(x, y, z)

T0(a0, b0, c0)

T1(a1, b1, c1)

Ti(ai, bi, ci)

TN(aN, bN, cN)

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

Experiments Free fall

type of panel dimensions（mm) projectile

Aluminum alloy panel（ A 5052） 150×160×5

A 2017φ1 mm1.4 mg

CFRP layered panel（ 0/90， 4 ply） 150×150×0.8

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel 150×150×12

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets 150×150×10.8

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

Experiments

Results of experiments by free fall

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-50 -30 -10 10 30 50

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ude(V)

AE No.1AE No.2AE No.3AE No.4

Aluminum alloy panel CFRP layered panel

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ude (

V)


11

Experiments

Results of experiments by free fall

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-50 -30 -10 10 30 50

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ude (

V)


Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-150 -130 -110 -90 -70 -50

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ude (

V)


12

Experiments Gas gun

type of panel dimensions（mm) projectile

Aluminum alloy panel（ A 5052） 400×200×5

A 2017φ3.175 mm

45 mg

CFRP layered panel（ 0/90， 4 ply） 400×200×0.8

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel 400×200×12

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheets 400×200×10.8

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*103 Pa

13

Experiments Results of experiments by a gas gun

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ud

e(V

)


-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ude (

V)


Aluminum alloy panel CFRP layered panel

14

Experiments

Results of experiments by a gas gun

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Time(μs)

Am

plit

ude (

V)


-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Time(μs)

Am

plitu

de (

V)




15

Results compared real impact position with predicted impact

position on experiments by free fall

Real Impact Position Calculated Impact Position Errors

x(mm) y(mm) x(mm) y(mm) Δx(mm) Δy(mm)

0 0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0

10 0 22.3 -5.2 12.3 5.2

20 0 26.7 -2.8 6.7 2.8

30 0 35.9 -1.6 5.9 1.6

40 0 42.4 -1.0 2.4 1.0

50 0 64.5 -0.6 14.5 0.6

-10 0 -0.4 0.5 9.6 0.5

-20 0 -22.5 1.4 2.5 1.4

-30 0 -30.9 2.1 0.9 2.1

-40 0 -46.7 -3.0 6.7 3.0

-50 0 -62.9 -2.5 12.9 2.5

-60 0 -66.6 -0.6 6.6 0.6

Aluminum alloy panel

Average of errors 6.8 1.8

Standard deviation 4.5 1.4

16


position on experiments by free fallReal Impact Position Calculated Impact Position Errors


0 0 2.1 0.6 2.1 0.6

10 0 3.1 0.3 6.9 0.3

20 0 18.4 1.1 1.6 1.1

30 0 24.7 -11.5 5.3 11.5

40 0 41.5 3.2 1.5 3.2

50 0 61.2 -0.3 11.2 0.3

-10 0 -2.7 -0.2 7.3 0.2

-20 0 -4.9 -2.1 15.1 2.1

-30 0 -44.6 4.3 14.6 4.3

-40 0 -51.8 -3.6 11.8 3.6

-50 0 -62.1 -3.4 12.1 3.4

-60 0 -79.2 5.5 19.2 5.5

CFRP layered panel



17


position on experiments by free fall



0 0 0.5 -0.4 0.5 0.4

10 0 11.0 8.8 1.0 8.8

20 0 17.8 4.0 2.2 4.0

30 0 32.0 -1.2 2.0 1.2

40 0 29.8 0.9 10.2 0.9

50 0 33.3 -2.3 16.7 2.3

-10 0 -3.7 -3.1 6.3 3.1

-20 0 -27.4 -5.8 7.4 5.8

-30 0 -17.9 -2.1 12.1 2.1

-40 0 -44.0 6.9 4.0 6.9

-50 0 -41.3 2.9 8.7 2.9

-60 0 -70.3 11.4 10.3 11.4




18

Results

compared real impact position with predicted impact position on experiments by free fall



0 0 0.0 -1.9 0.0 1.9

10 0 0.8 -1.5 9.2 1.5

20 0 26.1 -2.6 6.1 2.6

30 0 29.2 -1.3 0.8 1.3

40 0 35.5 -1.3 4.5 1.3

50 0 61.6 -2.0 11.6 2.0

-10 0 -0.2 -1.9 9.8 1.9

-20 0 -11.7 -2.4 8.3 2.4

-30 0 -25.6 -3.3 4.4 3.3

-40 0 -37.9 -1.8 2.1 1.8

-50 0 -39.1 -9.9 10.9 9.9

-60 0 -53.9 7.7 6.1 7.7




19

Results Compared real impact position with predicted impact position

on experiments by a gas gun

Real Impact Position Predicted Impact Position Errors


-4.9 13.9 0.2 0.0 5.1 13.9

53.8 24.0 56.6 40.5 2.8 16.5



9.4 -8.2 0.0 -0.1 9.4 8.1

-14.0 8.1 0.0 0.1 14.0 8.0

Aluminum alloy panel

CFRP layered panel

Average of Errors 　 4.0 　 15.2


20

Results Compared real impact position with predicted impact position

on experiments by a gas gun



-56.6 3.6 -3.2 12.4 53.4 8.8

36.1 -4.1 2.5 -3.3 33.5 0.8



-7.8 14.6 -0.6 4.0 7.2 10.6




21

Results

Aluminum alloy panelError- 5.7 % of the distance of sensors

CFRP layered panelError- 8.4 % of the distance of sensors

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panelError- 5.7 % of the distance of sensors

Aluminum honeycomb sandwich panel with CFRP face sheetsError- 7.6 % of the distance of sensors

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.

Documents

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