43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Con 22-25 April 2002, Denver, Colorado

AIAA-2002-1262 AIAA 2002-1262

A COUNTER-INTUITIVE CONDITION FOR THE WRAP REINFORCEMENT OF ALUMINUM-RIGIDIZED TUBES

G. Greschik , L. Lichodziejewski , and G. Veal Center for Aerospace Structures University of Colorado, Boulder, CO and LGarde, Inc., Tustin, CA

Abstract An attractive and straightforward means to improve the deployment characteristics and the performance of aluminum-rigidized tubes is hoop reinforcement via chord (lament) wound onto the tube. This wrap, among other advantages, (a) may prevent the unduly domination of aluminum laminate plastication during rigidization by the hoop stresses and (b) may continue to stiffen the tube wall after rigidization for improved structural performance. While the advantages of the lament wrap during the rigidization are obvious and easily demonstrable, its contribution to the performance of the deployed strut are not well understood. One of the many details on which this contribution critically depends, the elasto-plastic interaction between the aluminum laminate wall and the reinforcing wrap, is in the focus of the present paper. In particular, it is shown via a simple model that this interaction plays a critical role in dening whether the wrap can directly contribute to the deployed performance at all. A counter-intuitive conclusion of the study is that an unduly high lament stiffness can effectively eliminate any direct reinforcing effect of the rigidized tube by the wrap if certain additional conditions apply. This work complements a paper by Lichodziejewski et al. which summarizes practical and experimental aspects of the technology 1 . Nomenclature

()

()

internal pressure pressure parameters equivalent internal pressures on the tube wall & reinforcement tube radius, wall thickness the load and load step ratios reference to reinforcement change of ... Introduction

The aluminum-laminate rigidization of struts Aluminum laminate rigidization is the oldest and most mature space structural rigidization technique for lightly loaded structures. Its ight track record spans nearly four decades, from the historic Echo project 2 in the 1960s to recent applications such as the Air Force optical calibration sphere 1 , 2000. The technology relies on the elasto-plastic and hardening characteristics of annealed aluminum, laminated in thin layers into the wall of the inated structure. During deployment, the structure is over-pressurized to yield the aluminum which, as a result of this decisive excursion into the plastic domain of response, largely forgets storage creases and also strain-hardens. Depressurization then leaves the material in a state of elastic rebound smooth and associated with effective elastic stiffnesses (Youngs and shear moduli) that are consistently and robustly maintained under minor loads.

Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio wrap chord diameter, cr.s. area, & pitch wrap-equivalent tube wall thickness stress, strain yield stress and strain elastic & plastic tube wall strains

Research Associate, University of Colorado. Consultant for LGarde on thin lm- and R/I space structures. Member AIAA. greschik@colorado.edu Engineer, Member AIAA. Vice Pres. of Operations, Member AIAA.

Copyright c 2002 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2002 by the author(s). Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

dense wrap

sparse wrap r = ravg

model

/ 2
p

/ 2
x

p p

p p

p p

Fig. 1: Axial and hoop stresses in an inated cylinder.

effective plastification & elastic rebound in the hoop direction for the Al laminate: P P P E =r/r p = P+Pr E =r/r E =r/r

longitudinal crease lateral crease

P: portion of pressure p supported by the laminate wall Pr : ... supp. by the reinforcement

Fig. 3: Elasto-plastic response in the aluminum laminate as a function of wrap density (spiral pitch tightness).

inflation
Fig. 2: Longitudinal and lateral fold lines.

However, the stresses and the plastic straining in a laminated wall effected by pressure are fundamentally dened by the shape of the pressurized structural component. An isotropic planar stress state is always achieved in the wall of a sphere, while the wall of a strut (a cylinder) is bound to experiences hoop stresses twice the axial ones, Fig. 1. As a result, the local plastication mechanism within the wall of a simple aluminized strut is everywhere restricted to the plane of the cross section 3 . Thus the tube wall is not ironed out axially: axial local imperfections such as those associated with lateral stowage folds, Fig. 2, are only alleviated indirectly, rather than eliminated. Increasing the pressure is not an effective remedy to this problem and it may lead to over-stressing in the hoop direction, possibly even bursting the tube. Hoop reinforcement with chord wrap A straightforward solution to the deleterious effects of the wall load imbalance described above is to eliminate this imbalance by hoop reinforcement by simply wrapping the strut with a chord of sufcient stiffness. (Note that the imbalance of the resultant wall membrane forces, dened by the tube geometry and pressure, cannot be altered. It is the loads experienced by the aluminized laminate that are lessened by reinforcement that assists the laminate in 2

bearing the loads.) If the wrap stiffness achieves roughly the same amount of plastication in the tube wall in both the hoop and the axial directions, the benets of reinforcement during rigidization are clearly demonstrated and include 1 an increased margin of safety against catastrophic failure from over-pressurization, the equally effective elimination of both lateral and longitudinal creases and stowage folds, improved strut straightness, and improved cross section shape (less ovality). By improving the geometry, the last three of these effects all indirectly contribute to improved strut performance as well. However, the reinforcements direct contribution to the performance of the deployed strut by improving hoop stiffness and, consequently, local buckling resistance, may or may not materialize as discussed later. Dense and sparse wraps Depending on how tightly the lament is wound on the tube, we shall distinguish in the following between dense and sparse wraps. In particular, we shall refer to a wrap as dense if the laments are spaced tightly enough to prevent the aluminized wall from developing inelastic bulges between the chords, while we shall call it sparse otherwise. This distinction is illustrated in Fig. 3. The gure also characterizes the nature of tube wall response via qualitative load-deformation curves that di with laminate hoop rectly relate hoop strain

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

loads. Strain is expressed, as indicated in the gure, in an average sense in order to render it applicable also to sparse wraps where the hoop strain repetitively varies with the tube radius. The lamina hoop loads are grasped via the portion of the total pressure effectively supported by the laminate wall. For a dense wrap, the load-deformation curve is (nearly) proportional to the unidirectional stress-strain curve of the lamina aluminum. (A coefcient between the two could be calculated from the tube geometry and considerations of plasticity.) The hoop response under the sparse wrap, on the other hand, involves complex nonlinearities due to the inelastic bulging of the laminate wall (the Michelin Man effect ) and, as a result, is far from proportional to the material response itself. However, the unloading branch of the response curve is still characterized with the same rebound modulus as for a dense wrap. Because the simple model used in the analysis below does not take into account the ascending load path but, instead, focuses on the rebound and its vicinity, the model shown on the right side of Fig. 3 will be used for both dense and sparse wraps. Notice that the reinforcing laments are replaced in this model with an equivalent layer (bold line). From the reinforcing chord cross sections and spacing (pitch) , the thickness of this layer could be calculated as

A
wrap in stowage

A
wrap on the deployed cr. section for a stiff bond, a wrap of realistic properties could not spread out evenly ("humps" at folds could only be reduced via extreme local tube wall yielding)

Fig. 4: Bond shear stiffness vs. uniform laminate plastication (chord diameter highly exaggerated). tube is a direct conict between bond quality and the obvious need to uniformly plastify the aluminum laminate around the entire tube circumference. This conict is illuminated in Fig. 4, where deployment from the stowed state is shown. During deployment, the attened cross section in which all circumferential curvature is concentrated to the two stowage folds, acquires a circular shape where the circumferential curvature is evenly distributed. The wrap cannot follow this transition unless either (a) its thickness and offset from the tube wall midsurface are negligible, (b) it is very soft, (c) the aluminum laminate yields unevenly, or (d) the tube-lament bond is shear-compliant. The most realistic and acceptable of these possibilities is the last one, which precludes quality (stiff) bonding. A visual summary To visually introduce and illuminate the key point of the derivation to follow, consider the ( 0 through 3) states of the rigidization cycle as shown in Fig. 5. State 0 is the initial condition, 1 is when full compressive contact has already developed between tube wall and wrap, 2 is at maximum pressure, and 3 is when the depressurization completes. The radii of the tube and the reinforcing wrap are and , while denotes the gap between a gap which is assumed to be zero when full compression is established between the two, but which is generally a (small) positive value before rigidization begins due to bond thickness, bond compliance, and a slight wrap slackness (necessary to prevent with condence the wrap from collapsing the at cross section before pressurization). Note that the gap decreases to zero when State 1 is reached, remains zero during further pressurization, but

Analysis

(1)

A fundamental assumption to be exploited below relates to the interaction of the wrap laments and the tube wall. In particular, it is assumed that the wrap can effectively stiffen the tube only if the two are in compressive contact. (Given that the chord is wrapped on the tube exterior, this condition means tension in the chord and compression in the tube wall.) This assumption can be supported with two arguments neither necessarily true for all, but either potentially characteristic to many lament bonding techniques and material choices. First, compression across the bond may be needed for a bond shear stiffness sufcient to properly integrate lament and tube. Second, compression (or, lack of tension) in the chord may slacken it locally or around the entire strut circumference to completely eliminate its effective stiffness. These two arguments can be defended even in light of the obvious fact that fabrication techniques are available for quality bonding between lamina and lament, even if the latter is under compression. What renders the state of the art in bonding technology irrelevant for the wrapped 3

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

State rr

the plastic strain

(6)

p=0

p1 p1

p2 p2

p=0

Now consider what happens when the pressure is lowered. Depressurization means a negative pressure incre, which corresponds to elastic rebound ment an entirely elastic response both for the tube wall and, of course, for the wrap as well. The corresponding pressure parameter changes are

achieving full contact

tube wall rigidization

depressurization

(7)

(8)

Fig. 5: The rigidization cycle. it may return to a positive value after depressurization. Whether this happens depends on the elastic rebound of both the wrap and the tube wall. If the former rebounds less, a positive gap appears (this physically means slack wrap or bond separation), and the structural integration of tube with wrap severely deteriorates. The wrap no longer functions as a structural element, and the rigidized tube is no longer stiffened by the wrap. The conditions for this scenario are examined next in the simplied context of the hoop stresses alone, ignoring the elastic and elasto-plastic effects of the axial stresses. The high stiffness paradox Consider State 2 the state of maximum pressure as the starting point of the analysis and let all load, pressure, stress, and strain variables refer to this state by default. As in Fig. 3, we shall characterize the load-bearing states of the tube wall and the reinforcement via the pressure parameters and (dened as the portions of the internal pressure supported by each component). As the wall and wrap together withstand the actual physical pressure , the relations

If State 3 is reached (depressurization completes), then the pressure decrement cancels out the maximum pressure in State 2:

(9)

Further, kinematic compatibility (zero gap,

) entails
(10)

To satisfy the need for tension in the wrap for compressive contact with the tube wall (a condition for the structural integration of the wrap with the tube wall as spelled out above), the reinforcement pressure parameter in State 3 should remain nonnegative

(11)

This condition, in light of the previously listed relations, necessitates

(12)

The wrap Youngs modulus must be less than the ratio of the wrap stress to the tube wall elastic strain. Re-arrangement gives the equivalent form

(2) (3)

(13)

unconditionally hold ( denotes change). Recall that State 2 corresponds to the maximum pressure: the greatest excursion into the plastic domain of response for the tube wall. The associated stress in the tube wall is naturally above the material yield stress and one can write

(4) (5)

where and are the wall and reinforcement Youngs moduli, and are the wall and reinforcement stresses, and is the wall elastic strain the total strain less 4

which states that the (elastic) strain in the reinforcement must be greater that the elastic (recoverable) strain in the tube wall. This inequality is the symbolic form of the condition stated verbally at the end of the previous section, namely, that the elastic rebound of the wrap should not be less than that of the aluminum laminate tube wall. A counterintuitive aspect of Eq. 12 (by virtue of which Eq. 12 is herein called the high stiffness paradox ) is that it limits the reinforcement Youngs modulus . In other words: it shows that if the wrap is too stiff (with respect to certain forces and strains achieved during pressurization), it is prevented from contributing to the performance of the deployed tube.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Deployment & rigidization states: 0 1 2 rr s0 r r

s>0 3

a b c

slack wrap s=0 zero force s=0

rigidization

taut wrap

Fig. 6: Variation of during the rigidization cycle. Certain practical aspects of the high stiffness paradox are qualitatively examined next. Practical considerations For an insight into how an (overly) high stiffness of the lament wrap may prevent the wrap from gripping the tube wall after depressurization, visualize the rigidization cycle in terms of the variations of the effective tube wall and wrap radii, Fig. 6. (This gure offers a perspective similar to Fig. 5, except it puts more emphasis on depicting the actual processes involved.) The tube wall and wrap radii in Fig. 6 are plotted over the process axis, where the four states of the rigidization cycle (0 through 3) discussed earlier are highlighted. The three possible outcomes for the depressurization, a, b, and c at State 3 entail the following: Outcome a. The wrap rebounds less than the tube wall: . The compressive contact between the two is lost, the reinforcement fails to contribute to the stiffness of the deployed strut. Outcome b. Limit state between a and c. Outcome c. Compressive contact between the wrap and the tube wall is maintained, the two work together in the deployed state. How may an overly high wrap stiffness lead to Outcome a? Intuitive answers to this question arise from examining some characteristic features of Fig. 6. First, observe that Outcome a is realized if the tube wall after elastic rebound is not in the way of the rebounding wrap. Therefore, any affect that lowers the tube rebound radius works towards decoupling the wrap from the tube after depressurization. As predicted by the high stiffness paradox, one possible means to limit tube rebound radius is high lament wrap stiffness. This stiffness can limit tube wall deformations once the tube is in full compressive contact with the 5

wrap ( ) to any extent, thus preventing the tube rebound radius from increasing beyond . Of course, the tube wall must still plastify for this scenario to be technologically relevant. This plastication can be guaranteed by a sufciently large initial gap , or by the use of a sparse wrap where plastication is realized via the inelastic bulging of the aluminum laminate between the wrap chords. This bulging results in full effective plastication with a healthy rebound even in the absence of a physical initial gap. Note also that the case of a sparse wrap is special because the ribs formed on the aluminum laminate wall directly affect strut performance themselves. These ribs, via their doubly curved surfaces generally improve local buckling performance by (a) stiffening the wall in the hoop direction and (b) spoiling the classic diamond local buckling pattern. At the same time, they also degrade the global buckling performance of the strut because their circumferential pattern softens the boom wall in the axial direction. As a result of these two, combined yet conicting, effects, overall strut performance may actually increase even if the laments cannot directly contribute to the wall stiffness. The functional role of an initial gap in permitting wall plastication before the wall deformations are arrested by high wrap stiffness need not be played by an actual gap. Gap functionality can also be provided by a soft nonlinear reinforcing chord response for low loads (if chord stiffness dramatically increases when tension develops in the wrap), a compliant bond, or a wrap chord cross section that gently attens before it starts to work. Certain kinds of wrap nonlinearities (e.g., hysteresis) can also contribute, by increasing the wrap rebound radius , to the decoupling of wrap from tube wall after depressurization, Conclusions Insight into the complex mechanics of interaction between chord wrap and aluminum laminate tube wall has been provided. It has been shown that, while the benets of wrap reinforcement to improve the rigidization process itself are straightforward, its contributions to the performance of the deployed strut are subject to a complex trade-off. Among the details that play a critical role in this trade-off are wrap-tube bond characteristics, wrap geometry (separation [by the bond] from the tube wall, chord cross section, helical pitch, etc.), nonlinear wrap response under near-zero loads, and wrap and wall stiffnesses. Via a simple analysis of elastic rebound, it has been shown that overly high wrap stiffness may actually im-

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

pede the effective integration of the chords with the tube wall after depressurization, thereby preventing the wrap from improving strut performance. The conditions that may individually activate this seemingly paradox situation include separation between the chord centerline and the tube surface before rigidization, wrap bond compressive compliance, compressive compliance of the lament cross sections when pressed against the tube wall by pressurization, soft response in the laments for low loads, chord response hysteresis, and the use of sparse wrap. Some of these conditions may be inevitable in the contexts of particular wrapping techniques and materials. It has also been noted that, if a sparse wrap is used, the ribs formed on the tube surface during rigidization generally improve local, while degrade global, buckling performance. As a result, overall strut performance may increase even if the laments cannot directly contribute to the wall stiffness by some combination of the conditions spelled out above. To examine and quantify the practical signicance of the discussed paradox for particular types of hardware (such as those discussed in the companion paper 1 ), a study and test program to explore details (including bond properties) would be needed. Such an effort is beyond the scope of this paper, which intends only to call attention to (a) the complexity of wrapped strut performance trade-offs and (b) the possibility that extreme wrap stiffnesses may be counter-productive in improving strut performance. Acknowledgments The work reported herein was supported by LGarde, Inc. References [1] L. Lichodziejewski, G. Veal, and B. Derbes. Spiral wrapped aluminum laminate rigidization technology. The 43rd Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Adaptive Structures Forum, and Gossamer Spacecraft Forum , Denver, CO, April 22 25 2002. AIAA. Paper AIAA-2002-1701. [2] Elder Donald C. Out From Behind the Eight-Ball: A History of Project Echo, Volume 16 of the AAS History Series. American Astronautical Society, AAS Publication Ofce, P.O. Box 28130, Dan Diego, CA 92198, rst edition, 1995.

[3] G. Greschik and M. M. Martin. Imperfections and stowage creases in aluminum-rigidized inated cylinders. The 35th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, April 15 17 1996. AIAA. Paper AIAA 96-1332.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics