Structural Finite Element Analysis of Stiffened and Honeycomb Panels of the RASAT Satellite

S. Onta,', S. Dag2, MI. Gokler3 'TUBITAK Space Technology and Research Institute, suat.ontacguzay.tubitak.gov.tr METU Campus, 06531, Ankara, TURKEY 2 Mechanical Engineering Department Middle East Technical University, sdaggmetu.edu.tr 0653 1, Ankara, TURKEY 3 Mechanical Engineering Department Middle East Technical University, goklergmetu.edu.tr 0653 1, Ankara, TURKEY

Abstract This paper describes the structural analysis carried out on the main stiffened and honeycomb panels of the RASAT satellite. The analysis here supports the design process and aims to ensure that the panels survive structural qualification testing. This analysis therefore forms part of the overall qualification process. The stiffened and honeycomb panels being considered in this document form the outer box structure of the satellite. These panels consist of the space-facing facet (SFF), solar panels including solar cells and earth facing facet (EFF). All these panels are key parts of the satellite's structure and are critical to mission safety. The separation panel is particularly highly loaded, since it supports the battery pack, reaction wheels, gyro module, magnetorquer rods and sun sensors. The separation panel also supports the solar panel assembly. The solar panels are also of critical importance, their integrity maintaining the required power supply to operate the satellite's electronic systems. As being different from the SFF and EFF, the solar panels are made of aluminum honeycomb panels. The solar panels are particularly sensitive, as they carry arrays of delicate ceramic solar cells together with their wiring. Throughout all loading conditions experienced during the mission, the solar panels must continue to support the solar cells without cell failures or wiring disconnections. The EFF is perhaps the least critical of the stiffened panels but still must support the top of the solar panel assembly and must carry various antennae. The main objective of this study is to assess the strength and vibration response properties of the stiffened and honeycomb panels by conducting static stress and modal analyses. For the case of static loading, the reliability can be estimated with great efficiency, whereas for dynamic loading the performance depends on the considered frequency range. The obtained results are very significant in that, they illustrate the feasibility of a full scale analysis for structural reliability in a design context for large-scale structures. The analyses are conducted by means of the finite element method. For the static case, the

SFF and EFF are meshed with hex elements and the honeycomb panels are meshed with solid brick and shell elements. For the calculated gRMS value the static analysis had been conducted in each axis of the panel assembly. For the dynamic case, the same finite element mesh and material properties had been used. In this case, the boundary conditions are applied in such a way to determine the mode shapes and the resonance frequencies. Furthermore, the stress values had been determined with respect to the applied static and dynamic loading cases. They had been compared with the allowable stress values of the materials. In this paper the complete finite element analyses procedures are described and the results of the analyses are presented. According to the computed results, some conclusions are drawn in order to guide experimental qualification tests.

I. INTRODUCTION The first step in the analysis is the preparation of solid models of the honeycomb and stiffened panels. For this purpose, CAD models of the panels are developed using a CAD software. Models for each of panels are created and at the end all of these panel models are assembled in order to demonstrate the whole satellite outer skin. In the modelling of honeycomb panels, the outer and inner skins of the honeycombs are modelled as a sheet and the core part is modeled as a solid. The space-facing facet and the earth-facing facet are modeled as solids. The whole assembly model is shown in the Figure 1. After completing solid modelling, the model was converted to a parasolid file and transferred to the finite element analysis software.

1-4244-1057-6/07/$25.00

)2007 IEEE.

171

The properties of SFF are given as: * * *

700 x 700 mm square panel 24 mm overall thickness Some parts of the inner side are emptied in order to decrease the weight and keep the stiffness

EFF specifications are as follows:

700 x 700 mmmsquare panel * 20 mm overall thickness p Some parts of the inner side are emptied in order to decrease the weight and keep the stiffness m cut-outs for Hi-Res Camera and main stack cooling purpose F

oft honeycombps ar end ThegpropertiAssemblysl o ne ma

ly panels of Fiurl1oAs:em stiffened od RASAT

by the 4 main honeycomb panels and 2 formedThe stiffened panels. panels shown in the figure represent only part of the whole-spacecraft FE model.
structure

Figure 2

shows a view of the FE model of the closed cube

II. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Each of the aluminum honeycomb and stiffened panels was investigated by analysing either all or part of a wholespacecraft model. This model included a stack configuration or representation that has been validated for various previous spacecraft FE models. It is important to characterise the stiffness of the stack assembly accurately as it governs the fundamental behaviour of the spacecraft as a whole.

The modelling methodology used for all honeycomb panels is as follows: The core material was represented by tetrahedron 3-D elements. For each panel, the two main outer surfaces(inner and outer skins) are meshed with 2-D shells. All nodes of the shell elements (representing the skins) and the tet elements (representing the core) were equivalenced. To characterise the behaviour of the aluminum honeycomb core material, a 3-D orthotropic material definition was used, as detailed later.
The properties of the honeycomb panels are given as follows:
* * * * *

Figure 2. Finite element model of honeycomb and stiffened panels of RASAT

III. MATERIALS

all panels have same outer envelope Grade 201 4A aluminum alloy is used for all honeycomb 700 mm top (EFF) edge length, 700 mm bottom panel skins. Elastic properties of this Aluminum alloy are given (SFF) edge length, 554 mm vertical edge length as 15 mm overall panel thickness 0.4 mm inner skin; 0.7 mm outer skin (solar cell elastic modulus, E =70000 MPa surface) thickness Poisson's ratio, v= 0.33 Y Solar Panels have elliptical cut-out (for Star density,; +1,pIr 280 Q1 )1 k/mm311

benchmark FE model tests have shown that, as long as the material model parameters give an appropriate disparity in the different axes, the precise value of each parameter makes relatively little difference to the analysis results. Thus, the individual parameter values are nominal. Given that axis 1 runs in the ribbon direction, axis 2 runs in the tangential direction and axis 3 is normal to the plane of the sheet of core material, the material parameters used are as follows:
Ell 10 MPa E22~ =lOMPa E33 1000 MPa
=

,S i

v12 =0
v23
=

&~1g149~o~75m

v3I 0 shear modulus, G12 1 MPa G23 = 220 MPa G3 1 = 440 MPa p = 83.3 kg/mm3 max allowable shear strain = 2.8 MPa (from data sheet)

|pnilt 52ss 5: 2kg-3fl0221,

Figure 3. Point masses on the SFF (Some solar panels and the EFF removed for clarity)

The SFF and EFF panel materials are grade 7075-T6 aluminum alloy. Its elastic isotropic properties are as follows:
elastic modulus, E =72000 MPa Poisson's ratio, v= 0.33 density, p 2 810 kg/mm3 minUTS ;570MPa
IV. LOADS

To investigate strength, a general loading approach has been followed in all FE modelling. The aim is to design to allow for the highest reasonably likely instantaneous inertial load experienced by the spacecraft, factored to qualification levels. For the launchers likely to be used, the qualification-level random vibration loading is the most severe, this being defined by a spectrum of 12 gRMS. A statistical study will show that five times this integrated level gives the highest likely instantaneous applied acceleration level (at the spacecraft, or subsystem, base) to 98% certainty. Therefore, all FE models are assessed for strength by applying a static inertial load of 60g in each axis separately. This value thus includes an effective margin of safety by virtue of the original random spectrum being factored for qualification levels. Also, considering that real failures take finite time to develop, applying a static inertial load to an FE model is more severe than the actual situation of occasional transient, momentary acceleration peaks. In order to represent the masses on the stiffened panels some point masses are located on the SFF and EFF. For instance on the SFF there are battery pack, torque bars, reaction wheels and some electronic module boxes. Similarly, on EFF there are some antennas which have some masses. All these point mass representations are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for the SFF and the EFF respectively,

mj9

Wiamfif

Figure 4. Point masses on the EFF

v. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The FE model of the spacecraft was analysed in different ways in order to understand the behaviour of the honeycomb and stiffened panels. The panels were analysed for modal frequencies and stress. With regard to the Solar Panels, results from the normal modes analysis were used to estimate likely peak strains in the outer skins.

static stress analyses are carried out. Normal modes and static stress analyses were also carried out for the Solar Panels. In this case only the cube structure formed by the four main honeycomb panels are analysed.

The behaviour of the SFF and EFF were determined by analysing the whole spacecraft model. Both normal modes and

173

1. Analysis of Stiffened Panels (EFF and SFF)

B. Stress Analysis The strength of the SFF was then investigated. Again, the whole spacecraft FE model was analysed with a static 60g inertial load in each of the x, y and z axes separately. For each of these three load cases, the Separation System fixing boundary conditions used above were retained, together with an inertial load in the appropriate direction.

The SFF and EFF were assessed by analysing the whole spacecraft model (including Separation System, Stack, Shear Panels and other equipment). Both normal modes and inertial stress were of interest. The SFF and EFF together must support the Solar Panel with enough stiffness to give a frequency which does not couple with the whole spacecraft. Then, in terms of strength, the SFF is the most critical in that it carries several heavy components, including the Battery Pack, Reaction Wheels, Torque Bars and some electronic modules. This panel must be strong enough not to fail under inertial loads arising from vibration and other loads.

The results of these three static stress analyses suggested a maximum local effective stress in the SFF of 161 Mpa as shown in Figure 6. This is much less than the available UTS of 570 MPa of the 7075-T6 aluminum material. As expected, this was near the Battery Pack and corresponds to the flexing of the corner of the panel predicted by the normal modes analysis. A. Normal Modes Analysis The EFF was considered next. For this panel, maximum Fixed boundary conditions were applied at nodes around the effective stress for any of the three inertial load cases was lower flange of the Separation System (launcher interface) at predicted to be 60 MPa.. This value suggests a clear strength twelve bolt locations, as shown in Figure 5. The whole margin for the EFF. spacecraft model was then run in normal modes. This analysis showed that the first mode involving the SFF was predicted to EquivaIleht (von-Mis6s)5tress be at a frequency of 86 Hz. This mode showed the Battery Max L6126+002 Pack causing that corner of the Separation Panel to flex. As the MihX 4:5236-002 corners of the Separation Panel are not constrained to the rest 161,241 143330 of the Spacecraft (i.e. the Solar Panels) and are thus free to 125419 bend like a cantilever, this mode was expected. However, the 107509 predicted 86 Hz is not likely to adversely couple with the first axial mode of the spacecraft as a whole, thus it is adequately separated in terms of frequency. No other SFF modes were causes for concern. Moving onto the EFF, this panel is not as -93f777 highly mass-loaded as the SFF and does not contribute so much
8 9

to the stiffness, and thus to the normal modes, of the spacecraft.

35,866

0,045

Figure 6. Von Mises Stress Distribution on the SFF

2.

Analysis of the Honeycomb Panels

Figure 5. Fixed Boundary Conditions at Seperation System Connection on the SFF side

The Honeycomb Panels were also analysed for both normal modes and static stress. For the purposes of these Solar Panel investigations, only part of the whole spacecraft model was examined. The closed box structure formed by the four main honeycomb panels, as shown in Figure 2, was considered. Most critical for the Solar Panels is the integrity of the solar cells bonded to the outer skins of all four panels. No loading environment should lead to the failure of any of the adhesive bonds, cause fracture of a solar cell or result in the damage to the associated wiring. Thus, neither should the panels

174

themselves fail and nor should solar cells or wiring become debonded or fail. These conditions are ensured by controlling vibration response and thus preventing excessive coupling which might otherwise cause large panel amplitudes and accelerations and thus displace solar cells. Solar cell security is also ensured by controlling maximum strain in the outer panel skins during vibration. Finally, stress in the Solar Panels arising from peak inertial forces should also be low enough not to cause failure of the panels.
A. Normal Modes Analysis

conditions as above were used, together with a 60g inertia load separately in each of the main axis directions. Experience at specraft design suggests that strength itself isn't a key issue with solar panels, this being supported by the FE results here. Maximum effective stress in the Solar Panel skins was predicted to be 34 MPa, well below the UTS of the 2014A aluminium alloy material. VI. CONCLUSIONS

The normal modes analyses also demonstrate that the Solar The first mode given by the analysis was ignored as it Panels have a safe first mode of 189 Hz, the+Y panel showing showed the four Solar Panels moving up and down as an the largest deflections. Using the results from this mode it is assembly on flexing SFF and EFF. No significant distortion in possible to estimate the peak strain in the outer skin of this key the Solar Panels themselves was shown. The second mode was panel. of more interest, showing the Solar Panels flexing. This mode Looking at the various stress analyses, all four honeycomb occurred at 189 Hz. Past experience of designing spacecraft suggests that this is an adequately high first solar panel mode, and stiffened panels were predicted to experience sufficiently avoiding the risk of dynamic coupling with the adjoining low effective stress and strain levels. Subjected to 60g inertial loads separately in the three axis directions, the SFF was structure of the craft. predicted to develop a maximum stress value of 161 MPa. The Next, other data from the results of this normal modes margin in the applied qualification-level loads guarantees analysis was used as a basis for estimating the peak strain additional factor of safety. The EFF is not as highly loaded and occurring in the Solar Panel skins during launch vibration. is shown to develop a peak effective stress of 60 MPa in the Inspecting the mode shape, the FE model showed the +Y Solar skins and a peak maximum shear stress in the core material of Panel to experience the most pronounced distortions and thus 15 MPa. These values are again satisfactory and show good strains. This was as expected, as this panel has a Star Camera margi of strength cut-out. Furthermore, the highest skin strain was shown to be at Finally, the analyses showed that the strength of the Solar the periphery of the Star Camera cut-out. Taking strain results the the strain Panels method was adequate with a very good margin as well. A peak calculation the and using analysis from th uing t he higmthet lelyss srain skinwas calculateon be predicted to be effective stress value anywhere in the skins highest likely strain in the skin was calculated to be 475 ptc. 34 MPa a This compared to a similar value of 474 gt which has successfully passed previously tested structural qualification REFERENCES models, where a partially populated solar panel survived
was

The normal modes analysis was used both to determine the natural modes and frequencies of the solar panels and to provide results for the estimation of Solar Panel skin strain. For this analysis of the honeycomb box structure, fixed boundary conditions were applied at locations on the SFF and EFF. These locations correspond to the points where the structure is connected to the rest of the spacecraft. Thus, twelve equally spaced groups of nodes around the upper flange of the Separation System PCD on the SFF were constrained in all six degrees of freedom. In addition, nodes on the EFF corresponding to the bolt locations around the square footprint Of the shear panels were constrained.

The analyses carried out by considering the four main aluminum honeycomb panels and two stiffened panels suggest that all panels are stiff enough to ensure adequately high modal frequencies to meet good design practice and also to avoid vibration coupling between the panels and the adjoining spacecraft structure. The SFF and EFF contribute to a suitably high first axial modal frequency of the BILSAT of 129 Hz, which may be useful for predicting RASAT first axial modal frequency. The results of the analyses presented in this paper also show that the first SFF mode is 86 Hz, where the heavy Battery Pack causes the free corner of the panel to flex. However, this mode will not adversely couple with the above first axial mode of the spacecraft.

vibration

suggests that skin strains will not be excessive and that the

testing with no problems. Therefore, that comparison

[1]

Maurice Petyt, "Introduction to finite element vibration analysis,"

panel.

solar cells or wiring will not fail or become debonded from the
ess a ys s

[2] Jimin He and Zhi-Fang Fu , "Modal analysis," Oxford; Boston

[3] http://www.matweb.com
[4]

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998, c1990.

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001

B. Stress Analysis

Technologies on Design Analysis G.M. Reese, R.V. Field, Jr., DJ. Sealman, "A Tutorial ~~~~~~~~~~~~~[5]
"The Fundamentals of Modal Testing," Agilent

box structure was again analysed. The same fixed boundary

expected inertia levels from vibration. The honeycomb panel

In the stress analysis, the solar panels are subjected to peak

for Random Vibration," Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM

[6] "Qualification Testing," Nasa Space Vehicle Design Criteria (Structures)

87185

175