Vibration Testing at University of Leicester SRC Jon Sykes Space Research Centre Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Leicester www.le.ac.uk 2010/2011 Flight Project Vibration Testing Project Description JWST MIRI Launch Date SRC Responsibility Delivering to Test Summary Infra-red Imager and 2015 Spectrometer for James Webb Space Telescope Mechanical/Structural Lead NASA via ESA Sine and Random. Force limited and acceleration limited with secondary notching. Instrument level and subassembly level testing. Minimise loads on mechanisms MIXS Imaging X-ray Spectrometer for Bepi-Columbo mission to Mercury 2014 Instrument Lead ESA via EADS Astrium Sine and Random. Acceleration limited and non-contact measurement. Minimise loads on optics Astrosat X Ray Telescope Focal Plane Camera 2011 Instrument Lead ISRO Sine and Random. Acceleration limited. Minimise loads on detector assembly XRD X Ray Diffraction Instrument For EXOMARS 2018 Detector Assembly ESA via Thales Alenia Space (Milan) Sine and Random. Press the button and stand back LMC Life Marker Chip Experiment for EXOMARS 2018 Instrument Lead Institute ESA via Thales Alenia Space (Torino) Sine and Random. Control strategy TBD. Instrument level and subassembly level testing. Minimise loads on – (TBD) Scope of Vibration Testing Activities • Interpretation of specification and derivation of subassembly design/test levels – Sine vibration – Random vibration – Shock – Quasi-static strength testing – Minimise conservatism across assembly levels where possible • Dynamic Analysis (Siemens NX 6, I-DEAS, export models for MSC NASTRAN Compatibility) – Sine response – Random response – Test predictions • Developing notched inputs to reduce conservatism • Demonstrating safety of tests with regard to upper and lower assembly levels – Model correlation/delivery • Damping, stiffness • Demonstrate correlation with test results for delivery of models to higher level • Test procedure/specification/responsibility – Test instrumentation – Test control strategy – Specification of test facilities – Test Director status – responsibility for irreplaceable hardware JWST Mid-Infrared Instrument • Instrument to fly on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) – NASA/ESAs largest and most complex joint astronomy project to date. Launch 2015. • SRC are lead mechanical engineers for this instrument – – Working with institutes and industry in 12 countries Mechanical design, analysis assembly and testing at instrument level • – – – Artist’s Impression of JWST Spacecraft SRC staff working at NASA Review of subassembly hardware design, analysis, testing Specification of subassembly test and hardware requirements Supervision of subassembly tests • • – Instrument testing completed October 2010 E.g. Carl Zeiss FM and QM mechanism tests, Oberkochen Notching to minimise mechanism/optics loads Represent instrument interests at higher asembly level • Support of NASA testing later in the year at Goddard Space Flight Center FM ‘Deck’ – Instrument Optical Bench SRC staff with FM at RAL MIRI Subassembly Mechanical Loads Environment – Reducing Conservatism With Force Limiting • Mechanical loads due to launch environment dominate structural design of most payloads – Mechanical test specifications derived from serial analysis campaigns through the assembly levels – Simplified models and data analysis • Margins applied at each assembly level by enveloping • Very conservative results in terms of load specifications – Test equipment/conventions add yet more conservatism • Result: – Over design of mass-critical payloads – Compromise of scientific performance – Over test of mission critical hardware – Unnecessary failures - delays, costs, panic... • Mitigation – Sensible derivation of loads. Mechanical loads derivation across the ‘hardware responsibility’ barriers. Trade off against management of interfaces. – Testing strategies to reduce conservatism • Force limiting, moment limiting, acceleration limiting Enveloping And Shaker Impedance Problems • Enveloping – Necessary to allow independent hardware development – Adds conservatism, especially if applied serially • FPM Random Max Fn (XYZ) 10 1 ASD (g2/Hz) 0.1 0.01 FPM_random_specification 12.2grms 0.001 FPM_Random_Max_Fn_ver2 MIRIM_Force_Limited_FPM_Env SMO_Force_Limited_FPM_env 0.0001 FPM_Spec_From_SA_level_31.2grms 0.00001 10 100 1000 Frequency • 10000 Example: JWST MIRI Focal Plane Module (FPM) random vibration loads – Derived for NASA-JPL from University of Leicester FE model and STM testing – Avoided extra assembly level – Used notched input loads at instrument interface – Minimise input at FPM resonant frequency ~700Hz – Order of magnitude improvement over serial analysis method Shaker Mechanical Impedance – – – Real payload structures absorb energy at resonance Real payload structures fail due to high amplitude responses at resonance Force limiting provides much improved representation of interface condition and reduces over testing JWST MIRI Analysis – Test Planning/Predictions • Determine Notch Criteria – Sine tests: • Primary notching for sine testing based upon limits derived by simultaneous application of Design Limit Loads (DLLs): – – – – Summed in-axis force limit CG acceleration backup limit Moment limits derived from out of axis forces Random tests: • Primary notching based on semi-empirical force limit – – • MIRI FE Model Based on semi-empirical effective mass method as documented by T. Scharton Secondary notching based upon subassembly test levels vs GSFC on ISIM predictions for random and acoustic tests. Notching approach validated by test predictions prior to testing – – – Respect subassembly test levels. Negotiate notch criteria or accept risk Ensure notching methods respect higher level requirements All reviewed and agreed Project/ESA/NASA prior to testing Predicted Notched Input Vs Test Data Respect Subassembly Levels and S/C levels JWST MIRI FM Vibration Test • Testing carried out 4-12 October 2010 at RAL, UK • Instrumentation – – – • 9 channels force measurement – (image shown is from STM/ETU test) – Control of test inputs – Mass properties 12 channels strain gauge measurement – (measurements between axes only) – Primary structure trending 51 accelerometer channels – Control of test inputs, limits, environments University of Leicester – Test Director Role – Test Observers • MIRI UK Project • ESA • NASA GSFC • Outcome – – – – – Successful application of all test levels Secondary notching negotiated and agreed on the spot with ESA GSFC - subassembly levels all respected All health checks nominal MIRI Instrument qualified to fly on JWST, huge project milestone on a huge project End of 7 years of design, analysis, documentation, argument, negotiation, testing Non-contact instrumentation – Laser Vibrometry 1st resonant frequency – carrier frame. Measure frequency 1544 Hz, FEA predicted frequency 1320Hz 2nd resonant frequency – MCP optic • • • • • • Measured frequency 2394 Hz FEA predicted frequency 2133Hz. Used for MIXS optics characterisation White noise excitation Scanning laser vibrometer Mapping of mode shapes Correlation with model predictions Many applications for sensitive and low mass items Summary of SRC Approach to Vibration Testing • Avoiding excessive conservatism in load specifications – – • Get early agreement on test control approach (ESA, NASA, ISRO, etc......) – • – – SRC analysts perform full sine and random vibration analysis ‘test simulations’. Notching (to some extent) can compensate for unknowns such as damping Allows design to benefit from less severe loads, therefore improving performance and/or reducing mass Test predictions and model correlation studies Model deliveries to Agency and Industry specifications (e.g. EADS Astrium, Thales Alenia Space) Use force limiting as notching approach during vibration test – – – • UoL has established excellent working relationships with these partners • Through projects such as JWST MIRI, Bepi Columbo, EXOMARS, Astrosat • Through participation in ESA workshops and studies (e.g. Improvement of Force Limited Vibration Testing study) Extensive use of FE response analysis – – – • Sensible approach to subassembly load derivations Clear management of subassembly interfaces with test strategy in mind Specify automatic notching where possible (may be test facility dependent) Take advantage of semi-empirical force limit approach to reduce test responses Negotiation/development with test facility may be required (instrumentation, data acquisition, data formats) Use of non-contact instrumentation becoming more relevant (e.g. MIXS optics, detector assemblies) End