Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Interface correction”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

470 records · Page 27

The Pursuit of K: Reflections on the Current State-of-the-Art in Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Practical Aerospace Applications

The elastic stress intensity factor (SIF, commonly denoted as K) is the foundation of practical fracture mechanics (FM) analysis for aircraft structures. This single parameter describes the first-order effects of stress magnitude and distribution as well as the geometry of both structure/component and crack. Hence, the calculation of K is often the most significant step in fatigue analysis based on FM. This presentation will provide several reflections on the current state-of-the-art in SIF solution methods used for practical aerospace applications, including a brief historical perspective, descriptions of some recent and ongoing advances, and comments on some remaining challenges. Newman and Raju made significant early contributions to practical structural analysis by developing closed-form SIF equations for surface and corner cracks in simplified geometries, often based on empirical fits of finite element (FE) solutions. Those solutions (and others like them) were sometimes revised as new analyses were conducted or limitations discovered. The foundational solutions have exhibited striking longevity, despite the relatively "coarse" FE models employed many decades ago. However, in recent years, the accumulation of different generations of solutions for the same nominal geometry has led to some confusion (which solution is correct?), and steady increases in computational capabilities have facilitated the discovery of inaccuracies in some (not all!) of the legacy solutions. Some examples of problems and solutions are presented and discussed, including the challenge of maintaining consistency with legacy design applications. As computational power has increased, the prospect of calculating large numbers of SIF solutions for specific complex geometries with advanced numerical methods has grown more attractive. Fawaz and Andersson, for example, have been generating literally millions of new SIF solutions for different combinations of multiple cracks under simplified loading schemes using p-version FE methods. These data are invaluable, but questions remain about their practical use, because the tabular databases of key results needed to support practical life analysis can occupy gigabytes of storage for only a few classes of geometries. The prospect of using such advanced numerical methods to calculate in real time only those K solutions actually needed to support a specific crack growth analysis is also tempting, but the stark reality is that the computational cost is still so high that the approach is not practical except for specific, critical application problems. Some thoughts are offered about alternative paradigms. Compounding approaches are some of the earliest building blocks of SIF development for more complex geometries. These approaches are especially attractive because of their very low computational cost and their conceptual robustness; they are, in some ways, an intriguing contrast and complement to the brute-force numerical methods. In recent years, researchers at NRC-Canada have published remarkable results showing how compounding approaches can be used to generate accurate solutions for very difficult problems. Examples are provided of some successes--and some limitations--using this approach. These closed-form, tabulated numerical, and compounding approaches have typically been used for simple remote loading with simple load paths to the crack. However, many significant cracks occur in complex stress gradient fields. This is a job for weight function (WF) methods, where the arbitrary stress distribution on the crack plane in the corresponding uncracked body (typically determined using FE methods) is used to determine K. Several significant recent advances in WF methods and solutions are highlighted here. Fueled by advanced 3D numerical methods, many new solutions have been generated for classic geometries such as surface and corner cracks with wide ranges of geometrical validity. A new WF formulation has also be developed for part-through cracks considering the arbitrary stress gradients in all directions in the crack plane (so-called bivariant solutions). Basic WF methods have recently been combined with analytical expressions for crack plane stresses to develop a large family of accurate SIF solutions for corner, surface, and through cracks at internal or external notches with very wide ranges of shapes, sizes, acuities, and offsets. Finally, WF solutions are much faster than FE or boundary element solutions, but can still be much slower than simple closed-form solutions, especially for bivariant solutions that can require 2D numerical integration. Novel pre-integration and dynamic tabular methods have been developed that substantially increase the speed of these advanced WF solutions. The practical utility of advanced SIF methods, including both WF and direct numerical methods, is greatly enhanced if the FM life analysis can be directly and efficiently linked with digital models of the actual structure or component (e.g., FE models for stress analysis). Two recent advances of this type will be described. One approach directly interfaces the FM life analysis with the FE model of the uncracked component (including stress results). Through a powerful graphical user interface, simplified FM life models can be constructed (and visualized) directly on the component model, with the computer collecting the geometry and stress gradient information needed for the life calculation. An even more powerful paradigm uses expert logic to automatically build an optimum simple fracture model at any and every desired location in the component model, perform the life calculation, and even generate fatigue crack growth life contour maps, all with minimal user intervention. This paradigm has also been extended to the automatic calculation of fracture risk, considering uncertainty or variability in key input parameters such as initial crack size or location. Another new integrated approach links the engineering life analysis, the component model, and a 3D numerical fracture analysis built with the same component model to generate a table of SIF values at a specific location that can then be employed efficiently to perform the life calculation. Some attention must be given to verification and validation (V&V) issues and challenges: how good are these SIF solutions, how good is good enough, and does anyone believe the life answer? It is important to think critically about the different sources of error or uncertainty and to perform V&V in a hierarchal, building-block manner. Some accuracy issues for SIF solutions, for example, may actually involve independent material behavior issues, such as constraint loss effects for crack fronts near component surfaces, and can be a source of confusion. Recommendations are proposed for improved V&V approaches. This presentation will briefly but critically survey the range of issues and advances mentioned above, with a particular view towards assembling an integrated approach that combines different methods to create practical tools for real-world design and analysis problems. Examples will be selectively drawn from the recent literature, from recent enhancements in the NASGRO and DARWIN computer codes, and from previously unpublished research

CraigMcClung, R.↗

Solar Dynamics Observatory Guidance, Navigation, and Control System Overview

The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) was designed and built at the Goddard Space Flight Center, launched from Cape Canaveral on February 11, 2010, and reached its final geosynchronous science orbit on March 16, 2010. The purpose of SDO is to observe the Sun and continuously relay data to a dedicated ground station. SDO remains Sun-pointing throughout most of its mission for the instruments to take measurements of the Sun. The SDO attitude control system (ACS) is a single-fault tolerant design. Its fully redundant attitude sensor complement includes sixteen coarse Sun sensors (CSSs), a digital Sun sensor (DSS), three two-axis inertial reference units (IRUs), and two star trackers (STs). The ACS also makes use of the four guide telescopes included as a part of one of the science instruments. Attitude actuation is performed using four reaction wheels assemblies (RWAs) and eight thrusters, with a single main engine used to provide velocity-change thrust for orbit raising. The attitude control software has five nominal control modes, three wheel-based modes and two thruster-based modes. A wheel-based Safehold running in the attitude control electronics box improves the robustness of the system as a whole. All six modes are designed on the same basic proportional-integral-derivative attitude error structure, with more robust modes setting their integral gains to zero. This paper details the final overall design of the SDO guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) system and how it was used in practice during SDO launch, commissioning, and nominal operations. This overview will include the ACS control modes, attitude determination and sensor calibration, the high gain antenna (HGA) calibration, and jitter mitigation operation. The Solar Dynamics Observatory mission is part of the NASA Living With a Star program, which seeks to understand the changing Sun and its effects on the Solar System, life, and society. To this end, the SDO spacecraft carries three Sun-observing instruments: Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI), led by Stanford University; Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), led by Lockheed Martin Space and Astrophysics Laboratory; and Extreme Ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE), led by the University of Colorado. The basic mission is to observe the Sun for a very high percentage of the 5-year mission (10-year goal) with long stretches of uninterrupted observations and with constant, high-data-rate transmission to a dedicated ground station to be located in White Sands, New Mexico. These goals guided the design of the spacecraft bus that will carry and service the three-instrument payload. Overarching design goals for the bus are geosynchronous orbit, near-constant Sun observations with the ability to fly through eclipses, and constant HGA contact with the dedicated ground station. A three-axis stabilized ACS is needed both to point at the Sun accurately and to keep the roll about the Sun vector correctly positioned with respect to the solar north pole. This roll control is especially important for the magnetic field imaging of HM I. The mission requirements have several general impacts on the ACS design. Both the AIA and HMI instruments are very sensitive to the blurring caused by jitter. Each has an image stabilization system (ISS) with some ability to filter out high frequency motion, but below the bandwidth of the ISS the control system must compensate for disturbances within the ACS bandwidth or avoid exciting jitter at higher frequencies. Within the ACS bandwidth, the control requirement imposed by AIA is to place the center of the solar disk no more than 2 arc sec, 3 , from a body-defined target based on one of the GTs that accompany the instrument. This body-defined target, called the science reference boresight (SRB), was determined from the postlaunch orientation of the GTs by averaging the bounding telescope boresights for pitch to get a pitch SRB coordinate, and by averaging the bounding boresights for yaw toet the yaw SRB coordinate. The location of this SRB in the 0.5-deg field-of-view for each GT then becomes the central target for each telescope; one GT is selected for use as the ACS controlling guide telescope (CGT) at any given time. Fine Sun-pointing is effected based on this SRB for all three instruments when the Sun is within the linear range of the CGT. In addition to limiting jitter, HMI science requires averaging several observations, making the instrument sensitive to low frequency motion that induces differential motion between each observation. This requires the spacecraft attitude to be stable about the roll axis to approximately 10 arcsec over a ten-minute period. Instrument calibrations require that the spacecraft point the SRB up to 2.5 degrees in pitch and yaw away from the center of the Sun, placing the Sun outside the field-of-view of the guide telescopes. In such instances, when the GTs cannot provide the definitive target for the ACS, on-board attitude determination combined with ephemeris prediction of the Sun direction must provide the definitive target. EVE is capable of observing the Sun with less dependence on attitude control. However, the ground data processing needs for calibrations result in the most strict attitude knowledge requirements for the mission: [35,70,70] arcsec, 3 , of knowledge with respect to the center of the solar disk. In addition to driving the ACS sensor selection, the knowledge requirements, which have their effect primarily during Inertial mode calibrations, drive the accuracy requirements for the solar ephemeris. The need to achieve and maintain geosynchronous orbit (GEO) drove the need for high-efficiency propulsive systems and appropriate attitude control. The main engine provided high specific impulse for the maneuvers to attain GEO, while the smaller ACS thrusters managed the disturbance torques of the larger engine and provided the capability for much smaller adjustment burns on orbit. SDO s large solar profile means that solar radiation pressure is a large torque disturbance, and the momentum buildup from this disturbance and the GEO altitude drives the ACS to use thrusters to manage vehicle momentum. The demanding data capture budget for the mission, however, requires SDO to avoid frequent thruster maneuvers, while concerns about on-orbit jitter restrict the maximum desired wheel speeds desired from the RWAs. The plan for on-orbit wheel speed and momentum management will be discussed as well as what is now being done in operation after the jitter environment was characterized. The SDO ACS hardware complement is single-fault tolerant. Two main processors carry virtually identical copies of the command and data handling and ACS software, and two identical attitude control electronics (ACE) boxes carry Coldfire processors with contingency ACS software and other hardware interface cards; the ACE structure allows reaction wheels to be commanded by the Sun-pointing Safehold independent of the Mil Std 1553 data bus. The sixteen Adcole CSSs are grouped into primary and backup sets of eight sensors, each set providing the ability to calculate a sun vector. Each set of eight eyes provides full 4 -steradian coverage. The Adcole DSS comprises an optics head and a separate electronics box providing a 1553 data interface. The electronics box is mounted inside the Faraday cage created by the spacecraft bus module. The DSS head with its 32- deg square FOV is mounted on the instrument module with its boresight along the spacecraft X axis, nearly aligned with the Sun during observations. Adcole has designed the DSS calibration parameters so that the accuracy is 0.24 arcminutes within 10 deg of the boresight, and diminishes to 3 arcminutes as the Sun moves towards the edges of its FOV . This DSS calibration scheme provides higher accuracy attitude determination over the range of the instrument calibration maneuvers.

Morgenstern, Wendy M.↗