AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 1

AMS-02 Structural Analysis Overview

Carl LauritzenJacobs Engineering

May 22, 2007

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 2

Structural Analysis Requirements Structural Analysis Approach Design Loads Math Models Shuttle Cargo Compatibility Assessment Loads Analysis Stress Analysis Fracture Analysis

Introduction

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 3

Structural Analysis Requirements Space Shuttle Program strength and frequency

• NSTS-14046 Rev. E, “Payload verification Requirements”• NSTS-37329B, “Structural Integration Analyses Responsibility Definition for Space Shuttle

Vehicle and Cargo Element Developers”• NSTS-1700.7B, “Safety Policy and Requirements for Payloads Using the Space

Transportation System” International Space Station strength and frequency• SSP-57003, “Attached Payload Interface Requirements Document”• NSTS-21000-IDD-ISS, “International Space Station Interface Definition Document”• NSTS-1700.7B, “Safety Policy and Requirements for Payloads Using the International

Space Station”• SSP-52005, Rev. C, “ISS Payload Flight Equipment Requirements and Guidelines for Safety

Critical Structures” Fracture Control• JSC-25863, Rev. A, “Fracture Control Plan for JSC Flight Hardware”• NASA-STD-5003, “Fracture Control Requirements for Payloads Using the Space Shuttle”• SSP-30558C, “Fracture Control Requirements for Space Station” Fastener Analysis• NSTS-08307A, “Criteria for Preloaded Bolts” Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02) Project• JSC-28792, Rev. E, “AMS-02 Structural Verification Plan for the Space Transportation

System and the International Space Station”• Reviewed by AMS-02 Configuration Control Board• Approved by the NASA Structures Working Group and NASA OB ISS Structures Team

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 4

Structural Analysis Approach for AMS-02

A finite element model (FEM) of the full payload has been used to characterize the overall structural behavior of the system.

The large AMS-02 component are modeled explicitly in the full payload model with detailed structural representations• Structural analyses of these components are performed using stand-

alone models of the component using load conditions derived from the full payload model.

Smaller components that are not affected by the global response of the structure are represented as a rigid body with the appropriate mass and center of gravity.• Structural analyses of these smaller components are performed using

stand-alone models of the component with load factors

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 5

Design Loads for AMS-02 Primary Structure Primary structure is defined as the structure that provides the primary load path for the

entire payload Design load factors were generated using Space Shuttle math models and

launch/landing load cases• Derived from a design coupled loads analysis (DCLA)

o Dynamic analysis that represents excitations and responses as a function of timeo Performed in 1999 using preliminary math models of the payloado Performed for a generic manifest configuration

• An uncertainty factor of 1.5 was included in the resulting load factor

Load Case Nx (g’s) Ny (g’s) Nz (g’s)Rx

(rad/sec2)Ry

(rad/sec2)Rz

(rad/sec2)

Liftoff ± 5.7 ± 1.6 ± 5.9 ± 10.0 ± 25.0 ± 18.0

Landing ± 4.5 ± 2.0 ± 6.5 ± 20.0 ± 35.0 ± 15.0

These load factors have been approved by the NASA Structures Working Group These load factors were used in nonlinear, static analyses with a math model of the full

payload to derive internal loads for detailed design and stress analyses of the USS, vacuum case, and the magnet support system.

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 6

Design Loads for AMS-02 Mated Configuration on ISS

Primary structure design loads for ISS attached payloads (defined in SSP 57003 Rev A, Table 3.1.1.2.3-2 )• Represent worst case loads due to berthing and ISS re-boost events• These interface loads were used to design the AMS-02 payload attach system (PAS)

Condition Fx (lb) Fy (lb) Fz (in-lb) Mx (in-lb) My (in-lb) Mz (in-lb)

1 +420. +40. -70. -4620. -32370. -6140.

2 -410. -50. +70. -4770. +33740. -10710.

3 -250. -640. +120. +51870. +19620. +2610.

4 +250. +640. -120. -51870. -19620. -2610.

5 -190. +100. -480. -15800. +14300. +3070.

6 +190. +100. +490. -7780. -14440. +4370.

7 -520. -180. +90. -14390. +43410. -18850.

8 +210. +510. -10. +38990. -9200. +25610.

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 7

Design Loads for Large AMS-02 Components

As part of an effort to reduce the weight of the payload, less conservative load factors were developed for some of the large components of the payload• Performed a second Design Coupled Loads Analysis (2003)

o Used updated math models of the AMS-02 payloado Incorporated the nonlinear effects of the magnet support strapso Used updated Shuttle math models and forcing functions from Boeingo Used math models for the cargo elements associated with UF-4 flight

• These load factors include an uncertainty factor of 1.25

Load Case Nx (g’s) Ny (g’s) Nz (g’s)Rx

(rad/sec2)Ry

(rad/sec2)Rz

(rad/sec2)

Liftoff - 3.7/+0.4 -1.4/+1.6 -1.4/+1.5 -4.5/+4.1 -8.4/+11. -3.9/+4.1

Abort Landing -1.2/+1.3 -0.7/+0.6 -2.1/+5.6 -5.2/+4.7 -10.7/+13.9 -6.0/+4.8

These load factors have been approved by the NASA Structures Working Group These load factors were used in combination with component interface

displacements to design and assess the large payload components not considered primary structure (radiators, RICH, upper and lower TOF, and the TRD)

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 8

Design Loads for AMS-02 Secondary Structure Design load factors for AMS-02 secondary structure

• Secondary structure is defined as components that are not part of the primary load path and can be treated as independent entities for analysis purposes

• Components weighing less than 500 pounds use “simplified design” load factors (“Simplified Design Options for STS Payloads”, JSC-20545A, April 1988).

• The factors are applied simultaneous in three axes directionso 100% of load factor is applied in primary axis directiono 25% of load factor is applied in remaining two orthogonal axes

Weight(lb)

Load Factor (g’s)

< 20. 40.

20. – 50. 31.

50. – 100. 22.

100. – 200. 17.

200 – 500. 13.

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 9

Acoustic Design Loads for AMS-02

Experiment components with large panels were assessed for acoustic loads• Responses computed using the Statistical Energy Analysis method

(VAPEPS and AutoSEA software)• The total component load is determined by combining the static design load factor

with the specified acoustic load factor

Component Load Factor (g’s)

Zenith radiator 12.

TCS radiators 3.

Tracker radiators 3.

TRD upper and lower panels 0.1

TRD octagon panels 9.0

TOF panels Being assessed

RICH Being assessed

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 10

Additional Design Loads for AMS-02

Magnet forces and eddy current induced loads• Assessment has shown that these only critical for the magnet structure.

EVA related loads for all external items that have potential EVA access• Crew kick loads, hand hold loads, crew-actuated tool loads

Shuttle RMS and Space Station RMS grapple fixture loads Orbiter emergency landing loads

• Defined in NSTS-21000-IDD-ISS• Bounded by primary structure design load factors

• Quasi-static load conditions for Shuttle ascent and Orbiter entry • Defined in NSTS-37329 • Consists of 2064 deflection cases from mechanical, thermal, and pressure loading conditions

Helium slosh loads are combined with the helium tank design load factors for contingency landing cases

Ground and air transportation loads Ground handling loads

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 11

Math Model for AMS-02 Loads Analysis

Math models are based on CAD models and drawings from designers • High level of fidelity for all major components

o USS and vacuum caseo Magnet, helium tank o Selected experiments (upper/lower TOF, TRD, TRD gas supply, ECAL, radiators, RICH)

• Nonstructural items that are relatively rigid are modeled as lumped masses (e.g., electronic boxes)• Nonstructural items that have a low stiffness are modeled as distributed mass (cables, pipes, etc)• Model mass properties reflect current assessment from all component developers• Current loads model for the full payload is in excess of 500,000 DOF

Nonlinear model of magnet support straps • Modeled using tension-only elements with a defined stress-strain relationship• Stress-strain relationship in math model is based on physical force-displacements for each strap

configurationo Stress-strain relationship accounts for temperature conditions (cryogenic environment vs. room

temperature)

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 12

AMS-02 Finite Element Loads Model

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 13

AMS-02 Finite Element Loads Model

X

Y

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 14

Magnet Support Strap Representation for Loads Model

Warm strap model used for assessment of configurations that assume helium tank is empty• 1-D strap test, STA sine sweep test, modal test, and static test

Cold strap model used for assessment of configurations that assume helium tank is full• Liftoff and abort landing

Nominal Force-Displacement Curves for the AMS-02 Magnet Support Straps

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Displacement, inches

Fo

rce,

lb

warm cold

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 15

Compatibility Assessment for Shuttle Cargo Integration

Primary trunnion: xo 1163.40, Stabilizer trunnion: xo 1242.07, Keel trunnion: xo 1175.20

Satisfies ROEU compatibility requirements — extension to be made 6.07 inches longer AMS-02 interface loads are within the Orbiter attach point capability Clearances with ISS payload envelope and Orbiter hardware have undergone preliminary assessment

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 16

AMS-02 Orbiter Clearance Assessment Clearance assessment performed by Boeing engineers in 2003

(“AMS-02 and Orbiter Payload Bay Static and Dynamic Clearance Assessment” by Karen Bellard, Gilmar Gonzalez, and Charles Hethcoat of Boeing, April 29, 2003)

AMS-02 cargo bay location based on ROEU compatibility assessment by Gilmar Gonzalez, Boeing Assumptions for dynamic clearance assessment

• Manufacturing tolerance of 0.1 inch• Thermal growth of 0.5 inch• Relative dynamic motion of 3.0 inch at all locations except scuff plates

All items show “acceptable clearance” except for PAS guide pins which show “close clearance” Dynamic clearance will be reassessed when displacement data is available from dynamic analyses

Payload Hardware Orbiter HardwareXo

LocationYo

LocationZo

Location

Hardware Outer Radius

(inches)

Hardware Angle (deg)

StaticClearance

(inches)

DynamicClearance

(inches)

1 EVA Handrail Latch Bridge1156.011234.68

-87.58 418.10 89.43 168.32 5.39 1.70

2 Scuff Plate Latch Bridge1155.531234.20

±89.50 414.04 90.59 171.08 3.00 Not available

3 Port Radiator Panel Orbiter Wire Tray 1191.00 -69.41 348.84 86.23 216.39 6.98 3.29

4 Port PAS Guide Pin Closeout Blanket 1183.03 -30.51 316.33 89.06 249.97 4.41 0.72

5 Starboard PAS Guide Pin Closeout Blanket 1183.03 30.51 316.33 89.06 290.03 4.41 0.72

6 UMA Closeout Blanket 1207.95 38.34 319.23 89.41 295.39 7.43 3.74

7 Starboard Radiator Panel Orbiter Wire Tray 1191.00 69.41 348.84 86.23 323.61 6.98 3.29

8 WIF Socket MPM 1187.47 -85.45 419.85 87.73 166.93 5.06 1.37

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 17

AMS-02 Structural Analyses

Primary analyses• Nonlinear static for loads generation and strength assessment (FEA, hand calculations) • Nonlinear transient for loads generation (FEA)• Quasi-static loads analysis for deflection and clearance assessment (FEA)• Buckling analysis for vacuum case and helium tank design verification (FEA)

AMS-02 load factors are obtained using results from nonlinear Design Coupled Loads Analysis (DCLA)

• Design cycle load factors include an uncertainty factor of 1.25 and have been coordinated with the Structures Working Group (SWG) and ISS Structures Team

Modal analysis of nonlinear, preloaded model (FEA) Assess frequency requirements for components and full payload Dynamic correlation of payload model

Acoustic analysis of components with large honeycomb panels (statistical energy analysis)

Fracture mechanics and fatigue crack-growth analyses (NASGRO)

Fastener analysis (per NSTS-08307)

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 18

Stress Analysis Overview Stress analysis of all components are performed per JSC-28792

(AMS-02 Structural Verification Plan) Appropriate Factors of Safety have been used as presented in Appendix A

of JSC-28792 (AMS-02 Structural Verification Plan) For combined loading conditions, interaction formulas are used based on

stress ratios for each loading condition Material properties for metallic materials are taken from MIL-HDBK-5H and

temperature reduction factors are applied, if required Fitting factors, joint separation factors, and uncertainty factors are used for

fastener analysis Margins of safety for all structural components are greater than zero for all

combined load conditions• An exception is a non-failure condition for joint separation• A detailed margin of safety summary is provided in the Hazard Report AMS-02-F01

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 19

Fracture Control Assessment Fracture control requirements of the AMS-02 payload components have

been established in accordance with Space Shuttle and International Space Station requirements

The objective is to ensure safety of the crew, Orbiter, and ISS such that failure of any structure will not result in a catastrophic hazard

Combined fatigue loading spectrum have been used for fracture analysis• Spectrum includes air transport, truck transport, launch/landing, and on-orbit loading events• STA vacuum case (flight backup) also includes sine sweep test and acoustic test spectrums• Scatter factor of 4 is used for design safe life analysis

The flight hardware has been reviewed and the fracture critical components have been identified.

• Appropriate inspections, analyses, and controls have been implemented

• A detailed summary of the fracture classification for the payload components is provided in Hazard Report AMS-02-F01.

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 20

Fracture Critical Components

Safe-life analysis is performed using the NASGRO program Size of flaw used in the analysis is based on the appropriate NDE

techniques or on proof testing All fracture critical components will be NDE inspected per

standard aerospace quality procedures (as referenced in JSC-25863, Rev. A)

Composite materials will be classified “low risk” per the specifications of section 5.2 d of the Fracture Control Plan (JSC 25863, Rev. A)

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 21

Pressurized Components

Composite over-wrapped pressure vessels (COPV) follow the guidelines of ANSI/AIAA S-081

Stainless steel pressure vessels  follow the guidelines of ANSI/AIAA S-080 Designed to have a non-hazardous leak-before-burst (LBB) mode of failure Cracks through the thickness with a length 10 times the wall thickness will

not result in unstable fracture Components, lines, and fittings comply with burst and proof factors of safety

as defined in NSTS 1700.7B and the ISS Addendum• Minor exceptions to this will be discussed in more detail in a separate

presentation on the pressurized components.

AMS-02 Phase 2 Flight Safety Review 22

Conclusion

An approved plan is in place to satisfy all structural analysis requirements for the AMS-02 payload

There are no significant open issues related to structural analysis.