a morphing radiator for high-turndown thermal control of ...modeling of the morphing radiator...
TRANSCRIPT
A Morphing Radiator for High-Turndown Thermal Control of Crewed Space Exploration Vehicles
Thomas J. Cognata1 Business or Academic Affiliation 1, City, State, Zip Code
Darren Hardtl2 Business or Academic Affiliation 2, City, Province, Zip Code, Country
and
Rubik Sheth3, Craig Dinsmore4 Business or Academic Affiliation 3, City, State, Zip Code
Spacecraft designed for missions beyond low earth orbit (LEO) face a difficult thermal control challenge, particularly in the case of crewed vehicles where the thermal control system (TCS) must maintain a relatively constant internal environment temperature despite a vastly varying external thermal environment and despite heat rejection needs that are contrary to the potential of the environment. A thermal control system is in other words required to reject a higher heat load to warm environments and a lower heat load to cold environments, necessitating a quite high turndown ratio. A modern thermal control system is capable of a turndown ratio of on the order of 12:1, but for crew safety and environment compatibility these are massive multi-loop fluid systems. This paper discusses the analysis of a unique radiator design which employs the behavior of shape memory alloys (SMA) to vary the turndown of, and thus enable, a single-loop vehicle thermal control system for space exploration vehicles. This design, a morphing radiator, varies its shape in response to facesheet temperature to control view of space and primary surface emissivity. Because temperature dependence is inherent to SMA behavior, the design requires no accommodation for control, instrumentation, nor power supply in order to operate. Thermal and radiation modeling of the morphing radiator predict a turndown ranging from 11.9:1 to 35:1 independent of TCS configuration. Stress and deformation analyses predict the desired morphing behavior of the concept. A system level mass analysis shows that by enabling a single loop architecture this design could reduce the TCS mass by between 139 kg and 225 kg. The concept is demonstrated in proof-of-concept benchtop tests.
1 Insert Job Title, Department Name, Address/Mail Stop, and AIAA Member Grade for first author. 2 Insert Job Title, Department Name, Address/Mail Stop, and AIAA Member Grade for third author. 3 Insert Job Title, Department Name, Address/Mail Stop, and AIAA Member Grade for fourth author (etc). 4 Insert Job Title, Department Name, Address/Mail Stop, and AIAA Member Grade for fourth author (etc).
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140017124 2020-06-28T18:01:56+00:00Z
Page2of15
I. Introduction Spacecraftdesignedformissionsbeyondlowearthorbit(LEO)faceadifficultthermalcontrolchallenge,particularlyinthecaseofcrewedvehicles.Thethermalcontrolsystemmustmaintainarelativelyconstantinternalenvironmenttemperaturedespiteavastlyvaryingexternalthermalenvironment.Theexternalenvironmentmaypresentasinktemperaturethatrangesfrom70Kintrans‐planetarycoast(TPC)toapproximately228Kinplanetarysurfaceoperations(PSO),andheatrejectionneedsthatarecontrarytothechangeincapacityoftheenvironment.Inotherwords,thethermalcontrolsystem(TCS)isrequiredtorejectahigherheatloadtowarmenvironmentsandalowerheatloadtocoldenvironments,necessitatingaquitehighturndownratio.
ThisthermaldesignneediscomplicatedbythechallengeoftransportingheatfromcrewedportionsofthevehicletotheheatrejectionportionofaTCSwithouttheendangermentofcrewmembersbyworkingfluidtoxicityorbypotentialreactionoftheworkingfluidwithothervehiclesystemsduetoaleak.ThisdrivesthecurrentstateoftheartTCSdesign–atwo‐loopsystemwithapropylene‐glycol/waterworkingfluidcontainedinaninnerTCSloopandwithalowfreezingpointrefrigerantinaloopwhollyexternaltothecabinwhichisabletooperateovertheverywiderangeoftemperaturesthattheradiatorissubjectto.ThisdesignhasthedrawbackofaddingsignificantmassandcomplexitytotheTCS,interfacialinefficienciestoheattransferbetweentheloops,andtheduplicationoffluidhandlingequipmentsuchaspumpsandexpansiontanks.Previoustrades[19,20]haveshownthatatwo‐loopTCSmaybeapproximately25%heavierthanasimilarlyperformingsingleloopsystem.
Thisworkdescribesauniquelouvre‐derivativeradiatorwhichemploystheshapememorybehaviorofNitinoltoproduceveryhighturn‐downsratioscapableofenablingsingle‐loopthermalcontrolofavehicleusingpropylene‐glycolorsimilarcommon,non‐toxic,highfreezing‐pointworkingfluids.
Figure 1 A representative mission profile illustratingvarying thermal environment and heat rejection.
Page3of15
II. The Morphing Radiator Thistechnologyemploystheshapememoryeffectinconjunctionwithanintegralbiasloadtoactuatethesurfaceofaradiator.ThebasicfunctionofthisconceptisillustratedinFigure7.Theradiatortakesoneoftwobasicshapesdependingonthetemperatureofthefacesheet.Whenhottheradiatorwilltakeitsfullyextendedausteniticshape,shownatthetopofthefigure.Whencoldtheradiatortakesitsdeformedmartensiticshape,thesemi‐circleshowninthebottomofthefigure.Byvaryingshapethisconceptalterstheviewfactoroftheradiatortospace,maximizingviewinthehotcaseandminimizingitinthecoldcase.Thethermaleffectofthisgeometricactuationismultipliedbyselectivesurfaceemissivity,wherethetopsurfacehasahighemissivityandthebottomsurfacealowemissivity.
AnillustrationofanarrayofsuchpanelsisshowninFigure6.Thisdemonstratestheproportionalturndownresponseofthisconceptinaparallelflowradiatorconfiguration.Hotfluidenterstheinletheadertothisarrayatthetopleftofthefigurefromwhichitenterseachflowtube.Workingfluidtemperature,andthusradiatorpaneltemperature,decreasesalongthelengthofeachflowtubeasheatisrejectedthroughradiation.
Inahotenvironment,asillustratedbytheleftmostflowtubeandpanelsinFigure6,theworkingfluidandpaneltemperatureremainsabovetheshapememorytransitiontemperaturesoallpanelsareinthehotstate.Thus,heatisrejectedthroughthegreatestpossibleradiatorarea.Inacoolenvironment,however,representedbytherightmostflowtubeandpanelsinFigure6,panelsbegintakingthecoldshapeandlimitingheatrejectiontowardtheendoftheflowtubeastheworkingfluidtemperaturefallsbelowthetransitiontemperatureoftheshapememoryalloy.AsaresultofsuchbehaviorthisradiatordesignwilltendtomaintainaminimumsystemfluidtemperatureinthevicinityoftheMftemperatureoftheshapememoryalloy,abehaviorthatcanvastlysimplifycontroldesignofthethermalcontrolsystemforavehicle.Thetargetcontroltemperatureforasingle
Figure 3 A conceptual illustration of the technology. Top shows the austenitc shape at high temperature and below is the deformed martensitic shape at low temperature. A central tube carries a thermal working fluid.
Figure 2 An illustration of an array of panels in a parallel flow radiator configuration. The array illustrates the passive proportional turn-down of such a system design; as heat is rejected and the working fluid cools, downstream panels take the cold shape and limit the heat rate. The result is a thermal control system which is responsive to the heat rejection needs of the vehicle.
Page4of15
loopthermalcontrolsystemusingaPGWworkingfluidisinthevicinityof‐10C,anidealfitformedicalgradenitinol.
ThistechnologymaybeintegratedintoasingleloopthermalcontrolsysteminplaceofthetraditionalradiatorshowninFigure9.Noaccommodationisneededforcontrol,powersource,orinstrumentationastheactuationofthistechnologyispassiveandafunctionoftheinherenttemperaturedependenceoftheshapememorymaterial.
III. Turn‐down and Thermal Analysis Afirstorderevaluationofperformanceofthisconceptisfoundthroughthedefinitionofradiationheatrejection,Qi Fi i A Tsurface
4 Tspace4 ,
whereQiistheheatrate,Fiistheviewfactoroftheradiator,itheemissivityoftheactivearea,theStephan‐Boltzmannconstant,Athetotalradiatorsurfacearea,Tsurfacethetemperatureoftheradiatorsurface,andTspacethesinktemperature.Theconceptturndowninthisidealcaseisaratioofthehighandlowstates,or
R Fi,space i Tsurface
4 Tsin k4
Hot
Fi,space i Tsurface4 Tsin k
4 Cold
wherethesubscriptireferstoasurface,e.g.topandbottom,thesubscriptHotreflectsvaluesofthehighheatrejectionshapeandhotenvironmentandthesubscriptColdreflectsvaluesofthelowheatrejectionshapeandcoldenvironment.
Thisconceptiscapableofa15:1turndownbasedontheparametersandtheenvironmentsdescribedinFigure1andTable1.Table1showstheviewfactorandemissivityforeachsurfaceinbothhotandcoldcases.EmissivityofthetopsurfaceistypicalofasilverTefloncoating.[23]EmissivityofthebottomsurfaceistypicalofhighlypolishedmetalorofMLIblanketsformediumareaapplications.[24]Thetopsurfaceviewfactorinthecoldcaseiscalculatedasthatoftheinnersurfaceofacylinderthroughitsopenends.[25]Bottomsurfaceviewfactorsassumetheradiatortobebodymountedtoavehicle.[26,27].
Table 1 Defining characteristics.
Hot ColdFtop,space 1 0.031εtop 0.81Fbottom,space <0.001 0.560εbottom 0.015Tsink 230K 70KTsurface 293KRadius rLength 32rWidth 2πr
Figure 4 Concept A Thermal control system design. A single loop thermal control system integrating Concept A as the Radiator.
Page5of15
Aturndownof60:1becomespossiblewithshieldslocatedateachendofthecylinderformedbythecoldshapeasthesedrivethecoldvalueofFtop,spacetowardzero.Thisrangeofturndowngreatlyexceedsthecurrentstateoftheartandindicatesthedesignroomavailabletomeetmissionbasedturn‐downneedswhereconditionsdonotmatchanalyticalassumptions.Infact,itisusefultonotethattheturndownratioisaproductoftwoturn‐downterms,thephysicalturn‐downwhichiscomposedoftheviewfactorandemissivityandaconsequenceofdesign,andtheenvironmentalturn‐downwhichisdescribedbytemperatures.Thephysicalturn‐downis96:1withendshields,25:1without.
AfinitedifferencerepresentationwascreatedusingThermalDesktopwithFLUINTinordertopredicttheconceptturndownwithhigherfidelityandwithasimulatedfluidloop.Therepresentationincludesaparameterizedradiatorgeometry,asimplifiedthermalcontrolfluidloop,andsimplifiedgeometryrepresentingavehicle.
Figure10andFigure11showthecoldandhotcaseanalysisgeometries,respectively.Thesefiguresshowtheradiatorandfluidpath;thevehiclegeometryandthebalanceofthethermalcontrolloopishiddenforclarity.ThemodelisbuiltusingThermalDesktopnativegeometry,asopposedtofiniteelementgeometricapproximations,sothatcalculationsare
Figure 6 Thermal Desktop finite element representation of the hot shape. The model is parametric: this shows geometry given the maximum radius.
Figure 5 Thermal Desktop finite element representation of the cold shape. The model is parametric: this shows geometry given the minimum radius.
Page6of15
mathematicallyaccurate.[28]ThermalDesktopemploysaMonteCarloraytracingmethodtocalculatetheviewfactorofeachelementofthegeometryforhighconfidenceradiationheattransferprediction.
Theworkingfluidinthefluidloopisa50/50ratioofpropyleneglycoltowaterandisbasedonapropertydeckwhichincludesexperimentallymeasureddataatlowtemperaturesapproachingthefluid’sglassystate.Asetofdesignoptimizationstudiesareperformedtodeterminetotalareaextentoftheradiator,panelwidth(ortubespacing),andpanellengththatmeettherepresentativemissionneedsdescribedbyFigure1.Table3outlinesthekeyinputsandselectedperformanceparametersthatdefinethemodel.Thesystemflowrateissettoprovidearadiatorinlettemperatureof40Cgivenasystemsetpointtemperatureof1.7C.ThesesystemtemperaturesareselectedbasedontherangesemployedinpreviousvehiclestudiesincludingseveralofOrion[1],Altair[2],andMMSEV[30,31].Thefluidmodelusespathduplicationtoapportiontheappliedvehicleheatloadandflowratetothesinglepanelgeometryasifitwereoneinanarrayofparallelpanels.
IV. Stress and Deformation Analysis Withregardtotheshapememoryalloyconstitutivemodel,werequireone
thatcapturesallthepertinentthermalandmechanicaleffectsofinterest.Thisincludesinparticularthemartensitictransformationinitiatedandmaintainedbysomecombinationofstressandtemperatureandtheeffectsofheattransfer.Tothisend,wehavechosenthemodelfromthelegacyworkofLagoudas,Hartl,andcoworkers[34].Itisphenomenologicalinitsformulationandcalibrationandconsiderstheaveragethermo‐mechanicalresponseofagivenrepresentativevolumeelement(RVE)byfirstpostulatingRVE‐averagedenergyanddissipationpotentials.Thisthermodynamicallyorientedapproachallowsforstraightforwardformulationofcouplingsbetweentheenergeticsofheattransferandthoseofdeformation,whicharesocriticalintheanalysisofSMAs.Further,wehavehereintakentheapproachofHartlandLagoudas[35],whichconsiderstheeffectsoflargestructuraldeformations(rotations)aswillbecommoninthecurrentwork.
Table 3 Thermal modeling parameters.
Parameter Hot ColdFluidTin 40C 8.1CQload 5.8kW ≤1kWTotalArea 34.8m2 Panelwidth 24cmPanelLength 1.2mSegmentlength 10cmÝm 175kg/hcp(@10C) 3354J/kg‐Knpanels 121Tsetpoint 1.7°CkApanel,x(unitlength) ≥0.152W‐m/K
Table 2 Composite facesheet properties
Thickness 0.64mmkxpanel 360W/m‐Kky,zpanel 0.21W/m‐KkApanel,x 0.230W‐m/Kfacesheet 1875kg/m3”panel 2.49kg/m2
Page7of15
Theoverallhierarchicalanalysistoolisflexibleandmodular;differentsimulationprocessmanagers,FEAtools,orconstitutivemodelscanbesubstitutedatanytime.Inthecurrentwork,weutilizeaprovencombinationoftheAbaqusUnifiedFEASuiteandusermaterialsubroutines[33].Abaqusisusedtoperformpreprocessing,processing,andpost‐processingoperations,whiletheusermaterialsubroutine(UMAT)associatedwiththeconstitutivemodelhasbeencodedinFortran.
Thestressanddeformationanalysisfocusedonheattransferfromacentralrodthatsimulatestheflowpipeandintotheattached“winglets”oftheconcept,whichincludeSMAmaterialregions.Thewingletsareformedinaninitiallystress‐freecylindricalshape.SufficientheatingofSMAmaterialplacedaroundtheouterdiameterofthecylinderleadstostrainrecoveryandthusflatteningofthewinglet,increasingtheheatrejectioneffectivenessofthestructureasaradiator.ThecapabilitiesoftheSMAtoaffectthisbehaviorandthecapabilityoftheelasticcompositelaminatetowithstanditwithoutfailurewillbeassessedinthisanalysis.
Thefiniteelementmodelforthisconceptconsidersthecoupledthermalandmechanicalresponsesofallbodiesinvolved.Insuchanalysis,localizedandevolvingthermalconditionsresultingfromthephysicsofheattransferdrivethelocaltransformation‐induceddeformationresponseintheSMA,whichthenleadstodeformationinothermaterialregionsdependingonimposedmechanicalcouplingconstraints(i.e.,contactormeshties).Themodelconsideredtwokeystructuralcomponents:theflowtubeandtheflexiblewinglet.Theflowtubewasmodeledasasimplealuminumtubeforreasonstobedescribed,whilethewingletitselfwasmodeledasalaminateshell.TwospecificdesignoptionswereconsideredwithregardtotheconfigurationoftheactiveSMAcomponent(s).
OneoptionconsideredtwobundlesofSMAwirestiedtothepetaledgesandincontactwiththeouterlayerofthewingletelsewhere(SMAWireoption).Themodelassociatedwiththisdesignutilized540linear3‐Delements(C3D8T)fortheflowtube,825quadraticshellelements(S8RT)forthecompositewinglet,and33quadraticshellelements(S8RT)fortheSMAwirebundles.
ThesecondconsideredtheuseofanSMAthinsheetorfoil,whichenterstheanalysisasanadditional(thermallyactive)laminainthewingletcompositelayup(SMAFilmoption).AnalysisofthisdesignismuchmorecomputationallyefficientandalsohighlightstheflexibilityoftheimplementedSMAmodelindirectlycalculatedintra‐laminarSMAresponse,whichassumesplanestressconditions.Themodelassociatedwiththisdesignutilized540linear3‐Delements(C3D8T)fortheflowtubeand825quadraticshellelements(S8RT)forthecompositewingletthatincludesanSMAfilmlayer.
Page8of15
Modelsforbothdesignoptionsassumedlengthwisesymmetrywithrespecttotheflowtubeforthepurposesofcomputationalefficiency.TheanalysismodelfortheSMAwireoptionincludingadetailofthecompositelayupisshowninFigure10.Thebottomlaminainthelayupasshowncorrespondstotheinnerdiameterofthecurledwinglet.ThemodelfortheSMAfilmdesignoptionisverysimilar.TheSMAwireregionsareremovedandanadditionallaminaisaddedtotheshellcompositelayup.ThisaugmentedandannotatedlayupisdetailedinFigure11.
Thetimehistoryofthermalconditionsusedinthisanalysisreflectsthepreliminaryassumptionthatthewingletresponseisdrivencompletelybythetemperatureoftheflowtube(i.e.,atemperatureboundarycondition),andthatthistemperaturevariesnegligiblyoverthelengthofasinglewinglet.Basedonthisassumption,thecurrentthermallycoupledanalysisconsideredacaseinwhichtheflowtubetemperaturewasincreasedinaspatiallyhomogeneousmannerfromT=263KtoT=313Kover60sfollowedbya10sdwell.Duetothisevenheating,thetubewasmodeledasasimplesolidaluminumbody.ThetransientpropagationofheatoutwardfromtheflowtubeandintotheSMAfilmlayerinthewingletsinducesthephasetransformation,whichleadstostrainrecoveryanddeformationoftheinitiallycylindricalwinglettowardaflatconfiguration.
ThecriticalmaterialbehaviorsofinterestinthisstudywereassociatedwithboththeflexiblecompositeradiatorwingletsandtheSMAwire/filmthatdrivesthebendingdeformationofthosewinglets.Thecompositewasassumedtobeconstructedfromcarbonfiber‐basedandglassfiber‐basedunidirectionallaminae,andtheselaminapropertieswerecarefullyobtainedfrommicromechanicalcalculationsconsideringfiberandepoxymatrixproperties,themselvesobtainedfromanumberofsourcesincludingcommercialcompositessoftwaredatabases(theepoxy)andpublishedmanufacturerdata(thefibers).K1100fiberswerechosenespeciallyfortheirhighthermalconductivityinthefiberdirection.Glassfiberlaminaewereusedtoprovidestructuralintegrityinthetransversedirection.ThepropertiesofthecarbonfiberandglassfiberlaminaearegiveninTable 7.
SMA Wire Flat Bundles (6 wires ea.)
SMA/CompositeTie Constraint
SMA/CompositeSliding Contact
Figure 7 - Coupled thermo-structural finite element model of Concept A (SMA wire option) with composite layup detail.
Ply 1(Inner
winglet diameter)
Ply 5
Ply 6(SMA; Outer winglet diameter)
Ply 4
Ply 3
Ply 2
Figure 8 – Winglet composite layup for the coupled thermo-structural finite element model of Concept A (SMA film option)
Page9of15
Table 4 - Material properties for K1100 carbon fiber-based lamina
Material Property
K-1100 carbon fiber
S2 glass fiber
ρ 1812 kg/m3 1969 kg/m3 E1 557 GPa 54.4 GPa E2 6.23 GPa 15.9 GPa ν12 0.318 0.252 G12 0.451 GPa 5.81 GPa G13 0.451 GPa 5.81 GPa G23 0.305 GPa 5.69 GPa
k11=k33 594 W/m/K 0.861W/m/K k22 0.0 W/m/K 0.0 W/m/K c 1000 J/kg/K 1000 J/kg/K
Table 5 - Composite layup of flexible radiator winglet as used in the analysis of Concept A (SMA foil option adds a 6th ply).
Ply Material Depth (mm)
Angle
1 60% S2 Glass in 5250 Epoxy 0.127 90° 2 60% K1100 in 5250 Epoxy 0.127 45° 3 60% K1100 in 5250 Epoxy 0.127 0° 4 60% K1100 in 5250 Epoxy 0.127 45° 5 60% S2 Glass in 5250 Epoxy 0.127 90°
Table 6 - Material properties of the SMA wire as used in the analysis of Concept A.
Material Property
Value
ρ 6450 kg/m3 GA 70 GPa GM 30 GPa
Ms, Mf -14°C, -40°C As, Af 5°C, 32°C
CA, CM 6 MPa/K, 7MPa/K(@ 300 MPa)
Hmax 3.9% k 0.013/MPa
n1, n2, n3, n4 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5 k 22 W/m/K c 329 J/kg/K
Determininganappropriatecompositelayupwasamatterofiterativeanalysis.ThethermalteamsetakAminimumof0.152W‐m/K,whichismetusing0.64mmthicknessandatleasttwocarbonfiberlaminaealignedperpendiculartotheflowtube.Itwasdeterminedthatamoreeffectivethreecarbonfiberlaminaedesigncouldbeemployedwithoutsubstantiallaminafiberfailureiftwosuchlaminaewerealignedat45°anglesrelativetotheflowtube.ThefinallayupfortheConceptAanalysisconsideredhereinisgivenasdescribed
inTable8.Notethatfiber“Angle”isheregivenrelativetothecircumferentialdirectionofthecylindricalwinglet(i.e.,a90°isalignedwiththeflowtube).
ThepropertiesoftheSMAwirewereestimatedfromtheresponseofcommerciallyavailablepre‐trainedmaterial.Thetransformationtemperatures,however,wereartificiallyadjustedtomatchtherangerequiredforoperationof
theradiatoraccordingtothethermalanalysis.ThisreflectstheneedinlaterdevelopmentstudiestoproperlychooseandcharacterizetheappropriateSMAalloysystem.Notethatmaterialwiththerequiredtemperaturesisexpectedtobewidelyavailableduetotheprevalenceofmedical‐gradeNiTi,whichtransformsintherequiredtemperaturerange.ThepropertiesusedinthecurrentanalysisaregiveninTable10
Page10of15
V. Analysis Results Thethermalmodelindicatesthattheconceptturndownapproaches11.9and35.2foropenendandclosedendgeometry,whereclosedendreferstoashieldplacedoverbothendsofthecylinderformedbythecoldshape.Themodelfurthershowsthatanygapbetweentheedgesofeachsideofthefacesheetwheretheymeetovertheflowtubeinthecoldshapehasaninfluenceonthemaximumturndown.Figure13showstheturndownfromaperfectcoldshape,or0mmgap,to15mm(0.59in)gap.Theseturndownvaluesarecalculatedbyvaryingthecoldshaperelativetoahotshape
havingaradiusofcurvatureof1m.Ontheotherhand,asseeninFigure14,turndownisnotstronglysensitivetoaradiusofcurvatureinthehotshapegreaterthan~0.1m.Thevaluesforthisfigurearecalculatedbyvaryingthehotshapewithrespecttoacoldshapehavingnogap.Bothrelationshipsindicatethatemphasisneedstobeplacedprimarilyuponcoldshapedeformationandbiasspringstiffnessinthenextphaseofdesignwhilethecurvatureofthehightemperatureshapeisafairlyflexibledesignparameter.
Stressanddeformationanalysisshowsthatevenafteronlyashort(60s)periodofheating,thereconfigurableradiatorpanelcanbeseentoopensubstantially,withthemajorityoftheflatteningdeformationinducedbytheSMAconcentratedneartheflowtubeheatsource.ThiscanbeseeninFigure11.Thecontoursinthisfigureshowtheaxialstressintheglassfiberlaminaetransversetothefiberdirection,whichcorrespondstothelargeststresscomponentinducedbythebending.Thelimitsofthecontourlegendareequivalenttothecalculatedvaluesforaxialstressesatfailureinthisdirection.
Figure 9 Sensitivity to gap in the cold case. Shows sensitivity of turndown to the gap between the end of each side of the facesheet for this concept, with and without end shields.
Figure 10 Sensitivity to curvature for the hot case. Shows sensitivity in turndown to the hot case curvature of the facesheet. A curvature of 0.1 is approximately a half circle.
Page11of15
Ply 1(Tension critical)
Ply 5(Comp. critical)
-170 MPa ≤ σ22 ≤ 85 MPa -170 MPa ≤ σ22 ≤ 85 MPa
Figure 11 - Global heated deformation and local stress results (S22) in the glass fiber-based laminae (contour plot bounds correspond to stress limits).
SimilarresultscanalsobeseeninFigure12.Thecontoursinthisfigureshowtheaxialstressinthecarbonfiberlaminaealignedwiththefiberdirection,whichcorrespondstothelargeststresscomponentinducedbythebending.Asintheabove,thelimitsofthecontourlegendareequivalenttothecalculatedvaluesforaxialstressesatfailureinthisfiber‐aligneddirection.
-690 MPa ≤ σ11 ≤ 1800 MPa -690 MPa ≤ σ11 ≤ 1800 MPa -690 MPa ≤ σ11 ≤ 1800 MPa
Ply 2(Tension critical)
Ply 3
Ply 4(Comp. critical)
Figure 12 - Global heated deformation and local stress results (S11) in the carbon fiber-based laminae (contour plot bounds correspond to stress limits).
Benchtop Demonstration
Twobenchtopdemonstrationswereperformedtoshowproofofconcept.ThefirstwasperformedatTexasA&MusinghightemperatureSMAmaterialandheatersonametalwingletstructureinordertodemonstratethedesiredactuation.ThesecondwasperformedattheJohnsonSpaceCenterusingSMAwithatransitiontemperatureinthetargetrangeandonascalecompositebasedwingletstructure.
Thedemonstrationsareintendedto:
Reflectasinglewingletsectionofthefullscalethermalmodelato Approximatelyhalf‐scaleatTexasA&Mlabo ApproximatelyfullscaleatJSClab
Demonstrateconceptactuationundero Labambientconditionsusingheaterinducedtemperaturechange
Page12of15
o Targetapplicationtransitiontemperatureusinglowtemperatureenvironmentchamber.
Besimpleinconfiguration, Basedonthermallyinducedtransformationstrainsgeneratedby
commerciallyavailable(i.e.,fullystabilized)SMAwire.TheTexasA&MdemowasfabricatedasschematicallydescribedinFigure14.Thebasicstructuralmaterialconsistedofstainlesssteelfoil(0.002inthick)ontowhichalayerofthermalgraphitesheet(0.004inthick)wasadheredforgreatlyincreasedthermalconductivity.Thetotalplanardimensionsofthetwo‐plylaminatewere5inlongby2inwide.Itwasdeterminedusingpreliminaryfiniteelementanalysisthattwo0.3mmdiameterwiresrecovering4%(contractile)strainwouldhavesufficientstrengthanddeformationtomorphthewingletasneeded.Thewireswereinstalledinan“x”configurationasshowninFigure14,theendofeachwireterminatingbypassingthroughseveralsmallholesattheendsofthesheet,whichprovidedsufficientfrictiontopreventwireslipping.Asmalldropletofsuperglueappliedtoeachholefurthersecuredthewire.Afterassembly,eachsheetwasrolledinthelongdirectiontoformanopencirclesectionwithadiameterof~1.6in.
Thefullthermaltestassemblyconsistedoftwomorphingwingletsattachedtoanaluminumrodwithasquarecross‐section(0.25inx0.25in),whichitselfwasheldbyabenchviceatoneendandwaswrappedwithresistiveheatingtapeontheother.Athermocouplewasinsertedatthecenterofeachofthetwowinglet/rodinterfaces(seeFigure15),thefirst(left)onebeingusedtocontroltheheateroutput,andthesecondprovidinginformationonanydisparitiesintemperaturesbetweenwinglets1and2.AnIRcamera(Testo885‐1ThermalImager)wasusedtoqualitativelyrecordbothlocalizedheatingandglobaldeformations.
2.0 in
5.0 in
SMA Wires (x2, D= 0.3mm)
Layup: -SS Foil (0.002 in) -Therm. Graphite (0.004 in) -SMA wires
Roll assemblyinto tube of
diameter = 1.6 in,SMA wire to outside
Figure 14 - A schematic showing the proof-of-concept morphing radiator winglet design
9 in 2.5 in
2 in (x2) 1 in
Winglet
1 Winglet 2
TC1* TC2
SMA Wires (D= 0.3mm)
Heater(4 in long)
Figure 13 - Test setup for the morphing radiator winglet demonstration
Page13of15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 20 40 60 80 100
Temperature
(°C)
Time (min)
Set Point (Winglet 1) Winglet 1 Temp. Winglet 2 Temp.
Figure 15 - Setpoint and measured temperatures on the morphing radiator demonstration
Thedemonstrationteststeppedheatertemperaturefrom50°Cthrough140°Cin10°Cincrementsallowingwinglettemperaturestostabilizeateachincrement.After30minatthepeaktemperature,theheaterisremovedandthesystemallowedtocool.TheresultingwinglettemperaturescanbeseeninFigure22.Notethesubstantialdisparitybetweenthetemperaturesofthetwowingletsduetotheeffectivenessofthefirstintransferringheatenergyoutofthealuminumrodandintotheambientenvironment.
Thoughsimilarinmanyrespects,theJSCdemodiffersfromthatperformedatTexasA&Minthatitisintendedtoshowboththeplausibilityofthecompositematerialforuseinaflexiblefacesheetandactuationinthetargetapplicationtemperaturerange.Thewingletisfabricatedfroma5‐plycompositelayupsimilartotheconceptdesignbutwithasomewhatlargercoldshapediameterduetomoldmaterialsthatwereonhandtofabricatetheunsprungshape.Theshapememorywireusedhasalowtransitiontemperaturenearfreezing.
Inthistestthewingletandwirearesoakedatbelow‐20Cduringandfollowingassembly.Theassembledwingletisthenremovedfromthelowtemperatureenvironmentchamberandplacedonatableatroomtemperature.ThesequenceshowninFigure24depictstheactuationofthefacesheetfrombelowfreezingtoanearlyflathotshapethatspans12inches.Notethewhiteareasonthefacesheetindicatingfrostinthetopframe.Bythesecondframemostfrosthasmeltedbutsomeremainsuntilthefinalframe,whereuponmostoftheactuationhasoccurred.
Theactuationobservedinbothtestsisshowninduringthecontrolledheatingproceduresuccessfullydemonstratedthattheself‐morphingradiatorofconceptAwasinfactfeasibleatthescaleconsidered.ThermalandIRimagesattheinitialandfinalstateaswellasatthe100°Cand140°CsetpointsareshowninFigure17,andimagesatallsetpointsareavailable.Itisclearthatasthecenterofthefirstwingletreaches100°C,noticeablethermallyinducedmorphinghasoccurred,thoughthetemperatureofthesecondwingletisinsufficienttoinducedactuation.However,asthefirstwingletreaches~140°Candexhibitssubstantialdeformationtowardaflat(open)configuration,thesecondwinglethasbeguntoopenaswell.Uponremovaloftheheaterpower,thesystemcoolstowardroomtemperatureonceagainandthewingletsbegintorecovertheirinitialshape.
Page14of15
a) Initial Condition
b) Set Point: 100°C
c) Set Point: 140°C
d) Heater Removed
Figure 17 - A series of images showing the actuation of a proof-of-concept for the morphing radiator concept.
VI. Conclusions Auniqueconceptforhighturndownthermalcontrolofmannedspacevehiclesthatutilizesshapememoryalloyshasbeenexploredthroughanalysisandbenchtopprototypetesting.Resultsindicatethat:
Highthermalcontrolsystemturndownratiosof35.2:1arepredictedinalikelymissionscenariowithasimple,singlefluid‐loopthermalcontrolsystem.
Physicalturndownprovidedbytheradiatorcanapproach96:1. Turndowncapabilityismostsensitivetocold‐shapegeometrywheregapsin
thegeometryraisetheviewfactoroftheradiatingsurfacetospace. Limitedturndownsensitivitytohotshapeaffordsflexibilityincontinued
developmentofthetechnology Thedesiredactuationbehaviorhasbeenmodeledandtheconceptshown
capableofreproducingtherangeofactuationneededinresponsetofluidlooptemperaturevariationalone.
ThedesiredactuationbehaviorhasbeenreproducedinbenchtopprototypesoftheconcepttestedatTexasA&MUniversityandattheNASAJohnsonSpaceCenter.
Thestrengthofthistechnologyisitsentirelypassivebehaviorinresponsetochangingenvironmentandvehicleheatloads.Thisbehaviormeansthatthis
Figure 16 - low temperature with composite facesheet proof-of-concept demonstration
Page15of15
technologycanproduceveryhighturn‐downswhichenablesingle‐loopthermalcontrolwithoutactivecontrol,powerdraw,orinstrumentation.Byenablingsingleloopthermalcontrol,italsopromisestoreducethermalcontrolsystemlaunchmassbyapproximately25%.FortheOrionCEVthisamountstoaprojectedmassreductionofbetween139kgand225kg.
VII. References [1]Ochoa,D.,Vonau,W.,andEwert,M.,"AComparisonbetweenOne‐andTwo‐LoopATCSArchitecturesProposedforCEV,"SAEInt.J.Aerosp.4(1):344‐350,2011,doi:10.4271/2009‐01‐2458[2]Navarro,Moses,“LunarLander1‐Loopversus2‐LoopActiveThermalControlTradeStudy,”ESCGroup,ESCG‐4470‐07‐TEAN‐DOC‐0099,DeliveredtoNASAAug24,2007[23]JSC/ESCGguidance[24]Donabedian,M.,Gilmore,D.,et.al,“Insulation,”SpacecraftThermalControlHandbook,VolumeI:FundamentalTechnologies,2ndedition,editedbyD.Gilmore,2002,P165[25]RohsenowW.M.,etal.,HandbookofHeatTransfer,3rded,McGraw‐Hill,p.7.84[26]Incropera,F.&Dewitt,D.Fundamentalsofheatandmasstransfer,5thedition.JohnWileyandSons,2002.p.794.[27]RohsenowW.M.,etal.,HandbookofHeatTransfer,3rded,McGraw‐Hill,p.7.80.[28]ThermalDesktoppaper…[33]D.Hartl,D.Lagoudas,F.Calkins,“AdvancedMethodsfortheAnalysis,Design,andOptimizationofSMA‐BasedAerostructures,”SmartMaterialsandStructures,Vol.20,094006,2011.[34]D.Lagoudas,D.Hartl,Y.Chemisky,L.Machado,P.Popov,“ConstitutiveModelforPolycrystallineShapeMemoryAlloyswithSmoothTransformationSurfaces,”InternationalJournalofPlasticity,Vol.32–33,pp.155–183,2012.[35]D.Hartl,D.Lagoudas,“ConstitutiveModelingandStructuralAnalysisConsideringSimultaneousPhaseTransformationandPlasticYieldinShapeMemoryAlloys,”SmartMaterialsandStructures,Vol.18,No.10,2009.[36]SiegelandHowell,Thermalradiationheattransfer,4thedition,p.843