impact of the consideration of ae9 ap9 models varotsou · pdf file ·...
TRANSCRIPT
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Impact of the consideration of Impact of the consideration of AE9/AP9 models on the space AE9/AP9 models on the space
radiation environment specification radiation environment specification
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
J. Guillermin and A. Varotsou, TRAD D. Standarovski and R. Ecoffet, CNES
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Context
� The AE9/AP9 radiation belt models are currently being developed with the goal to replace the legacy AE8/AP8 models in the future.
� These models can be run with different configurations –choices to be made by engineers
� Important differences in particle flux predictions have been observed between Ax9 and Ax8 models as well as orbit-specific European standards [Huston et al., 2013, Bourdarie et al., 2014 & 2016].
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 1
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Objectives
� How will the radiation environment specification be impacted by the new models?
� What is the impact on component level radiation analysis?
� What is the impact of the chosen configuration on the result?
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 2
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Outline
� Description of activities
� Results for TID/TNID
� Results for transported fluxes
� Conclusions
� Final remarks
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 3
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Description of activities
� AE9/AP9 v.1.30.001 (January 2016) was used
� Determine the impact on:� Particle fluxes� Dose-depth curve� Equivalent fluence-depth curve (10 MeV protons)� Calculations with a realistic 3D radiation model
� Monte Carlo calculations
� Ray-tracing calculations
� Transported fluxes (10 MeV & 60 MeV protons)
� Estimate the difference with results obtained with current standard models
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 4
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Description of activities
� Definition of the radiation environment with AE9/AP9 for different space missions� Here we present:
� LEO: 1336 km, 66°, 7 years
� GEO: 35 784 km, 0°, 15 years (160°W)� Electrical Orbital Rising transfer
– from a GTO orbit with a perigee
of 200 km (200 km x 35486 km, inclination = 7 deg)
� Comparison with models commonly considered� AE8/AP8
� IGE2006 for GEO
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 5
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Description of activities
� Different configurations of Ax9 were studied:� Mean � Perturbed mean (40 scenarios): mean, median, 90% percentile� Monte Carlo (40 scenarios) : mean, median, 90% percentile
� For TID/TNID:� Mean and Perturbed mean
� For SEE (transported fluxes):� Mean and Monte Carlo
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 6
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Description of activities
� Description of the 3D radiation model� ICARE equipment model
� JASON2 satellite model
� Selection of devices at different locations
6
52
86
185
284
6
86
185
284
272
IRFC360284
K4S560432272
STPS3L60185
LT141586
AD801152
OPA6836
DeviceDetector
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 7
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Trapped protons for LEO (1336 km, 66°, 7y)
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Energy (MeV)
Diff
eren
tial f
lux
(MeV
-1.c
m-2
.s-1
)
AP8 min AP9 Mean AP9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AP9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AP9 Perturbed Mean - Median
8
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Trapped electrons for LEO (1336 km, 66°, 7y)
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
0.01 0.1 1 10
Energy (MeV)
Diff
eren
tial f
lux
(MeV
-1.c
m-2
.s-1
)
AE8 max AE9 Mean AE9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AE9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AE9 Perturbed Mean - Median
9
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Dose-depth curve for LEO (1336 km, 66°, 7y)
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
0 5 10 15
Thickness (mm Al)
Rel
ativ
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
Ax9
opt
ions
and
Ax8
(%
)
AE8 max / AP8 min Ax9 Mean Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Mean Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Median
10
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Equivalent fluence-depth curve for LEO (1336 km, 66°, 7y)
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
Thickness (mm Al)
Rel
ativ
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
Ax9
and
Ax8
(%
)
AE8 max - AP8 min AE9/AP9 Mean AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Median
11
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Monte Carlo results for LEO (1336 km, 66°, 7y)
231130142140IRFC360 - T12 284
262149165161K4S560432 - Z58 272
234130143140STPS3L60 - D16 185
235130143140LT1415 - Z7 86
236132145142AD8011 - Z50 52
250139154150OPA683 - Z18 6
AE9 AP9 PM Perc. 90%AE9 AP9 PM medianAE9 AP9 PM meanAE9 AP9 mean
Relative difference Ax9/Ax8 (%)
Total Ionizing Dose by Monte Carlo
DeviceDetector
225128140138IRFC360 - T12 284
264153168164K4S560432 - Z58 272
227128140138STPS3L60 - D16 185
228129141139LT1415 - Z7 86
229131143141AD8011 - Z50 52
243137151148OPA683 - Z18 6
AE9 AP9 PM Perc. 90%AE9 AP9 PM medianAE9 AP9 PM meanAE9 AP9 mean
Relative difference Ax9/Ax8 (%)
Total Non Ionizing Dose by Monte Carlo
DeviceDetector
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 12
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Trapped electrons for GEO (35 784 km, 0°, 160°W, 15y)
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E+09
1.0E+10
1.0E+11
1.0E+12
0.01 0.1 1 10
Energy (MeV)
Diff
eren
tial f
lux
(MeV
-1.c
m-2
.s-1
)
AE8 max AE9 Mean AE9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AE9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AE9 Perturbed Mean - Median IGE2006
13
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Trapped protons for GEO (35 784 km, 0°, 160°W, 15y)
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E+09
0.1 1 10
Energy (MeV)
Diff
eren
tial f
lux
(MeV
-1.c
m-2
.s-1
)
AP8 min AP9 Mean AP9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AP9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AP9 Perturbed Mean - Median
14
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Dose-depth curve for GEO (35 784 km, 0°, 160°W, 15y)
15
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
0 5 10 15
Thickness (mm Al)
Rel
ativ
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
AE
9 an
d IG
E20
06-A
P8
(%)
IGE2006 / AP8 min Ax9 Mean Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Mean Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Median AE8 max / AP8 min
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Equivalent fluence-depth curve for GEO (35 784 km, 0°, 160°W, 15y)
-100%
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
900%
1000%
1100%
1200%
1300%
1400%
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01
Thickness (mm Al)
Rel
ativ
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
Ax9
and
IGE
2006
-AP
8 (%
)
IGE2006 - AP8 min AE8 max - AP8 min AE9/AP9 Mean
AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Median
16
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Monte Carlo results for GEO (35 784 km, 0°, 160°W, 15y )
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 17
127355025IRFC360 - T12 284
59-12-3-20K4S560432 - Z58 272
114273415STPS3L60 - D16 185
174395320LT1415 - Z7 86
142314415AD8011 - Z50 52
136-55-14OPA683 - Z18 6
AE9 AP9 PM Perc. 90%AE9 AP9 PM medianAE9 AP9 PM meanAE9 AP9 mean
Relative difference Ax9/IGE2006&AP8 (%)
Total Ionizing Dose by Monte Carlo
DeviceDetector
72222614IRFC360 - T12 284
0,2-24-22-30K4S560432 - Z58 272
105424932STPS3L60 - D16 185
20310411592LT1415 - Z7 86
151728162AD8011 - Z50 52
35-30,6-10OPA683 - Z18 6
AE9 AP9 PM Perc. 90%AE9 AP9 PM medianAE9 AP9 PM meanAE9 AP9 mean
Relative difference Ax9/IGE2006&AP8 (%)
Total Non Ionizing Dose by Monte Carlo
DeviceDetector
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Trapped electrons for EOR GTO 200 km
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E+09
1.0E+10
1.0E+11
0.01 0.1 1 10
Energy (MeV)
Diff
eren
tial f
lux
(Mev
-1.c
m-2
.s-1
)
AE8 max AE9 Mean AE9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AE9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AE9 Perturbed Mean - Median
18
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Trapped protons for EOR GTO 200 km
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.0E+06
1.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.0E+09
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Energy (MeV)
Diff
eren
tial f
lux
(MeV
-1.c
m-2
.s-1
)
AP8 min AP9 Mean AP9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AP9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AP9 Perturbed Mean - Median
19
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
0 5 10 15
Thickness (mm Al)
Rel
ativ
e ga
p be
twee
n A
x9 a
nd A
x8 (
%)
Ax8 min Ax9 Mean Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Mean Ax9 Perturbed Mean - Median
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Dose-depth curve for EOR GTO 200 km
20
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
� Equivalent fluence-depth curve for EOR GTO 200 km
21
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
Thickness (mm Al)
Rel
ativ
e di
ffere
nce
betw
een
Ax9
and
Ax8
AE8 max - AP8 min AE9/AP9 Mean AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Percentile 90% AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Mean AE9/AP9 Perturbed Mean - Median
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for TID/TNID
� Monte Carlo results for EOR GTO 200 km
230142149142IRFC360 - T12 284
44270.81K4S560432 - Z58 272
229142149141STPS3L60 - D16 185
196110118108LT1415 - Z7 86
194106113106AD8011 - Z50 52
160869184OPA683 - Z18 6
AE9 AP9 PM Perc. 90%AE9 AP9 PM medianAE9 AP9 PM meanAE9 AP9 mean
Relative difference Ax9/Ax8 (%)
Total Ionizing Dose by Monte Carlo
DeviceDetector
371253262254IRFC360 - T12 284
234155161154K4S560432 - Z58 272
364248257248STPS3L60 - D16 185
363248256248LT1415 - Z7 86
358244252245AD8011 - Z50 52
324221229220OPA683 - Z18 6
AE9 AP9 PM Perc. 90%AE9 AP9 PM medianAE9 AP9 PM meanAE9 AP9 mean
Relative difference Ax9/Ax8 (%)
Total Non Ionizing Dose by Monte Carlo
DeviceDetector
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 22
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Results for transported fluxes
� Transported fluxes for SEE rate calculations
3.2 3.9 7.03.460
2.9 3.4 5.83.010EOR GTO 200 km
2.4 2.6 4.42.4 60
2.7 2.9 5.02.610LEO
Sector file for detector 284 (highest thickness)
3.0 3.5 6.2 3.1 60
1.7 1.93.11.8 10EOR GTO 200 km
2.7 2.85.02.6 60
3.5 3.7 6.03.4 10LEO
Sector file for detector 272 (lowest thickness, minim um = 4.18 mm Al)
2.7 3.0 5.1 2.8 60
1.0 1.01.7 1.010EOR GTO 200 km
3.0 3.15.4 2.8 60
3.9 4.0 6.1 3.9 10LEO
3.705 mm Al
Differential Flux(MeV-1.cm-2.s-1)
Energy(MeV)
Ax9 MC Median / AP8
Ax9 MC Mean / AP8
Ax9 MC Percentile 90% / AP8
AP9 Mean / AP8
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017
* flux calculation with MC for EOR GTO 200 km (20 000 o rbit points) takes ~11 hours!
23
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Conclusions
� Flux comparison results between the different models depend on energy -> differences in dose & equivalent fluence depth curvesdepend on shielding
� Important differences at component level analysis, results dependon the shielding especially for GEO and EOR GTO.
� Mean, PM mean and PM median give similar results, however the PM 90% is largely above.
� Factor of 3-7 on transported 60 MeV proton fluxes that can have an impact on SEE rates.
� Time needed for the flux calculation with Ax9 MC is of several hoursinstead of several seconds for the currently used models.
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 24
TRAD, Tests & Radiations
Final remarks
� Ax9 models are still evolving – v1.35.001 release in January 2017
� Known issues and limitations especially for LEO orbits: � protons: no solar cycle flux dependance, high flux uncertainty
� protons & electrons: significant uncertainty on flux gradients
� Which model options should be used by engineers?
� Important differences have been observed on comparison results for radiation analysis. What do in-flight measurements show? -> seenext presentation!
ESA-CNES RFP Days – March 7, 2017 25