P. 1
1667710

1667710

|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by lolmatthoffman

More info:

Published by: lolmatthoffman on Apr 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/28/2015

pdf

text

original

Title

:

FRAGMENTATION OF WEAK NONABLATING OBJECTS DURING ENTRY

Author@):

Gregory H Canavan, DDP .

Submitted to:

For discussions outside the Laboratory

Date: April1997
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

_
-

-

__ =

-_- -

Los Alamos National Laboratory, an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer, IS operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36. BYacceptance of this .article, the publisher recognizes that the US. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contnbution, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes The Los Alamos National Laboratory requests that the publisher tdentify this article as work performed under the auspices of the US. Department of Energy.

T

8 s

~~~~~~~~~

Form No 836 R5 ST 2629 1 B 01

document. Portions o this document may be illegible f i electronic image products. Images are n produced fiws the best adbble original .

7paD is its mass per unit area or ballistic coefficient. the pressure is \ v = VOe-PwP. It estimates the mass per area as a function of altitude and uses it to determine the altitude and magnitude of peak power radiation. the velocity can be approximated by where VOis its initial speed and P = 0. and strength from measurements of peak power and altitude and fragmentation altitude or time. the pressure reaches about 1. It adds treatments of the breakup of objects during deceleration and of the breakup and separation of fragments during their further descent. Deceleration during entry produces ram pressure p on the front surface of the object. The nominal A l. For larger objects. entry speed. It uses kinematic results from previous reports to describe the velocity and pressure of entering objects. The results reduce to those derived earlier for strong objects. fragment cascade. Model equations can be inverted analytically to infer object size. carbon. Model predictions are in agreement with the key features of numerical simulations. This note discusses the breakup of non-ablating and ablating objects during entry. p is the local density. the peak pressure is larger and at lower altitudes because the object does not decelerate until p = P/H a D. (3) which is showaas a function of altitude z for vgious values of D for VO = 20 km/s. the 4 m object would only reach about 900 bars. The pressure scales as Vo2. Thus. The pressure on the front surface is (1) p =cpv2. These results reduce to those derived earlier for strong objects in that limit. FRAGMENTATION OF WEAK NON-ABLATING OBJECTS DURING ENTRY Gregory H. p = CpVo2e-2PWP. so at 10 kmk. It is shown that the model equations can be readily inverted analytically to infer object size. 100.500 bars for a 4 m object. For 20 k d s . the object will fracture and break up.. Canavan Fragmentation of objects during entry can be treated with developed models of breakup. and strength from measurements of peak power and altitude and fragmentation altitude or time. stone. (2) 4 t1 &.OOO bars for a 1 m object and 3. Model predictions are shown to be in agreement with the key features of numerical calculations of fracture during deceleration. If p exceeds the object's strength S. separation. Analysis of breakup. and 1 bar (atmosphere) yield stresses for iron. and V is its instantaneous velocity. Earlier reports have shown that to adequate accuracy. 10. where C (= 2) is its drag coefficient.OOO. and deceleration. and comet materials are also shown for reference. . Introduction. entry speed.

the pressure increases exponentially with p. zf. fragmentation is a phenomena reserved for relatively large and fast non-ablating objects. Below that altitude the fragments descend as individual small objects. or p = s / cvo2. Figure 3 shows Zf vs S for VOfrom 5 to 25 WS for large D. however. which Pm = CVo2P/zeH. (4) which is shown in Fig. That process can proceed through a number of generations until the fragments move apart or are decelerated enough to reduce the pressure on them below their strength. This limit holds for any S for large D. (5) where H is the atmospheric scale height.3CpaDVo2. fragmentation occurs at about 20 km even for strong objects. At 5 km/s only stone objects larger than 2 m would penetrate deeply enough to breakup. (3) as Pm = P/2H. As the speed decreases. the object fragments.l Iron asteroids with diameters of 4.15. where some tens of kilometers. and 25 km/s. hard object presented earlier. If the object fragments. so their increase is more gradual. After breakup 2 .1. but these drag curves ignore the increase in p due to breakup. the objects penetrate to much lower altitudes before fragmentation. 2. which is why comets break up high. it will fragment as well.5 m would breakup at speeds of about 10. As the fragmentation altitudes are well above the altitude that gives maximum pressure in Eq. on the rising side of density. and 0. If the peak pressure is less than S. The smaller objects are slowed by drag.-H In (S / CV&. the object does not break. If the fragments remain relatively close together. For the large objects. The 14 km/s corresponds closely with the fragmentation altitude of the 4 m object on Fig. the strength of 2 and 4 m iron objects is exceeded at 13-15km. which causes the fragments to decelerate faster. and the value of S used is significant. respectively. it does so at the higher altitude intercept. Object size does enter in one important way. which gives about 1m for a 10 km/s stone object. as discussed below. at which altitude the process stops. Thus. (4) and Fig. This process can be modeled approximately.For 20 W s . so the points of intersection are insensitive to the precise value of S.2. The altitude of peak pressure can be determined by differentiating Eq. For Pm > S to hold requires that D > 2eHS/1. The pressure curves are shown as remaining above the corresponding S for slows the objects much more rapidly. so that S a CpV02. 1. and its entry may be treated with the solution for a strong. Subsequent fragmentation. that increases their total effective area. That of all stone objects is exceeded at about 30 km. At 5 km/s large objects would make it all the way to the ground.20. they are relatively insensitive to the objects p. Zf. If the pressure on a fragment remains larger than its strength. For 20-25 km/s. The strength of carbon and cometary materials is exceeded at above 40 km. If the pressure exceeds the objects strength. 2 as a function of D for various values of VO.

they drift apart at a transverse as speed that is estimated to be on the order of2 (6) Vt kd(pf/pa) V. Even 4 m objects that fragment at 10 km only drift about 800 m. (9) gives Pd = Pfem = M/Df’H = M/[k2(pf/pa) h2H] h 2 e m = Mpa/Hpf2. 5.at altitude Zf from Eq. where M = paD3/2. and the densities at heights separated by h are related by pf = pd e .m . Thus. If the second exponential can be ignored. based on the increased area of Eq. The reason for that can be Seen by rearranging Eq. The reason for this scaling can be seen approximately by substituting JZq. where M = paD3/2. (5) in Eq. (8).000 kg/m3 and pf = 0. (11) to h = hoeZf/He-h/2H where ho = d(D3pa2/2Hpo2). the fragments continue downward. One meter objects that fragment at 30 km drift about 2 km. The drift distance from fragmentation to deceleration increases roughly as D312 and about a factor of 2 for each 5 km increase in Zf. The result is shown in Fig. For 4 m 25 km/s objects it reaches about 10 km. which is significant. which indicates that the drift distance again increases roughly as D3/2 and with object velocity as roughly V2. () in Eq. Substituting this relationship into Eq. where pf is the density at the breakup altitude and k = 1 is a constant. (3. d(Pf/Pa) = 0. which is the case except for both Zf and D large. h = hoeZf/H a D3/2ezf/H as observed in Fig. or3 Pd = Pdm.002 V = 40M s . 4 m objects drift about 8 km. Combined fragmentation and acceleration combines the two phenomena treated above by using Zf from Eq. M/Df2. For 5 km/s objects the drift distance is less than 1 km. the drift phase is short for small and strong objects. As Pa = 3. Figure 4 shows the result of an iterative solution for h as a function of D and Zf. The increases with D and V decrease at large D and V.002. (12).01 kg/m3 at typical breakup altitudes. (9) where & j is the ballistic coefficient. (12). which gives . so Vt = 0. N (7) Previous reports have shown that deceleration occurs very rapidly at the density equal to the object’s ballistic coefficient divided by the scale height. Objects less than 1 m across drift less than 1 km for any fragmentation altitude. the collection of fragments expands to diameter Df = Vt h = kd(pf/pa) h. 4. In descending a distance h.

For low speeds. Their deceleration altitudes decrease to about 10 km for 20-30 m objects. Numerical results c o n f m these analytic predictions. After breakup. and the width of the power pulse are very similar. The drift distance h can be subtracted from the fragmentation height Zf to produce the approximate height of deceleration shown in Fig. The peak power is about the same for the two. However. Fragmentation shifts the altitude of peak power up by about 15km and reduces its width by about a factor of 3. For higher speeds. the scaling on D3/2 and V2 is explicitly shown.which has a maximum at p = p /3H. Pf increases as V03. 8. 6. For constant area. the rate of increase of power. one of which is intact and the other of which fragments at 25 km. it is possible to differentiate Eq.P = KpAV3. These correlations are pursued further in subsequent studies that incorporate the effects of ablation as well. Power transfer to the flow field can be used as a surrogate for emitted radiation. Figure 7 shows the power from 4 m objects at 20 Ws. (8) for A gives Pf = Kpk2(pf/pa) h2(Voe-Pwp>3 = Kk’p(pflpa) h2Vo3e-3PWP. (9) gives the maximum power as approximately Pf = (KM/H)Vo3e-3 = Kpa(DV&/2e3H. the area A is fixed and the power scales as pV3 a p(V0e-PwP)3 a pe-3PwP . Using Eq. it is shown in Eq. Thus. the altitude is about 10 km for all object sizes. which agrees with the drift distance from Fig. the rapid increase of A modifies this scaling. the peak power from fragmenting and non fragmenting objects would be about the same-if real objects could reach their altitudes of peak power before fragmenting. (15) the peak power from non-fragmenting objects scales as pAV3 a (p/3H)D2V3 a (DV)3. Pf increases as D3. 5 for these conditions. the analytic model does capture the primary features of the numerical calculations for this and other conditions. rate of fall after peak. For any VO. (17) which is shown in Fig. the deceleration altitudes decrease with object size. Using Eq. (16) where h = H In(p/pf). (15) where K is taken to be a constant here. The points at the upper right where the D and V scaling saturate involve large h. With fragmentation. (14) For h cc 2H. Figure 9 shows numerical predictions for the power from intact and fragmenting objects as functions of altitude for 20 km/s entry of 4 m objects. that is not possible because p also varies with altitude. The object’s radiation rate when it is at an altitude where the density is p is approximately h = hoezfm e-w2H = ho(CVo2/S) e-w2H 4 . Since from Eq. For any D. (11) that the density at which deceleration takes place is approximately Pd = M/b2(pf/pa> h2H]. Prior to breakup. 7. Although the latter shows a slightly different normalization than Fig. (15) with respect to p to show that the maximum power occurs at pA = P/3H. They are about 20 km for large objects for all V > 15 km.

7paD.e. h = intervaVspeed--Eq. The model predictions are shown to be in agreement with the key features of numerical calculations of deceleration.Inversion for fragmenting objects. If Zf is measured or the drift distance is inferred from the interval between the time of change in the light curve slope (fragmentation) and the time of peak radiation-i. This note discusses the breakup of non-ablating and ablating objects during entry. It adds a mechanism for the breakup of objects during deceleration and a treatment of the further breakup and separation of fragments during their descent. The fundamental measurements are the peak power and altitude and the time from fragmentation to deceleration.. It uses the kinematic results of previous reports to describe the velocity and pressure of entering objects. Its principal sensitivity is to Pa. (12) can be used to estimate Pa or the angle of incidence for non-vertical entry.e.3Hpd/pa. (20) Overall.. pdH = Pd = 0. However. It uses the constraint on mass per unit area derived earlier to determine the altitude and magnitude of peak power radiation. D a pd. The peak power determines the product of D and Vo DVo = (2e3HPf/Kpa)1/3. and VO a l/pd. (19) which determines D.(9). from Eq. Summary and conclusions. as discussed below. i. Eq. It is shown that the model equations can be readily inverted analytically to infer object size. in which the dependencies are just strong enough for sensitivity. and strength from measurements of peak power and altitude and fragmentation altitude or time. These results reduce to those derived earlier for strong objects in that limit. Since it is known that the object has fragmented from the change of slope and width and VO is determined above. Eq. (18) can then be used for VO = 0. D decreases exponentially and VO increases exponentially with deceleration altitude. ( 5 ) can be used to estimate the strength S and hence type of the object. These results can also be used to work backwards to infer the parameters of fragmenting objects from observations. entry speed.7(2e3pa2Pf/K2H2)1/3/pd. which could be uncertain to a factor of two. V O depends on the combination (pa2Pf)1/3. (18) it does not determine them separately. 5 . so the measurement of the altitude of deceleration determines D = 1. It might be determined more precisely.

"Ablationof Strong Objects During Entry. J. 3. Canavan."op. March 1997. Canavan. Hillls "TheFragmentation of Small Asteroids in the Atmosphere. 2. 1114-1144.3. NO.References 1. March 1993."Los Alamos LA-UR-97-1134. "Ablationof Strong Objects During Entry. 105. 6 . G. G."the Astronomical Journal. pp. cit.

Activities 1. Invert for weak. Formulate matchdd filter . Invert for strong. Compare w/ models & data 1997 O ~ N ~ D / M ~ A ~ M ~ J J F 1996 I IJ I A ~ S i 4. Invert for ablating objects varying strength 8. non-ablating objects 7. Study sensitivity to radiation 10. Comparison with other models & data 9. Assess addnl theory & expts needed I I I I I I I I4 I I I I 1 11. Invert for ablating objects 6. hard objects 3. complete model development 2. Sensitivity to radiation treatment 5.

5 0 0 c3 v) cu 0 0 0 cu 0 0 Y v) 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 v) . c 0 0 cu z E Q) c F c x cu 0 u- z 0 I n T- u- O 7 v) 7 0 0 0 v) i i r.I n I? c3 0 O O 9 F c u * T - 0 0 T - 0 0 T - 0 T - 0 m u- 0 v) cu .

01 1 1'0 .

. Approximate fragmentation altitude vs strength for various entry speeds. 3. Vo 6 L o ' C I A I - c I 100 1000 object strength (bars) Fig. breakup alt vs S.I vu 10 1 I .

' drift dist vs D.1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 10 object diameter (m) Fig. . 4. Approximate drift distance versus object diameter for various fragmentation altitudes (km). Zbreak n Y E II 0.

.01 1 1'0 Ill I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I 1 l 1 l 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I P 1 z .

e I I I I I rn 5 0 0 0.5 4 Fig. V 35 30 n 5 a . U E 25 -5 10 15 -+- 20 25 a c 0 20 I - 5 a .5 2 2. . Approximate deceleration altitude versus object diameter for various entry speeds (km/s). 15 U 10 m-. a .decel alt vs D. 6.5 3 object diameter (m) 3. 0 a .5 1 1.

c E 0 5 d F 5 cn N a > 0 F tl a m F a 0 cu In 0 w + w F + w 00 F cu 0 .v m v) cu Y E ro 0 cu cu c ([I CI) .

I l l I I I I l l 1 I I I I c I 3 n b 1 1 1 I I I I I l l I I I I I I l l I I I I I I I c . t .

.4 - 8 cn E Y \ 0 P L cu I I I I I I * 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 m cu 0 0 0 0 cv 0 0 0 v) Y 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 0 0 m G d.0 c 9 0 cu N cn > I t 0 0 0 U a 1 I U 0 r- c .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->