Electronic unit withstanding

w.r.t. specified shock

environment

83230910-DOC-TAS-EN-001
Ch. De Fruytier (TAS Belgium)
23/11/2015
2nd ESA Workshop on Spacecraft Shock
Environment and Verification

Content
2

Similarity between equipments

Similarity criteria for shock
Classical process for verification by similarity
Example

General considerations on unit design vs. shocks

Verification approaches

Experimental approach for heritage increasing or design

derisking
Example of modular equipments
Example of non-modular equipments
Derisking at component levels
23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Similarity between electronic equipments
3

Re-use of an electronic unit from one programme to the other

Cost reduction
Schedule
Technical risk

New electronic unit may present some changes

Obsolescence of components
New performance/functional requirements

Verification by similarity  demonstration that the new unit is suitable for its
new application without a dedicated EQM

Objective is to propose guideline for similarity criteria vs. shocks

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Similarity criteria for shocks

4

How to check if unit B (new) is similar to unit A (previously qualified unit) ?

Unit A was a representative (P)FM, qualified through a standard process (EQM)

Unit A was not verified by similarity or analysis

Supporting documentation for unit A is available (manufacturing documents,

specifications, reports,…)

Unit A & Unit B are manufactured by the same supplier

Shock environment (SRS) encountered by unit A during its qualification is equal

or more severe than specified environment for unit B

Unit A & B perform, globally, the same electrical functions

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Similarity criteria for shocks
5

Unit A & Unit B will be considered as similar, when all of the following apply

Architecture similarity
Overall architecture is unchanged
Mounting configuration is unchanged
Mounting configuration of the PCB, and its dimensions, are unchanged

Dynamic similarity
Main natural frequencies of the unit B are within 10% of the Unit A, with similar mode
shapes
Main natural frequencies of each PCB are within 10% of the original frequency, with
similar mode shapes

Similarity in component family

Component families are unchanged
Shock sensitive components are accommodated in the same areas
Mounting conditions of shock sensitive components are unchanged
If sensitivity of the component depend on its orientation (relay), it shall be unchanged
23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Example of process for verification by similarity (1/4)

6

Verification at complete unit level

Verification that the architecture of the units is based on
the same concept
Global characteristics comparison has to be provided

Example of physical characteristics comparison

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Example of process for verification by similarity (2/4)
7

Verification at complete unit level

Mechanical behaviour (main natural frequencies of the complete unit)

F0: 417Hz (Unit A) F0: 414Hz (Unit B)

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Example of process for verification by similarity (3/4)

8

Verification at component level

Listing of sensitive components (based on HB Part 4) present in unit (with
associated shock heritage)
Particular attention to the mounting conditions of the components (PCB or structure,
type of glue,…);
Critical parts have to be located in the same areas in the two units (orientation...)

Critical parts location & orientation

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Example of process for verification by similarity (4/4)
9

If similarity between Unit A and Unit B can be ensured:

Comparison of applied shock levels on Unit A with requested levels on Unit B
can be performed

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Complementary activities to support verification by similarity

10
Similarity assessment may result in the identification of some « no-
coverings »
New component present in Unit B and not Unit A
New mounting conditions for a component in Unit B vs. Unit A (ex: change of
glue)

Complementary activities should be

A qualification test on the new unit (EQM or PFM – with associated precautions)
 cost, planning impact,…
A shock test on a dedicated test vehicle Unit A
Representative assembly with PCB populated with the shock sensitive components

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Complementary activities to support design of new units
11
Activities described to increase heritage can be adapted to the derisking of
shock sensitive components in new mechanical/electrical architectures

Two different approaches can be followed

Experimental approach FOCUS IN NEXT SLIDES
Well suited when:
Equipment with modular concept
Heritage is available
Similarity between new equipment and heritage is demonstrated
Usual design rules
Unit A
Analytical rules (ex: octave rule from Steinberg,…)
Company guidelines (design rules for PCB, mounting conditions of components,…)
Location and orientation of sensitive components
Development and validation plan
Development model to validate embedded technologies
Development tests should be vibration & shocks

Mixed/Integrated approach (tests and analysis): See § 18.3.1.5 of ESA Shock

23/11/2015 HB
2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Experimental approach
12
Objectives of early experimental shock tests can be:

To drive the mechanical/electrical architecture of the unit: location or type of

component, electrical philosophy (µopenings/transfer can be acceptable or
not,…)

To minimise the risks before going shock qualification on QM unit

Preliminary shock tests can be performed on most critical components using
mechanical architecture and representative mounting conditions

To increase the shock heritage on some parts to cover the new shockUnit A
specification if no QM is foreseen by the concerned program
Test vehicle to bring sufficient shock heritage to components not covered by a
previous shock qualification

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Experimental approach – Examples - Case of Modular Equipment
13
Shock Test on complete Mechanical Model (when available)
Development of a technological module with the concerned components families
Integration in a Mechanical Model, representative in terms of:
Dimensions: width, height, length depends on number of modules
Global modal behaviour: main natural frequency  Using of ballasted other modules
Local modal behaviour: PCB’s resonnances  Representative module/PCB

Overall view of the MM

Technological module Unit A

Module with ballasts

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Experimental approach – Examples - No available complete assembly

14
Unit qualified in the frame of a program with low specified shock
levels
Re-use of the modules (without any re-design) in the frame of a
new project with higher shock specification (plateaus: 1500g)
No QM foreseen in the program (no electrical re-design)
Comparison applied shock levels on Unit A vs. Specification B
No identified (robust architecture) risk but no formal heritage in this Shock Response Spectrum

architecture 100000
4499Y1 SRS 4499Y2 SRS

Development of a simplified assembly (with same global 10000

Axis X
mechanical behaviour) embedding one QM module of each
Acceleration [g]

1000

type and shock tests at specified level

100
Unit A
10
100 1000 10000
Frequency [Hz]
Shock Response Spectrum Shock Response Spectrum

4500X1 SRS 4500X2 SRS 4499Z1 SRS 4499Z2 SRS

100000 100000

10000
Axis Y 10000
Axis Z
Acceleration [g]

Acceleration [g]

1000 1000

100 100

10 10
100 1000 10000 100 1000 10000
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Experimental approach – Examples - No available complete assembly
15

Test plan

Initial visual inspection of the two modules

Electrical tests

Assembly of the Structural Model

Sine Survey to check the first eigen frequency

Shock tests along each axis (9 shocks)

Disassembly of the Structural Model

Visual inspection

23/11/2015
Electrical Tests
2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Experimental approach – Examples - No available complete assembly

16

Tests results
Initial visual inspection & electrical tests: OK
Sine survey to check of measured F0 vs. simulated value: OK
9 shocks performed with covered specification: OK
Final visual inspection & electrical tests: OK

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Experimental approach – Examples - Case of Non-modular equipment
17

When shock specification at unit level is considered as « abnormally » high

(no heritage, shock sensitive components embedded,…), experimental
approach is used by TAS-B to derisk the qualification campaign (on QM)

Technological vehicle is developed, based on the final architecture of the

unit ( especially for simple architecture)

Listing of shock sensitive components is done based on ESA shock HB

Following example shows a unit for which the shock specification has a
plateaus at 5090g
Final architecture is made of a monolithic mechanical structure  using of the
same mechanical part
Technological PCB is developed to mount the critical components at their exact
foreseen location
Shock sensitive components are present in the technological vehicle taking into
23/11/2015
account their mounting conditions (glue,…)

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Experimental approach – Examples - Case of Non-modular equipment

18

Activities on going to derisk the unit

Vibrations sequence
High level sine, random along each
axis

Shock tests using the required

specification
Frequency [Hz] Amplitude [g]
100 28
1850 5090
10000 5090

Visual inspection and electrical

measurements on some specific
components (ex: quartz)

Activities on going
If OK: GO for EQM
If NOK: Investigations on broken
components:
• Local solutions (if any) at component
levels
• Global solution: dampers ?
23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Experimental approach – Examples - Case of Non-modular equipment
19
Approach can be adapted to more complex non-modular equipment

Shock evaluation can be performed on critical parts mounted in a Structural

Model of the final unit
Global mass reached using ballasts on structure and PCB
Check of the global modal behaviour (for the main modes)
Components are implemented with the mounting technology used in the final unit

Unit A

Structural Model Qualification Model

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Experimental approach – Examples - Case of Non-modular equipment

20
Structural Model definition
Main parts of structures of the final unit
Ballasted to be representative of equipment mass and behaviour
All parts strictly mounted in the same way as in the final equipment
Embedded critical components:
Power transformer (magnetic component)
Cut-core self (magnetic component)
K41R relays

01-04 April 2014

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Experimental approach – Examples - Case of Non-modular equipment
21

Test plan
Sine survey to check mechanical behaviour of the
Mechanical Model
Shock Tests (3 shocks by axis) at specified level
Visual inspection
Electrical measurements (inductance, relays status,
contact resistances
Additional shock tests at nominal level +6dB (to know
technology margins)

Results OK  Confidence to go on QM

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Experimental approach – Examples - At component level

22
If transmissibility inside complete unit can be easily estimated
or neglicted, shock tests at component level can be foreseen

Easy case: sensitive component (transformer) expected to be

mounted on the baseplate of the unit
Test on the transformer mounted on an aluminium plate
(same material and thickness as the baseplate of the unit)
Applied shock levels = specification at complete unit level

Unit A

Unit baseplate simulation

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space
 Experimental approach - Examples – At component level
23
Results

Cracks observed in the ferrite parts due to

excited mode around 3.5kHz (araldite
moulding around the winding for high
voltage aspects)

Change in the design to secure the

mounting

Unit A
Response on TFO

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space

Conclusions
24
Guidelines for verification by similarity

Objective: Avoid a QM only due to shock aspects

Comparison of the two units based on global and local architecture, dimensions,
mechanical behaviour, mounting conditions of the components
If similarity is ensured, applied shock levels on Unit A can be compared to the
shock specification of the Unit B

Experimental shock activities can be performed

To increase missing heritage after verification by similarity

To derisk some critical technologies, components or mounting conditions in a
new design
At module level (for modular unit)
At complete unit level (through Structural Model)
At component level (when transmissibility inside the unit is known)

23/11/2015

2nd Workshop on Spacecraft Shock Environment This document is not to be reproduced, modified, adapted, published, translated in any material form in whole or in part nor disclosed
and Verification to any third party without the prior written permission of Thales Alenia Space -  2012, Thales Alenia Space