Old Dominion University

ODU Digital Commons

Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Theses & Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Dissertations

Summer 8-2023

Development, Experimental Validation, and Progressive Failure

Modeling of an Ultra-Thin High Stiffness Deployable Composite
Boom for in-Space Applications
Jimesh D. Bhagatji
Old Dominion University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/mae_etds

Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons, Applied Mechanics Commons, and the Engineering
Mechanics Commons

Recommended Citation
Bhagatji, Jimesh D.. "Development, Experimental Validation, and Progressive Failure Modeling of an Ultra-
Thin High Stiffness Deployable Composite Boom for in-Space Applications" (2023). Master of Science
(MS), Thesis, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/fk9e-rt47
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/mae_etds/363

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at ODU Digital
Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Theses & Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
DEVELOPMENT, EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION, AND PROGRESSIVE

FAILURE MODELING OF AN ULTRA-THIN HIGH STIFFNESS

DEPLOYABLE COMPOSITE BOOM FOR IN-SPACE APPLICATIONS

by

Jimesh Dipak Bhagatji

B.E. July 2017, Gujarat Technological University, India

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of

Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

August 2023

Approved by:

Sharan Asundi (Co-Director)

Oleksandr Kravchenko (Co-Director)

Tian-Bing Xu (Member)
 ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENT, EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION, AND PROGRESSIVE

FAILURE MODELING OF AN ULTRA-THIN HIGH STIFFNESS DEPLOYABLE
COMPOSITE BOOM FOR IN-SPACE APPLICATIONS

Jimesh Dipak Bhagatji

Old Dominion University, 2023
Director: Dr. Sharan Asundi

To maximize the capabilities of nano- and micro-class satellites, which are limited

by their size, weight, and power, advancements in deployable mechanisms with a high

deployable surface area to packaging volume ratio are necessary. Without progress in

understanding the mechanics of high-strain materials and structures, the development of

compact deployable mechanisms for this class of satellites would be difficult. This research

focuses on fabrication, experimental testing, and progressive failure modelling to study the

deformation of an ultra-thin composite beam. The research study examines deformation

modes of a boom under repetitive pure bending loads using 4-point bending setup. The

material and fabrication challenges for Ultra-thin, High Stiffness (UTHS) Composite Boom

are discussed in detail. Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) model for the beam is

calibrated using experimental data and used for a finite element explicit analysis of the

boom. It is shown that UTHS can sustain high bending radius of 14 mm without significant

fiber and matrix damage. The results of the simulation were found to closely match the

experimental results, indicating that the simulation accurately predicts damage in the

material. The findings of this research provide a better understanding of the deformation

characteristics of the boom and can be used for designing UTHS deployable structures.

Keywords: Composite Boom, Bending characterization, Continuum Damage Mechanics

 iii

Copyright, 2023, by Jimesh Dipak Bhagatji, All Rights Reserved.

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am honored to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my esteemed advisor, Dr.

Asundi, and co-advisor, Dr. Kravchenko, for their invaluable guidance, unwavering support,

and insightful contributions throughout the course of my thesis research. Your exceptional

expertise, deep understanding, and dedication to excellence have been instrumental in

shaping my academic and professional development. Without your patient mentorship and

constructive feedback, I would not have been able to accomplish this milestone in my

academic journey. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Von, Richard, and Saquib for

inspiring me with their excellent work at the Composite Modeling and Manufacturing lab

at Old Dominion University. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn from their expertise

and experience. Furthermore, I extend my deepest appreciation to my beloved family and

friends, especially my dear mother, Nita, father, Dipak, and brother, Kamesh, for their

unconditional love, constant encouragement, and unwavering support throughout my

academic journey. Their selfless sacrifices and unwavering belief in me have been the

driving force behind my success, and I am forever indebted to them.

 v

NOMENCLATURE

ISAM In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing

ISS International Space Station

ACS3 Advanced Composite Solar Sail System

mDEMS Multi-Function Drag Enhancement and Measurement System

DOE Design of Experiment

UTHS Ultra-thin, High Stiffness

CTM Collapsible Tubular Mast

TRAC Triangular Rollable and Collapsible

STEM Tubular Extendible Member

CSD Canisterized Satellite Dispenser

DeCS Deployable composite Structure

CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer

DFRP Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic

CDM Continuum Damage Mechanics

PDA Progressive Damage Analysis

FEA Finite Element Analysis

DIC Digital Image Correlation.

DOE Design of experiments

DPZ Damage Process Zone

 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... viii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1

1.1 In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing ...................................................1

1.2 Need for Composite Booms for ISAM ......................................................................2

1.3 Mission Sealion ..........................................................................................................7

1.4.Ultra-thin, High Stiffness Composite structure ..........................................................8

2. MATERIAL AND FABRICATION FOR MECHANICAL TEST ................................12

2.1 Design and Materials ................................................................................................12

2.2 Composite Boom Fabrication ...................................................................................15

2.3 Mechanical Testing ...................................................................................................19

3. MODELLING OF ULTRA-THIN COMPOSITE BEAM...............................................25

3.1 Model Calibration .....................................................................................................25

3.2 Boom Bending Finite Element Simulation ...............................................................28

4. ANALYSIS IN COMPOSITE BOOM .............................................................................30

4.1 Design Basis for Deployable Mechanism and Boom Analysis ...............................30

4.2 High Deformation Bending Modes ..........................................................................40

 vii

4.3 Post-deployment Resonant Frequency with/without payload ....................................46

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................52

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................55

VITA… ...............................................................................................................................60
 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Rigid structure vs compliant composite structure……………………………………...4

2. Different deployable architecture for solar array………………………………………5

3. Deployable antenna for micro satellite………………………………...………………6

4. Extendable structure for sensitive payload…………………………………………….7

5. Multi-function Drag Enhancement and Measurement System (mDEMS)………….…7

6. Parametric study for CTM cross-section……………………………………………..14

7. Design parameters of the UTHS/CTM deployable structure cross-section…………..15

8. 400 mm and 960 mm mold for composite boom fabrication…………………………17

9. Fabrication of composite boom………………………………………………………18

10. Four-point bending test specification during the experiment and simulation
corresponding to different modes of deformation……………………………………21

11. Range of input parameter…………………………………………………….………23

12. Vibration Experimental setup………………………………………………………...23

13. Input feature – defects………………………………………………………………...23

14. Range of output parameter…………………………………………………...……….24

15. Design space: 2 Replicates, 1 center, 23 Factorial design…………………………….24

16. Input for factorial design………...……………………………………………………24

17. Experimental testing results of uniaxial tension test………………………………….25

18. Tensile coupon for thermos-vac testing………………………………………………29

19. 3U satellite for SeaLion Mission……………………………………………………..32

20. Functional block diagram of deployable composite structure………………………..33

 ix

Figure Page

21. Component diagram of deployable composite structure………………………………34

22. Deployable mechanism structure……………………………………………………..35

23. Center spool assembly with deployer structure………………………………….……36

24. Curved spring with compression rollers………………………………………………37

25. Door assembly with deployer structure…………………………….…………………38

26. Pawl and ratchet assembly with spring loaded lever………………………………….39

27. DeCS full assembly…………………………………………………………………...40

28. Load-displacement plot of large deformation structure under pure bending………….42

29. Experimental and simulated results load-displacement plots for varying effective

span lengths……………………………………………………………………….…..43

30. DPZ for fiber and matrix Damage Analysis for 30 mm Span Length………………...44

31. Top-bottom ply damage of damage process zone……………………………….……44

32. Critical post snap radius for 30 mm Span Length…………………………………..…45

33. Fiber damage distribution in DPZ for 30 mm Span Length……………………..……..45

34. FEA results of Fiber and matrix damage comparative analysis for different span

lengths………………………………………………………………………………...47

35. Post-deployment Resonant Frequency with different BC..............................................48

36. Experimental results for 2 Replicates, 1 center, 23 Factorial design…………………..49

37. ANOVA table and Half-normal plot…………………………………………………..50

38. DOE: Normality test and Residual plots………………………………………………51

39. Frequency vs tip load for different root condition……………………………………..52

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA's) In-Space Servicing,

Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) program [1-3] is aimed at developing advanced

technologies and capabilities to enable on-orbit assembly and maintenance of space

structures, as well as the manufacture of key space components and structures in orbit. The

program aims to significantly reduce the cost and complexity of future space missions by

enabling the assembly of large space structures, such as space telescopes and habitats, in

orbit, and the repair and maintenance of existing spacecraft. The importance of ISAM lies

in its potential to revolutionize the way we explore and utilize space. With the ability to

manufacture and assemble structures in orbit, we can significantly reduce the cost and risk

associated with launching large payloads from Earth. Additionally, on-orbit servicing and

maintenance capabilities can extend the lifespan of existing spacecraft and enable more

complex and ambitious space missions. In addition to the benefits of in-space manufacturing

for equipment and supplies, there are also potential advantages for the construction of

structures in space. Innovative materials and assembly methods can be utilized to build

structures that are stronger, lighter, and more resilient to the harsh conditions of space. For

example, additive manufacturing has the potential to revolutionize the construction of space

habitats and infrastructure. By using locally sourced materials, such as regolith (lunar soil),

additive manufacturing [4] could allow for the rapid construction of habitats and other

structures on the Moon or Mars. This would reduce the need to transport large amounts of

materials from Earth and enable longer-term human exploration and colonization.
 2

Innovative materials, such as carbon fiber composites and shape-memory alloys, can also

be used in the construction of space structures. These materials have unique properties, such

as high strength-to-weight ratios and the ability to withstand extreme temperatures and

radiation, that can make them ideal for space applications. Ultimately, the development of

in-space manufacturing and assembly capabilities opens up a whole new realm of

possibilities for human exploration and the advancement of science and technology. By

building structures and equipment in space, we can reduce the costs and risks associated

with transporting materials and people from Earth, while also opening new avenues for

innovation and discovery.

1.2. Need for Composite Booms for ISAM

In-space manufacturing is becoming an increasingly important aspect of space

exploration, as it offers numerous benefits in terms of cost, efficiency, and flexibility. One

area that is particularly ripe for innovation is the development of composite structures for

use in space. Composite materials [5] offer a number of advantages over traditional

materials such as aluminum and steel, including lower weight, higher strength-to-weight

ratios, and greater resistance to temperature extremes and radiation. To fully realize the

potential of composite materials in space, innovative techniques are needed to manufacture

and process them in situ. One approach is to use spacecraft that are equipped with in-situ

processing capabilities, such as fiber placement [6, 7, 8] which allow for the manufacture

of composite structures in orbit or on the surface of other planets.

Another approach is to use pre-formed composite structures that can be wrapped

around a cylinder and welded together to create a rigid, high-cross-section structure. These

structures can be used to build a variety of configurations for different applications, such as
 3

large-area solar arrays or antenna structures. The high packaging volume of these pre-

formed structures also allows for more efficient transportation to and from space. Overall,

the need for composite structures in space is clear, and innovative approaches to

manufacturing and processing these materials are essential to fully realize their potential.

In the past, the traditional use of composites in satellite technology has been limited

to rigid structures like trusses, shear panels, integrally stiffened bus panels, reflectors, and

other similar components [9, 10] shown in Figure 1. These types of structures are effective

for their intended purposes, but they are not always ideal for certain applications, especially

as the demand for small satellite technology continues to grow. As the demand for high-

density packaging volume payloads increases, the need for high-performance, compliant

structures [11] also rises. To address this demand, high strain, ultralight deployable

structures have become a vital area of research, and composites have emerged as a

promising solution. UTHS composites are capable of producing high-performance

compliant structures that are essential for small satellites. By using thin-shell CFRP it is

possible to achieve ultralight and deployable structures that are able to withstand high levels

of strain and deformation. These properties make them ideal for use in small satellites, where

space is at a premium, and the ability to pack more payload into a smaller volume is critical.

Figure 1: Rigid structure vs compliant composite structures [9 - 11]

 4

Deployable booms are a crucial component for small satellites as they enable the satellite to

perform a variety of functions such as deploying solar panels, antennas, and other

equipment. Below are some of the different applications of deployable booms for small

satellites:

Solar Array Deployment: One of the most common applications of deployable booms is for

the deployment of solar panels [12] shown in Figure 2. The boom allows the solar panels

[13] to be extended beyond the satellite's primary structure, providing the panels with

maximum exposure to the sun and enabling the satellite to generate more power.

Figure 2: Different deployable architecture for solar array [12, 13]

 5

Antenna Deployment: Deployable booms are also used to deploy antennas [14], which are

used to transmit and receive data as shown as Figure 3. The boom allows the antenna to be

extended away from the satellite, enabling it to have a wider coverage area and better signal

strength.

Figure 3: Deployable antenna for micro satellite [14]

Deployable Structures: Deployable booms [15] can also be used to deploy other structures

such as sensors, cameras, and other equipment shown in Figure 4. This allows the satellite

to perform a variety of functions and enables it to be more versatile and adaptable.

Formation Flying: Extendable structure can be used in small satellites for formation flying

[16], where multiple satellites work together to perform a specific task. The boom enables

the satellite to maintain a specific distance from the other satellites, enabling them to work

together effectively.
 6

Figure 4: Extendable structure for sensitive payload [15]

De-orbiting: Finally, deployable booms can also be used for de-orbiting small satellites [17]

shown in Figure 5. By deploying a boom with a large surface area, the satellite can generate

enough drag to slow down and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. This helps to prevent space

debris from accumulating in orbit and potentially endangering other spacecraft.

Figure 5: Multi-function Drag Enhancement and Measurement System [17]

 7

1.3. Mission Sealion

Mission SeaLion is a collaborative mission undertaken by Old Dominion University

(ODU), the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCGA). Mission SeaLion will be deployed in

space using a Canisterized Satellite Dispenser (CSD) provided by Rocket Labs and will be

electrically connected to the CSD through PSC document 2001025 Separation Connector.

Assuming a circular orbit, the deployment at a 400 km circular orbit will result in a lifetime

of just over 12 months.

The Mission SeaLion aims to gather important data and conduct research in the field

of space technology. As a collaborative effort between two prestigious academic

institutions, the mission represents a significant step forward in advancing the field of space

exploration. The use of a CSD and PSC document for electrical connection further

demonstrates the innovative approaches being taken to launch and deploy payloads in space.

Overall, the SeaLion mission represents an exciting development in the ongoing efforts to

expand our understanding of the universe and push the boundaries of human exploration.

The SeaLion satellite is a 3U CubeSat carrying three separate experiments:

• An impedance probe from USCGA

• A commercial-off-the-shelf multispectral sensor (Ms-S)

• A Deployable composite structure from ODU.

The SeaLion mission will carry two additional payloads, the Impedance probe and the

Deployable Composite Structure (DeCS), both of which are essential for advancing space

exploration. The Impedance probe is a scientific instrument designed to measure the

electrical properties of the upper atmosphere. It will be used to study the ionosphere and the

effects of space weather on communications and navigation systems. The data gathered

from this probe will provide valuable insights into the behavior of Earth's atmosphere and
 8

help researchers better understand the effects of space weather on our planet. DeCS is a

steppingstone to in-space manufacturing and will demonstrate the feasibility of using

composite materials to build structures in space. By deploying and testing a composite

structure in orbit, the mission will help to pave the way for future missions that will rely on

in-space manufacturing for their infrastructure needs. The high strength-to-weight ratio and

durability of composite materials make them ideal for use in space, where weight and

reliability are critical factors.

1.4. Ultra-thin, High Stiffness Composite structure

At NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), composites are used as

a building block of the traditional satellite debuted in the early 1970s. It was used on Apollo

capsule as Avcoat ablative heat shield, fiberglass honeycomb structure [19], etc. Since then,

advanced composites have been the choice of the various space programs such as reusable

launch vehicles, observation satellites, and the International Space Station (ISS) [20]. Fast

forward to today where advanced composites still play a significant role in the advancement

of the space programs. Emerging small satellite technology also cannot escape the use of

composites. Composite materials are used in various avenues of small satellite technology

like solar structure panels, high gain antenna [21], momentum/reaction wheel [22],

deorbiting [23], etc. These composite structures are typically used in rigid structural

elements, while novel Nano- and micro- class satellites, which are constrained by size,

weight, and power, require a new class of high-strain composite structures. The small

satellite technology demands high post-deployment surface area to packaging volume as

well as compact deployable mechanisms, which require further advancement in the high-

strain composite structures.

 9

The early development of the boom started with simpler deployable structures with

tape springs [24] cross-section (c/s) made of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP).

Composites enabled adaptive performance, coefficient of thermal expansion, and reduced

mass. Furthermore, various c/s booms were attempted in improving the structure

performance of the boom considering increasing the (stored) packaging volume. Tubular

Extendible Member (STEM) booms [25] and tape springs [24] are characterized under

single shell storable boom and Triangular Rollable and Collapsible (TRAC) booms [26],

lenticular shearless booms and Collapsible Tubular Mast (CTM) boom [27] are

characterized as double-shell storable booms. The selection of the boom is highly subjective

to the loading conditions for the payload. A parametric analysis [28] was conducted to

identify the optimal boom geometries that maximize stiffness for various cross-sections of

boom. Results indicated that the CTM provides a structural advantage with maximum

second moment of inertia in all three axes when compared among the various double-shell

booms.

NASA has been investigating the performance of CTM for the Advanced Composite

Solar Sail System (ACS3) [29] technology demonstration mission. To develop HSCS with

improved packaging efficiency and deployed structural performance, accurate prediction of

strain-stress states and failure modes of flexural members composed of thin composite

laminates is necessary. To explore this potential benefit, various test setups [30, 31, 32] have

been conducted on flat coupons of woven-ply CFRP materials subjected to pure moments.

In typical flat coupon bending, the high-strain composite material exhibits fiber tensile

stiffening and compression softening, with a net effect that leads to a gradual decrease in

bending stiffness as strain increases. The advantage of using this method is its simplified

experimental setup; however, under high deformation structure bending of UTHS/CTM

 10

composite, the material experiences a bi-directional strain that is not accurately captured by

the current test setup.

In contrast to the flat coupon bending, experimentally intensive technique [33] can be

used to formulate a stress- based failure criterion in terms of failure parameters. This

approach considers a repeating unit cell of a symmetric two-ply plain weave laminate and

the stress resultants from a homogenized plate model. Five sets of tests were conducted to

estimate the failure parameters, and five additional combined loading test configurations

were tested for validation. This approach has the advantage of finding a failure locus for a

two-ply plain weave laminate in terms of force and moment resultants, making a six-

dimensional loading space with an experimental intensive approach.

It is essential to find the bending characteristics of a deployable composite boom in

order to create an effective design. A simple and precise approach needs to be taken to

bridge this gap. Few studies, such as [34], observed contradictory modeling results from the

experimental results due to an inappropriate methodology to determine the flexural modulus

of the material for boom flattening lengths were in the range of 40-100mm. For higher

flattening lengths of 250-500 mm with a material thickness range of 0.2-0.4, the material

remains in the elastic region under large deformation structure bending. It is important to

understand the relation between the size factor of UTHS/CTM composite boom and stress

in the material. Another study [35] conducts flattening test for a deployable composite boom

of a flattening length (approx.) 280mm, where nonlinearity is mostly observed due to

geometry rather than to material nonlinearity itself, which can include plasticity and

localized damage. Gaining a precise knowledge of strain behavior and non-linear effects

under large deformation loads will allow to design of deployable structures more effectively,

preventing potential failure.

 11

Thesis presents analysis, design and fabrication approach of UTHS/CTM structure

for small satellite applications and validates its performance for DeCS. Deployed boom

structure is considered as a basic building block for in-space assembly [36]. Therefore, it is

essential to consider the bending behavior of a thin booms for compact storage without

sacrificing its deployed strength. This study focuses on fabrication, testing and structural

modeling of UTHS/CTM structure. The first section discusses the composite material and

design of the lenticular cross-section boom (CTM), as well as elaborates on the fabrication

process and challenges that were addressed to develop a consistent deployable structure.

The structural level testing for capturing high deformation bending behavior of the boom is

presented. In the second section, an experimental approach for calibrating finite element

analysis (FEA) Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) model was discussed, which used 0o

and 45o coupon tensile testing of the weave. FEA was also used to model large four-point

bending deformation of the composite structure. The last section discusses the results to

determine critical radius of bending and different deformation modes that develop during

boom bending. Experimental results of four-point bending tests of ultra-thin composites

with different spans were used to validate the prediction of the FEA model. FE analysis

agreed with the experimental testing results and revealed that during the snapping of the

boom no significant damage was induced in the material allowing for a reliable UTHS boom

deployment. The results of this research demonstrate that UTHS composite boom can

withstand large deformations without failure. The proposed design, testing and modeling

methodology can be adopted to the UTHS boom for the small class satellites.
 12

CHAPTER 2

MATERIAL AND FABRICATION FOR MECHANICAL TEST

2.1 Design and Materials

To create high-deformation structures, it is necessary to have a material that is both

lightweight and able to withstand large non-linear deformation of UTHS boom. Carbon

fiber was chosen as the material in this case due to its excellent strength-to-weight ratio.

However, in contrast to glass fiber, carbon fiber provides better strength but at a lower strain,

which opposes the high-strain material requirement. Therefore, thin laminates of only one

or two plies are of particular interest in our study to meet the material requirement.

A parametric study was performed using Matlab, with the CTM radius and CTM angle

(shown in Figure 6) as the main variables. The purpose of the study was to identify the

optimal values for these variables that would meet the mission requirements of a 62mm

flattening length and material limitations on linear strain. The results of the study show in

Figure 6, with the vertical line representing the linear strain limit and the horizontal line

representing the flattening length limit. The selected parameters were shown in a Figure 7

optimal value for the CTM radius and CTM angle.

 13

Figure 6: Parametric study for CTM cross-section

To maximize the laminate surface strain and axial modulus (E1) of the laminate, a

single-ply twill-weave is selected. Twill weave at a 45o weave orientation provides high

shear strain and better formability during manufacturing, especially on curved surface. To

simplify the handling of the material during manufacturing, high-quality carbon fiber

prepreg 3K (200gsm), 2x2 twill weave was procured from Fibreglast. Coupon testing was

carried out for both single-ply weave and two-ply weave before deciding to use the single-

ply weave, as presented later in the paper. Uniaxial tension test of a 0o weave laminate and

45o weave laminate were prepared from weave laminate panels. These tensile specimens

were cut into dogbone specimens of 20 mm width and 200 mm long (including tabs) using

a ProtoMAX waterjet system. These specimens were tested in an MTS Alliance RF/300

machine with a load cell of 300 kN capacity. Testing was conducted with a crosshead
 14

displacement of 1 mm/min. The test was recorded using a GOM 3D Digital Image

Correlation (DIC) system to accurately capture the strain distribution during testing.

Figure 7: Design parameters of the UTHS/CTM deployable structure cross-section

 15

2.2 Composite Boom Fabrication

The cross-section of the specimen can be parametrized into six independent

parameters, as shown in Figure 7 (a). Here, in order to reduce the inconsistency of in-plane

strain along the cross-section during flattening and wrapping:

2.2.1 𝛼1 and 𝛼2 are selected as same value (𝛼1 = 𝛼2 = 𝛼).

2.2.2 𝑟1 and 𝑟2 are selected as same value (𝑟1 = 𝑟2 = r).

The design of the specimen has been simplified to three parameters- 𝛼, r, and t. These

parameters determine the structural properties of the composite boom. The selection of

these three parameters is primarily determined by the critical bending radius of the

composite structure (boom), flattening height, and second moment of area, which are

obtained from the mission requirements. The design of the optimal boom must take into

account the stability of its structure under post-deployment loading conditions and its ability

to fit within the volume constraints specified by the mission requirements. In this study, Old

Dominion University’s 3U CubeSat constraints were considered [37]. The final selected

design parameters are shown in Figure 7 (a). With these parameters, the structure has a

second moment of inertia of 2.78E4𝑚𝑚4, with a flattened height of 62 mm, shown in Figure

7 (b).

This lenticular cross-section is achieved by joining flat end (web) of two halves

(omega shaped) made of carbon fiber prepreg twill weave. After surveying the literature, it

was decided to avoid bonding of two cured halves together through the web. This bonding

process may cause delamination of the two halves during high deformation and increase the

processing time. As the cross-section of the structure is closed, mold is required to be made

in two halves. Low tolerance is provided in the mold assembly for the alignment of two
 16

halves when closed. Mold was fabricated from Multipurpose 6061 Aluminum of 400 mm in

length as shown in Figure 8. Once the boom fabrication process was determined for small

mold, another was mold was designed. Bigger mold was designed in three sections of 320

mm in length, with a total length of 960 mm. The sections were assembled using M4 screws.

To ensure a seamless joint between each section, the mold was polishing after the sections

were assembled.

Figure 8: 400 mm and 960 mm mold for composite boom fabrication

 17

One of the key requirements for deployable structures is the ability to withstand high

bending strain of the boom structure, which does not produce large non-linear deformation

in the composite material, like von Karman non-linear beam model [38]. A single layer is

selected for this study, as it can provide the necessary bending strain and stiffness demanded

by the structure. A 45o angle woven orientation was selected to improve the structure’s

bending flexibility, as well as to provide additional benefits in terms of torsional stiffness

and in-plane shear stiffness.

Figure 9: Fabrication of composite boom.

 18

A single cure cycle recommended by the manufacturer of 155 °C (310 °F) at a ramp

at 5 °C/min with a hold stage for 120 min and subsequent cool down. During the early

iterations of the process, a simplified manufacturing process was attempted without vacuum

bagging. The layup prepreg sheets were laid down on the two- half mold and compressed

against the mold using the hand roller to get the desired lenticular shape. Then, the mold

was carefully closed and placed in an autoclave for a single-stage cure cycle at 80 Psi

pressure. However, this process resulted in significant deviation from the desired geometry

due to the absence of internal support for the top woven ply. As the temperature increased,

the viscosity of the epoxy resin reduced, resulting in the peeling of the unsupported ply from

the mold surface. This caused the deformed lenticular shape as shown in Figure 9 (c) where

the upper ply is in a deformed shape (in red) in comparison to the bottom ply. This issue

was resolved by providing internal support to the top ply during the curing process by using

an internal support provided by the vacuum bag film, which was used as a sleeve and was

inserted into the hollow space of the lenticular shape. This process provided the desired

lenticular shape but was not able to achieve uniform thickness near the bond line of two

halves of the boom. Upon close observation of the sample, an accumulation of epoxy resin

was found near the web as shown in Figure 9 (b). As the two ends of the lenticular shape

are joined with the help of mold pressure, the matrix tends to squeeze out at elevated

temperatures. This accumulated epoxy resin near the web resulted in local increase of

thickness, which upon bending resulted in cracks. To solve the issue of non-uniform

thickness, a co-curing cycle was adopted. The initial cure cycle allowed for the matrix to

partially cure by reaching the gelation point. Therefore, during the co-cure stage, when the

mold is closed, matrix squeezing was prevented. As a result, a uniform thickness joint was

achieved between the two halves of the boom. In summary, the final process of two-stage
 19

cure with inner vacuum bag addressed two critical problems:

i. It provided uniform pressure on the inner surface of the lenticular shape.

ii. It effectively reduced the matrix squeezing near the web.

2.3 Mechanical Testing

2.3.1 High Deformation Bending

The damage in the material is mainly by bi-directional strains during boom bending.

It was crucial to quantify the damage to the composite boom caused by large deformation

bending, which can cause the matrix and the fiber damage due to the complex local state of

stress. In order to evaluate the large deformation capability of the boom structure, four-point

bending testing was conducted on composite boom with 160 mm span. During the initial

stages of bending, the two halves of the boom exhibited flattening, which was restricted by

closure of the two halves, upon which snapping occurred. To understand the potential of

local failure of the material during the rolling of the boom for storage, as well as, during the

boom deployment, two loading cycles were performed during four-point bending, during

which the sample was loaded until snapping occurred, then the sample was reloaded and

loaded again. Upon bending for two successive cycles, any damage that was caused by the

first bending will be revealed in the load vs deformation plot as a reduced slope and potential

reduction in the critical load.

When the boom is rolled into a stowed configuration, it must conform to the desired

spool radius of the deployment mechanism. To experimentally test the effect of varying

critical radius of curvature upon snapping, the UTHS boom specimens were evaluated under

four-point bending with varying top roller span lengths: 20, 30, and 50 mm using an MTS
 20

test machine with a 10 kN force cell (shown in Figure 10 (a)). The different spans were

considered to understand if by changing the bending curvature would induce damage in the

boom. The fixed bottom roller span was 124 mm of four-point bending setup (shown in

Figure 10 (a)). This testing method allowed to capture the large deformation of the boom

without slipping and provides a constant moment at the center of the boom. To demonstrate

high-strain deformation of the given structure, a crosshead displacement has been determined

to induce a strain of 2% in the structure when subjected to bending.

Figure 10: Four-point bending test specification during the experiment and simulation
corresponding to different modes of deformation.
 21

2.3.2 Vibration Testing

The objective of the experiment was to determine the post deployment vibration

performance of a cylindrical boom, both with and without defects due to bending. The

structure was then attached to a cantilever beam configuration, with one end fixed to a

shaker and the other end left free. An accelerometer was attached to the free end of the

structure to capture the output. Before each test run, all bolts and the accelerometer were

inspected and adjusted if necessary. Once the setup was ready, a dynamic signal analyzer

was used to perform a frequency sweep from 4 - 100Hz. This helped identify the resonance

frequency (mode 1) of each configuration, both with and without defects. Throughout the

experiment, the setup remained consistent, and all data was collected and recorded for later

analysis. Overall, this setup allowed for the determination of the vibration performance of

the CFRP structure with and without defects, providing valuable insights for future research

in this area. Design space with three input feature is shown in Figure 15. 23 Factorial designs

were used with 2 replicates and 1 center shown in Figure 16.

Input feature and range are shown in Figure 11:

A: Tip Load : - It is attached on free end of the cantilever boom. Low factor is 5.5 gm and

higher factor is 67 gm (shown in Figure 12).

B: Boundary condition: - Fixed end of structure is has two categoric factor,

one is “flat” condition and other is “eye” condition (shown in Figure 12).

C: Defect: - Here two CFRP sample were used one with defect created using bending and

other w/o defects (shown in Figure 13).

 22

Figure 11: Range of input parameter

Figure 12: Vibration experimental setup

Figure 13: Input feature - defects

 23

Response: Accelerometer at the tip of the structure (free end) is used to capture the

resonance frequency of the structure (shown in Figure 14).

Figure 14: Range of output parameter

Figure 15: Design space: 2 Replicates, 1 center, 23 Factorial design.

 24

Figure 16: 2 Replicates, 1 center, 23 Factorial design.

 25

CHAPTER 3

MODELLING OF ULTRA-THIN COMPOSITE BEAM

To develop and test a design strategy for ultra-thin composite booms, CDM material

model was validated and used for non-linear analysis of UTHS boom bending simulation.

The FEA modeling was validated using experimental results on the coupon scale and using

composite boom geometry. The CDM material model of composite boom allowed to capture

the non-linear material behavior during large deformation experienced in four-point

bending.

3.1 Material Model Calibration

A Progressive Damage Analysis (PDA) was performed using a finite element model

discussed in the following section to determine potential failure modes in composite

material during boom bending. CDM model discussed in [39] for fabric reinforced

composites with non-linear response to matrix shear, assuming orthogonal fiber directions

and using orthotropic damaged elasticity for in-plane stress-strain relations. This analysis

used CDM to model damage in warp and weft directions, as well as matrix damage. The

CDM material model was accessed by creating material with suffix ABQ_PLY_FABRIC,

an embedded user subroutine (VUMAT) in Abaqus/Explicit is used to model woven ply.

Figure 17 presents the test results obtained from the uniaxial tension test of coupons used to

calibrate the CDM model. A difference in modulus and strength was observed between

single-ply and double-ply laminates for both 0o weave laminate and 45o weave laminate.

The double-ply laminate exhibited minimal to no pinholes, resulting in the higher module

and strength. In contrast, pinholes were detected in the single-ply laminate, which
 26

compromised its properties. However, for this study, a single layer was chosen based on

high-deformation structure requirements, hence despite the presence of pinholes, single-ply

laminate’s equivalent properties were used to calibrate the material model.

(a) 0o weave coupon testing (b) 45 o weave coupon testing

Figure 17: Experimental testing results of uniaxial tension test

The elastic modulus (E1) and strength (X1) of the CDM material model were

calibrated using a uniaxial tension test of a 0o weave laminate, resulting in values of 36.9

GPa and 240 MPa, respectively, as shown in Figure 17 (a). Shear modulus (𝐺12) was

calculated using equation 1, resulting in values of 1.56 GPa, where 𝐸𝑥 is elastic modulus

and 𝑣xy is Poisson’s ratio, determined from the stress-strain curve of 45o weave coupon

(shown in Figure 17 (b)). Shear damage threshold (S) and initial effective shear yield stress

(σy0) is calculated using equation 2, resulting in values of 15 MPa and 25 MPa, where σe is

elastic limit and σy is yield strength of 45o weave coupon.

 27

Ex 𝜎𝑒 𝜎𝑦
𝐺12 = 𝑆= , 𝜎𝑦0 =
2(1 + 𝑣xy) (1) 2 2 (2)

The remaining properties needed for the CDM material model in FEA, including the damage

evolution coefficient and shear plasticity coefficient, were calculated based on Ref. [39, 40],

and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. CFRP twill weave fabric mechanical properties.

Symbol Material Constants (units) Magnitude

Elastic properties
E1 Warp young’s modulus (GPa) 36.90
E2 Weft traction young’s modulus (GPa) 32.60
V12 Poisson coefficient 0.053
G12 Shear modulus (GPa) 1.560
Strength properties (damage initiation coefficients)
X1 Warp strength (MPa) 240
X2 Weft strength (MPa) 234
S In plane shear Damage threshold (MPa) 15
Fracture toughness (damage evolution coefficients)
Gf1+f Energy rate per unit area wrap tension (mJ/mm2) 20
Gf1-f Energy rate per unit area wrap compression (mJ/mm2) 40
Gf2+f Energy rate per unit area weft tension (mJ/mm2) 10
Gf2-f Energy rate per unit area weft compression (mJ/mm2) 20
Shear damage and hardening parameters (shear plasticity coefficients)
α12 Parameter for in plane shear damage 0.316
αmax12 Maximum in plane shear damage 1
σy0 Initial effective shear yield stress (MPa) 25
C Coefficient in hardening equation 500
P Power term in hardening equation 0.42

To validate the calibrated material model, a virtual coupon was simulated using

FEA. Figure 17 presents the simulation results for the 0o and 45o weave coupons,

demonstrating fiber and shear failure, respectively, in agreement with the results of the

tensile test.

The impact of material properties on pre-preg in unstress/unstrain condition was

 28

checked by placing a dogbone coupon (shown in Figure 18) wrapped in kapton tape under

thermovac. The temperature was raised to 120 degrees for 10E-6 tor. It was observed that

the strength and modulus were not influenced by vacuum and elevated temperature. Despite

the vacuum and elevated temperature, it was observed that the strength and modulus of the

pre-preg remained unaffected. This indicates that the material properties of the pre-preg are

robust and can withstand harsh conditions without compromising their structural integrity.

Figure 18: Tensile coupon for thermos-vac testing.

3.2 Boom Bending Finite Element Simulation

This section presents a bending simulation of a composite boom under high

deformation, using both linear elastic model and CDM material model. The aim of the study

is to determine the damage caused by the bending stress. The linear elastic analysis is used

to determine the (reaction) force-displacement plot in the composite boom, while the PDA
 29

is used to evaluate the damage caused by the matrix and fiber components of the boom.

To capture quasi-static bending, FEA model was developed in Abaqus/Implicit for the four-

point bending setup as described in section 2.3, using linear-elastic material properties. The

model consisted of 18560 linear quadrilateral shell elements (S4R), representing ply

thickness with 1 mm mesh size. Since the boom was modeled using shell elements, a two-

ply laminate was assigned to the flat region and a single-ply laminate to the remaining

region. Surface-surface contact was enabled for interaction elements between the rigid roller

and the boom, and self-contact was allowed inside area of the lenticular section. The bottom

set of rollers was fixed, while the top set provided displacement to apply 2% strain on the

UTHS boom.

The modelling PDA was developed to predict the damage initiation and evolution

behavior of the UTHS boom under bending. The calibrated CDM material model was

implemented in the 3D (solid) model of the UTHS boom using Abaqus/Explicit. The entire

model was defined with a single-ply weave orientation, with thickness being incorporated

into the 3D solid model. The model consisted of 24,780 Continuum shell (SC8R) elements,

with a mesh size of 1 mm. For a quasi-static bending using dynamic explicit analysis, time

period and mass scaling parameters were selected to keep the kinetic energy a smaller

fraction (5%) of the external work. A velocity was assigned to the top pair of rollers to apply

2% strain to the UTHS boom within the given step time. The bottom set of rollers were

fixed, similar to the implicit analysis. Major damage occurred in the region between the top

two rollers during high deformation bending. A separate set of 2480 elements (/19842

nodes) was created in the center of the UTHS boom with a length of 20 mm and a width of

62 mm to represent this damaged process zone.

 30

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS IN COMPOSITE BOOM

4.1 Design Basis for Deployable Mechanism and Boom Analysis

Design constraints posed by the deployable composite structure on the successful

performance of the mechanism are discussed along with the mission requirements

constraints posed by the small satellite. A full-scale prototype is fabricated for further

quantification of the deployment forces and torque of the deployable mechanism along with

the composite structure/spring. An elaborated ground test of the prototype is discussed along

with the demonstration of a multistage deployment verification module. This module will

not only be used to verify the deployment in orbit but also to rigorously test the performance

of the mechanism during the ground testing. Collecting the deployment verification data

with timestamps, deployment forces, and torque of the machine can be used in dynamic

modeling and analysis of the payload.

Deployable Mechanism Features

Deployable mechanism is designed to capture wide a range of application and small

satellite class which lead to development of compact, reliable and flexible (based on mission

requirement). Following are the few essential feature of DeCS:

a. Passive or active deployment

b. Volume approx. 1U (105 x 118 x 118 mm3)

c. Deploy mono stable or bistable booms.

d. Modular (plug and play)

 31

Figure 19: 3U satellite for Mission SeaLion

DeCS Deployment Sequence:

Constructing a Functional Block Diagram (shown in Figure 20) was necessary for

understanding the DeCS payload architecture, which helped identify: the functions of each

component, what downstream functions are affected when a component fails, how backups

and redundancies can be designed into the system to increase reliability in the event of

failures occurring.
 32

Figure 20: DeCS: Functional block diagram of deployable composite structure

Component design of the DeCS:

The mechanical components diagram (shown in Figure 21) provides an arrangement of

individual parts in the assembly. It also provides the assembly sequence for the whole

mechanism. Enhanced versions of the diagram of the components can be used by the failure

analysis team.
 33

Figure 21: DeCS: Component diagram of deployable composite structure

The structure with two side panels and two support panels (shown in Figure 22) was

constructed to serve as the foundation of the DeCS mechanism. The side panels include tab

design, which act like rails during deployment.

 34

Figure 22: DeCS: Deployable mechanism structure

The center of the deployment structure was a spool that supported the UTHS

composite boom, which was further guided by two flanges (shown in Figure 23). The spool

itself was supported by two bearings that were connected with the structure of the

deployment mechanism. This design choice ensured that the UTHS composite boom could

be deployed with precision and accuracy, while also remaining stable and secure throughout

the process. The use of bearings to support the spool allowed for smooth and effortless

rotation, which was crucial for ensuring the success of the deployment operation. The

diameter of the spool used in the deployment structure was designed for 50mm, while the

height of the spool without the flange was 64mm. This particular size was selected based on

a critical bending radius of UTHS composite boom and flatting length.

 35

Figure 23: DeCS: Center spool assembly with deployer structure

To prevent blossoming during deployment, a unique design spring was utilized to

compress the UTHS composite boom onto the spool (shown in Figure 24). This spring was

specifically designed to provide approximately linear force upon deformation, which was

necessary for ensuring that the UTHS boom was compressed evenly and with sufficient

force. At the tip of the spring, a roller was included to provide frictionless contact with the

UTHS boom.

The spring was connected in cantilever configurated with one side bolted to side

panel of structure. Prior to deployment, the deployment mechanism was secured by two

latched doors (shown in Figure 25), which were designed to keep the UTHS composite

boom in place and prevent it from prematurely deploying. These doors were triggered by a

burn wire, which was a safety mechanism used to ensure that the doors would only release
 36

when the deployment process was initiated. The burn wire was carefully installed and

positioned to ensure that it would only be activated when the deployment mechanism was

ready for use, providing an added layer of safety and security to the deployment operation.

Once the burn wire was triggered, the latched doors would release the center spool and allow

the UTHS composite boom to be deployed. This design choice was essential for ensuring

that the deployment mechanism was safe and reliable, as it minimized the risk of accidental

deployment and ensured that the UTHS composite boom could be deployed only when

intended.

Figure 24: DeCS: Curved spring with compression rollers

 37

Figure 25: Door assembly with deployer structure

The burn wire was tied to a spring-loaded lever (shown in Figure 26), which acted

like a cam to unlatch the doors upon triggering the burn wire mechanism. This lever was

carefully designed to release the doors quickly and smoothly, ensuring that the UTHS

composite boom could be deployed without delay. In addition to releasing the doors, the

spring-loaded lever also released the pawl, which was another critical component of the

deployment mechanism. The pawl, in turn, released the center spool, allowing the UTHS

composite boom to be deployed with precision and accuracy. This intricate design ensured

that the deployment mechanism operated seamlessly and reliably, allowing for the

successful deployment of the UTHS composite boom.

 38

Figure 26: DeCS: Pawl and ratchet assembly with spring loaded lever.

The UTHS composite boom deployment mechanism was designed to hold a 2-

meter-long boom and could also be used for active deployment. It included a feature for

boom retraction in case of active deployment, which allowed for the safe and efficient

retraction of the boom when needed. This feature ensured that the mechanism could be used

in a variety of deployment scenarios, making it a versatile and valuable tool for a range of

applications. Overall, the UTHS composite boom deployment mechanism (shown in Figure

27) was a sophisticated and well-designed system that enabled the successful deployment

of the UTHS composite boom, while also providing additional features for enhanced

functionality and flexibility.

 39

Figure 27: DeCS full assembly

The DeCS is a low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) [18] design for pre-formed

composite structures that can be wrapped around a cylinder and welded together to create a

rigid, high-cross-section structure. This innovative approach to manufacturing structures in

space allows for the building of various configurations for different applications, such as

large-area solar arrays or antenna structures. The high packaging volume of these pre-

formed structures also allows for more efficient transportation to and from space. Advancing

the TRL of a technology typically involves an increase in complexity in terms of in-situ

processing in the design and manufacturing composite structures. DeCS is a low TRL, tech

demonstration of full pre-formed structure deployment. This technology is tested and

validated in increasingly realistic environments. This design approach aligns with NASA's
 40

ISAM program, which aims to develop technologies and capabilities to enable in-space

manufacturing, assembly, and servicing of large structures and systems. The ISAM program

seeks to leverage the unique environment of space, including microgravity, vacuum, and

extreme temperature conditions, to enable new manufacturing and assembly processes that

are not possible on Earth.

4.2 High Deformation Bending Modes

The load-displacement plot of the implicit analysis (in Figure 28) shows a four-stage

deformation of the UTHS boom during pure bending. The process starts with the flattening

stage, where the lenticular cross-section of the boom narrows down until reaching a point of

pre-snap. The loading increased linearly with roller displacement until the pre-snap phase,

after which the structure attained its maximum load and started to snap from the flat region.

In the snap stage, the load rapidly decreased, and the sample transformed into a fully flat

shape at the center. Unlike a standard rectangular cross-section specimen in a four-point

bending test, the moment was uniformly distributed across the beam region between the

upper two rollers. For UTHS boom, a non-linear moment with a peak at the center of the

top two rollers was observed during the snap stage. As the flat region progresses further, a

uniform bending load between the top rollers is demonstrated in post-snap phase.
 41

Figure 28: Load-displacement plot of large deformation structure under pure bending.

Figure 29 shows the test results for various spans during two consecutive bending

of the UTHS boom. It is evident that, as the top roller span increases in the effective span

(bottom roller span - top roller span), the peak load increases. No visible damage was

observed during the bending test, which is evidenced by the similarity between the load-

displacement plot for the second loading cycle (represented by the short-dash line) and the

first loading cycle plot (represented by the solid lines) for all spans. The linear-elastic model

was able to accurately capture all deformation features observed during the test (shown in

Figure 10 (a,b,c) and Figure 28 ). The comparison between experimental and implicit

simulation results in a load vs. deformation plot is also shown in Figure 29. The flattening

stage of the simulation was found to be consistent with the experimental results, however,

it overestimated the peak load before the snap. The snap stage was also accurately captured,

including the snap load and snap displacement.

 42

Figure 29: Experimental and simulated results load-displacement plots for varying

effective span lengths.

The damage analysis of all span’s length was performed on UTHS boom using

explicit analysis. The boom damage process zone, deformation profile, fiber damage, and

matrix damage are evaluated to under the damage distribution. The fiber and matrix damage

are calculated at each node in the damage process zone, and the results are presented in

Figure 30 and Figure 31. The FEA simulation results show that the boom damage process

zone undergoes high-strain deformation under bending, leading to damage initiation and

propagation. The deformation profile of the edge node at the flat section of the lenticular

boom is presented in Figure 33. The deformation profile is shown from pre-snap at top roller

displacement (d) 18 mm to post-snap at 42 mm. The critical bending radius of 13.86 mm at

42 mm roller displacement as shown in Figure 32. The fiber damage and matrix damage

distribution at the damage process zone for the top and bottom ply is shown in Figure 31.
 43

At the center of the damage zone, the damage was more severe and widespread, while it

was less severe and had narrower boundaries farther away from the center.

Figure 30: Damage process zone for fiber and matrix Damage Analysis for 30 mm Span

Length.

Figure 31: Top-bottom ply damage of damage process zone

 44

Figure 32: Critical post snap radius for 30 mm Span Length.

Figure 33: Fiber damage distribution in DPZ for 30 mm Span Length.

An analysis of damage for various span lengths is conducted by determining the

relative damage frequency and cumulative relative frequency of fiber and matrix damage

variables in the damage process zone. The results are presented in Figure 34, which displays

the fiber and matrix damage for different span lengths of the UTHS boom. The results
 45

indicate that the damage in the boom is not significantly changed for span lengths ranging

from 20mm to 40mm for both fiber and matrix. The cumulative relative frequency

distribution indicates that the majority of the fiber damage occurs at a relatively low damage

variable. In Figure 34 (a), less than 0.4 fiber damage variable is observed in 90% of the

fibers in the damage process zone in fiber wrap direction. Similarly, Figure 34 (b) presents

the comparative analysis of matrix damage for different span lengths of the lenticular boom.

The results indicate that there is a slight shift in the damage peak for increasing span lengths,

but the overall trend remains similar. The cumulative relative frequency shows that 90% of

the matrix in the damage process zone is less than 0.2 matrix damage variable for all the

span lengths. These results suggest that the no significant damage in the structure is caused

under high-strain deformation of UTHS boom under pure bending.

(a) Fiber damage distribution

 46

(b) Matrix damage distribution

Figure 34: FEA results of Fiber and matrix damage comparative analysis for different
span lengths.

4.3 Post-deployment Resonant Frequency with/without payload

In the field of engineering, it is important to understand the dynamic behavior of

structures in order to ensure their safety and reliability. One important aspect of this analysis

is the determination of the resonant frequency of a structure. The resonant frequency is the

frequency at which the structure vibrates with the greatest amplitude when subjected to an

external force. In this context, a post-deployment resonant frequency (shown in Figure 35

for different boundary condition) analysis is a critical step in the design and validation of

structures. Such an analysis involves the measurement of the resonant frequency (shown in

Figure 36) of a structure after it has been deployed, either with or without a payload. This

information can be used to ensure that the structure is operating within safe limits and to

identify any potential issues that may require corrective action.

 47

Figure 35: Post-deployment Resonant Frequency with different BC

Design of experiments (DOE) is a powerful statistical tool that is often used to

investigate the effects of multiple factors on a response variable. In the context of resonant

frequency analysis, DOE can be used to determine the impact of various factors, such as

payload weight, on the resonant frequency of a structure. This can help to identify the most

significant factors that influence the resonant frequency and to optimize the design of the

structure to ensure that it meets the required specifications.

 48

Figure 36: Experimental results for 2 Replicates, 1 center, 23 Factorial design

Observation from Half Normal Plot:

Observation in new half-normal plot (shown in Figure 37): It was observed that

factor C is still not significant, which means the vibration performance unloaded structure

is same for defective and non-defective structure. ANOVA table (shown in Figure 37) is

also in agreement with half normal plot and R2 is approx. 95%.

 49

Figure 37: ANOVA table and Half-normal plot

The normality result (shown in Figure 38) was observed to be under a flat pencil

curve. Furthermore, the residual versus predicted plot demonstrated equal spreading and

was also under the bound. Additionally, the residual versus run plot was found to be

randomly spread and under the bound. These observations indicated that the data was

normally distributed, and the model fit the data well with no outliers or influential data

points.
 50

Figure 38: DOE: Normality test and Residual plots

In the design of experiments, interaction was utilized to develop the design relation

with response. The results showed that factor C was found to be insignificant. However, an

interesting correlation was observed between tipload and boundary condition. Specifically,

it was observed that the eye boundary condition provided a higher frequency compared to

the flat boundary condition (shown in Figure 39). This observation was clearly evident in

the results, indicating that the boundary condition played an important role in determining
 51

the frequency of the response. Overall, the design of experiments was successful in

identifying the significant factors that influenced the response variable.

Figure 39: Frequency vs tip load for different root condition.

Test value = 23.88 Hz

18.27 < Test value < 32.9022 under 95% CI

 52

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this research presents the manufacturing and characterization of

UTHS composite boom with a lenticular c/s for small classes of satellites. The study

employs a uniform thickness and scalable lenticular boom fabrication process that is ideal

for consistent sample testing. Additionally, the study investigated the large deformation

capability of the composite boom using four-point bending tests and finite element models.

The bending behavior of a structure was investigated using two consecutive cycles of

bending forces with different top roller spans. The load-displacement plot was used to

analyze any damage caused by the initial bending cycle, and it was observed that as the top

roller span increased, the peak load increased. However, no visible damage was observed

during the bending test. The linear-elastic model was able to accurately capture all

deformation features observed during the test. A comparison of the simulated and

experimental results demonstrated that the simulation accurately captured the flattening,

pre-snap, snap, and post-snap stage. Furthermore, the use of a continuum damage model

helped to capture the non-linear material properties, which was calibrated using coupon

testing. The study investigates the damage analysis of a 20 mm, 30 mm & 40 mm span

length lenticular boom under bending, and the numerical simulation results demonstrate that

the boom damage process zone undergoes high-strain deformation leading to damage

initiation and propagation. The fiber and matrix damage variable are calculated at each node

in the damage process zone, and the results show that the fiber damage is non-uniformly

distributed in the damage process zone. The comprehensive analysis of damage for different

span lengths is performed using relative damage frequency and cumulative relative
 53

frequency of fiber and matrix damage variables in the damage process zone. The results

indicate that the damage in the boom is not significantly changed for span lengths ranging

from 20mm to 40mm. The majority of the fiber damage occurs at a relatively low damage

variable, and 90% of the fiber in the damage process zone is less than 0.4 fiber damage

variable in fiber direction 1. Similarly, the matrix damage peak slightly shifts for increasing

span lengths, but the overall trend remains similar, and 90% of the matrix in the damage

process zone is less than 0.2 matrix damage variable for all the cases.

These findings suggest that the damage in the structure is primarily due to the high

strain at the damage process zone, leading to the initiation and propagation of damage. The

study's results have practical implications for the design and manufacturing of ultra-thin

composite booms for small satellite applications. Specifically, the critical bending radius

provides a valuable metric for determining the minimum wrapping radius necessary for high

payload packaging efficiency of composite booms in small satellite systems. This

information can help guide the development compact deployment mechanism without

compromising the post deployment performance of UTHS composite boom based on needs

of future small satellite missions. The design of experiments successfully identified

significant factors that influenced the response variable. It was found that minor crack in

boom to be insignificant, but an interesting correlation was observed between tip load and

boundary condition. The eye boundary condition provided a higher frequency compared to

the flat boundary condition, indicating that the boundary condition played an important role

in determining the frequency of the response. Overall, this research provides significant

contributions to the field of high-strain composite material design and characterization

testing based on requirement of small satellite applications.

The pre-formed deployable structure of this research thesis has proven to be an

 54

effective steppingstone for exploring the potential of In-Space Manufacturing technology.

The deployable structure of this research thesis has been instrumental in highlighting the

potential application outcomes of ISAM. One of the most significant potential outcomes of

ISAM is its ability to support sustainable and long-term space missions. With the ability to

manufacture equipment and structures in space, the need for costly and risky resupply

missions can be greatly reduced, ensuring the sustainability of space missions over an

extended period. Another potential outcome of UTHS composite structure in ISAM is its

ability to enable the construction of large-scale space habitats. By manufacturing habitats in

space, the limitations of transporting pre-built habitats from Earth can be overcome, and the

construction of larger, more complex habitats can be achieved. ISAM using UTHS

composite structure has the potential to revolutionize the extraction and utilization of space

resources.
 55

REFERENCES

[1] Bean, Q., Johnston, M., Ordonez, E., Ryan, R., Prater, T., and Werkheiser, N. (2015) In-

Space Manufacturing at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center: Enabling technologies for

exploration.

[2] Owens, A., and De Weck, O. (2016) Systems analysis of in-space manufacturing

applications for the International Space Station and the Evolvable Mars Campaign.” In

AIAA SPACE 2016 Conference and Exposition (p. 5394).

[3] Prater, T., Werkheiser, N., Ledbetter, F., Wilkerson, M., Soohoo, H., Bean, Q., and Jones, Z.

(2017) NASA’s In-Space Manufacturing Project: Materials and Manufacturing Process

Development Update.

[4] Wang, Yushen, et al. “In-Situ Utilization of Regolith Resource and Future Exploration of

Additive Manufacturing for Lunar/Martian Habitats: A Review.” Applied Clay Science, vol.

229, Nov. 2022.

[5] Castanie, Bruno, et al. “Review of Composite Sandwich Structure in Aeronautic

Applications.” Composites Part C: Open Access, vol. 1, Aug. 2020.

[6] Zhou, Yuqing, et al. “Large-Scale Three-Dimensional Anisotropic Topology Optimization

of Variable-Axial Lightweight Composite Structures.” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol.

144, no. 1, Jan. 2022.

[7] Chen, Yuan, and Lin Ye. “Topological Design for 3D-Printing of Carbon Fibre Reinforced

Composite Structural Parts.” Composites Science and Technology, vol. 204, Mar. 2021.

[8] Shimoda, Masatoshi, et al. “Shape and Topology Optimization Method for Fiber Placement

Design of CFRP Plate and Shell Structures.” Composite Structures, vol. 309, Apr. 2023.

[9] Bhundiya, Harsh G., et al. “Engineering Framework for Assessing Materials and Processes

for In-Space Manufacturing.” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, vol. 31,
 56

no. 8, Aug. 2022.

[10] Mettes, Sebastian, and Thomas W. Murphey. “Truss Strut and Node Connection System for

On Orbit Robotic Assembly of Optical Support Structures.” AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2021.

[11] Ming, Guangqing, et al. “Space Deployable Parabolic Reflector Based on Shape Memory

Polymer Composites.” Composite Structures, vol. 304, Jan. 2023

[12] Lee, Andrew, and Sergio Pellegrino. “Cable-Stayed Architectures for Large Deployable

Spacecraft.” AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, 2021.

[13] Banik, Jeremy, et al. “On-Orbit Validation of the Roll-out Solar Array.” 2018 IEEE

Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2018.

[14] Long, David, et al. “Global L-Band Observatory for Water Cycle Studies (GLOWS).” 2021

IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, IEEE, 2021.

[15] Jeon, Sungeun, and Thomas Murphey. “Design and Analysis of a Meter-Class CubeSat

Boom with a Motor-Less Deployment by Bi-Stable Tape Springs.” American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics, Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference,

2011.

[16] Quinn, David A. and David C. Folta. “A tethered formation flying concept for the SPECS

Mission.” , VT, 2000.

[17] Asundi, Sharan, et al. “Genesis of a Multi-Function Drag Measurement System to Facilitate

Atmosphere Modeling and Space Debris Mitigation.” American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics, 2017.

[18] William, Kimmel, “Technology Readiness Assessment Best Practices Guide”, NASA

Technical Reports Serve, 2020

 57

[19] D. R. Tenney, J. G. Davis Jr, R. B. Pipes, N. Johnston, Nasa composite materials

development: lessons learned and future challenges, in: NATO RTO AVT-164 Workshop

on Support of Composite Systems, LF99-9370, 2009.

[20] D. R. Tenney, J. G. Davis Jr, N. J. Johnston, R. B. Pipes, J. F. McGuire, Structural

framework for flight I: NASA’s role in development of advanced composite materials for

aircraft and space structures, Technical Report, 2019.

[21] M. Sakovsky, S. Pellegrino, Rapid deployable antenna concept selection for cubesats, 2016.

[22] J. Bhagatji, S. Asundi, M. G, N. S, V. K. Agrawal, Design, Simulation and Testing of a

Reaction Wheel System for Pico/Nano-Class CubeSat Systems, 2018.

[23] S. Asundi, J. Bhagatji, P. Tailor, Genesis of a multi-function drag measurement system to

facilitate atmosphere modeling and space debris mitigation, in: AIAA SPACE and

Astronautics Forum and Exposition, 2017, p. 5251.

[24] J. Yee, O. Soykasap, S. Pellegrino, Carbon fibre reinforced plastic tape springs, in: 45th

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference,

2004, p. 1819.

[25] C. Wu, Dynamic analysis of extended bistable reeled fibre-reinforced composite booms for

space applications, University of Surrey (United Kingdom), 2017.

[26] F. Roybal, J. Banik, T. Murphey, Development of an elastically deployable boom

for tensioned planar structures, in: 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,

Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2007, p. 1838.

[27] L. Herbeck, M. Leipold, C. Sickinger, M. Eiden, W. Unckenbold, Development and test of

deployable ultra-lightweight cfrp-booms for a solar sail, in: Spacecraft Structures, Materials

and Mechanical Testing, volume 468, 2001, p. 107.

[28] A. Lee, J. M. Fernandez, Mechanics of bistable two-shelled composite booms, in: 2018

AIAA Spacecraft Structures Conference, 2018, p. 0938.

 58

[29] W. K. Wilkie, Overview of the nasa advanced composite solar sail system (acs3) technology

demonstration project, in: AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, 2021, p. 1260.

[30] T. W. Murphey, M. E. Peterson, M. M. Grigoriev, Large strain four-point bending of thin

unidirectional composites, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets , 2015, p. 882–895.

[31] J. M. Fernandez, T. W. Murphey, A simple test method for large deformation bending of thin

high strain composite flexures, in: 2018 AIAA Spacecraft Structures Conference, 2018, p.

0942.

[32] A. H. Sharma, T. Rose, A. Seamone, T. W. Murphey, F. Lopez Jimenez, Analysis of the

column bending test for large curvature bending of high strain composites, in: AIAA

Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019, p. 1746.

[33] H. Mallikarachchi, S. Pellegrino, Failure criterion for two-ply plain-weave cfrp laminates,

Journal of Composite Materials 47, 2013, p. 1357– 1375.

[34] S. T. West, C. White, C. Celestino, S. Philpott, M. Pankow, Design and testing of deployable

carbon fiber booms for cubesat non-gossamer applications, in: 56th

AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2015,

p. 0206.

[35] Y. Hu, W. Chen, J. Gao, J. Hu, G. Fang, F. Peng, A study of flattening process of

deployable composite thin-walled lenticular tubes under compression and tension,

Composite Structures 168, 2017, p. 164–177.

[36] W.K. Belvin, In-space structural assembly: Applications and technology. 3rd AIAA

Spacecraft Structures Conference, 2016.

[37] J. Bhagatji, O. Kravchenko, S. Asundi, Large Deformation Bending of Ultralight Deployable

Structure for Nano-Micro-Class Satellites,

[38] P. F. Pai, A. H. Nayfeh, A nonlinear composite beam theory, Nonlinear Dynamics 3, 1992, p.

273–303.
 59

[39] A.F. Johnson, Modelling fabric reinforced composites under impact loads. Composites Part

A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2001, p. 1197-1206.

[40] R. Lombarkia, A. Gakwaya, D. Nandlall, M. L. Dano, J. Lévesque, P. Vachon-Joannette,

Experimental investigation and finite-element modeling of the crushing response of hat

shape open section composite, International Journal of Crashworthiness 27, 2022, p. 772–

783.
 60

VITA

Jimesh Dipak Bhagatji