Folie 1

1
TRD Design 2
TRD Structural Verification Presentation Rev.3 Cha
nge Log of TRD Design 2 TRD Design 1 is described
in the Structural Verification Rev.2 Document
041126_TRD_SV_Rev2.pdf
2
TRD Design 2
Upper Plate Skin Thickness reduced to 2 x 0.8
mm Reinforcement Thickness reduced to 2 x 2
mm C-Profiles Wall-Thickness reduced to 7
mm Support Structure Upper Bracket L-Shaped with
2 Webs Each Blade with 7 Bolts and 1 Shear
Pin M-Structure Angled Beams reduced to 45mm x
60mm x 3.5mm Corner Bracket Slightly Modified
Contour Diagonal Struts Pipe 30 x 2mm Total TRD
Mass reduced to 330.4 kg, see Slide 3. TRD
FE-Modal Analysis Carried out without TOF because
of the Decoupled Nature of the Corner
Bracket-TRD-TOF System see
050121C TRD-TOF Modal- and Stress Analysis.pdf
Change Log
3
TRD Design 2
4
TRD Design 2
Skin
UpperBracket (UB)
Core
M-Structure
Corner Bracket (CB)
CAD-Model
5
TRD Design 2
C-Profile integrated partof Upper Cover
CB
M-Structure Diagonal Struts
CAD-Model
6
TRD Design 2
Width 45
TRD Corner Bracket
HorizontalMembers60 x 60 x 5(Web 4)
TiltedMembers45 x 60 x 3.5
Diagonal Struts w/ Connection to M-StructureAl.,
D0 30, t 2, L 867
All Dimensions in mm
CAD-Model
7
TRD Design 2
TRD Static Analysis (incl. Upper TOF) LC 4058
8
TRD Design 2
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, x-Displacement mm
9
TRD Design 2
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, y-Displacement mm
10
TRD Design 2
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, z-Displacement mm
11
TRD Design 2
Stresses w/o local effects at bolting positions
Stress Peak at x M S1 63 MPa, see next Slide
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, M-Structure
12
TRD Design 2
S1 63 MPa MS 2.37
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, M-Structure, xM
13
TRD Design 2
S3 -134 MPa MS(yield) 1.07
M-Structure Submodel Analysis, LC 4058, xM,
14
TRD Design 2
Stress Peak at x/-y CB Seqv 85 MPaSubmodel is
following
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, x/-y CB
15
TRD Design 2
Slit Stress Peak Submodel Result MS
0.48 Coarse/Submodel Relation from previous
Analysis (Rev.1)
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, Octagon Panels
16
TRD Design 2
Slit Stress Peak Submodel Result MS
0.26 Coarse/Submodel Relation from previous
Analysis (Rev.1)
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, Octagon Panels
17
TRD Design 2
MS 0.81
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, Octagon Panel Flanges
18
TRD Design 2
MS 0.66
TRD Analysis, LC 4058, Octagon Panel Flanges
19
TRD Design 2
Upper Octagon PanelFlange Reinforcement
MS 1.10
TRD Analysis, LC 4058
20
TRD Design 2
Upper Cover (Lower Skin Reinforcement)
MS 1.17
TRD Analysis, LC 4058
21
TRD Design 2
Upper Cover (Upper Skin Reinforcement)
MS 0.80
TRD Analysis, LC 4058
22
TRD Design 2
TRD Static Analysis (incl. Upper TOF) LC 1008
Acoustic Loading
23
TRD Design 2
TRD Analysis, LC 1008 (Dp), z-Displacement mm
24
TRD Design 2
S1 106 MPa MS 1.02
TRD Analysis, LC 1008 (Dp), M-Structure, xM
25
TRD Design 2
Stress Peak at x/-y CB Seqv 62 MPaSubmodel is
following
TRD Analysis, LC 1008 (Dp), x/-y CB
26
TRD Design 2
MS 0.81
TRD Analysis, LC 1008 (Dp), Octagon Panel
Flanges
27
TRD Design 2
TRD Modal Analysis
28
TRD Design 2
Isometric View
1.EF 49.6 Hz, meff(y) 1.0 kg, y-Displacement
29
TRD Design 2
2.EF 55.6 Hz, meff(z) 303 kg
TRD Modal Analysis, z-Displacement
30
TRD Design 2
2.EF 55.6 Hz, meff(z) 303 kg
TRD Modal Analysis, z-Displacement
31
TRD Design 2
Isometric View
3.EF 65.1 Hz, meff(x) 245.1 kg, x-Displacement
32
TRD Design 2
Isometric View, from below
3.EF 65.1 Hz, meff(x) 245.1 kg, x-Displacement
33
TRD Design 2
Isometric View
4.EF 65.7 Hz, meff(y) 256.4 kg, y-Displacement
34
TRD Design 2
Isometric View, from below
4.EF 65.7 Hz, meff(y) 256.4 kg, y-Displacement
35
TRD Design 2
36
TRD Design 2
TRD Modal Analysis, Participation Factors
37
M-Structure Buckling
TRD Design 2
38
TRD M Design 2
1 kg Masspoint at Baffle-CGconnected to -xM
1 kg Masspoint TAS Box connected to -yM
1 kg Masspoint at Baffle-CGconnected to xM
FE-Model for FEA Including Nonlinear Geometry
Effects
39
TRD M Design 2
Load Set proportional to LC 4058, Load Factor vs.
Normal Deflection
40
The Margin of Safety resulting from the Load
Factor of 2.75 amounts to 0.375
The Margin of Safety has even increased, compared
to the one of the previous design version, due to
a more realistic simulation of the boltings and
the shear pins of the Corner Brackets.
41
Diagonal Strut Buckling   As a very conservative
approach, the max. axial loading for the diagonal
struts is also determined by evaluation of the
nonlinear analysis, described above, for Load
Factor 2.75. Diagonal Al-Trusses Do 30mm, t
2mm, L 867mm   Max. Axial Load (2.75 x Load Set
(LC 4058)) F 1394.4 N Youngs Modulus E
70000 N/mm² Area Moment of Inertia Max.
Allowable Buckling Force(Euler, Pin Ended
Strut) Factor of Safety Margin of
Safety   The diagonal struts show a high MS to
carry compression force.
42
AMS-02 TRD and UToF Thermal Control System Update
PRELIMINARY
Reinhard Schlitt OHB-System AG, Bremen, Germany
43
TRD / U-TOF MLI ENCLOSURE
SIDE
44
TRD / U-TOF MLI ENCLOSURE
BOTTOM
45
TRD TOP MLI
46
MLI
Multi Layer Insulation
Excellent Reflectivity Negligible Conductance
Described by a material constant
epsilon(effective)
epsilon(eff.) 0.003 close to perfect MLI
epsilon(eff.) 0.03 realistic value
strongly depending on
detailed MLI layout
47
8. Conclusions 2/6

• The analysis results show (present design with
  coupling to USS Upper Joint)

Max.Temp. beta75,YPR-15/-20/-15
Min.Temp. beta 0, YPR 0/ 0/ -15
48
(No Transcript)
49
TRD Temperature Gradient
Temp.K
Upper Plate
Lower Plate
Centre
50 K in 15 days
50
TRD Temperature Gradient
outside
Temp. K
centre
3 days
51
Current Conclusion
MLI epsilon(eff.) approx. 0.03
Install Heaters