Part 4

Shock damage risk assessment

WG members:
B. Brevart, C. De Fruytier
S. Kiryenko, S. Behar-Lafenetre, H. Grzeskowiak, B. Braun,
D. Keil, F. Ruess

Including previous contributors:

C. Colombo, S. Lewis, P. Marucchi, G. Nadalin, J. Polome

Handbook Part 4 Content

Required inputs
Chp. 16

Introduction Overview for detailed

to damage Assessment context SDRA
risk Outputs of SDRA
assessment and associated
and objective limitations Overview
Derivation by
Evaluation of extrapolation from
Chp. 18

Shock transmissibility test data

between Shock response
Damage Risk prediction based on
Analysis equipement and transmissibility
sensitive
Guideline for
components equipment shock
analysis

Overview
Derivation of qualification Verification Electronic equipment
Chp. 17

Unit shock levels at unit interface method per Mechanisms - Ball

susceptibility Identification of critical type of bearings
with respect to frequency ranges components Valves
shock Considerations related to Optical components
life duration and mission
and/or units
List of shock sensitive
components/units
Chap. 16 Introduction to SDRA and objective

Assessment context Outputs of SDRA and associated limitations

In the general case, qualification is assessed by comparing equipment qualifying
environment to the shock test requirement at unit interface (or shock allowable
derived by sine/random equivalence)
In some cases, shock qualification cannot be directly achieved
Shock damage Risk Analysis can provide an assessment whether the spacecraft can
withstand to required shock environment

Various contexts due to project development differences:

Risk induced on equipment by proto-flight verification test at system level
Qualification is not achieved and shock verification to be achieved on PFM unit For a new
development (QM available), SDRA is used to support design choices to minimize the risk
of failure during qualification
Case of an alert on component that impacts all programs

In the context of SDRA, safety margin or probability risk level cannot be precisely
estimated. The level of confidence of SDRA is directly related to the conservatism of
the assumptions made.

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

Unit susceptibility assessment

Assessment of Unit susceptibility wrt
shock requires that a consistent
approach is strictly followed:
1) Coverage by other mechanical
environments,
2) Identification of critical freq. ranges,
3) Screening for sensitive components,
4) Mission related aspects

All these steps are detailed in HB, and

discussed herein.

A Shock Damage Risk Analysis is

required if the unit susceptibility is
confirmed.
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

Derivation of qualification shock levels at unit interface

Review for excessive conservatism in the derivation
methodology:
Too stringent launcher shock specification
Polluted shock response data
Improper usage of system level test data
Construction of the unit specification from
measurements or extrapolated data

Identification of critical frequency ranges

Simple comparison between required SRS levels
(including 3 dB margin) and achieved level during
equipment testing (or shock allowable derived from
random testing)
Non-coverage area defines critical frequency ranges
Care should be taken for the selection of the SRS Q
factor (Q=10 is appropriate for far-field but it is
recommended to 10 and 100 for mid-field environment)

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units

Based on the return of experience, three categories can be distinguished:
Electronic components
Functional mechanical assemblies
Mechanisms
Electronic components and associated degradation modes
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units

Electronic components and associated degradation modes

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Relay
Failure modes
Contact chatter or electrical bouncing (can be sometimes acceptable
depending on electrical design and function)
Transfer (change of the movable part position in a bi-stable relay)
Irreversible damage (damaged contact, locked mechanism)
Example of relay failure (TL relay)
Irreversible damage (plastic deformation of the brackets)
Due to mounting conditions Local resonance around 1700Hz

Relay before shock test Relay after shock test

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Relay shock sensitivity threshold
Procurement specifications (ex: 100g@6ms) not always reflecting the
qualification need at electronic unit level.
Nota The situation has improved with the introduction of high level
mechanical shock in ESCC generic specifications
Validation of the shock withstanding considering realistic mounting conditions
is mandatory
Characterization performed in the frame of ENVISAT on 9 types of relays

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Conversion of time history value in schematic SRS

Based on test campaign measurement SRS
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Quartz
Damage 1: Dynamic shift of its central
frequency during the shock

Damage 2: Permanent shift of its central

frequency after shock exposure

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Example of Quartz failure
Example 1: Permanent frequency shift
OK after shock at Level 1
Excessive shift of the quartz crystal
after shock at Level 2
Crack initiation at interfaces
between clips and pins
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Example of Quartz failure
Example 2: Broken quartz crystal after
shock at Level 1

Example 3: Dependence on shock

characteristics (half sine vs. metal/metal)
Quartz fundamental resonance around
6kHz not excited by drop test
excited by hammer on ringing
plate

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Magnetic component (RM), transformer and self
Generally composed of a magnetic circuit made of ferrite material
Good electrical properties but fragile rupture
Different mounting conditions can be used
On PCB: glued and/or mechanically linked
On mechanical structure: glued and mechanically linked
On ceramic substrate: hybrids application
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Magnetic component (RM), transformer and self
Characterisation tests performed at components level on RM
Mounted on ceramic substrate (ex. given for RM12)
Mounted on PCB (RM4, RM5, RM6 & RM7)

Zone de rupture du RM12

INF SUP S4

10000

1000

Acceleration [g]

100

10
100 1000 10000
Frequency [Hz]

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Magnetic component (RM), transformer and self
Illustration of RM12 shock withstanding

RM12
Broken RM12

Before shock test After shock test

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Hybrid
Failure modes
Adhesive rupture at substrate level
Crack in glass feed-thru
Packaging or lid structural failure
Mobile particles in the cavity
Deformed Hybrid interface plate

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Heavy or large components
Large deflection of PCB combined with high shock
loads can lead to adhesive failure and rupture of
solder joint.
Mounting conditions shall satisfy ECSS-Q-ST-70-08C
& 38C, in particular:
Staking applied for component mass > 5gr
Conformal coating not a suitable staking method
Method for stress relief to be implemented
Securing by mechanical means (lacing and/or staking) should
not impair lead wire stress relief

Glue
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units Electronic components

Sensitivity threshold summary

Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to

shock

List of shock sensitive components / units

Functional Mechanical Assemblies
Minor deformations/displacements largely affect their performance
Issues linked to slightly sliding threaded fasteners, local plastic deformations, pre-
stress release, bonding degradation,
RF channel filters (IMUX, OMUX,)
RF filter shaping is highly sensitive to cavity dimensions, tuning screws
positionning, electrical contact of dielectric resonator with the cavity
Iso-static mount and bonding
ISM permanent deformation, residual
tilt or misalignment degrades mirror
performance
Induced stresses in ISM should not
exceed yield precision limit for stability
reason
Classical bonding and molecular
adhesion Bond capability should not
be exceeded (possible reduction of Mirror bonded joint failure
allowable due to thermal-vacuum)
Chap. 17 Unit susceptibility with respect to
shock

List of shock sensitive components / units

Mechanisms
Complex assemblies of components, enabling relative motion
Numerous possible degradation modes associated to shock
Bearing, gears, worm wheels, endless screws, gimbal bearings
excessive marking
Alignment critical parts
interface slippage
Clearance seals
contact/friction/wear
Valves
Leakage
Life sensitive component
accelerated aging
Flexible pivots, preload locking systems RF switch toggling

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Evaluation of transmissibility between equipment and sensitive components

How is the I/F level transmitted inside the unit to sensitive components is the key
information for SDRA
Derivation from test data

The correlation between interface points is high

on the example below (qual. shock on a thick plate)
so that shock amplification is a worst case w.r.t.
pyrotechnic shock

In case only random

test results are available
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Assessment

Evaluation of transmissibility between equipment and sensitive components

Derivation from broadband shock prediction based on transmissibility

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Guidelines for equipment shock analysis

Depending on the context, various analyses can be performed

The accuracy of the results will depend :
on the inputs
on the method
on the FEM quality

Method 1 Transient excitation of unit-plate coupled system

Method 2 Base transient excitation of unit

DECREASING COMPLEXITY
Method 3 Modal solutions
+
LOSS IN CONFIDENCE
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Guidelines for equipment shock analysis

Method 1 Transient excitation of unit-plate coupled system
Only I/F acceleration SRS is available
The physical environment (supporting structure) of the unit is given
Simple transient force models (half sine or triangular profile, duration to be
tuned) result in a representative acceleration field at the base of the unit
SRS adjustments on unit responses can be performed to meet the I/F
specification
All types of output result can be obtained (I/F force, stress, acceleration)

Mechanical test
F bench simulation

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Guidelines for equipment shock analysis

Method 2 Base transient excitation of the unit
Transient base accelerations have been measured
The interface structure is considered perfectly rigid
Single or multiple base accelerations applying transient
direct or modal solution
All types of output result can be obtained

Test/Simulation
Correlation on
Parabolic Mirror
Assembly
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Guidelines for equipment shock analysis

Method 3 Modal solutions
Only I/F acceleration SRS is available
The interface structure is considered perfectly rigid
A frequency response function (transmissibility) can be calculated between the
interface and a sensitive component location
Shock transmissibility estimated applying
The transition frequency (general transmissibility approach) can be estimated
computing cumulative modal effective transmissibilities
Typical values for PCB response
6000 Hz for small units (mass < 1 kg, PCB area < 100 cm2)
4500 Hz for mid-size units (mass ~3 kg, PCB area ~400 cm2)
Transition
3500 Hz for large units (mass around 10 kg, standard 2E PCB size) frequency
2

NX/X NY/Y NZ/Z

effectives Transmissibilities

1.5
Normalized cumulated

0.5

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

-0.5

Frequency (Hz)

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Guidelines for equipment shock analysis

Method 3 Modal solutions
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA)
Given by SRS at fi
Approximate methods (Nastran SOL 103) to
compute broadband peak response
Used to compute stresses in the equipment
Not relevant to get SRS at component
location
ABS method is the most conservative method
but it is unable to predict maximum stress
associated to rocking modes occurring on a
plate (out of plane excitation)
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Electronic equipment

Thorough understanding of the equipment dynamic behavior is essential

Natural frequencies at various levels (Unit/PCB/Component mounting
condition/Inside component)
Identify possible coupling between all dynamic entities
Shock damage is often produced by critical resonances

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Electronic equipment
Validation for component mounting technologies by tests
ECSS-Q-ST-70-08C defines the verification procedure to apply for soldered
components (sine and random vibration testing + thermal cycling)
In addition, the test vehicle can be submitted
to shocks (acceleration SRS on PCB to be
compared to SDRA output at component location)
When shock tests have not been performed,
verify if RRS or URS (cf. Part 3) of the
qualification to random vibrations does cover
If RRS does not cover, Steinberg rule is to be
verified to gain in confidence (large margin)
Maximum acceleration
applied to PCB (SI Unit)

6.78E 4 B f 2
G PCB FE model
A Chr L to evaluate PCB
resonance if unknown
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Electronic equipment
General considerations on equipment design and verification w.r.t. shock
Recall of the verification process to be followed when developing a new
design of electronic equipment
How to deal with modular equipment (validation procedure for modules of
a large unit)
Chapter addressed in more details in a separate presentation
(C. de Fruytier)

Module with critical components

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Electronic equipment
Important considerations for robust equipment design w.r.t. shock
Component mounting conditions
LF resonances filter the high frequency content on the component
Local resonances can raise functional issues, they can even be
destructive if the resonant frequency is highly excited by the shock
Offset
Bonded Relay w.r.t PCB
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Electronic equipment
Important considerations for robust equipment design w.r.t. shock
Shock acceleration distribution inside the equipment
Submitted to a pyrotechnical shock, peak accelerations are much higher on
the base plate than anywhere else (PCB, PCB frames or equipment walls)
Zone Maximumaccelerationtimehistory Zone Maximumaccelerationtimehistory
Baseplate 6550g Baseplate 5568g
PCBframe 2190g PCBframe 5292g
PCB 1018g PCB 633g
Stacked equipment (vertical PCB) Racked equipment (horizontal PCB)

But the LF content of the SRS can be raised

on PCB

Avoid PCB coupling with

chassis (octave rule)

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Mechanisms & ball bearings Verification methodology
Widely used in spacecraft applications (scan mechanisms, reaction/momentum wheels,
solar array drive, deployment and tracking/optical devices )
Design for space applications usually based on radial or angular contact bearings in a
preloaded pair configuration (soft or hard), with recommendation to use hard preload
particularly for long life applications.
Main Degradation mode is
excessive marking (see next slide).
Damaging risk evaluated from
derivation of the external
loads/moments and computation of
the peak Hertzian ball-raceway
contact stresses (or consideration of
ball bearing load capacity), with
possible derating due to lubricant and
life time consideration.
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Mechanisms & ball bearings Degradation modes
Effects of shock depend on the type and magnitude of preload, shock level / direction
and lubricant in-use.
Degradation modes span from lubricant film degradation to surface indentation, main
degradation mode related to (sub)-surface plastic deformation.

Local recoverable depletion of solid lubricant

Increasing severity

Local irrecoverable depletion of solid lubricant Lifetime and torque noise !

Scuffing of ball or raceway surfaces
Settling Preload modification after exposure
Exceedance of ECSS stress design margin
Overloading and sub-surface yield
Gross overloading and yield evident at surface
Fracture of balls Extreme case

ECSS-E-30-03 defines allowable peak hertzian contact stresses (25% margin wrt sub-
surface plastic deformation)
Role of lubricant can over-ride logic for limiting the peak stress.

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Mechanisms & ball bearings Bearing Gapping Guideline for SDRA of
bearings
Presence of gapping usually increases peak Hertzian stresses hence risk of
damage, due to hammering loading between balls and raceways.
Gapping if external load greater than preload for compliantly (soft)
loaded bearings, or 2.83 x preload for hard preloaded bearings
A bearing model based on the stiffness of a single bearing in a forced
2-DOF system excited at its resonant frequency can be used at the
onset of gapping
Gapping is not prohibited by ECSS-E-ST-33-01C but its consequences must
be confirmed to be non-degrading
Gapping Rules of Thumb exist (ie. 20m-30 m may be acceptable) but
not substantiated by any experimental programme, hence following
approach is recommended: x2
In the absence of gapping the consequences of shock loading can be m2
predicted by comparison of resulting and permitted peak Hertzian
stresses (load capacities) k
But if predicted SRS is sufficiently high for gapping to occur, then
there is a further reduction in the allowable loads due to the effect of F sin t
hammering collisions which essentially reduces the allowable worst m1 x1
case shock response level
Detailed guideline and example are provided in HB, for calculating
allowable shock induced peak Hertzian contact stress levels and
bearing gapping.
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Mechanisms & ball bearings Role of lubricant
In most cases, whether solid or liquid lubricated, any disruption to performance due to
local lubricant depletion is temporary (self-recovering). De-rating the allowable stress
level normally not required, for self-lubricated bearings, or with replenishing cage.
However if no possibility of replenishment exists, the allowable stress level becomes
limited by lubricant lifetime requirements (lubricant lifetime / contact stress relationship,
see example below).

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Assessment

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Valves Verification methodology
Two types of valves:
With mechanical stop-end
Elastomer seal is protected, and
damage mode is limited to transient
leakage
Without mechanical stop-end
Elastomer seal can be damaged
resulting in a permanent leakage

Transient leakage assessment results

from an energetic approach

Seal degradation assessed following

Hertzian theory for contact stresses.

Detailed guideline is provided in the

HB, covering both types of valves
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Valves With mechanical stop-end
Calculation of kinetic energy of mobile parts
2
1 Q .Acc.9.81
E c Mmobile shock

2 2 .freq acc
With
Qshock: amplification factor to cover eventual
coupling between excitation and internal resonances
(identified through sine survey or analytically considering a 1 DOF system)
Acc: maximum SRS acceleration at the valve interface within critical frequency
range, at a frequency freqacc

Computation of potential energy stored in system (spring + eventually pressure)

Wspring Fspring .dl for short stroke
Wpressure Pinput .S.dl for isolation valve
Verification of leakage criteria Wspring Wpressure
Isolation Valve SMopening
f req
1
acc
E
Regulation Valve Wspring c
SMopening
f req
1
ac c
Ec

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Analysis

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Valves Without mechanical stop-end
Evaluation of the elastomer seal deformation (Hertzian theory)
The body in contact with elastomer seal is considered
to be a cylinder with equivalent length of L circ D d 2
The flux applied on the elastomer is P Fspring L circ
The width of rectangular contact area is given by
1 2steel 1 2elastomer
b 1.6 2.P.R.CE with CE
E steel E elastomer
The penetration due to the preload can be computed

R1 cosArcsinb 2R
Derivation of the stiffness curve of the preloaded system
Contact stiffness for small is K contact Fpreload
Natural frequency of the valve (1DOF system with 2 parallel springs)
can be compared with critical frequency range

Damage assessment of elastomer seal

Fext Fpreload p
p Hertz 0.798 50 MPa
L equiv alent cy l 2R.C E
Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Assessment

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Optical components - Verification methodology
Comparison with
Bonding allowable shear
stress
Verification 1. applied load
methods
2. contact surface Yes
per type of
components

Evaluation of
stress induced Stress No Reliability
Mirror
by the shock < threshold analysis
transient
Fast fracture analysis
1. FEM results
a Stress induced by 1g 1.Material strength testing necessary
acceleration 2.Scaling test specimen statistical
b Induced stress due to parameters based on surface area
expected SRS g level under stress
2.Shock test measurement 3.Allowable stress determined based on
at unit interface acceptable probability of failure
a max K cV max No, brittle material
Final
Comparison assessment
Metallic Yes with for damaging
ISM
material allowable risk against
stress shock load

Chap. 18 Shock Damage Risk Assessment

Verification method per type of components and/or units

Optical components Focus on brittle materials
Brittle materials used for optical components are usually far from shock sources
and relatively decoupled from the supporting structure by ISM. But in particular
case like small platform, this shock issue may be encountered.
Strength of ceramic/glass-ceramic materials
Weibull distribution 1

-> Size effects ,1 Aeff , 2 m

Aeff max th
m , 2 Aeff ,1
Pf 1 exp( )
Ao o
-> Threshold stress/ max <th => Pf = 0
(typically 10MPa in Zerodur)
th
In cases where a threshold has been determined and max< th,
no damage is expected
In other cases, a full reliability analysis must be performed
taking into account the complete stress distribution
Shock Handbook Part 4 Conclusion

Part focusing on Shock Damage Risk Assessment to be used in different

contexts (missing qualification, alerts, or simply equipment development)

A toolbox to address equipment susceptibility to shocks including

List of sensitive components / units
Evaluation of transmissibility between equipment and sensitive components
Guideline for equipment shock analysis
Verification method per type of components and/or units
(electronic equipment, mechanisms, valves, optical components)

Processes, lists, data, and methods are based on the experience of main
European spacecraft manufacturers and European Space Agency