System Identification of Damped Truss-Like Space Structures

A spacecraft payload flown on a launch vehicle experiences dynamic loads. The dynamic loads are caused by various phenomena ranging from the start-up of the launch vehicle engine to wind gusts. A spacecraft payload should be designed to meet launch vehicle dynamic loads. One of the major steps taken towards determining the dynamic loads is to correlate the finite element model of the spacecraft with the test results of a modal survey test. A test-verified finite element model of the spacecraft should possess the same spatial properties (stiffness, mass, and damping) and modal properties (frequencies and mode shapes) as the test hardware representing the spacecraft. The test-verified and correlated finite element model of the spacecraft is then coupled with the finite element model of the launch vehicle for analysis of loads and stress. Modal survey testing, verification of a finite element model, and modification of the finite element model to match the modal survey test results can easily be accomplished if the spacecraft structure is simple. However, this is rarely the case. A simple structure here is defined as a structure where the influence of nonlinearity between force and displacement (uncertainty in a test, for example, with errors in input and output), and the influence of damping (structural, coulomb, and viscous) are not pronounced. The objective of this study is to develop system identification and correlation methods with the focus on the structural systems that possess nonproportional damping. Two approaches to correct the nonproportional damping matrix of a truss structure were studied, and have been implemented on truss-like structures such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's space station truss. The results of this study showed nearly 100 percent improvement of the correlated eigensystem over the analytical eigensystem. The first method showed excellent results with up to three modes used in the system identification process. The second method could handle more modes, but required more computer usage time, and the results were less accurate than those of the first method.