statement of work deliverables
DESCRIPTION
Statement of Work Deliverables. Result : All deliverables successfully completed. Statement of Work Deliverables Update of Previous Work – Correction of Matched CTE Cases Ansys Verification of Matlab Results Matlab Actuator Displacements Fed Back to Ansys (closed the loop) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Statement of Work Deliverables
Deliverable: Action:Update Ansys and Matlab code to enhance model confidence.
Bugs identified and resolved. Matlab data fed back to Ansys.
Model effects of temperature profile for face sheet and truss.
Capability for uniform and gradient temperature loads.
Evaluate the effects of actuator uncertainties.
Two different uncertainty models investigated.
Document model and transfer technology to UF.
Documented Matlab and Ansys GT code integrated in by UF.
• Result: All deliverables successfully completed.
Overview
• Statement of Work Deliverables
• Update of Previous Work – Correction of Matched CTE Cases
• Ansys Verification of Matlab Results– Matlab Actuator Displacements Fed Back to Ansys (closed the loop)
– Thermal Aberration Reproduction vs. Correction
• Actuator Glitch Evaluation– Random Glitch
– Discrete Glitch
• Actuator Forces Evaluation
• Concluding Remarks
Parameters
Facesheet:Diameter (tip to tip) 2mF-number 1.5Thickness mModulus of Elasticity 95 GPaPoisson’s ratio 0.35CTE 13E-6 /°C
Substrate data:Beam diameter 1.16 mmModulus of elasticity 68.3 GpaPoisson’s ratio 0.33CTE 0 /°CActuator stiffness 2N/m
Thermal loads:1) 10°C uniform2) 1°C/m gradient
Actuators cases:1) 152) 1593) 1563
Update of Previous Work – Correction of Matched CTE Cases
• Problem: Similar displacements for matched and unmatched CTEs of the facesheet and truss.
Mismatched CTEs Matched CTEs(incorrect)
Facesheet only
10°C uniform load – 159 actuators
• Solution: Bug fixed in Ansys code so correct CTEs assigned in the matched case.
Update of Previous Work – Correction of Matched CTE Cases
• Problem: Similar displacements for matched and unmatched CTEs of the facesheet and truss.
Mismatched CTEs Matched CTEs(incorrect)
Facesheet only
10°C uniform load – 159 actuators
• Solution: Bug fixed in Ansys code so correct CTEs assigned in the matched case.
Correction of Matched CTE Cases - 10ºC Uniform, 159 Actuators
UpdatedMatched CTEs
PreviousMatched CTEs
• Matched CTE case is now similar to the facesheet only case.
PreviousFacesheet only
Correction of Matched CTE Cases - 1ºC/m Gradient, 159 Actuators
• Matched CTE case is now similar to the facesheet only case.
UpdatedMatched CTEs
PreviousMatched CTEs
PreviousFacesheet only
ANSYS Verification of Matlab Results
• Previously, Ansys provided influence coefficients and the response to thermal loads. These were imported into Matlab to calculate actuator displacements to reproduce the aberration.
• Currently, the Matlab-calculated actuator displacements are fed back into Ansys to either:
– Correct the thermally loaded system.
– Reproduce the thermal aberrations by actuation from an initially unloaded system (similar to previous Matlab work).
• Results: Correct and Reproduce yield similar results.
Summary: Reproduction vs. Correction
15 159 1563
Reproduction uniform x-grad uniform x-grad uniform x-grad
Absolute RMS (nm) 2549 147 2083 93 341 40
RMS (%) 0.926% 0.570% 1.232% 0.992% 0.127% 1.203%
15 159 1563
Correction uniform x-grad uniform x-grad uniform x-grad
Absolute RMS (nm) 2551 147 2084 93 342 40
RMS (%) 0.927% 0.570% 1.232% 0.995% 0.127% 1.204%
• Results: The correction is produced with essentially the same accuracy as the reproduction.
Ansys Plots: Reproduction vs. Correction
• Reproduction vs. Correction Plots:
• 15 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 15 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
• 159 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 159 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
• 1563 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 1563 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
10ºC Uniform, 15 Actuators
Absolute RMS 2549 nm
Normalized RMS 0.926 %
Absolute RMS 2551 nm
Normalized RMS 0.927 %
Reproduction Correction
Absolute RMS 147 nm
Normalized RMS 0.570 %
Absolute RMS 147 nm
Normalized RMS 0.570 %
Reproduction Correction
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 15 Actuators
10ºC Uniform, 159 Actuators
Absolute RMS 2083 nm
Normalized RMS 1.232 %
Absolute RMS 2084 nm
Normalized RMS 1.232 %
Reproduction Correction
Absolute RMS 93 nm
Normalized RMS 0.992 %
Absolute RMS 93 nm
Normalized RMS 0.995 %
Reproduction Correction
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 159 Actuators
10ºC Uniform, 1563 Actuators
Absolute RMS 341 nm
Normalized RMS 0.127 %
Absolute RMS 342 nm
Normalized RMS 0.127 %
Reproduction Correction
Absolute RMS 40 nm
Normalized RMS 1.203 %
Absolute RMS 40 nm
Normalized RMS 1.204 %
Reproduction Correction
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 1563 Actuators
Actuator Glitch
• Three cases of actuator glitch are compared:
– No Glitch – actuators have infinite resolution.
– Discrete Glitch – actuator displacements are multiples of 50 nm.
– Random Glitch – a random glitch between +/- 50 nm is added to each actuator displacement.
• Results: The RMS errors are not sensitive to small glitches. (Small is relative to maximum actuator strokes).
Glitch Summary
No Glitch 15 159 1563
uniform x-grad uniform x-grad uniform x-grad
Absolute RMS Error (nm) 2551 147 2084 93 342 40
RMS Error (%) 0.926% 0.570% 1.232% 0.995% 0.127% 1.204%
Glitch/Max Stroke (%) 0.07% 1.47% 0.15% 2.00% 0.24% 1.79%
Discrete Glitch 15 159 1563
uniform x-grad uniform x-grad uniform x-grad
Absolute RMS Error (nm) 2556 468 2089 216 347 72
RMS Error (%) 0.929% 1.813% 1.235% 2.316% 0.129% 2.146%
Additional RMS Error (%) 0.00% 1.24% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% 0.94%
Random Glitch 15 159 1563
uniform x-grad uniform x-grad uniform x-grad
Absolute RMS Error (nm) 2593 353 2089 268 346 88
RMS Error (%) 0.942% 1.366% 1.236% 2.871% 0.129% 2.629%
Additional RMS Error (%) 0.02% 0.80% 0.00% 1.88% 0.00% 1.42%
• Result: Glitch Additional RMS Error % Glitch/Maximum Actuator Stroke %.
Ansys Plots: Actuator Glitch
• No Glitch vs. Discrete Glitch vs. Random Glitch:
• 15 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 159 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 1563 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
•15 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
• 159 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
• 1563 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
10ºC Uniform, 15 Actuators
No Glitch Discrete Glitch Random Glitch
Abs RMS 2551 nm
% RMS 0.927 %
Abs RMS 2556 nm
% RMS 0.929 %
Abs RMS 2593 nm
% RMS 0.942 %
10ºC Uniform, 159 Actuators
No Glitch Discrete Glitch Random Glitch
Abs RMS 2084 nm
% RMS 1.232 %
Abs RMS 2089 nm
% RMS 1.235 %
Abs RMS 2089 nm
% RMS 1.236 %
10ºC Uniform, 1563 Actuators
No Glitch Discrete Glitch Random Glitch
Abs RMS 342 nm
% RMS 0.127 %
Abs RMS 347 nm
% RMS 0.129 %
Abs RMS 346 nm
% RMS 0.129 %
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 15 Actuators
No Glitch Discrete Glitch Random Glitch
Abs RMS 147 nm
% RMS 0.570%
Abs RMS 468 nm
% RMS 1.813 %
Abs RMS 353 nm
% RMS 1.366 %
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 159 Actuators
No Glitch Discrete Glitch Random Glitch
Abs RMS 93
% RMS 0.995%
Abs RMS 216 nm
% RMS 2.316 %
Abs RMS 268 nm
% RMS 2.817 %
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 1563 Actuators
No Glitch Discrete Glitch Random Glitch
Abs RMS 40
% RMS 1.204%
Abs RMS 72 nm
% RMS 1.146 %
Abs RMS 88 nm
% RMS 2.629 %
Actuator Forces
• Force Evaluation
– Increasing numbers of actuators, increases required actuator forces.
– 15 actuators case met force specifications (< 0.1N) for both 10ºC Uniform and 1ºC/m X-Gradient loads.
– 159 and 1563 actuators cases exceed force specifications for both loadings.
– (Note: will add 45 and 93 actuator cases.)
Ansys Plots: Actuator Forces
• Force Plots
• 15 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 45 actuators, 10°C Uniform
• 93 actuators, 10°C Uniform
• 159 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 1563 actuators, 10ºC Uniform
• 15 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
• 45 actuators, 1°C/m X-Gradient
• 93 actuators, 1°C/m X-Gradient
• 159 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
• 1563 actuators, 1ºC/m X-Gradient
10ºC Uniform, 15 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force within limit (< 0.1N).
aberrationactuator forces
P2V 1419 m
Absolute RMS 2550 nm
Normalized RMS 0.926 %
Maximum Force 0.026 N
Maximum Stroke 68.4 m
10ºC Uniform, 45 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N).
aberrationactuator forces
P2V 592 m
Absolute RMS 2,482 nm
Normalized RMS 4.72 %
Maximum Force 3.09 N
Maximum Stroke 49.3 m
10ºC Uniform, 93 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N).
aberrationactuator forces
P2V 651 m
Absolute RMS 2,329 nm
Normalized RMS 2.03 %
Maximum Force 6.92 N
Maximum Stroke 38.8 m
10ºC Uniform, 159 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N)
aberration
P2V 661 m
Absolute RMS 2085 nm
Normalized RMS 1.23 %
Maximum Force 10.0 N
Maximum Stroke 32.9 m
actuator forces
10ºC Uniform, 1563 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N)
aberration
P2V 654 m
Absolute RMS 342 nm
Normalized RMS 0.127 %
Maximum Force 23.0 N
Maximum Stroke 20.8 m
actuator forces
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 15 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force is within limit (< 0.1N).
aberration
P2V 254 m
Absolute RMS 147 nm
Normalized RMS 0.570 %
Maximum Force 0.0006 N
Maximum Stroke 3.4 m
actuator forces
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 45 Actuators
aberration
P2V 283 m
Absolute RMS 121 nm
Normalized RMS 0.635 %
Maximum Force 0.347 N
Maximum Stroke 3.45 m
actuator forces
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N).
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 93 Actuators
aberration
P2V 170.7 m
Absolute RMS 106 nm
Normalized RMS 0.763 %
Maximum Force 0.469 N
Maximum Stroke 2.98 m
actuator forces
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N).
1ºC/m X-Gradient, 159 Actuators
• Maximum actuator force is exceeded (> 0.1N)
aberration
P2V 88.1 m
Absolute RMS 93 nm
Normalized RMS 0.995 %
Maximum Force 0.58 N
Maximum Stroke 2.5 m
actuator forces
Concluding Remarks
• Only the 15 actuator case satisfied all specified criteria
– RMS errors for the two thermal loads were low, less than 1%.
– Maximum force levels required only 25% of the holding force.
– Maximum stroke was about 50% of maximum.
– Large P2V amplitudes corrected (1419 m and 254 m).
• Increasing actuators increased actuator forces to unacceptable levels.