Journal of ~ n g i n e e r i nDesign,

~ Vol. 6, No. 4, 1995

The Design of an Advanced Primary Deployment

Mechanism for a Spacecraft Solar Array

S. C. BURGESS

SUMMARY An advanced primay deployment mechanism (PDM) has been designed for a
major earth observation satellite called Envisat which is due w be launched in 1998. The
Envisar PDM perfonns the first stage of deployment of the solar array and supports it for 4
years of operation in low earth orbit. The PDM is the largest ever designed in Europe and
contains advanced mechanism and snuctural technology in order to meet v e y demanding
requirements. A highly iterative design process was necessay to produce the required peform-
ance with correlation between test and analysis playing a crucial role in the final stages of the
design process. This paper presents the overall design methodology used for the EnvLat PDM
and describes some of the key design and analysis activities at each stage of the design process.

1. Introduction

A 4-year programme to design an advanced primary deployment mechanism (PDM)

for a major new earth observation satellite called Envisat has just been completed at
British Aerospace in Bristol and the flight model is now being manufactured. The
Envisat PDM is a complex mechanical system and has two functions which are
critically important to the Envisat mission:

(1) Primary (i.e. first stage) deployment of the solar array immediately after launch
of the spacecraft.
(2) Suuctural support of the deployed solar array during 4 years of operation in low
earth orbit.

Envisat, which has a total mission cost of over El billion, was first developed in the
kamework of the international Columbus Space Programme and is due to be launched
in 1998 by an Ariane 5 transportation rocket [l].With a mass of over 9 tomes, Envisat
will be Europe's largest ever operational spacecraft when it is launched into low earth
orbit. The spacecraft has a single 7.5 kW solar array which provides power to operate
11 scientific insuuments [2].
The configuration of the Envisat PDM flight design during launch is shown in Fig.
1. During launch, the solar array is folded into a panel stack and clamped against the
spacecraft sidewall with releasable hold-down mechanisms. The PDM has to span a
distance of 3.8 m to reach the solar array interface point and its configuration has to be

S. C. Burgess, formerly Envisat PDM Design Manager, British Aemspace Space Systems Ltd, Filton,
Bristol BS12 7QW, UK. Now Senior Research Associate, Engineering Design Centre, Engineering
Department, Cambridge University, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 lPZ, UK.
0954-l828/95/040291-17 91995 Journals Oxford Ltd
292 S. C.Burgess

R w t deplaymenl hiope @ Root holddowns (2 off)

Middle d0ploymenl hinge @ Mid-span holbdowns (2 011)
@ Top deploymenl hlnge a Top hM-downs (2 of0
@ Learspringassernbt$ @ Boom

envelope . . ..
.."."-".,,-
FIG.1. Schematic of the Envisat PDM in stowed configuration during launch.

compatible with the spacecraft sidewall and the rocket shroud envelope. The PDM has
a leaf spring assembly near to the middle hinge which absorbs vibration-induced
enforced displacements of up to 5 mm in the x-axis between the panel stack and the
root deployment hinge. The PDM also has six hold-down suuts which enable it to
withstand loads during the launch vibration. There are two rigid hold-down suuts at
the root end of the PDM, two semi-flexible hold-down struts at a mid-span position
and two semi-flexible hold-down struts at the top end of the PDM. The mid-span and
top hold-down struts have partial flexibility in order to withstand the large enforced
displacements in the x-axis.
After launch and immediately after orbital injection of the Envisat spacecraft, the
solar array panel stack is undamped from the spacecraft and deployed by the PDM.
The Envisat PDM flight design has three deployable hinges which are deployed
sequentially as shown in Fig. 2. Firstly, the root deployment hinge deploys the panel
stack away from the spacecraft sidewall, translating and rotating it in the u-w plane by
about 7 m and 130" respectively. Secondly, the middle deployment hinge turns the
panel stack through a further 180' in the u-w plane. Thirdly, the top deployment hinge
turns it through 90' in the u-v plane. Shortly after primary deployment, the solar array
panels are unfolded and deployed by a secondary deployment mechanism. After
secondary deployment, the solar array is ready to generate electricity from the sun's
light.
The Envisat solar array has a fully deployed size of 14 m X 5 m, a mass of about
400 kg and a power output of over 7.5 kW, and it will be the largest solar array ever
produced in Europe. The very large size of the array results in very demanding technical
requirements for the PDM which is itself the largest ever designed in Europe. At the
start of the project, there was no existing European PDM design from which an
adaptive or variant design could be generated and, therefore, the Envisat PDM had to
 Design of PDM 293
Panel stack
aner rmt hinge ,'.
Panrd stack
aner mlddle hinge
dsployment

\
Panel stack
snsr top hinge
deployment

FIG. 2. Schematic of the Envisat PDM carrying out primary deployment.

be an original and advanced design. The principal mechanical requirements of the

PDM are:
0 reliability > 0.999987;
envelope compatible with Ariane 5 and Envisat;
0 launch frequency > 60 Hz;
a launch loads up to 52 g;
0 deployment of panel stack;
0 deployed frequency > 0.03 Hz;
m a s s i 5 1 kg.
The Envisat PDM is required to have extremely high reliability because failure to
deploy within 2 hours of orbital injection will mean complete mission failure and the
loss of the entire satellite. The high reliability requirement is also necessary because the
PDM has to operate almost entirely automatically due to the fact that Envisat is
launched in an unmanned rocket.
The Envisat PDM has to meet several conflicting structural requirements during
launch vibration. On the one hand, the PDM has to have structural compliancies in the
right places to withstand enforced displacements and to meet interface load require-
ments. On the other hand, the PDM has to have enough overall stiffness to meet the
minimum launch frequency requirement. In addition, the PDM has to be strong
enough to withstand high launch loads and high separation loads. For the purposes of
analysis and test, these loads are idealized and specified as quasi-static loads, sine
vibration spectrums, random vibration spectrums, acoustic noise spectrums and shock
spectrums.
The deployment requirements are also very demanding because the deployment
hinges have to overcome the resistance of a harness which consists of over 350 power
and signal wires, together with thermal and electrical shielding. After deployment, the
PDM has to support the deployed solar array for 4 years of operation in a low earth
orbit. In this period, the PDM has to withstand high loads produced by orbital
manoeuvres and extreme temperature variations resulting from the spacecraft travelling
294 S. C.Burgess

in and out of the earth's shadow. In addition, the PDM has to withstand the hostile
effects of a near-vacuum environment, atomic oxygen, micro-meteorites and radiation.
The critical nature of the Envisat PDM design is highlighted by recent major
failures and problems in the deployment of large spacecraft appendages [3]. For
exampl'e, in 1987, a major European communication satellite called TVSAT 1 was
severely disabled when the solar arrays failed to deploy due to jamming of some of the
hold-down mechanisms. The European earth observation satellite ERS-1, which was
launched in 1991, also experienced serious deployment problems with one of its large
instrument antennae during final ground checks just before launch, and this required
last minute delays and design changes [4]. The NASA interplanetary spacecraft
Galileo, which was launched in 1989 and is still travelling to its destination Jupiter, has
also had problems in deploying its 4.8 m diameter high gain antenna due to the
jamming of some of the hold-down locking pins, and this has caused serious operational
problems [5].
This paper presents the overall design methodology used for the Envisat PDM and
describes some of the key design and analysis activities at each stage of the design
process.

2. Overall Design Process

Figure 3 shows the overall design process that has been used to design the Envisat
PDM. The process is based on a prescriptive design methodology [6] and is typical of
that used to develop complex and advanced spacecraft mechanical systems like the
Envisat PDM. The European Space Agency (ESA), who are the customer and approval
authority for the Envisat spacecraft and most other European earth observation space-
craft, actively encourage and require this design approach. The design process is highly
iterative and this enables a systematic convergence to the optimum design solution. The
methodology developed the Envisat PDM design in four distinct design phases with a
formal design review taking place at the end of each phase (see Table I). The
conceptual and embodiment design phases enabled the concepts to be evaluated using
relatively simple mathematical models before investing in very expensive detailed
modelling. The detailed design and testing of the development model enabled the
timctional modelling to be correlated with test measurements so that the flight model
could be optimized using very accurate calibrated analysis. At each design phase, there
was also an iteration loop where the design was optimized in performance. For
example, the dimensions of structural parts were optimized for minimum mass. The
design.reviews involved a formal presentation of the status of the design and its
performance. Several hundred formally recorded questions and answers were tabled at
each of the reviews. These formal design reviews gave the customer good visibility and
records of the design progress and enable the design to be approved in stages.
In the European space industry the design process is almost always split into three
discrete contractual design phases. Phase A involves concept design, phase B involves
embodiment design and phase C / D involves detailed design and manufacture of the
development model and flight model. Having separate contractual design phases gives
the customer opportunities to review and redefine requirements during the design
process. The practice of changing requirements during the design process is not
desirable but is often unavoidable in spacecraft engineering. When developing a major
new spacecraft, there are many highly complex subsystems being developed in parallel
and it is always a real possibility that incompatibilities appear between two different
subsystems. In the case of the Envisat spacecraft, a major incompatibility developed
 Design of PDM 295
--
Y
Formal Design Analysls of Problem Contradual
Reviews with Design Phases

1
Customer
I

Statement
Problem Phase A

Embodiment Deslgn
Feedback Phase B
r'\

Delall Design of DM - -
Phase C D

@-7 Detail Deslgn of FM

Feedback

FIG.3. Block diagram representation of the design methodology used for the Envisat
PDM.

during the detailed design phase between the altitude and orbital control subsystem and
the solar array, and it was necessary to change the deployed stifiess requirement on the
PDM by a factor of 4. This major change in the requirement resulted in the deletion
of a flexible joint at the root of the PDM-this change in the concept design is
described in Section 3.
296 S. C. Burgess

TABLE
I. Design activities and formal reviews in each design phase

Design phase Design activity Design review

Phase A Concepmal design Concept review (CR)

Phase B Embodiment design Baseline design
review (BDR)
Phase C/D Detailed design of Preliminary design
development model (DM) review (PDR)
Detailed design of Critical design
flight model (FM) review (CDR)

The total design campaign for the Envisat PDM had a duration of 4 years even
though the different areas of structural, mechanism, thermal and electrical design were
carried out largely concurrently. The long duration was partly due to the highly iterative
nature of the design process and the need to build a flight representative development
model. In addition, the changes in design requirements and the frequent design reviews
contributed significantly to the long duration.

3. Conceptual Design Phase

The main objective of the conceptual design phase was to establish an overall solution
principle that could fulfil the fundamental functional requirements. T h e following
design requirements were considered to be design drivers of the design concepts and
were focused on at this stage:
0 reliability;
envelope;
0 launch frequency;
0 deployment function.
T h e tight envelope (Fig. 1) imposed tight constraints on the PDM configuration and
only two main deployment system concepts were considered:
(1) triple-hinged robotic arm;
(2) double-hinged robotic arm.
The triple-hinged arm concept was selected and is shown in Figs 1 and 2. The
double-hinged arm concept was the same as the triple-hinged arm, except that the
middle and top deployment hinges were replaced with a single skewed hinge which
rotates the solar array panel stack simultaneously in the u-w and u-v planes after the
deployment of the root hinge. Although the double-hinged concept would have had
potentially less mass and higher reliability, it had to ruled out because the solar array
deployed alignment had to be independently adjustable before launch in the u-w and
u-v planes by up to 0.5' and this was something that only the middle and top hinges
could adequately achieve.
Having selected the overall deployment concept, the next design step was to
generate a concept for the deployment hinges. The deployment hinges are generally the
most critical part of a spacecraft deployment system because the moving mechanism
parts have failure rates which significantly affect the overall reliability performance. In
 Design of PDM 297

the case of the Envisat PDM, the tight envelope also led to the deployment hinge being
a critical area of the design.
The reliability and envelope requirements were analyzed by studying other deploy-
ment hinges used on previous European spacecraft to see if these could be used directly
or adapted in design. The required deployment hinge had to have a drive mechanism,
a locking mechanism and a launch offload mechanism. In addition, these mechanical
functions had the following principal requirements:

reliability consistent with overall PDM requirement of 0.999987;

0 drive torque of 40 Nm;
0 strength of 400 Nm;
0 envelope within a circle of diameter 16 cm.

It was found that there was no hinge available that could meet the envelope require-
ment and that the hinges had a marginal performance with regard to the reliability
requirement. This discovery led to a specific problem statement that a more efficient
deployment hinge design was required in terms of size and reliability.
The required size and reliability performance was achieved by the invention of an
original and special worm gearbox, called a double-action worm gearset [7]. T h e
double-action worm gearset is a single mechanism but is able to perform three different
mechanical functions of launch offload, deployment drive and deployment locking-see
Fig. 4. The worm gear is double-acting because it has two degrees of freedom-it can
translate longitudinally as well as rotate like a conventional worm gear. During launch,
the worm and wormwheel act like a rack (worm) and pinion (wormwheel) so that the
gearset does not attract dangerously high loads during vibration-induced enforced
displacements. When hinge deployment is commenced, the gearset is automatically
driven by a DC motor through an epicyclic gearhead and operates as a conventional
worm gearset thus deploying the hinge. When deployment is complete, the worm and
wormwheel act as a screw (worm) and nut (wormwheel) so that the worm screws
forwards against a coil spring and clamps the hinge with a soft preload that is not
sensitive to thermal gradients.
By being multi-functioning, the double-action worm gearset has fewer components
and this leads to a more compact design that is able to meet the reliability requiremenr
without incorporating redundancy. Having a simple non-redundant mechanism that
meets the reliability requirement is a recommended design practice [8, 91 and makes it
much easier to meet the envelope requiremenr. The mechanical reliability of the
deployment hinges with respect to the deployment function was assessed at the
conceptual stage using the following equation:
R=e-Nh
(1)
where R is the reliability defined as the probability of successful operation over a period
of time I in hours, N is the number of hinges and i, is the mechanical failure rate for
one hinge per hour. Table I1 shows the failure rates of the mechanical assemblies within
one deployment hinge and the total mechanical failure rate for one whole hinge
assembly. The failure rate of each individual mechanical component is assumed to be
10 X per hour as this is specified by the ESA for mechanical spacecraft compo-
nents [lo]. Using the hinge failure rate from Table I1 and assuming a deployment time
of 2 hours, equation (1) predicts a reliability of 0.9999968 which is adequately within
the total Envisat PDM requirement of 0.999987. Even though the total reliability has
to take into account mechanical and electrical failure rates, the mechanical performance
298 S. C. Burgess

FIG.4. Schematic of the Envisat PDM deployment hinge.

of the hinges was considered, from experience, to leave just enough reliability allowance
for the electrical pans, and this assumption later proved to be correct.
At the conceptual design stage, functional modelling was restricted to simple
structural analysis using a finite-element model (FEM) of only 40 nodes. The model
was made very simple because detailed parts had not been identified and only overall
dimensions had been determined. The stiffness and mass of pans like the boom and
hinges were estimated from previous experience and specified as ideal elements with
matrices of properties. The model was used to show that the concept design had a
performance that showed the potential for meeting the requirements.
The concept design had three key differences with the final design which is shown
in Figs 1 and 2. Firstly, the initial concept had no top hold-down struts because the
other hold-downs were initially thought to provide adequate structural integrity. The
necessity for the top hold-downs was identified in the embodiment design phase (see
 Design of PDM 299

TABLE
11. Mechanical failure rates for one deployment hinge

Mechanical Failure rate

Mechanical assembly component Quantity )..lo-'h-'

Electric motor Bearings

Epicyclic gearhead Bearings
Springs
Gears
Double-action worm gear Bearings
Springs
Gears
Keys
Total (one hinge)

Section 4). Secondly, the original concept had a flexible joint near the root deployment
hinge which provided enough additional compliance to the deployed PDM in order for
it to meet an original requirement for a deployed natural frequency of less than
0.02 Hz. This requirement was changed by the customer after the conceptual design
phase to be greater than 0.03 Hz and, therefore, there was no longer a need for the
flexible joint. Thirdly, the leaf spring assembly was originally a spring-balanced flexible
joint of similar stitfness. The spring-balanced flexible joint had to be replaced with the
leaf spring assembly when the required alignment accuracy was increased by a factor of
100 after the conceptual design phase.
The conceptual design phase finished with a concept review. In this review, the
customer formally agreed that the concept design could be developed in the embodi-
ment design phase.

4. Embodiment Design Phase

The main aim of the embodiment design phase was to refine the design and analysis in
order to establish the configuration of pans like hinges and structural brackets and
booms. A much more detailed FEM was constructed using over 300 nodes and this
enabled hinges and structural pans to be modelled in outline. In addition, a thermal
mathematical model was constructed in similar detail in order to assess the thermal
performance. The FEM was used to optimize the dimensions in order to achieve the
required technical performance and minimum mass and to confirm that the concepts
were still satisfactory. Structural analysis actually showed that the overall structural
concept did not have adequate stiffness during launch and it was necessary to add the
two top hold-down struts (Fig. 1). The main reason for the optimistic stiffness
predictions in the concept design phase was an overestimation of the hinge stiffness.
Structural and thermal analysis showed that the boom was a critical design area.
The loads on the boom were predicted to be as high as 1100 Nm during launch. In
addition, the boom had to withstand deployed loads of up to 285 Nm at temperatures
between - 66 and + 80°C and with micro-meteorite damage taken into account.
Figure 5 shows the two design options which were considered for the boom and
end-fitting assembly. The first option used a standard carbon fibre reinforced plastic
(CFRP) tube constructed using G50 fibres and a 9400 epoxy resin shell. This tube is
bonded to a titanium end-fitting using a standard single overlap joint with AV138
300 S. C.Burgess
Tllanium Titanium
end litling end lilting
/
CFRP lube with CFRP tube with
G50 carbon fibre and M55J carbon fibre and
/ 9400 epoxy resin shell 9400 epoxy resin shell

bonded joint wilh bonded join1 wilh

AVl38 epoxy resin adhesive AVl38 epoxy resin adhesive

FIG. 5. Design options for the boom: (a) option 1-standard design; (b) option
2-advanced design.

epoxy resin adhesive. The second design option was similar to the first except for two
advanced and more expensive structural technology features. Firstly, the CFRP used
M55J carbon fibres which have superior mechanical properties to G 5 0 fibres. Secondly,
a double overlap bonded joint is used which is difficult to manufacmre but gives much
higher strength. After assessing both boom design options, the second more advanced
design was chosen because it was the only one that showed clear evidence that it could
meet the requirements and, therefore, made analysis relatively straightforward.
Deciding between different technology levels is often a difficult task in spacecraft
engineering. On the one hand, it can sometimes be cost effective to try to extract the
maximum performance from a material or manufacturing process before moving up to
a higher technology level [ l 11. On the other hand, many spacecraft subsystems like the
Envisat P D M are one-off items and the design and analysis costs are often much greater
than the material and production costs. For example, the cost of many mechanical
systems on the Envisat spacecraft work out at approximately L 8 0 000 per kg in current
economics and a very high proportion of project costs is in design and analysis. Because
the P D M design costs were relatively very high, one of the design considerations
throughout the design process was the use of high performance materials that could
simplify design activities and, therefore, reduce overall project costs.
T h e embodiment design phase finished with a baseline design review. In this review,
the customer formally agreed that the design should progress to the detailed design
phase.

5. Detailed Design Phase

All of the design details of the final flight design were defined in the detailed design
phase. T h e first step towards generating a flight design was to design a development
model and test it in order to correlate the structural, mechanism and dynamic func-
 Design of PDM 30 1

tional models with test measurements. Correlation of the theoretical models was carried
out to improve the accuracy of their predictions. Even though the theoretical models
were carefully constructed, there were a number of important assumptions in critical
engineering properties that could not be accurately known without testing. For exam-
ple, friction levels and structural damping levels are critical design parameters that can
be unpredictable without testing. Environmental testing of spacecraft mechanisms is
particularly important because there is not a good database of knowledge of how
mechanisms behave in the hostile environment of space. Improving the accuracy of
functional modelling by correlation with test measurements was of crucial importance
for two reasons. Firstly, some technical requirements could not be tested and had to be
verified by analysis. Secondly, even where tests had been successfully carried out on the
development model, this did not prove the performance of the flight model which could
be different due to variations in manufacturing tolerances.
After correlation of the functional models, the performance of the development
model was analyzed and the design was refined where necessary. Where the develop-
ment model design was updated, new parts were manufactured and tests repeated.
Figure 3 shows that there was a feedback loop between development model design and
correlation of the functional models. Design and test interaction often plays a crucial
role in spacecraft engineering [12].
T h e design activities in the detailed design phase were split into four main areas:
(1) separation dynamics;
(2) deployment mechanism design;
(3) structural design;
(4) thermal design.
Each of these four areas of the design was worked on concurrently by the design team.

5.1 Oprimizarion of Separation Dynamics

The most critical event during primary deployment is the separation of the very large
5 m X 1 m X 0.5 m solar array panel stack from the spacecraft sidewall. At the start of
primary deployment, the 400 kg solar array is located on 16 precision hold-down
mechanisms. If the initial deployment forces do not produce clean separation of the
panel stack, this will lead to sliding or collisions which could be damaging to the solar
array and reduce the reliability of deployment. Even though the nominal deployment
path causes vertical separation of the panel stack, any distortion in the PDM as the
deployment torque is applied can cause an unpredictable deployment path.
A multi-body dynamics simulation of the solar array separation was carried out in
the detailed design phase using a mathematical model specifically developed for the
Envisat PDM [13]. This analysis showed that the PDM was distorting such that the
solar array would initially move sideways by up to 2 mm and this could lead to sliding
and collisions. The simulation showed that there were two ways of achieving safe
separation. Firstly, the PDM structure could be tensioned so that the drive torque
would not distort the PDM. Secondly, the hold-downs could be specially designed to
allow sideways movement. The latter solution was chosen mainly because tensioning of
the PDM would complicate ground handling. The tests on the development model
included the ground deployment of a solar array mass dummy using mechanical ground
support equipment that simulates zero-g conditions. These tests confirmed that the
analytical predictions were correct and that the separation dynamics were acceptable.
302 S. C. Burgess

Key
A Maximum measured efficiency
B Minimum measured elficiency
C Maximum design efficiency

20 -
10 -

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28

Coefficient of friction p

FIG. 6. Relationship between coefficient of friction and efficiency in the double-action

worm gearset.

5.2 Optimization of Deployment Mechanism

One of the most critical performance parameters of deployment hinges for large
spacecraft appendages is the margin between drive torque and resistive torque in the
deployment system. T o meet the reliability requirement, it is necessary to take into
account statistical variations in parameters that affect the torque margin like friction
levels on surfaces in relative motion [14]. One of the key parameters that governs the
torque margin of the Envisat PDM deployment hinge is the torque transmission
efficiency of the double-action worm gearset. The gears and other parts have to be
designed taking into account the high transmission loads that are present when
transmission efficiency is a very high. The motor supply voltage also has to be sized to
give an adequate torque margin when transmission efficiency is very low.
T o calculate accurately the minimum and maximum efficiency levels for design
purposes, it was necessary to use analysis correlated with test measurement. On the one
hand, pure analysis could not be used because it was not possible to predict accurately
the range and distribution of friction levels in thermal vacuum conditions. On the other
hand, the maximum and minimum transmission efficiencies measured in thermal
vacuum deployment tests could not be used in design calculations because it was not
possible to conduct the number of tests necessary to guarantee knowledge of the
maximum variations in efficiency levels. In addition, it was not possible to carry out a
statistical analysis on experimental results of efficiency levels because there is a non-lin-
ear relationship between friction and efficiency.
Figure 6 illustrates how the test measurements were used to establish a range of
worm gearset torque transmission efficiencies for design purposes. Firstly, a character-
istic curve of efficiency versus friction was generated for the gearset by analyzing in
detail the efficiency of the hinge as a function of friction taking into account the effect
 Design of PDM 303

FIG. 7. FEM meshing of the root deployment hinge and the root hold-down struts.

of every sliding surface [15]. Secondly, the minimum and maximum torque trans-
mission efficiencies of the development model hinges were measured with tests in a cold
and hot vacuum environment respectively. Thirdly, these efficiency levels were plotted
(Fig. 6 ) in order to determine the corresponding maximum and minimum friction
levels present in the cold and hot tests-p~ and p~ respectively. Fourthly, the maximum
and minimum test friction levels were increased and decreased respectively by a factor
of 1.5 to determine maximum and minimum friction levels for design purposes-pr,
and pc respectively, i.e.

T h e margin of 1.5 on friction levels was approved by the ESA and takes into account
variations in manufacturing tolerances. Finally, the maximum and minimum design
friction levels were plotted (Fig. 6 ) and used to determine the minimum and maximum
design torque transmission efficiency levels.

5.3 Optimization of Structural Design

The development model and flight model were structurally designed using a very
detailed FEM of more than 5000 nodes. The finite element meshing of the root hinge
and main hold-down bracket is shown in Fig. 7. For comparison, a photograph of the
root deployment hinge of the development model is shown in Fig. 8. The FEM was
used to predict component loads for detailed stress analysis and this enabled dimen-
sions to be optimized for minimum mass. In general, the model was based on nominal
component dimensions, nominal material properties and maximum mass. In addition,
stress analysis was carried out by hand using load predictions from the FEM and using
minimum component dimensions and minimum strength. This approach ensured that
structural calculations were based on worst-case variations in manufacturing tolerances.
T o increase the accuracy of the load predictions, the FEM was correlated with test
measurements on the development model. The FEM was brought into line with test
measurements of frequency response, stiffness and mass by adjusting damping levels,
304 S. C.Burgess

F I G . 8. Photograph of the root deployment hinge in the development model.

mass distribution and component dimensions. Table 111 shows that the first five stowed
vibration modes were correlated closely. Errors indicated as positive in Table 111 mean
that the F E M is conservatively predicting the frequency to be lower than that measured
in testing. A frequency prediction that is too low is generally conservative because in
simple vibration analysis, for a given acceleration input, amplitude and stress generally
decrease as the frequency increases. Before correlation. the first five modes were in
error by up to 30% and, therefore, correlation had a very important role to play in
improving the accuracy of the FEM.
The accuracy of the predictions of the FEM for the flight model is important
because the FEM is used to predict internal PDM loads and interface loads with the
spacecraft and solar array. Internal loads are important because safety margins used in

TABLE
111. Correlation of FEM with measurements of stowed frequencies

Test FEM
measurement prediction Error
Performance parameter (Hz) (Hz) ("4

Frequency of 1st mode 82.0 80.4 + 2.0

Frequency of 2nd mode 105.0 106.0 - 1.0
Frequency of 3rd mode 120.0 120.8 - 0.7
Frequency of 4th mode 130.0 122.5 + 5.8
Frequency of 5th mode 140.0 143.9 - 2.8
Mean + 0.7
 Design of PDM 305

structural analysis have to be as low as 1.1 on yield stress in order to achieve mass
requirements. Interface loads with the spacecraft and solar array are important because
other subsystems are stressed using the same low safety margins for stress. Even though
proof testing of the development model showed that the design could meet most load
cases, the test programme was not complete or worst case for two reasons. Firstly, the
flight model could perform differently due to variations in manufacturing tolerances.
Secondly, some load cases, like separation shocks and interface loads, are only tested
at spacecraft level up to 2 years after delivery of the flight model PDM when it would
be extremely difficult to implement design changes.
Correlation of the FEM revealed one significant error in the finite element mod-
elling. The spacecraft interface bracket on the root deployment hinge was modelled to
be too flexible due to neglecting the effect of several large internal comer radii. The
internal radii represented a small design detail but had an important effect on the
structural performance because they changed the effective lengths of critical dimensions
in the bracket. When the FEM was adjusted to reflect the true stifiess of the bracket,
it was found that there was an increase in the predicted spacecraft interface loads and
these were non-compliant with requirements. T o solve this non-compliance, the hard-
ware was redesigned to have a lower stiffness that was equal to that predicted by the
original FEM so that the original lower loads were achieved. Additional flexibility in the
bracket was achieved by adding a triple diaphragm.

5.4 Optimizarion of Thermal Design

The thermal design was the only part of the PDM not to be correlated with test
measurements. This is because it is very difficult physically to simulate the extreme and
varied thermal vacuum environment of space. T o compensate for the lack of testing and
correlation, conservative safety margins of typically 10°C were added to worst-case
temperature predictions.
The approach taken in the thermal design activities was to optimize components
thermally by adding non-structural hardware such as thermal tapes and thermal
washers so that the structural design could be driven mainly by structural requirements.
Decoupling of the thermal and structural design significantly simplified the overall
analysis. Silverized tape and Kapton blankets were used to modify the surface emissive
and absorptive properties of components in order to minimize temperature variations
and temperature extremes. Also, thermal washers were used to modify heat flows in
order to minimize thermally induced loads.

6. Conclusions
This paper has given an overview of the design methodology used to design an
advanced PDM for the European Envisat spacecraft. A highly iterative design process
led to the attainment of a very high technical performance. Correlation of analysis with
test measurements played a crucial role in the final stages of the design process by
substantially increasing the accuracy of the predictions of the theoretical functional
models. T h e very refined analysis enabled the design to be highly optimized for low
mass and high reliability. The design process is typical of that used for the design of
new and advanced European spacecraft mechanical systems.
The Envisat PDM is an original design, although no unproven elements of technol-
ogy are used. A new deployment mechanism had to be invented and developed in order
to achieve the envelope and reliability requirement. The new deployment hinge meets
306 S. C. Burgess

its requirements by having a single multi-functioning mechanism that is able to perform

three different functions of launch offload, hinge deployment and hinge preload.
One of the main design goals was to design for ease of analysis since material and
production costs formed a relatively low proportion of the total project cost. For
example, the boom uses advanced technology in end-fitting design and fibre material
and these design features simplified analysis by achieving large strength margins.
The total design campaign for the Envisat PDM had a duration of 4 years even
though concurrent design methods were used. The long duration was due to the highly
iterative nature of the design process, the need for prototyping and the changes in
design requirements from the customer. The Envisat PDM is currently being manufac-
tured and will be integrated on to the Envisat solar array during 1995.

Acknowledgements
The design and development activities for the Envisat PDM, apart from the develop-
ment of the deployment hinge concept, have been funded by the European Space
Agency.

REFERENCES
[I] READINGS, C.J. & DUBOCK,P.A. (1993) Envisat 1: Europe's major contribution
to Earth observation for the late nineties, ESA Bulletin, 76, pp. 15-28.
[2] ZWANENBURG, R. (1993) The Columbus solar array mechanisms, in: Proceedings
of Fifth European Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium, ESA SP-334, Noordwijk
(NL),pp. 49-54.
[3] DAVID,L. (1993) The nuts and bolts of flops in space, New Scientist, 1897, pp.
12-13.
[4] BARHO,R. (1993) Investigations into deployment complications of the ERS-1
SAR Antenna, Proceedings of Fifth European Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium,
ESA SP-334, Noordwijk (NL), pp. 61-64.
[S] WATSON,G.F. (1993) Faults and failures: no furled antenna can foil Galileo,
IEEE Spectrum, February, p. 55.
[6] PAHL,G. & BEITZ,W. (1984) Engineering Design (London, The Design Council/
Berlin, Springer).
[7] Powered Hinge (1992) European Patent Application Number 92302263.6.
[8] DEF STAN 00-41 (1989) M O D Practices and Procedures for Reliability and Main-
tainability Part I: Reliability Design Philosophy, p. 8.
[9] CHEW,M. (1988) On the danger of redundancies in some aerospace mechanisms,
in: 2Znd Aerospace Symposium, NASA 2506, NASA Langley Research Centre,
Hampton (USA), pp. 87-94.
[lo] ESA Specification (1990) Failure Rates for ESA Spacecrafi and Associated Equip-
ment, ESA PSS-01-302, pp. 20-23.
[ l 11 REID,B.A. & PRADIER, A. (1990) Cost optimisation of load canying structures, in:
Proceedings of ESA Symposium on Space Applications of Advanced Structural Materi-
ah, ESA SP-303, Noordwijk (NL),pp. 397-402.
[I21 LUJMANN, H.J. & ETZLER,C.C. (1990) Analysis and test interaction in the
development of a hold-down and release mechanism, in: Proceedings of Fourth
European Symposium on Space Mechanisms and Tribology, ESA SP-299, Cannes
(F), pp. 181-186.
[13] BURGESS, S.C. (1994) Simulation of a spacecraft solar array deployment mechan-
 Design of PDM 307

ism, in: Aerotech Conference, Technological Aspects of European Spacecraft Systems:

Seminar 25, Birmingham, U K (The Institution of Mechanical Engineers).
[14] MISAWA, M., YASAKA.T. & MNAKE,S. (1989) Analytical and experimental
investigations for satellite antenna deployment mechanisms, Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, 26, pp. 181-187.
[15] BURGESS,S.C. (1992) A study of the efficiency of a double-action worn gearset,
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 206, pp. 8 1-9 1.