- Email: [email protected]
Effects of gamma ray irradiation on penetration hole in and fragment size from carbon fiber reinforced composite plates in hypervelocity impacts
Accepted Manuscript Effects of gamma ray irradiation on penetration hole in and fragment size from carbon fiber reinforced composite plates in hypervelocity impacts Masahiro Nishida, Akie Hongo, Yasuyuki Hiraiwa, Masumi Higashide PII:
S1359-8368(18)33522-4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.04.007
Reference:
JCOMB 6746
To appear in:
Composites Part B
Received Date: 25 October 2018 Revised Date:
3 April 2019
Accepted Date: 5 April 2019
Please cite this article as: Nishida M, Hongo A, Hiraiwa Y, Higashide M, Effects of gamma ray irradiation on penetration hole in and fragment size from carbon fiber reinforced composite plates in hypervelocity impacts, Composites Part B (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.04.007. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Effects of Gamma Ray Irradiation on Penetration Hole in and Fragment Size from Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composite Plates in Hypervelocity Impacts
RI PT
Masahiro Nishida(1), Akie Hongo(2), Yasuyuki Hiraiwa(3), Masumi Higashide(4)
(1) Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8555, Japan, Email: [email protected]
M AN U
(3) Former student, Nagoya Institute of Technology
SC
(2) Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8555, Japan
(4) Aerospace Research and Development Directorate, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 7-44-1 Jindaiji Higashi-machi, Chofu-shi, Tokyo 182-8522, Japan
Keywords: Space environment, Durability, Combined effects, Carbon-epoxy composites, Ejecta,
ABSTRACT
TE D
Impact strength
This study examines how gamma ray irradiation affects the penetration holes in and fragment sizes from carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) plates due to hypervelocity impacts. In order to do so, quasi-isotropic CFRP plates made of unidirectional pre-impregnated sheets and 1-mm-diameter
EP
spherical projectiles made of aluminum alloy (2017-T4) were used. Witness plates (200 mm × 200 mm × 2 mm) made of copper (C1100P-1/4H) and containing a 30-mm-diameter hole were placed 50
AC C
mm in front of and behind each target to examine the fragments based on ISO 11227. The fragments collected from the impact and rear sides of the target were compared. Gamma ray irradiation had a slight effect on the penetration hole, the fragment size distributions, and the craters on the witness plates. When the gamma ray irradiation was 10 MGy, the penetration holes at impact velocities of 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s became slightly smaller. At the impact velocity of 2.4 km/s, perforation of the 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy specimens prevented the projectile from fracturing.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction Space debris is orbiting in low Earth orbits at velocities of nearly 8 km/s and has been reported to strike spacecraft, satellites, and space stations at an average impact velocity of 10 km/s. The use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) plates in satellites has been increasing recently, and many
RI PT
attempts to clarify the fracture behavior of CFRP plates due to hypervelocity impacts have been reported concerning the ballistic limit, perforation behavior, and debris clouds when projectiles perforate CFRP plates at high velocity (>1 km/s).
In early work in 1987, Yew and Kendrick [1] reported phenomenological observations of damage done to graphite fiber/epoxy composites by hypervelocity impacts. In 1990, Schonberg [2]
SC
investigated the response of dual-wall structural systems using Kevlar and graphite/epoxy composites under hypervelocity impacts. In the same year, Christiansen [3] clarified how the properties of graphite/epoxy tubes affect impact damage to the International Space Station. In 1995,
M AN U
Silvestrov et al. [4] reported phenomenological results for the damage done to flat glass-, aramid-, and carbon-fiber-reinforced epoxy laminated composites at velocities of 8–11 km/s. Lamontagne et al. in 1999 and 2001 [5, 6] clarified how projectile density, impact angle, and energy affect the damage done to carbon fiber/PEEK composites by hypervelocity impacts. Since then, there have been many papers containing experimental results for the fracture behavior of CFRP plates due to hypervelocity impacts [7–12]. There have also been many experimental studies regarding
TE D
honeycomb sandwich panels with CFRP face sheets due to hypervelocity impacts [13–17]. There have also been several numerical studies of the fracture behaviors and fragments of CFRP caused by hypervelocity impacts. In this field, mesh-free methods such as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and the discrete element method are popular. Clegg et al. [18] compared damage between experiments and simulations, Riedel et al. [19] developed a material model and
EP
associated material characterization techniques for numerical simulation of CFRP, and Cherniaev and Telichev [20] conducted a numerical simulation of hypervelocity impact damage in composite
AC C
laminates using a mesoscale model. Furthermore, CFRP plates subjected to hypervelocity impacts have been simulated using the SPH of the LS-DYNA code [21]. However, the size distributions of fragments ejected from CFRP laminates are yet to be elucidated fully by numerical simulation and experiments. The authors’ research group [22] has examined the size distributions of fragments collected from a test chamber after impact experiments. The number of fragments ejected from the front of the target depended on the impact velocity, but that from the rear of the target did not. As is well known, because CFRP plates have high specific strength and stiffness, they are used widely in satellites and spacecraft to save weight. Aimed at the unforgiving environment of space [23, 24] (e.g., high vacuum, ultraviolet radiation, electron beams [25, 26], atomic oxygen, thermal cycling), the strength and stiffness of CFRP have been investigated. Iwata et al. [27] studied how
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
gamma ray and electron irradiation affect the bending modulus of CFRP and the resin used therein; they indicated that the observed decrease in the bending modulus of their CFRP specimens at less than 5 MGy was not the result of degradation of the resin. In the present study, after aluminum alloy projectiles struck gamma-ray-irradiated CFRP plates,
RI PT
fragments from those plates collected from the test chamber were measured. How the gamma ray irradiation affected the penetration holes and the size of the fragments from the CFRP plates was examined.
SC
2 Experimental Methods
CFRP laminates comprising epoxy-based carbon-fiber unidirectional prepregs (Toray, P13080F-3: Matrix 3800-2, Fiber M60JB) for space use were used as the target material. The size of
M AN U
each CFRP plate was 75 mm × 100 mm with a thickness of 0.7 mm, and the laminate constitution was [+45º/+45º/0º/0º/−45º/−45º/+90º/+90º]s (16 ply). The CFRP plates were irradiated with gamma rays at the sixth cell of the Cobalt-60 Gamma-ray Irradiation Facility, Takasaki Advanced Radiation Research Institute (TARRI), National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology (QST). A dose rate of 10 kGy/h was selected, and the total doses were 0.5 MGy (50 h), 3.5 MGy (350 h), 6.5 MGy (650 h), and 10 MGy (1,000 h). Two to four of the CFRP plates were
TE D
encapsulated in each evacuated glass ampoule during the gamma ray irradiation to avoid oxidation degradation, and how the total dose affected the penetration hole and fragment size was examined. Projectiles with a diameter of 1 mm made of aluminum alloy (2017-T4) were used in compliance with ISO 11227 [28]. A two-stage light-gas gun at the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS)/Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) [29] was used for the
EP
impact experiments at 5.3 km/s, and a two-stage light-gas gun at the Nagoya Institute of Technology was used for those at 2.4 km/s. ISO 11227 prescribes the experimental conditions in detail regarding
AC C
the projectiles, targets, copper plates (known as witness plates), and experimental environment for evaluating fragments from spacecraft materials (known as ejecta). In compliance with ISO 11227, a front witness plate (150 mm × 150 mm) and a rear witness plate (200 mm × 200 mm), both 2 mm thick and made of copper (C1100P-1/4H), were placed 50 mm in front of and 50 mm behind each target, as shown in Fig. 1, to determine the scattering area and examine the sizes of any craters due to CFRP fragments. The front witness plate contained a 30-mm-diamter hole to allow the projectile to pass through, and the surfaces of both witness plates were polished so that any craters thereon could be detected clearly. Figure 2 shows the microscope (Saitoh Kogaku, SKM-Z200C-PC) system used to scan for impact craters on the witness plates; this was constructed by referencing the scan system and method used at the Kyusyu Institute of Technology [30]. By determining the diameters and positions of any impact craters on the witness plates, ISO 11227 prescribed that fragments from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
targets were evaluated indirectly [28]. The space between the target and the rear witness plate was surrounded by plates so that the forward fragments coming from the target (referred to hereinafter as the impact side) could be collected separately from the backward fragments (referred to hereinafter as the rear side). The sizes
RI PT
of the fragments collected from the test chamber were examined using a method discussed in Section 3.2 (direct measurement method) as well as by means of the witness plates (indirect measurement method). How the total dose of gamma ray irradiation affected the penetration holes and fragment sizes on the impact and rear sides (direct and indirect measurement methods) was examined.
Target
Witness plate on rear side (200 x 200 mm)
SC
50 mm
φ1.0 mm Witness plate on impact side (150 x 150 mm)
50 mm
Impact side
Rear side
Experimental setup of impact experiments.
TE D
Figure 1.
M AN U
Projectile
AC C
EP
Witness plate
Figure 2.
Photograph of scan system for witness plates.
3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Penetration holes Figure 3 shows enlarged images of penetration holes in targets after impact experiments at the impact velocity of 2.4 km/s. The results obtained with total doses of 0.5 MGy, 3.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy were compared with those without irradiation. In the photographs, upward is the 0°
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
direction of the laminate constitution and to the right is the +90° direction. Figure 3 shows that the surface layers on the impact side were peeled-off mainly from top right to bottom left, and those on the rear side were peeled-off from top left to bottom right. The direction from top right to bottom left on the impact side is coincident with the fiber direction of the outermost layer on the impact side; the
RI PT
same pertains on the rear side. The width of the peeled-off area was almost the same as the diameter of the penetration hole, and the length of the peeled-off area was 0.5–1 times the diameter of the penetration hole. The total dose affected neither the peeled-off width nor the length, but the peeled-off area at 10 MGy seemed to be slightly smaller than that at 6.5 MGy.
Figure 4 shows enlarged images of penetration holes in targets after impact experiments at the
SC
impact velocity of 5.3 km/s. The results obtained with total doses of 0.5 MGy and 10 MGy were compared with those without irradiation. As with the results obtained at the impact velocity of 2.4 km/s as shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 shows that the surface layers on the impact side were peeled-off
M AN U
mainly from top right to bottom left, and those on the rear side were peeled-off from top left to bottom right. The width of the peeled-off area was again almost the same as the diameter of the penetration hole, and the length of the peeled-off area was again 0.5–1 times the diameter of the penetration hole. Increasing the impact velocity increased the peeled-off width and length (note that the scales are different in Figs. 3 and 4). However, when compared in terms of the ratio of the penetration-hole diameter to the peeled-off length, the ratio of the peeled-off area at 5.3 km/s were
TE D
almost the same as those at 2.4 km/s.
The areas of the penetration holes shown in Figs. 3 and 4 were calculated using the ImageJ image analysis software. Figure 5 shows how the penetration-hole area varies with the total dose. At either impact velocity, the penetration-hole area was independent of the total dose. When the impact velocity was 2.4 km/s, the penetration-hole area up to a total dose of 6.5 MGy remained constant at
EP
2.3 mm2, which is approximately three times larger than the projected area of the projectile (0.78 mm2). When the total dose was 10 MGy, the penetration-hole area was slightly lower than it was until the total dose was 6.5 MGy. When the impact velocity was 5.3 km/s, the penetration-hole area
AC C
both with a total dose of 0.5 MGy and without irradiation was 6.3 mm2, which is approximately eight times larger than the projected area of the projectile (0.78 mm2). When the total dose was 10 MGy, the penetration-hole area was slightly lower than it was without irradiation. Overall, it seemed that the penetration holes began to change at a total dose of 10 MGy, which corresponds to 3–4 years in a geosynchronous orbit [31] and more in a low Earth orbit. As satellite lifespans increase drastically in the future, the effects of irradiation on the CFRP of satellites will become more obvious.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Impact side
Rear side
2 mm
2 mm
(a) Non-irradiation (2.41 km/s) 0.5-01
SC
0.5-01
(b) 0.5 MGy (2.39 km/s) 3.5-01
M AN U
2 mm
2 mm
RI PT
NO-01
NO-01
3.5-01
2 mm
TE D
2 mm
(c) 3.5 MGy (2.54 km/s)
6.5-01
EP
6.5-01
2 mm
2 mm
AC C
(d) 6.5 MGy (2.40 km/s) 10-01
2 mm
10-01
2 mm
(e) 10 MGy (2.41 km/s) Figure 3. Photographs of penetration holes after impact experiments at 2.4 km/s (nominal) for a dose rate of 10 kGy/h.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Impact side NO-H-01
Rear side
2 mm
(a) Non-irradiation (5.37 km/s)
2 mm
2 mm
(b) 0.5 MGy (5.30 km/s)
M AN U
0.5-H-01
0.5-H-01
SC
2 mm
RI PT
NO-H-01
10-H-01
2 mm
EP
2 mm
TE D
10-H-01
(c) 10 MGy (5.28 km/s)
AC C
Figure 4. Photographs of penetration holes after impact experiments at 5.3 km/s (nominal) for a dose rate of 10 kGy/h.
8 6 4 2.4 km/s 2
0
2
4 6 8 Total dose, MGy
10
M AN U
0
Variation of perforation-hole area with total dose.
AC C
EP
TE D
Figure 5
RI PT
5.3 km/s
SC
Perforation hole areas, mm
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.2 Fragment size After the impact experiments, fragments were collected from the test chamber. Figure 6 shows an example of the fragments from the CFRP plates. After photographing the fragments on a light table as shown in Fig. 7, the fragment size was measured using ImageJ. The length a, width b, and
RI PT
thickness c of a fragment were defined as shown in Fig. 8. After binarizing the images, the length a, which is the maximum length of the projection view, was determined by using ImageJ to search for the largest circumcircle.
Figure 9(a) and (b) show the cumulative number distributions of the fragment length a on the impact and rear sides, respectively, at an impact velocity of 2.4 km/s. On the impact side, the
SC
irradiation had no clear effect on the cumulative number distribution of the fragment length. No clear trend can be seen regarding the total dose, even though there were fewer fragments for 0.5 MGy, 3.5 MGy, and 6.5 MGy. However, the irradiation did seem to affect the cumulative number
of fragments longer than 1 mm.
M AN U
distribution of the fragment length on the rear side: the gamma ray irradiation decreased the number
Figure 10 shows the aspect ratios of fragments at 2.4 km/s. In previous work [32] using CFRP of IMS60/#133 prepreg (Toho Tenax Co., Ltd), the present authors showed that most fragments were in the range 0 < b/a < 0.2 regardless of the CFRP thickness, projectile diameter, and impact velocity. The total dose did not affect the aspect ratio of the CFRP fragments.
TE D
Figure 11(a) and (b) show the cumulative number distributions of the fragment length on the impact and rear sides, respectively, at an impact velocity of 5.3 km/s. The cumulative number distributions for non-irradiation, 0.5 MGy, and 10 MGy were close to each other. On the impact side, the cumulative number distribution for 10 MGy was slightly smaller than those for non-irradiation and 0.5 MGy. On the rear side, the cumulative number distribution for 0.5 MGy was slightly smaller
EP
than those for non-irradiation and 10 MGy. However, the discrepancy between the distributions seemed to be small, and the irradiation had an insignificant effect on the cumulative number of
AC C
fragments longer than 1 mm.
The overall trend is that the effects of the irradiation on the cumulative number of fragments
longer than 1 mm were not clear. There are cases in which the irradiation decreased the cumulative number distribution only slightly. However, the discrepancy between the distributions was equivalent to the range of experimental error (i.e., ±10 fragments), and no significant difference was observed.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 12 shows how the impact velocity affects the cumulative number distributions of the fragment length on the impact and rear sides. The solid circles are results for 5.3 km/s and the open circles are results for 2.4 km/s. Even though there are cases in which (i) the cumulative number
RI PT
distribution on the rear side for 5.3 km/s exceeded that for 2.4 km/s when the total dose was 10 MGy and (ii) the cumulative number distribution on the impact side for 5.3 km/s exceeded that for 2.4 km/s when the total dose was 0.5 MGy, the impact velocity had no clear effect on the cumulative number distribution of fragment length. As shown in Fig. 5, the penetration-hole area at 5.3 km/s was approximately three times larger than that at 2.4 km/s. This means that the total number of
SC
fragments ejected from a target increased with the impact velocity. However, the impact velocity did not affect the cumulative number distribution of fragments longer than 1.0 mm; this suggests that either the number of fragments shorter than 1.0 mm increases with the impact velocity or that the
M AN U
fragments become shorter by colliding with the witness plates on the impact and rear sides. In previous work [22], the present authors showed that the cumulative number distribution on the impact side increased with the impact velocity when the latter was changed from 0.90 km/s to 2.82 km/s. Consequently, it is inferred from that previous work and the present work that the impact velocity does not affect the cumulative number distribution on the impact side when the impact velocity exceeds approximately 2 km/s. The present authors also showed that the impact velocity did
TE D
not affect the cumulative number distribution on the rear side when the impact velocity was changed from 0.90 km/s to 2.82 km/s [22]. Consequently, it is inferred from that previous work and the present work that the impact velocity does not affect the cumulative number distribution on the rear side regardless of the impact velocity.
In other previous work [32], the present authors showed that (i) the cumulative number
EP
distribution of fragments on the impact side was less than that on the rear side at 1.2 km/s and (ii) the cumulative number distribution of fragments on the impact side was similar to that on the rear side at
AC C
3.5 km/s. The present authors also showed that the cumulative number distribution of fragments on the impact side was similar to that on the rear side at 2.82 km/s [22]. However, in the present study, the cumulative number distribution of fragments on the impact side is greater than that on the rear side at both 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s. Iwata et al. [27] reported that gamma ray irradiation of less than 5 MGy changed the bending
modulus of CFRP specimens, but by no more than 7%. In the present study, gamma ray irradiation seemed to have some effect on the cumulative number distribution of fragments. However, as with the results of Iwata et al., those effects were not large. Figures 13 and 14 show photographs of witness plates after impact tests at 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s, respectively. Only few minuscule craters caused by the impacts of fragments were observed on the impact side, but there were many small craters on the rear side. When the impact velocity was 2.4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
km/s, in addition to these small craters, the witness plates for 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy each showed a large crater that is thought to be due to a projectile impacting the rear witness plate without fragmenting; the inference is that irradiation at 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy decreased the strength of the CFRP, thereby suppressing projectile fragmentation. However, when the impact
RI PT
velocity was 5.3 km/s, none of the witness plates exhibited signs of the CFRP strength having been reduced. If there was any change in the CFRP strength, it must have been small. Which parts are most affected (e.g., fibers, resins, or the interfaces between them) and the main reason why remain unclear, a more-detailed investigation is required.
Enlarged images of the witness plates were taken using the scan system shown in Fig. 2, and
SC
the diameters and positions of the impact craters on the witness plates were determined [28, 30, 34]. Figure 15 shows the analysis results for 2.4 km/s; the meanings of the plotting symbols are shown below each graph. There were a few fragment-impact craters on the impact side. As with the visual
M AN U
results in Fig. 13, there is no clear trend in the four sets of results for the impact side regarding the total dose.
Because at least 20 fragments longer than 1 mm were collected from the impact side, as shown in Fig. 9, it is highly possible that the fragment velocity on the impact side was relatively low, which is why no fragment-impact craters were observed on the witness plates of the impact side. On the rear side, the results show the cratered region extending slightly from top left to bottom right along
TE D
the fiber direction of the outermost layer on the rear side. There were far more craters on the rear side than on the impact side. Because the fragments longer than 1 mm collected from the impact and rear sides were similar, it is highly possible that the fragment velocity on the rear side was relatively high. There were many small craters on the rear side, except when the total dose was 10 MGy, in which case there were relatively few; nevertheless, there was no clear tendency on the rear side
EP
regarding the total dose.
Figure 16 shows the analysis results for 5.3 km/s. The number of craters on the impact and rear
AC C
sides clearly increased with the impact velocity. At 5.3 km/s, there were again far more craters on the rear side than on the impact side. On the rear side at 2.4 km/s, the results show the cratered region extending slightly from top left to bottom right along the fiber direction of the outermost layer on the rear side, but no clear trend can be seen at 5.3 km/s. The area of spread on both the impact and rear side seemed to increase slightly with the total dose, but there was again no clear trend on the impact or rear side regarding the total dose.
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
3 mm
M AN U
Figure 6 Photograph of fragments collected on rear side (3.5 MGy, 2.54 km/s).
TE D
Figure 7 Photograph of collected fragment.
c
EP
b
a
Definition of dimensions of fragments collected from test chamber ( c ≤ b ≤ a )
AC C
Figure 8
100
60 40 20 0 0
1
2 3 a [mm]
Non-irradiation 0.5 MGy 3.5 MGy 6.5 MGy 10 MGy
80 60 40 20
(b) Rear side
1
2 3 a [mm]
4
5
Fraction of fragments
AC C
EP
Size distributions of fragment length (impact velocity: 2.4 km/s).
1.2 1
0.8 0.6
Non-irradiation 0.5 MGy 3.5 MGy 6.5 MGy 10 MGy
0.4 0.2 0
Figure 10
5
M AN U
100
0 0
4
TE D
Number of fragments greater than a
(a) Impact side
Figure 9
RI PT
Non-irradiation 0.5 MGy 3.5 MGy 6.5 MGy 10 MGy
80
SC
Number of fragments greater than a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0
0.2
0.4 0.6 b/a
0.8
1
Effects of total dose on aspect ratio b/a of fragments (impact velocity: 2.4 km/s).
100 Non−irradiation 0.5 MGy 10 MGy
80 60 40 20 0 0
1
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
60 40 20 0 0
1
120
AC C
40
4
5
EP
60
3 a [mm]
Non−irradiation 0.5 MGy 10 MGy
100 80
2
M AN U
Non−irradiation 0.5 MGy 10 MGy
80
(b) Rear side Number of fragments greater than a
SC
100
TE D
Number of fragments greater than a
(a) Impact side
RI PT
Number of fragments greater than a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
0 0
1
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
(c) Total
Figure 11
Size distributions of fragment length (impact velocity: 5.3 km/s).
120
80 60 40 20 0 0
1
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
120 Total Impact side Rear side
60 40 20 0 0
1
2
(b) 0.5 MGy
3 a [mm]
5
Total Impact side Rear side
100 80
EP
60 40 20
0 0
4
2 km/s
120
AC C
Number of fragments greater than a
M AN U
80
TE D
Number of fragments greater than a
(a) Non-irradiation
100
RI PT
Total Impact side Rear side
100
SC
Number of fragments greater than a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
(c) 10 MGy
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
Figure 12 Effects of impact velocity on fragment length distribution (solid circles: 5.3 km/s; open circles: 2.4 km/s).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rear side
RI PT
Impact side
M AN U
SC
(a) Non-irradiation (2.41 km/s)
EP
TE D
(b) 0.5 MGy (2.39 km/s)
AC C
(c) 6.5 MGy (2.36 km/s)
(d) 10 MGy (2.41 km/s) Figure 13 Photographs of witness plates after impact experiments at 2.4 km/s.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rear side
RI PT
Impact side
M AN U
SC
(a) Non-irradiation (5.37 km/s)
AC C
EP
TE D
(b) 0.5 MGy (5.30 km/s)
(c) 10 MGy (5.28 km/s)
Figure 14 Photographs of witness plates after impact experiments at 5.3 km/s.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
400
10 MGy
Non−irradiation
300 0.5 MGy 200
1250 2500 −1 Wavenumber [ ] cm
3750
SC
Figure 17 Results of laser Raman spectroscopy.
RI PT
Intensity
500
Finally, laser Raman spectroscopy (JASCO, NRS-3300) was applied to the CFRP specimens to
M AN U
understand how their intrinsic properties change. A Raman spectrum is shown in Fig. 17. No significant Raman scattering signals were detected because fluorescence background problems seemed to occur. However, because the irradiation (total dose) clearly changed the trend of the fluorescence background, it is highly possible that the irradiation caused some chemical reaction in the CFRP (e.g., molecular chain breakage and crosslinking); further chemical analyses are needed to establish whether this was so.
TE D
The thermal characteristics of the non-irradiated and 10 MGy CFRP samples were investigated by means of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) (Q100, TA Instruments). The specimen mass was 12.5 mg for non-irradiation and 12.3 mg for 10 MGy. The DSC started from 40°C, and the specimen was heated to 250°C at 10°C/min. The DSC results are shown in Fig. 18. The glass transition temperatures of both specimens were almost the same, namely approximately 150°C. Because no
EP
exothermic reactions were observed beyond the glass transition temperature, the gamma ray irradiation had not induced curing and bridging of the matrix. The 10 MGy specimen showed an
AC C
endothermic reaction at approximately 95°C. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) (Q800, TA Instruments) was also performed on both samples. The specimen was 38 mm long, 7 mm wide, and was clamped as a cantilever beam. The distance between the fulcrums was 17.5 mm, and a strain of 0.001 was applied at 1 Hz. The loaded specimen was heated from 30°C to 250°C at 3°C/min. The storage and loss moduli measured by DMA are shown in Fig. 19. When the temperature exceeded the glass transition temperature, there was almost no difference between the non-irradiated and 10 MGy specimens. This implies that gamma ray irradiation does not change the viscoelastic characteristics at higher temperature. The projectile impact point on the 5.3 km/s specimen was heated to a higher temperature than that on the 2.4 km/s specimen because higher impact pressure is generated by higher velocity. This is considered a reason why the gamma ray irradiation did not influence the projectile fracturing in the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5.3 km/s impact experiments. Focusing on lower temperature, the loss modulus of the 10 MGy specimen increased rapidly around 100°C, very close to the temperature at which the endothermic reaction was observed in the DSC. It was found that gamma ray irradiation affects the CFRP
RI PT
material characteristics, but not by enough to cause fragmentation upon hypervelocity impact.
0.0 -0.5
Non-irradiation 10 MGy
-1.5 -2.0
SC
Heat Flow (mW)
-1.0
-2.5 -3.0
M AN U
-3.5 -4.0 -4.5 0
50
100
150 200 Temperature (°C)
250
300
25000
Storage/ Non-irradiation Loss/ Non-irradiation
15000
2000
1500
EP
Storage Modulus (MPa)
20000
2500 Storage/ 10 MGy Loss/ 10 MGy
AC C
10000
1000
5000
500
0
0
Loss Modulus (MPa)
TE D
Figure 18 Results of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).
0 50
100
150 200 Temperature (°C)
250
300
Figure 19 Storage and loss moduli measured by dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Summary of impact experiments. Impact Penetration Debris size
Witness plates DMA
number Total dose
velocity hole area
in Figs. 13–14 /DSC
2
distributions
[km/s]
[mm ]
in Figs. 9–12 0
0
0
2.41
2.03
2
Non-irradiation
2.26
2.30
3
Non-irradiation
2.21
2.32
4
0.5 MGy
2.39
2.30
0
5
3.5 MGy
2.54
2.22
0
6
6.5 MGy
2.36
2.29
0
7
6.5 MGy
2.40
2.40
8
10 MGy
2.41
1.78
0
9
Non-irradiation
5.37
6.46
0
10
0.5 MGy
5.30
6.25
11
10 MGy
5.28
5.78
4
Conclusions
0
SC
Non-irradiation
0
0
M AN U
1
RI PT
Shot
0
0
0
0
0
0
TE D
The effects of gamma ray irradiation on the penetration holes in and fragment sizes from CFRP plates were examined. Overall, gamma ray irradiation of less than 10 MGy had no clear effects on the penetration hole, the peeled-off area, the fragment size distribution, or the craters on the witness plates, but detailed differences were observed. When the gamma ray irradiation was 10 MGy, the
EP
penetration holes at impact velocities of 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s became slightly smaller. When the impact velocity was 2.4 km/s, the number of fragments collected from the rear side of the target decreased slightly with the irradiation dose. At 2.4 km/s, perforation of the 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy and
AC C
10 MGy specimens prevented the projectile from fracturing, and a large crater due to projectile impact was observed on the rear witness plate. At 5.3 km/s, the gamma ray irradiation had little effect on the fragment size. Results of laser Raman spectroscopy, DSC, and DMA showed no clear effects of the gamma ray irradiation. Gamma ray irradiation of less than 10 MGy had a negligible effect on the penetration behavior of the CFRP upon hypervelocity impact at 2 km/s and 5 km/s.
5 Acknowledgments This study was supported by ISAS, JAXA as a collaborative program with the Hypervelocity Impact Facility (the Space Plasma Labo-ratory). The gamma-ray irradiation was carried out using the QST (Takasaki) C0-60 facility Supported by the Inter-University Program for the Joint Use of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
JAEA/QST Facilities (proposal no. 16014). This work was also supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP26420012, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C). The authors would like to express
6
RI PT
the deepest appreciation to the financial support from Nagoya Institute of Technology.
References
[1] Ching H. Yew, Rodney B. Kendrick, A study of damage in composite panels produced by hypervelocity impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 5, Issues 1-4 (1987) pp. 729-738.
SC
[2] William P. Schonberg, Hypervelocity impact response of spaced composite material structures, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 10, Issues 1-4 (1990) pp. 509-523. [3 Eric L. Christiansen, Investigation of hypervelocity impact damage to space station truss tubes,
M AN U
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 10, Issues 1-4 (1990) pp. 125-133. [4] V. V. Silvestrov, A. V. Plastinin, N. N. Gorshkov, Hypervelocity impact on laminate composite panels, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 17, Issues 4-6 (1995) pp. 751-762. [5] Chantel G. Lamontage, Gerald N. Manuelpillai, Emma A. Taylor, Roderick C. Tennyson, Normal and oblique hypervelocity impacts on carbon fibre/peek composites, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 23, Issue 1, Part 2, (1999) pp. 519-532.
TE D
[6] Chantal G. Lamontagne, Gerald N. Manuelpillai, Justin H. Kerr, Emma A. Taylor, Roderick C. Tennyson, Mark J. Burchell, Projectile density, impact angle and energy effects on hypervelocity impact damage to carbon fibre/peek composites, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 26, Issues 1–10, (2001) pp. 381-398.
[7] Yasuhiro Tanabe, Motokazu Aoki, Stress and strain measurements in carbon-related materials
EP
impacted by a high-velocity steel sphere, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 28, Issue 10, (2003) pp. 1045-1059.
AC C
[8] D. Numata, K. Ohtani, M. Anyoji, K. Takayama, K. Togami, M. Sun, HVI tests on CFRP laminates at low temperature, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) pp. 1695-1701. [9] P.J. Hazell, A. Cowie, G. Kister, C. Stennett, G.A. Cooper, Penetration of a woven CFRP laminate by a high velocity steel sphere impacting at velocities of up to 1875 m/s, International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 1136–1142. [10] Yosuke Nagao, Seishiro Kibe, Kanako Daigo and Ayami Hara, Damage Area and Residual Strength of a Carbon Fiber Epoxy Composite Material after Subjection to Hypervelocity Impact, Journal of the Japan Society for Composite Materials, 35 (2009) pp. 15-26. (in Japanese) [11] A. Francesconi, C. Giacomuzzo, S. Kibe, Y. Nagao, M. Higashide, Effects of high-speed impacts on CFRP plates for space applications, Advances in Space Research, 50 (2012) 539-548. [12] William P. Schonberg, Rupture of a Cryogenic Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Following a High-Speed Particle Impact, Aerospace, 5(1), (2018) 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace5010021 [13] E.A. Taylor, M.K. Herbert, B.A.M. Vaughan, J.A.M. McDonnell, Hypervelocity impact on carbon fibre reinforced plastic/aluminium honeycomb: Comparison with whipple bumper shields,
RI PT
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 23, Issue 1, Part 2, (1999) pp. 883-893. [14] Schäfer, F. Destefanis, R., Ryan, S., Riedel, W., Lambert, M., Hypervelocity impact testing of CFRP/AL honeycomb satellite structures, Proceedings of 4th European Conference on Space Debris, (2005) pp. 407-412.
[15] S. Ryan, F. Schaefer, W. Riedel, Numerical simulation of hypervelocity impact on CFRP/Al HC
SC
SP spacecraft structures causing penetration and fragment ejection, International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 703-712.
[16] M. Wicklein, S. Ryan, D.M. White, R.A. Clegg, Hypervelocity impact on CFRP: Testing,
M AN U
material modelling, and numerical simulation, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 1861-1869.
[17] Masumi Higashide, Yosuke Nagao, Seishiro Kibe, Alessandro Francesconi, Daniele Paverin, Debris Impact on CFRP-AL Honeycomb Sandwich Structure, Transactions of JSASS Aerospace Technology, Japan, Vol. 8 Issue ists27 (2010) pp. Pr_2_1-Pr_2_5.
[18] R.A. Clegg, D.M. White, W. Riedel, W. Harwick, Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in
TE D
composites: part I-material model and characterization, Int J Impact Eng, 33 (2006), pp. 190-200. [19] W. Riedel, H. Nahme, D.M. White, R.A. Clegg, Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in composites: part II-experimental investigations and simulations, Int J Impact Eng, 33 (2006), pp. 670-680.
[20] A. Cherniaev, I. Telichev, Meso-scale modeling of hypervelocity impact damage in composite
EP
laminates, J Compos Part B, 75 (2015), pp. 95-103. [21] E. Giannaros, A. Kotzakolios, V. Kostopoulos, G. Campoli, Hypervelocity impact response of
AC C
CFRP laminates using smoothed particle hydrodynamics method: Implementation and validation, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 123 (2019), pp. 56-69. [22] Masahiro Nishida, Hiroaki Kato, Koichi Hayashi, Masumi Higashide, Ejecta Size Distribution Resulting from Hypervelocity Impact of Spherical Projectiles on CFRP Laminates, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 58, (2013) pp. 533-542. [23] J.L. Barth, Space and Atmospheric Environments: From Low Earth Orbits to Deep Space. In Proc. ICPMSE-6 (Protection of Materials and Structures from Space Environment) (Eds. Jacob I. Kleiman & Zelina Iskanderova), Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA, (2003) pp. 7-29. [24] E. Grossman, I. Gouzman, Space environment effects on polymers in low earth orbit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B, Vol. 208, (2003) pp. 48-57. [25] T. Sasuga, T. Seguchi, H. Sakai, T. Nakakura, M. Masutani, Electron-beam irradiation effects on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
mechanical properties of PEEK/CF composite, J. Mat. Sci., 24(5), (1989) pp. 1570–1574. [26] T. Hirade, A. Udagawa, T. Sasuga, T. Seguchi, Y. Hama, Radiation Effects on Flexural Strength and Mode-I Interlaminar-fracture Toughness of Conventional and Toughened Epoxy Matrix CFRP. Advanced Composite Materials, 1(4), (1991) pp. 321-331.
RI PT
[27] M. Iwata, J. Uchida, N. Kishimoto, K. Higuchi, K. Goto, Degradation of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics due to Radiation and Prediction of Its End of Life Value on Mechanical Property in Space Radiation Environment, Proc. 12th International Symposium on Materials in the Space Environment, (2012).
[28] ISO 11227:2012, Space systems -- Test procedure to evaluate spacecraft material ejecta upon
SC
hypervelocity impact.
[29] N. Kawai, K. Tsurui, S. Hasegawa, E. Sato, Single microparticle launching method using
Rev. Sci. Instrum, 81(11), (2010) 115105.
M AN U
two-stage light-gas gun for simulating hypervelocity impacts of micrometeoroids and space debris,
[30] K. Sugahara, K. Aso, Y. Akahoshi, T. Koura, T. Narumi, Intact Measurement of Fragments in Ejecta Due to Hypervelocity Impact, Proc. 60th International Astronautical Congress, (2009) IAC-09-A6.3.06.
[31] Gecrge F. Sykes, David E. Bowles, Space radiation effects on the dimensional stability of a toughened epoxy graphite composite, SAMPE Quarterly, vol. 17, No. 4, 1986, p. 39-45
TE D
[32] Masahiro Nishida, Koichi Hayashi, Masumi Higashide, Effects of Projectile Diameter and Specimen Thickness on Size Distribution of Ejecta Resulting from Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Plates in Hypervelocity Impacts, Journal of the Society of Materials Science, Japan, 67(4) (2018) pp. 445-451 (in Japanese).
[33] J.M. Siguier and J.C. Mandeville, Test procedures to evaluate spacecraft materials ejecta upon
AC C
EP
hypervelocity impact, Proc. IMechE, 221, G, (2007) pp. 969-974.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5 MGy
6.5 MGy
10 MGy
9 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 22
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
38 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
Figure 15(a) Ejecta distributions on impact side witness plates, 2.4 km/s
8 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6.5 MGy
0.5 MGy
10 MGy
333 163 25 12 4 0 0 0 6 543
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
643 446 87 15 1 0 0 0 0 1192
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
496 265 39 10 4 0 1 1 5 821
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
Figure 15(b) Ejecta distributions on rear side witness plates, 2.4 km/s
65 50 21 4 3 0 0 0 2 145
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5 MGy
10 MGy
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
452 220 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 709
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
276 152 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 441
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
235 121 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 379
Figure 16(a) Ejecta distributions on impact side witness plates, 5.3 km/s
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5 MGy
10 MGy
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
558 470 193 171 63 38 36 5 1 709
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
977 679 204 152 67 39 25 3 0 2146
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
1210 674 216 150 58 43 49 17 2 2419
Figure 16(b) Ejecta distributions on rear side witness plates, 5.3 km/s
S1359-8368(18)33522-4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.04.007
Reference:
JCOMB 6746
To appear in:
Composites Part B
Received Date: 25 October 2018 Revised Date:
3 April 2019
Accepted Date: 5 April 2019
Please cite this article as: Nishida M, Hongo A, Hiraiwa Y, Higashide M, Effects of gamma ray irradiation on penetration hole in and fragment size from carbon fiber reinforced composite plates in hypervelocity impacts, Composites Part B (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.04.007. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Effects of Gamma Ray Irradiation on Penetration Hole in and Fragment Size from Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composite Plates in Hypervelocity Impacts
RI PT
Masahiro Nishida(1), Akie Hongo(2), Yasuyuki Hiraiwa(3), Masumi Higashide(4)
(1) Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8555, Japan, Email: [email protected]
M AN U
(3) Former student, Nagoya Institute of Technology
SC
(2) Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 466-8555, Japan
(4) Aerospace Research and Development Directorate, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 7-44-1 Jindaiji Higashi-machi, Chofu-shi, Tokyo 182-8522, Japan
Keywords: Space environment, Durability, Combined effects, Carbon-epoxy composites, Ejecta,
ABSTRACT
TE D
Impact strength
This study examines how gamma ray irradiation affects the penetration holes in and fragment sizes from carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) plates due to hypervelocity impacts. In order to do so, quasi-isotropic CFRP plates made of unidirectional pre-impregnated sheets and 1-mm-diameter
EP
spherical projectiles made of aluminum alloy (2017-T4) were used. Witness plates (200 mm × 200 mm × 2 mm) made of copper (C1100P-1/4H) and containing a 30-mm-diameter hole were placed 50
AC C
mm in front of and behind each target to examine the fragments based on ISO 11227. The fragments collected from the impact and rear sides of the target were compared. Gamma ray irradiation had a slight effect on the penetration hole, the fragment size distributions, and the craters on the witness plates. When the gamma ray irradiation was 10 MGy, the penetration holes at impact velocities of 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s became slightly smaller. At the impact velocity of 2.4 km/s, perforation of the 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy specimens prevented the projectile from fracturing.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction Space debris is orbiting in low Earth orbits at velocities of nearly 8 km/s and has been reported to strike spacecraft, satellites, and space stations at an average impact velocity of 10 km/s. The use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) plates in satellites has been increasing recently, and many
RI PT
attempts to clarify the fracture behavior of CFRP plates due to hypervelocity impacts have been reported concerning the ballistic limit, perforation behavior, and debris clouds when projectiles perforate CFRP plates at high velocity (>1 km/s).
In early work in 1987, Yew and Kendrick [1] reported phenomenological observations of damage done to graphite fiber/epoxy composites by hypervelocity impacts. In 1990, Schonberg [2]
SC
investigated the response of dual-wall structural systems using Kevlar and graphite/epoxy composites under hypervelocity impacts. In the same year, Christiansen [3] clarified how the properties of graphite/epoxy tubes affect impact damage to the International Space Station. In 1995,
M AN U
Silvestrov et al. [4] reported phenomenological results for the damage done to flat glass-, aramid-, and carbon-fiber-reinforced epoxy laminated composites at velocities of 8–11 km/s. Lamontagne et al. in 1999 and 2001 [5, 6] clarified how projectile density, impact angle, and energy affect the damage done to carbon fiber/PEEK composites by hypervelocity impacts. Since then, there have been many papers containing experimental results for the fracture behavior of CFRP plates due to hypervelocity impacts [7–12]. There have also been many experimental studies regarding
TE D
honeycomb sandwich panels with CFRP face sheets due to hypervelocity impacts [13–17]. There have also been several numerical studies of the fracture behaviors and fragments of CFRP caused by hypervelocity impacts. In this field, mesh-free methods such as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and the discrete element method are popular. Clegg et al. [18] compared damage between experiments and simulations, Riedel et al. [19] developed a material model and
EP
associated material characterization techniques for numerical simulation of CFRP, and Cherniaev and Telichev [20] conducted a numerical simulation of hypervelocity impact damage in composite
AC C
laminates using a mesoscale model. Furthermore, CFRP plates subjected to hypervelocity impacts have been simulated using the SPH of the LS-DYNA code [21]. However, the size distributions of fragments ejected from CFRP laminates are yet to be elucidated fully by numerical simulation and experiments. The authors’ research group [22] has examined the size distributions of fragments collected from a test chamber after impact experiments. The number of fragments ejected from the front of the target depended on the impact velocity, but that from the rear of the target did not. As is well known, because CFRP plates have high specific strength and stiffness, they are used widely in satellites and spacecraft to save weight. Aimed at the unforgiving environment of space [23, 24] (e.g., high vacuum, ultraviolet radiation, electron beams [25, 26], atomic oxygen, thermal cycling), the strength and stiffness of CFRP have been investigated. Iwata et al. [27] studied how
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
gamma ray and electron irradiation affect the bending modulus of CFRP and the resin used therein; they indicated that the observed decrease in the bending modulus of their CFRP specimens at less than 5 MGy was not the result of degradation of the resin. In the present study, after aluminum alloy projectiles struck gamma-ray-irradiated CFRP plates,
RI PT
fragments from those plates collected from the test chamber were measured. How the gamma ray irradiation affected the penetration holes and the size of the fragments from the CFRP plates was examined.
SC
2 Experimental Methods
CFRP laminates comprising epoxy-based carbon-fiber unidirectional prepregs (Toray, P13080F-3: Matrix 3800-2, Fiber M60JB) for space use were used as the target material. The size of
M AN U
each CFRP plate was 75 mm × 100 mm with a thickness of 0.7 mm, and the laminate constitution was [+45º/+45º/0º/0º/−45º/−45º/+90º/+90º]s (16 ply). The CFRP plates were irradiated with gamma rays at the sixth cell of the Cobalt-60 Gamma-ray Irradiation Facility, Takasaki Advanced Radiation Research Institute (TARRI), National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology (QST). A dose rate of 10 kGy/h was selected, and the total doses were 0.5 MGy (50 h), 3.5 MGy (350 h), 6.5 MGy (650 h), and 10 MGy (1,000 h). Two to four of the CFRP plates were
TE D
encapsulated in each evacuated glass ampoule during the gamma ray irradiation to avoid oxidation degradation, and how the total dose affected the penetration hole and fragment size was examined. Projectiles with a diameter of 1 mm made of aluminum alloy (2017-T4) were used in compliance with ISO 11227 [28]. A two-stage light-gas gun at the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS)/Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) [29] was used for the
EP
impact experiments at 5.3 km/s, and a two-stage light-gas gun at the Nagoya Institute of Technology was used for those at 2.4 km/s. ISO 11227 prescribes the experimental conditions in detail regarding
AC C
the projectiles, targets, copper plates (known as witness plates), and experimental environment for evaluating fragments from spacecraft materials (known as ejecta). In compliance with ISO 11227, a front witness plate (150 mm × 150 mm) and a rear witness plate (200 mm × 200 mm), both 2 mm thick and made of copper (C1100P-1/4H), were placed 50 mm in front of and 50 mm behind each target, as shown in Fig. 1, to determine the scattering area and examine the sizes of any craters due to CFRP fragments. The front witness plate contained a 30-mm-diamter hole to allow the projectile to pass through, and the surfaces of both witness plates were polished so that any craters thereon could be detected clearly. Figure 2 shows the microscope (Saitoh Kogaku, SKM-Z200C-PC) system used to scan for impact craters on the witness plates; this was constructed by referencing the scan system and method used at the Kyusyu Institute of Technology [30]. By determining the diameters and positions of any impact craters on the witness plates, ISO 11227 prescribed that fragments from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
targets were evaluated indirectly [28]. The space between the target and the rear witness plate was surrounded by plates so that the forward fragments coming from the target (referred to hereinafter as the impact side) could be collected separately from the backward fragments (referred to hereinafter as the rear side). The sizes
RI PT
of the fragments collected from the test chamber were examined using a method discussed in Section 3.2 (direct measurement method) as well as by means of the witness plates (indirect measurement method). How the total dose of gamma ray irradiation affected the penetration holes and fragment sizes on the impact and rear sides (direct and indirect measurement methods) was examined.
Target
Witness plate on rear side (200 x 200 mm)
SC
50 mm
φ1.0 mm Witness plate on impact side (150 x 150 mm)
50 mm
Impact side
Rear side
Experimental setup of impact experiments.
TE D
Figure 1.
M AN U
Projectile
AC C
EP
Witness plate
Figure 2.
Photograph of scan system for witness plates.
3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Penetration holes Figure 3 shows enlarged images of penetration holes in targets after impact experiments at the impact velocity of 2.4 km/s. The results obtained with total doses of 0.5 MGy, 3.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy were compared with those without irradiation. In the photographs, upward is the 0°
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
direction of the laminate constitution and to the right is the +90° direction. Figure 3 shows that the surface layers on the impact side were peeled-off mainly from top right to bottom left, and those on the rear side were peeled-off from top left to bottom right. The direction from top right to bottom left on the impact side is coincident with the fiber direction of the outermost layer on the impact side; the
RI PT
same pertains on the rear side. The width of the peeled-off area was almost the same as the diameter of the penetration hole, and the length of the peeled-off area was 0.5–1 times the diameter of the penetration hole. The total dose affected neither the peeled-off width nor the length, but the peeled-off area at 10 MGy seemed to be slightly smaller than that at 6.5 MGy.
Figure 4 shows enlarged images of penetration holes in targets after impact experiments at the
SC
impact velocity of 5.3 km/s. The results obtained with total doses of 0.5 MGy and 10 MGy were compared with those without irradiation. As with the results obtained at the impact velocity of 2.4 km/s as shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 shows that the surface layers on the impact side were peeled-off
M AN U
mainly from top right to bottom left, and those on the rear side were peeled-off from top left to bottom right. The width of the peeled-off area was again almost the same as the diameter of the penetration hole, and the length of the peeled-off area was again 0.5–1 times the diameter of the penetration hole. Increasing the impact velocity increased the peeled-off width and length (note that the scales are different in Figs. 3 and 4). However, when compared in terms of the ratio of the penetration-hole diameter to the peeled-off length, the ratio of the peeled-off area at 5.3 km/s were
TE D
almost the same as those at 2.4 km/s.
The areas of the penetration holes shown in Figs. 3 and 4 were calculated using the ImageJ image analysis software. Figure 5 shows how the penetration-hole area varies with the total dose. At either impact velocity, the penetration-hole area was independent of the total dose. When the impact velocity was 2.4 km/s, the penetration-hole area up to a total dose of 6.5 MGy remained constant at
EP
2.3 mm2, which is approximately three times larger than the projected area of the projectile (0.78 mm2). When the total dose was 10 MGy, the penetration-hole area was slightly lower than it was until the total dose was 6.5 MGy. When the impact velocity was 5.3 km/s, the penetration-hole area
AC C
both with a total dose of 0.5 MGy and without irradiation was 6.3 mm2, which is approximately eight times larger than the projected area of the projectile (0.78 mm2). When the total dose was 10 MGy, the penetration-hole area was slightly lower than it was without irradiation. Overall, it seemed that the penetration holes began to change at a total dose of 10 MGy, which corresponds to 3–4 years in a geosynchronous orbit [31] and more in a low Earth orbit. As satellite lifespans increase drastically in the future, the effects of irradiation on the CFRP of satellites will become more obvious.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Impact side
Rear side
2 mm
2 mm
(a) Non-irradiation (2.41 km/s) 0.5-01
SC
0.5-01
(b) 0.5 MGy (2.39 km/s) 3.5-01
M AN U
2 mm
2 mm
RI PT
NO-01
NO-01
3.5-01
2 mm
TE D
2 mm
(c) 3.5 MGy (2.54 km/s)
6.5-01
EP
6.5-01
2 mm
2 mm
AC C
(d) 6.5 MGy (2.40 km/s) 10-01
2 mm
10-01
2 mm
(e) 10 MGy (2.41 km/s) Figure 3. Photographs of penetration holes after impact experiments at 2.4 km/s (nominal) for a dose rate of 10 kGy/h.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Impact side NO-H-01
Rear side
2 mm
(a) Non-irradiation (5.37 km/s)
2 mm
2 mm
(b) 0.5 MGy (5.30 km/s)
M AN U
0.5-H-01
0.5-H-01
SC
2 mm
RI PT
NO-H-01
10-H-01
2 mm
EP
2 mm
TE D
10-H-01
(c) 10 MGy (5.28 km/s)
AC C
Figure 4. Photographs of penetration holes after impact experiments at 5.3 km/s (nominal) for a dose rate of 10 kGy/h.
8 6 4 2.4 km/s 2
0
2
4 6 8 Total dose, MGy
10
M AN U
0
Variation of perforation-hole area with total dose.
AC C
EP
TE D
Figure 5
RI PT
5.3 km/s
SC
Perforation hole areas, mm
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.2 Fragment size After the impact experiments, fragments were collected from the test chamber. Figure 6 shows an example of the fragments from the CFRP plates. After photographing the fragments on a light table as shown in Fig. 7, the fragment size was measured using ImageJ. The length a, width b, and
RI PT
thickness c of a fragment were defined as shown in Fig. 8. After binarizing the images, the length a, which is the maximum length of the projection view, was determined by using ImageJ to search for the largest circumcircle.
Figure 9(a) and (b) show the cumulative number distributions of the fragment length a on the impact and rear sides, respectively, at an impact velocity of 2.4 km/s. On the impact side, the
SC
irradiation had no clear effect on the cumulative number distribution of the fragment length. No clear trend can be seen regarding the total dose, even though there were fewer fragments for 0.5 MGy, 3.5 MGy, and 6.5 MGy. However, the irradiation did seem to affect the cumulative number
of fragments longer than 1 mm.
M AN U
distribution of the fragment length on the rear side: the gamma ray irradiation decreased the number
Figure 10 shows the aspect ratios of fragments at 2.4 km/s. In previous work [32] using CFRP of IMS60/#133 prepreg (Toho Tenax Co., Ltd), the present authors showed that most fragments were in the range 0 < b/a < 0.2 regardless of the CFRP thickness, projectile diameter, and impact velocity. The total dose did not affect the aspect ratio of the CFRP fragments.
TE D
Figure 11(a) and (b) show the cumulative number distributions of the fragment length on the impact and rear sides, respectively, at an impact velocity of 5.3 km/s. The cumulative number distributions for non-irradiation, 0.5 MGy, and 10 MGy were close to each other. On the impact side, the cumulative number distribution for 10 MGy was slightly smaller than those for non-irradiation and 0.5 MGy. On the rear side, the cumulative number distribution for 0.5 MGy was slightly smaller
EP
than those for non-irradiation and 10 MGy. However, the discrepancy between the distributions seemed to be small, and the irradiation had an insignificant effect on the cumulative number of
AC C
fragments longer than 1 mm.
The overall trend is that the effects of the irradiation on the cumulative number of fragments
longer than 1 mm were not clear. There are cases in which the irradiation decreased the cumulative number distribution only slightly. However, the discrepancy between the distributions was equivalent to the range of experimental error (i.e., ±10 fragments), and no significant difference was observed.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 12 shows how the impact velocity affects the cumulative number distributions of the fragment length on the impact and rear sides. The solid circles are results for 5.3 km/s and the open circles are results for 2.4 km/s. Even though there are cases in which (i) the cumulative number
RI PT
distribution on the rear side for 5.3 km/s exceeded that for 2.4 km/s when the total dose was 10 MGy and (ii) the cumulative number distribution on the impact side for 5.3 km/s exceeded that for 2.4 km/s when the total dose was 0.5 MGy, the impact velocity had no clear effect on the cumulative number distribution of fragment length. As shown in Fig. 5, the penetration-hole area at 5.3 km/s was approximately three times larger than that at 2.4 km/s. This means that the total number of
SC
fragments ejected from a target increased with the impact velocity. However, the impact velocity did not affect the cumulative number distribution of fragments longer than 1.0 mm; this suggests that either the number of fragments shorter than 1.0 mm increases with the impact velocity or that the
M AN U
fragments become shorter by colliding with the witness plates on the impact and rear sides. In previous work [22], the present authors showed that the cumulative number distribution on the impact side increased with the impact velocity when the latter was changed from 0.90 km/s to 2.82 km/s. Consequently, it is inferred from that previous work and the present work that the impact velocity does not affect the cumulative number distribution on the impact side when the impact velocity exceeds approximately 2 km/s. The present authors also showed that the impact velocity did
TE D
not affect the cumulative number distribution on the rear side when the impact velocity was changed from 0.90 km/s to 2.82 km/s [22]. Consequently, it is inferred from that previous work and the present work that the impact velocity does not affect the cumulative number distribution on the rear side regardless of the impact velocity.
In other previous work [32], the present authors showed that (i) the cumulative number
EP
distribution of fragments on the impact side was less than that on the rear side at 1.2 km/s and (ii) the cumulative number distribution of fragments on the impact side was similar to that on the rear side at
AC C
3.5 km/s. The present authors also showed that the cumulative number distribution of fragments on the impact side was similar to that on the rear side at 2.82 km/s [22]. However, in the present study, the cumulative number distribution of fragments on the impact side is greater than that on the rear side at both 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s. Iwata et al. [27] reported that gamma ray irradiation of less than 5 MGy changed the bending
modulus of CFRP specimens, but by no more than 7%. In the present study, gamma ray irradiation seemed to have some effect on the cumulative number distribution of fragments. However, as with the results of Iwata et al., those effects were not large. Figures 13 and 14 show photographs of witness plates after impact tests at 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s, respectively. Only few minuscule craters caused by the impacts of fragments were observed on the impact side, but there were many small craters on the rear side. When the impact velocity was 2.4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
km/s, in addition to these small craters, the witness plates for 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy each showed a large crater that is thought to be due to a projectile impacting the rear witness plate without fragmenting; the inference is that irradiation at 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy, and 10 MGy decreased the strength of the CFRP, thereby suppressing projectile fragmentation. However, when the impact
RI PT
velocity was 5.3 km/s, none of the witness plates exhibited signs of the CFRP strength having been reduced. If there was any change in the CFRP strength, it must have been small. Which parts are most affected (e.g., fibers, resins, or the interfaces between them) and the main reason why remain unclear, a more-detailed investigation is required.
Enlarged images of the witness plates were taken using the scan system shown in Fig. 2, and
SC
the diameters and positions of the impact craters on the witness plates were determined [28, 30, 34]. Figure 15 shows the analysis results for 2.4 km/s; the meanings of the plotting symbols are shown below each graph. There were a few fragment-impact craters on the impact side. As with the visual
M AN U
results in Fig. 13, there is no clear trend in the four sets of results for the impact side regarding the total dose.
Because at least 20 fragments longer than 1 mm were collected from the impact side, as shown in Fig. 9, it is highly possible that the fragment velocity on the impact side was relatively low, which is why no fragment-impact craters were observed on the witness plates of the impact side. On the rear side, the results show the cratered region extending slightly from top left to bottom right along
TE D
the fiber direction of the outermost layer on the rear side. There were far more craters on the rear side than on the impact side. Because the fragments longer than 1 mm collected from the impact and rear sides were similar, it is highly possible that the fragment velocity on the rear side was relatively high. There were many small craters on the rear side, except when the total dose was 10 MGy, in which case there were relatively few; nevertheless, there was no clear tendency on the rear side
EP
regarding the total dose.
Figure 16 shows the analysis results for 5.3 km/s. The number of craters on the impact and rear
AC C
sides clearly increased with the impact velocity. At 5.3 km/s, there were again far more craters on the rear side than on the impact side. On the rear side at 2.4 km/s, the results show the cratered region extending slightly from top left to bottom right along the fiber direction of the outermost layer on the rear side, but no clear trend can be seen at 5.3 km/s. The area of spread on both the impact and rear side seemed to increase slightly with the total dose, but there was again no clear trend on the impact or rear side regarding the total dose.
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
3 mm
M AN U
Figure 6 Photograph of fragments collected on rear side (3.5 MGy, 2.54 km/s).
TE D
Figure 7 Photograph of collected fragment.
c
EP
b
a
Definition of dimensions of fragments collected from test chamber ( c ≤ b ≤ a )
AC C
Figure 8
100
60 40 20 0 0
1
2 3 a [mm]
Non-irradiation 0.5 MGy 3.5 MGy 6.5 MGy 10 MGy
80 60 40 20
(b) Rear side
1
2 3 a [mm]
4
5
Fraction of fragments
AC C
EP
Size distributions of fragment length (impact velocity: 2.4 km/s).
1.2 1
0.8 0.6
Non-irradiation 0.5 MGy 3.5 MGy 6.5 MGy 10 MGy
0.4 0.2 0
Figure 10
5
M AN U
100
0 0
4
TE D
Number of fragments greater than a
(a) Impact side
Figure 9
RI PT
Non-irradiation 0.5 MGy 3.5 MGy 6.5 MGy 10 MGy
80
SC
Number of fragments greater than a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0
0.2
0.4 0.6 b/a
0.8
1
Effects of total dose on aspect ratio b/a of fragments (impact velocity: 2.4 km/s).
100 Non−irradiation 0.5 MGy 10 MGy
80 60 40 20 0 0
1
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
60 40 20 0 0
1
120
AC C
40
4
5
EP
60
3 a [mm]
Non−irradiation 0.5 MGy 10 MGy
100 80
2
M AN U
Non−irradiation 0.5 MGy 10 MGy
80
(b) Rear side Number of fragments greater than a
SC
100
TE D
Number of fragments greater than a
(a) Impact side
RI PT
Number of fragments greater than a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
0 0
1
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
(c) Total
Figure 11
Size distributions of fragment length (impact velocity: 5.3 km/s).
120
80 60 40 20 0 0
1
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
120 Total Impact side Rear side
60 40 20 0 0
1
2
(b) 0.5 MGy
3 a [mm]
5
Total Impact side Rear side
100 80
EP
60 40 20
0 0
4
2 km/s
120
AC C
Number of fragments greater than a
M AN U
80
TE D
Number of fragments greater than a
(a) Non-irradiation
100
RI PT
Total Impact side Rear side
100
SC
Number of fragments greater than a
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
(c) 10 MGy
2
3 a [mm]
4
5
Figure 12 Effects of impact velocity on fragment length distribution (solid circles: 5.3 km/s; open circles: 2.4 km/s).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rear side
RI PT
Impact side
M AN U
SC
(a) Non-irradiation (2.41 km/s)
EP
TE D
(b) 0.5 MGy (2.39 km/s)
AC C
(c) 6.5 MGy (2.36 km/s)
(d) 10 MGy (2.41 km/s) Figure 13 Photographs of witness plates after impact experiments at 2.4 km/s.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Rear side
RI PT
Impact side
M AN U
SC
(a) Non-irradiation (5.37 km/s)
AC C
EP
TE D
(b) 0.5 MGy (5.30 km/s)
(c) 10 MGy (5.28 km/s)
Figure 14 Photographs of witness plates after impact experiments at 5.3 km/s.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
400
10 MGy
Non−irradiation
300 0.5 MGy 200
1250 2500 −1 Wavenumber [ ] cm
3750
SC
Figure 17 Results of laser Raman spectroscopy.
RI PT
Intensity
500
Finally, laser Raman spectroscopy (JASCO, NRS-3300) was applied to the CFRP specimens to
M AN U
understand how their intrinsic properties change. A Raman spectrum is shown in Fig. 17. No significant Raman scattering signals were detected because fluorescence background problems seemed to occur. However, because the irradiation (total dose) clearly changed the trend of the fluorescence background, it is highly possible that the irradiation caused some chemical reaction in the CFRP (e.g., molecular chain breakage and crosslinking); further chemical analyses are needed to establish whether this was so.
TE D
The thermal characteristics of the non-irradiated and 10 MGy CFRP samples were investigated by means of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) (Q100, TA Instruments). The specimen mass was 12.5 mg for non-irradiation and 12.3 mg for 10 MGy. The DSC started from 40°C, and the specimen was heated to 250°C at 10°C/min. The DSC results are shown in Fig. 18. The glass transition temperatures of both specimens were almost the same, namely approximately 150°C. Because no
EP
exothermic reactions were observed beyond the glass transition temperature, the gamma ray irradiation had not induced curing and bridging of the matrix. The 10 MGy specimen showed an
AC C
endothermic reaction at approximately 95°C. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) (Q800, TA Instruments) was also performed on both samples. The specimen was 38 mm long, 7 mm wide, and was clamped as a cantilever beam. The distance between the fulcrums was 17.5 mm, and a strain of 0.001 was applied at 1 Hz. The loaded specimen was heated from 30°C to 250°C at 3°C/min. The storage and loss moduli measured by DMA are shown in Fig. 19. When the temperature exceeded the glass transition temperature, there was almost no difference between the non-irradiated and 10 MGy specimens. This implies that gamma ray irradiation does not change the viscoelastic characteristics at higher temperature. The projectile impact point on the 5.3 km/s specimen was heated to a higher temperature than that on the 2.4 km/s specimen because higher impact pressure is generated by higher velocity. This is considered a reason why the gamma ray irradiation did not influence the projectile fracturing in the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5.3 km/s impact experiments. Focusing on lower temperature, the loss modulus of the 10 MGy specimen increased rapidly around 100°C, very close to the temperature at which the endothermic reaction was observed in the DSC. It was found that gamma ray irradiation affects the CFRP
RI PT
material characteristics, but not by enough to cause fragmentation upon hypervelocity impact.
0.0 -0.5
Non-irradiation 10 MGy
-1.5 -2.0
SC
Heat Flow (mW)
-1.0
-2.5 -3.0
M AN U
-3.5 -4.0 -4.5 0
50
100
150 200 Temperature (°C)
250
300
25000
Storage/ Non-irradiation Loss/ Non-irradiation
15000
2000
1500
EP
Storage Modulus (MPa)
20000
2500 Storage/ 10 MGy Loss/ 10 MGy
AC C
10000
1000
5000
500
0
0
Loss Modulus (MPa)
TE D
Figure 18 Results of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).
0 50
100
150 200 Temperature (°C)
250
300
Figure 19 Storage and loss moduli measured by dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Summary of impact experiments. Impact Penetration Debris size
Witness plates DMA
number Total dose
velocity hole area
in Figs. 13–14 /DSC
2
distributions
[km/s]
[mm ]
in Figs. 9–12 0
0
0
2.41
2.03
2
Non-irradiation
2.26
2.30
3
Non-irradiation
2.21
2.32
4
0.5 MGy
2.39
2.30
0
5
3.5 MGy
2.54
2.22
0
6
6.5 MGy
2.36
2.29
0
7
6.5 MGy
2.40
2.40
8
10 MGy
2.41
1.78
0
9
Non-irradiation
5.37
6.46
0
10
0.5 MGy
5.30
6.25
11
10 MGy
5.28
5.78
4
Conclusions
0
SC
Non-irradiation
0
0
M AN U
1
RI PT
Shot
0
0
0
0
0
0
TE D
The effects of gamma ray irradiation on the penetration holes in and fragment sizes from CFRP plates were examined. Overall, gamma ray irradiation of less than 10 MGy had no clear effects on the penetration hole, the peeled-off area, the fragment size distribution, or the craters on the witness plates, but detailed differences were observed. When the gamma ray irradiation was 10 MGy, the
EP
penetration holes at impact velocities of 2.4 km/s and 5.3 km/s became slightly smaller. When the impact velocity was 2.4 km/s, the number of fragments collected from the rear side of the target decreased slightly with the irradiation dose. At 2.4 km/s, perforation of the 0.5 MGy, 6.5 MGy and
AC C
10 MGy specimens prevented the projectile from fracturing, and a large crater due to projectile impact was observed on the rear witness plate. At 5.3 km/s, the gamma ray irradiation had little effect on the fragment size. Results of laser Raman spectroscopy, DSC, and DMA showed no clear effects of the gamma ray irradiation. Gamma ray irradiation of less than 10 MGy had a negligible effect on the penetration behavior of the CFRP upon hypervelocity impact at 2 km/s and 5 km/s.
5 Acknowledgments This study was supported by ISAS, JAXA as a collaborative program with the Hypervelocity Impact Facility (the Space Plasma Labo-ratory). The gamma-ray irradiation was carried out using the QST (Takasaki) C0-60 facility Supported by the Inter-University Program for the Joint Use of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
JAEA/QST Facilities (proposal no. 16014). This work was also supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP26420012, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C). The authors would like to express
6
RI PT
the deepest appreciation to the financial support from Nagoya Institute of Technology.
References
[1] Ching H. Yew, Rodney B. Kendrick, A study of damage in composite panels produced by hypervelocity impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 5, Issues 1-4 (1987) pp. 729-738.
SC
[2] William P. Schonberg, Hypervelocity impact response of spaced composite material structures, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 10, Issues 1-4 (1990) pp. 509-523. [3 Eric L. Christiansen, Investigation of hypervelocity impact damage to space station truss tubes,
M AN U
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 10, Issues 1-4 (1990) pp. 125-133. [4] V. V. Silvestrov, A. V. Plastinin, N. N. Gorshkov, Hypervelocity impact on laminate composite panels, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 17, Issues 4-6 (1995) pp. 751-762. [5] Chantel G. Lamontage, Gerald N. Manuelpillai, Emma A. Taylor, Roderick C. Tennyson, Normal and oblique hypervelocity impacts on carbon fibre/peek composites, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 23, Issue 1, Part 2, (1999) pp. 519-532.
TE D
[6] Chantal G. Lamontagne, Gerald N. Manuelpillai, Justin H. Kerr, Emma A. Taylor, Roderick C. Tennyson, Mark J. Burchell, Projectile density, impact angle and energy effects on hypervelocity impact damage to carbon fibre/peek composites, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 26, Issues 1–10, (2001) pp. 381-398.
[7] Yasuhiro Tanabe, Motokazu Aoki, Stress and strain measurements in carbon-related materials
EP
impacted by a high-velocity steel sphere, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 28, Issue 10, (2003) pp. 1045-1059.
AC C
[8] D. Numata, K. Ohtani, M. Anyoji, K. Takayama, K. Togami, M. Sun, HVI tests on CFRP laminates at low temperature, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) pp. 1695-1701. [9] P.J. Hazell, A. Cowie, G. Kister, C. Stennett, G.A. Cooper, Penetration of a woven CFRP laminate by a high velocity steel sphere impacting at velocities of up to 1875 m/s, International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 1136–1142. [10] Yosuke Nagao, Seishiro Kibe, Kanako Daigo and Ayami Hara, Damage Area and Residual Strength of a Carbon Fiber Epoxy Composite Material after Subjection to Hypervelocity Impact, Journal of the Japan Society for Composite Materials, 35 (2009) pp. 15-26. (in Japanese) [11] A. Francesconi, C. Giacomuzzo, S. Kibe, Y. Nagao, M. Higashide, Effects of high-speed impacts on CFRP plates for space applications, Advances in Space Research, 50 (2012) 539-548. [12] William P. Schonberg, Rupture of a Cryogenic Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Following a High-Speed Particle Impact, Aerospace, 5(1), (2018) 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace5010021 [13] E.A. Taylor, M.K. Herbert, B.A.M. Vaughan, J.A.M. McDonnell, Hypervelocity impact on carbon fibre reinforced plastic/aluminium honeycomb: Comparison with whipple bumper shields,
RI PT
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 23, Issue 1, Part 2, (1999) pp. 883-893. [14] Schäfer, F. Destefanis, R., Ryan, S., Riedel, W., Lambert, M., Hypervelocity impact testing of CFRP/AL honeycomb satellite structures, Proceedings of 4th European Conference on Space Debris, (2005) pp. 407-412.
[15] S. Ryan, F. Schaefer, W. Riedel, Numerical simulation of hypervelocity impact on CFRP/Al HC
SC
SP spacecraft structures causing penetration and fragment ejection, International Journal of Impact Engineering 33 (2006) 703-712.
[16] M. Wicklein, S. Ryan, D.M. White, R.A. Clegg, Hypervelocity impact on CFRP: Testing,
M AN U
material modelling, and numerical simulation, International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 1861-1869.
[17] Masumi Higashide, Yosuke Nagao, Seishiro Kibe, Alessandro Francesconi, Daniele Paverin, Debris Impact on CFRP-AL Honeycomb Sandwich Structure, Transactions of JSASS Aerospace Technology, Japan, Vol. 8 Issue ists27 (2010) pp. Pr_2_1-Pr_2_5.
[18] R.A. Clegg, D.M. White, W. Riedel, W. Harwick, Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in
TE D
composites: part I-material model and characterization, Int J Impact Eng, 33 (2006), pp. 190-200. [19] W. Riedel, H. Nahme, D.M. White, R.A. Clegg, Hypervelocity impact damage prediction in composites: part II-experimental investigations and simulations, Int J Impact Eng, 33 (2006), pp. 670-680.
[20] A. Cherniaev, I. Telichev, Meso-scale modeling of hypervelocity impact damage in composite
EP
laminates, J Compos Part B, 75 (2015), pp. 95-103. [21] E. Giannaros, A. Kotzakolios, V. Kostopoulos, G. Campoli, Hypervelocity impact response of
AC C
CFRP laminates using smoothed particle hydrodynamics method: Implementation and validation, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 123 (2019), pp. 56-69. [22] Masahiro Nishida, Hiroaki Kato, Koichi Hayashi, Masumi Higashide, Ejecta Size Distribution Resulting from Hypervelocity Impact of Spherical Projectiles on CFRP Laminates, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 58, (2013) pp. 533-542. [23] J.L. Barth, Space and Atmospheric Environments: From Low Earth Orbits to Deep Space. In Proc. ICPMSE-6 (Protection of Materials and Structures from Space Environment) (Eds. Jacob I. Kleiman & Zelina Iskanderova), Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA, (2003) pp. 7-29. [24] E. Grossman, I. Gouzman, Space environment effects on polymers in low earth orbit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B, Vol. 208, (2003) pp. 48-57. [25] T. Sasuga, T. Seguchi, H. Sakai, T. Nakakura, M. Masutani, Electron-beam irradiation effects on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
mechanical properties of PEEK/CF composite, J. Mat. Sci., 24(5), (1989) pp. 1570–1574. [26] T. Hirade, A. Udagawa, T. Sasuga, T. Seguchi, Y. Hama, Radiation Effects on Flexural Strength and Mode-I Interlaminar-fracture Toughness of Conventional and Toughened Epoxy Matrix CFRP. Advanced Composite Materials, 1(4), (1991) pp. 321-331.
RI PT
[27] M. Iwata, J. Uchida, N. Kishimoto, K. Higuchi, K. Goto, Degradation of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics due to Radiation and Prediction of Its End of Life Value on Mechanical Property in Space Radiation Environment, Proc. 12th International Symposium on Materials in the Space Environment, (2012).
[28] ISO 11227:2012, Space systems -- Test procedure to evaluate spacecraft material ejecta upon
SC
hypervelocity impact.
[29] N. Kawai, K. Tsurui, S. Hasegawa, E. Sato, Single microparticle launching method using
Rev. Sci. Instrum, 81(11), (2010) 115105.
M AN U
two-stage light-gas gun for simulating hypervelocity impacts of micrometeoroids and space debris,
[30] K. Sugahara, K. Aso, Y. Akahoshi, T. Koura, T. Narumi, Intact Measurement of Fragments in Ejecta Due to Hypervelocity Impact, Proc. 60th International Astronautical Congress, (2009) IAC-09-A6.3.06.
[31] Gecrge F. Sykes, David E. Bowles, Space radiation effects on the dimensional stability of a toughened epoxy graphite composite, SAMPE Quarterly, vol. 17, No. 4, 1986, p. 39-45
TE D
[32] Masahiro Nishida, Koichi Hayashi, Masumi Higashide, Effects of Projectile Diameter and Specimen Thickness on Size Distribution of Ejecta Resulting from Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Plates in Hypervelocity Impacts, Journal of the Society of Materials Science, Japan, 67(4) (2018) pp. 445-451 (in Japanese).
[33] J.M. Siguier and J.C. Mandeville, Test procedures to evaluate spacecraft materials ejecta upon
AC C
EP
hypervelocity impact, Proc. IMechE, 221, G, (2007) pp. 969-974.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5 MGy
6.5 MGy
10 MGy
9 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 22
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
38 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
Figure 15(a) Ejecta distributions on impact side witness plates, 2.4 km/s
8 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6.5 MGy
0.5 MGy
10 MGy
333 163 25 12 4 0 0 0 6 543
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
643 446 87 15 1 0 0 0 0 1192
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
496 265 39 10 4 0 1 1 5 821
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
Figure 15(b) Ejecta distributions on rear side witness plates, 2.4 km/s
65 50 21 4 3 0 0 0 2 145
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5 MGy
10 MGy
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
452 220 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 709
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
276 152 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 441
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
235 121 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 379
Figure 16(a) Ejecta distributions on impact side witness plates, 5.3 km/s
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5 MGy
10 MGy
TE D
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
EP
558 470 193 171 63 38 36 5 1 709
AC C
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Non-irradiation
977 679 204 152 67 39 25 3 0 2146
0.075～0.1 0.1～0.15 0.15～0.2 0.2～0.3 0.3～0.4 0.4～0.5 0.5～0.75 0.75～1 1～ total
1210 674 216 150 58 43 49 17 2 2419
Figure 16(b) Ejecta distributions on rear side witness plates, 5.3 km/s