20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar<BR> AIAA 2009-2957

4 - 7 May 2009, Seattle, Washington

Strain Sensor Evaluation for Inflatable Structures

John B. McKinney1 and John R. McCann2

The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, CA, 92647

The Boeing Company under contract to the NASA Langley Research Centre (LaRC)
studied and evaluated strain/deformation instrumentation required to validate Inflatable
Aerodynamic Decelerator models. The objective of the study was to develop an
understanding of the issues related to sensor integration on inflatable structures, derive
requirements for the instrumentation of ground and flight experiments based on model
validation needs, and evaluate a fiber optic strain sensor using an inflatable beam
experiment. To increase program value while keeping costs low, Boeing utilized senior-year
project students at Cal Poly Pomona to perform parallel research, identify and procure
candidate sensors, fabricate test coupons and perform strain experiments on an inflatable
test beam. Research data and test results were evaluated by Boeing in a final
recommendation for strain data acquisition systems to be used on future ground and flight
tests. This paper will discuss in detail inflatable structures strain/displacement sensor
evaluation results, including IAD fabric/coating selection, sensor integration, test planning,
tests results and final recommendations for both future ground and flight test

I. Introduction

T he High Mass Mars Entry Systems (HMMES) effort seeks to identify and develop technologies for application
for future robotic and human exploration of Mars. Studies of future missions has shown that Mars entry,
descent, and landing systems must be capable of delivering masses to the Martian surface that are 1 to almost 2
orders of magnitude greater than those that have been sent thus far. Existing launch vehicle payload fairing size
limits the size of traditional rigid entry vehicle heatshields resulting in much larger ballistic coefficients. Entry
heating analyses of these large ballistic coefficient shows heating rates far beyond the capability of currently
available thermal protection system (TPS) materials. It is therefore desirable to find technologies that allow large
heatshield/aeroshells to be packaged within payload fairings and then deployed or assembled once in space.

Inflatable structures hold promise for future planetary exploration missions in that they can be folded and
packaged within tight volumes and then inflated in preparation for atmospheric entry. An Inflatable Aerodynamic
Decelerators (IAD), see Figure 1, could be designed in various configurations and integrated to the spacecraft in
different ways and have both pressurized and unpressurized sections, and be made of either films or fabric
construction. IADs must be capable of packaging within available launch vehicle fairings, survive the space
environment en-route to the target planet, and meet performance requirements during atmospheric entry. The
current problem with IADs is that they have a low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as they have little flight
heritage at all and none in the flight conditions consistent with atmospheric entry. Testing at hypersonic velocities
(> Mach 5) in wind tunnels is extremely expensive and no facilities currently exist for testing at the size of IADs
envisioned for future Mars exploration. Structural characterization of these structures presents a significant
challenge due to their large, highly non-linear deformations. The strategy for qualification of Mars IAD entry
system must then rely heavily on validated analytical tools capable of accurately simulating the behavior of IADs in
the hypersonic environment. Validation of these Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) models requires data from both
subscale testing and limited flight testing. Specifically this testing seeks information on both the aerodynamic
performance and the structural response of the IAD. From examination of existing literature1, 3 ([1] Anderson, [3]
Faurote, etc) the IADs shape, internal strain, and pressure distribution are coupled. Measuring strain using

1
Research & Development Engineer, Dynamics and Smart Structures, 14900 Bolsa Chica, H013-C326 Huntington
Beach, Ca 92647, AIAA Associate Member.
2
Sr. Design Engineer, Structures and Payload Engineering, 14900 Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, CA, 92647, MC
H013-C322, and AIAA Associate Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes.
All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
traditional strain gauges does not work on the highly flexible film/fabric structure of the IAD and measuring
dynamic changes in shape with sufficient resolution is difficult in ground testing and near impossible in flight tests.
Measurement of the IADs shape and internal strain appears to be possible given new technologies currently in
development. This paper will discuss the evaluation of a fiber optic strain sensor in its ability to accurately measure
strain in an inflatable structure constructed in the same way that an Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator might be
built some day and to see if it can hold up to the rigors of folding and packaging of the IAD for flight.

Figure 1. Artists concept of an instrumented inflatable aerodynamic decelerator

II. Test Approach

To evaluate the sensors ability to accurately measure strain we integrated sensors onto two different inflatable
beams constructed of different coated fabrics that would be typical of an IADs construction. Boeing obtained an
inflatable Kevlar beam from ILC Dover to conduct sensor integration and evaluation tests. ILC Dover also supplied
Vectran fabric and a gluing procedure for use by Boeing to build a number of additional test articles. The beams
were held vertically from a hanger, inflated and a static load applied to the free end. The measured strain from the
sensors and the beams elongation were recorded at different inflation pressures and static loads. After load testing,
the beam was evacuated and folded, simulating pre-launch packaging. The sensors ability to continue to record
data and survive this packaging was checked as well. Measured sensor strain data was compared to the mechanical
strain and comparisons for accuracy and repeatability made. Figure 2 shows a sketch of the basic test set-up,
including the test beam, strain sensor and mechanical extensometers and inflation system.

The centerpiece of this experiment is the construction of a simple inflatable structure that can be characterized
analytically. We chose an inflatable beam, loaded axially as the test article. In this loading the beams loading is
simple tension and the strain can be measured experimentally using extensometers and dividing by the length. This
technique only measures the average strain, however, and does not take into account end effects and other real world
as-built details such as seams that can change the local strain field. To get a more detailed picture of the variation of
strain within the beam, it is necessary to develop a finite element model (FEM) under the test load conditions. This
model is then loaded into a non-linear finite element analysis solver called LS-DYNA. Coupon tests of the beams

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
structure were tested to provide material properties data for the LS-DYNA model. The LS-DYNA model can also
be checked against the extension measurements to ensure that model and as-built test article match.
The combined analytical model and extension measurements represent the truth model for the experiment that
the sensor is evaluated against. Variation from this truth model is expected with errors coming from various
sources. Boeing performed checks to ensure that the analytical models overall extension matches the
experimentally derived values, but local variations in the as-built construction from the as-designed beam could
affect the calculated accuracy of the strain measurement. Sources of error within the sensor system include the data
processing unit, calibration of the sensor itself, the method of attachment to the test article, and the variation in
stiffness from the sensor to the local test article construction. For the sensor to be acceptable for use, measurements
must repeatable, i.e. for a given location and loading the measured values of strain should match from one
installation to the next. It is expected that calibration constants will be required to account for installation method
and local test article construction but they should not be a function of slight variations in workmanship or conditions
during installation such as humidity or temperature. Note that a complete characterization and development of
calibration constants is outside the scope of this study. Sensors were installed at different locations on the test
article to examine variations in local strain field and the affect of different substrate constructions.
The last portion of the study was the ability of the sensor system to survive the packaging necessary to pack an
IAD into its launch configuration. To simulate this condition, the inflatable beam was evacuated and folded into a
folded configuration. During this process, the strain data will was monitored to examine the affects on the sensor.

Pressure
Gauge Pressure

Regulator
A

C
Candidate
Sensors

Test Shop
Specimen

Dial
C Indicator Data Acquisition
B

Figure 2. Inflatable Beam Strain Measurement Test Setup

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Test Beam Construction

The urethane coated fabric beams were constructed using a 4.5 inch outer diameter PVC pipe as a mandrel. To
simplify construction, a single piece of fabric was used for the beam resulting in a single butt splice seam when the
fabric is wrapped around the mandrel. Cover splices consisting of seam tapes on the inside and outside of the tube
were used to join the ends, see Figures 3 and 4. To avoid creating asymmetry into the beams stiffness by only
having one joint, surrogate lap splice tapes were introduced at 180 deg from the butt splice to create a bi-laterally
symmetric beam.
A

Outer Lap Splice

Inner Lap Splice

Butt Joint

Inner Surrogate Lap Splice

Outer Surrogate Lap Splice A-A

SECTION
Figure 3. Urethane Coated Vectran/Nylon Beam Construction

Figure 4. Splice Tape Ready for Gluing to Tube

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The beam end caps were constructed from a section of 4.5 inch OD ABS pipe glued to a square plastic plate
using a commercially available 2-part epoxy. A hole was drilled in the plastic plate concentric to the pipe for a 0.5
inch eye-bolt. A second hole was drilled in the plate for a pressure port (one cap only per beam). The eye-bolt and
pressure fitting were glued in place using the 2-part epoxy. A 1/4 inch wide by 1/8 inch deep groove was cut in the
ABS tube about 3 inches from the plastic plate and a thin string was tightly wrapped around the fabric tube at the
location of the groove. The string helped secure the fabric tube to the end cap when it was pressurized. See Figures
5 and 6.

End Cap
Fabric Tube 2-3 End Tape

Securing Line

2-3 End Tape

Securing Line
Fabric Tube

Groove in ABS Pipe

-
Figure 5. Securing End Caps to the Beam

Figure 6. Beam with End Cap Securing Line Installed

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Three sensors were attached to each beam. Sensor 1 is located directly in between the two seams and Sensor 3 is
located 180 degrees away, see Figure 7. Sensor 2 is centered directly on the main seam. Sensors 1 and 3 are located
10.5 inches from one end cap and are 33.5 inches long, see Figure 8. Sensor 2 starts 3 inches from one end cap and
is 40 inches long.

Fiberoptic Sensor 3

Fiberoptic Sensor 2
(centered on seam)

40

Fiberoptic Sensor 1

.5
33

5 62
56.
1 0 .5

Figure 7. Fiber Optic Sensor Layout Longitudinal Locations

Fiberoptic Sensor 2
(centered on seam)
Fiberoptic
strand

Fiberoptic
Sensor 3 Fiberoptic
Sensor 1
Adhesive

Figure 8. Fiber Optic Sensor Layout Circumferential Location

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. Test Methodology and Results

A. Introduction

The approach to evaluating the ability of either the fiber or elastomeric sensors to measure strain in fabric
structures is based on mechanically measuring the strain in a cylindrical fabric test beam as accurately as possible
and comparing those measurements to ones obtained from either of the two proposed strain sensors. In theory a
pressurized cylindrical beam loaded with both internal pressure and with axial end loads applied will be in a bi-axial
state of stress, with the longitudinal strain component being constant along the length of the beam. An
experimentally derived longitudinal strain value can be calculated for an axially loaded beam by measuring the
beams axial end deflection due to load and knowing the overall length of the beam, the constant longitudinal strain
component would than be the mechanically measured end deflection divided by the beams gage length. Figures 9
and 10 below show the Kevlar test beam installed in the Cal Poly axial beam test stand constructed to perform the
strain test. Figure 11 shows the fiber installation kit and the resulting installation of the first of 3 fibers that were
eventually installed onto the Vectran test beam.

Figure 9. Kevlar Beam in Cal Poly Pomona Test Stand

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 10. Dial Indicators to Mechanically Measure Strain

Figure 11. Vectran Beam 1st Fiber Sensor Installation

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
B. Test Objectives and Approach

The main objective of the strain sensor test was to evaluate the ability to accurately measure strain when
installed on an inflatable fabric structure typical of an IAD and to show that those measurements would be
repeatable when tested at different times and under different conditions both before and after having gone through a
typical folding cycle representative of what a real IAD would encounter prior to an actual ground or flight test.
Another very important consideration was to show that the sensor installation procedure was controllable and that
any variations in it did not lead to variability in the strain sensor measurements or determination of any appropriate
sensor calibration constant.
The basic approach for the strain senor evaluation lies on the assumption that accurate mechanically derived
strain measurements of a fabric test beam determined using dial indicators to measure beam axial deflections vs.
pressure and mechanical loads is the basis for which the sensor based strain values are compared to and hence the
fabric strain sensor accuracy is established from.

C. Test Procedure and Data

The first day of strain sensor testing started with putting the Vectran beam in the test stand and loading it with
pressure and mechanical load, see Figure 12. Before starting a complete series of pressure and mechanical load tests
we wanted to see what the strain in the beam looked like before proceeding with an extensive amount of load testing
and data acquisition. The pictures shown in Figures 13 and 14 are of the data computer hooked to the Distributed
Strain Sensor (DSS), which is displaying the strain measurements acquired from the beam sensor in near real time.
The displayed strain plot was acquired from the Vectran beam under a pressure of 7.0 psi with the full load of 50
lbs. on it. As can be seen, the fiber cable with a Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) spaced every cm apart is showing for the
most part a constant strain value in the longitudinal direction of the beam. This would be expected for a beam
loaded with pressure and axial load where no beam bending was occurring. What this plot suggests is that the
bonding of the sensor was uniform along its length which resulted in the strain in the beam being transmitted
uniformly along the length of the sensor thus showing the quality and consistency of the sensor installation along its
length. After observing the consistency of the measured stain from the sensor in an area of known strain distribution
it was agreed by the test team that our sensor was installed correctly and that we should proceed with further
planned tests.

Figure 12. Vectran Beam with Single Fiber

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 13. DSS and Laptop

Figure 14. Vectran Beam Single Fiber Strain Reading

Data collected by the DSS was stored in notepad files and later converted to Excel spreadsheet tables and
plots for later data manipulation and reporting purposes. Figure 15 is an Excel plot of the same measured strain data
for the load case displayed in Figure 14.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 900

800

700

Strain (microstrain) 600

500

400

300

200

100

0
76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
Grating
Figure 15. XL Plot for Vectran Longitudinal Beam Strain at 7.0 psi and 50 lbs. Load

The test procedure called for the beam to be loaded for a given inflation pressure in increments up to a full load
value determined by what the team thought was a safe amount of load and the requirement to get some appreciable
amount of strain into the beam. The DSS was than used to acquire multiple sets of data at each load increment over
the period of time it took the test engineers to visually read and record the dial indicator end deflections readings,
typically 3 to 4 strain data sets were taken and stored over the 30 seconds or so it took to read the dial indicators.
Because it was previously determined that the strain was constant along the beam length from both measured data
and analysis it was decided that the measured sensor strain values taken from each FBG could be summed along the
sensor length and an average value computed. This value would than be compared to the value obtained from
mechanical end deflection measurement and subsequent mechanical based strain calculation for purposes of the
strain sensor accuracy evaluation.
Figure 15 plots the average strain readings from all the FBGs along the sensor length at each load increment.
Three to four data sets were taken and a beam strain average was computed at each load increment and plotted in the
Excel plot, this was done for both the Vectran and Kevlar beams at all inflation pressures and load increments. Note
that the average beam sensor readings did vary slightly during the time it took to acquire the 3 to 4 data sets at each
load increment. Finally a data table was constructed as shown in Table 1 by computing a single average strain value
for each increment from the 3-4 data sets. Notice that the fiber optic strain sensor consistently measured a lower
strain reading the mechanically measured strain. Initially the test team did not fully understand the reason for this.
One explanation was that a calibration constant needed to be applied to the fiber optic measured strain or that some
unexpected strain distribution was occurring in the beam. Because only 1 strain sensor had been initially installed
on the beam it was decided for the 2nd day of testing to install 2 additional sensors on the beam. One sensor was
installed 180 degrees from the first one and the second one installed 90 degrees from the first one which placed it
where there is a longitudinal seam in the beam, see Figure 17. The day 2 testing results will be described next.
800

700

600
Strain (microstrain)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-100
Excel Row #
Figure 16. Excel Plot for Vectran Longitudinal Beam Strain at 7.0 psi and 50 Pounds
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Strain (microstrain)
Load Fiber Dial
(lbs) Optic gauge Fiber/Dial
0 0 0 0
6.25 74.93 103.07 0.73
12.5 184.47 267.54 0.69
18.75 276.36 396.93 0.70
24.18 365.69 528.51 0.69
28.74 445.70 642.54 0.69
34.17 545.50 793.86 0.69
41.67 675.39 973.68 0.69
49.98 832.84 1197.37 0.70

Table 1: Average Strain Sensor Readings and Average Mechanical Strain Measurements

Figure 17. Vectran Seam Strain Sensor Installation

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Day 2 Testing

The second day of beam testing was highly successful as both the Vectran and Kevlar beams were re-tested with
strain measurements acquired from all 3 sensors. Figure 18 shows the Kevlar beam in the test stand with sensor
leads coming off each sensor into the multiplexer box with a single fiber optic cable running back to the DSS unit.

Figure 18. Kevlar Test Beam with 3 Sensors Installed

Table 2 contains the reduced test data for the Day 2 Vectran beam tests, and Figures 19, 20, 21 and 22 plot the
results. As can be seen again, the fiber optics senor values are less than the mechanical strain values by the same
amount as seen in the Day 1 tests except for sensor number 2 which read slightly higher. This is the sensor that was
located on the seam of the beam which would have a higher value of strain because it is stiffer than the areas outside
of the seam. The strain sensor therefore is correctly measuring a higher strain along the seam. This sensor in reality
would have the same ratio of sensor strain to mechanical strain as the mechanical strain in this region is actually
higher than the average value calculated by the mechanically derived approach, i.e. the end deflection as calculated
from the average of the 4 dial indicator displacement reading is to calculate the mechanical strain value.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Strain (micorstrain)
Load (lbs) Fiber Optic 1 Fiber Optic 2 Fiber Optic 3 Mechanical Fiber1/Mechanical
2.6 PSI
0 0 0 0 0 0
6.25 57.64 64.57 57.28 72.37 0.80
12.5 135.97 152.84 135.34 195.18 0.70
18.75 234.30 262.06 234.48 346.49 0.68
25 313.44 352.61 318.10 456.14 0.69
30.43 430.54 482.43 432.93 649.12 0.66
34.99 488.87 549.81 493.86 736.84 0.66
40.42 611.09 690.02 624.26 923.25 0.66
47.92 738.92 841.91 756.95 1107.46 0.67
5 PSI
0 0 0 0 0 0
6.25 64.16 70.97 64.30 107.46 0.60
12.5 137.33 152.20 138.56 214.91 0.64
18.75 232.22 253.89 232.98 355.26 0.65
25 316.54 349.60 316.28 486.84 0.65
30.43 415.54 457.87 414.41 635.96 0.65
35.86 491.65 542.38 491.81 752.19 0.65
40.42 603.07 666.02 606.79 914.47 0.66
47.92 731.26 807.40 737.39 1111.84 0.66
7 PSI
0 0 0 0 0 0
6.25 48.87 53.06 47.35 83.33 0.59
12.5 135.16 149.37 133.77 217.11 0.62
18.75 214.13 237.28 213.95 344.30 0.62
25 302.78 335.20 302.58 475.88 0.64
30.43 384.63 425.77 384.66 607.46 0.63
35.86 453.66 501.94 454.18 701.75 0.65
40.42 570.75 630.76 572.49 885.96 0.64
47.92 691.37 758.84 691.98 1061.40 0.65

Table 2. Vectran Day 2 Fiber Sensor Test Results for Three Sensors

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Vectran @ 2.6PSI

1200

1000
Strain (microstrain)

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Load (lbs)
Fiber optic 1 FIber optic 2 Fiber optic 3 Mechanical

Figure 19. Vectran Beam Strain at Three Beam Locations

Vectran @ 5PSI

1200

1000

800
Strain (micostrain)

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Load (lbs)

Fiber optic 1 Fiber optic 2 Fiber optic 3 Mechanical

Figure 20. Vectran Beam Strain at Three Beam Locations

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Vectran @ 7PSI

1200

1000
Strain (microstrain)

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Load (lbs)

Fiber Optic 1 Fiber Optic 2 Fiber Optic 3 Dial gauges

Figure 21. Vectran Beam Strain at Three Beam Locations.

Vectran Day 2

0.9

0.8
Fiber Optic 1 strain over Mechanically

0.7

0.6
Measured Strain

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Load (lbs)

2.6 PSI 5 PSI 7 PSI

Figure 22. Fiber Optic Strain Value as a Percentage of Calculated Mechanical Strain.

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D. Folding Tests
Figures 23-28 are taken from the Vectran beam simulated folding tests of what an actual IAD would
encounter, to some degree. A brief description of the tests will follow. First the beam with all 3 sensors was
installed and pressurized to 2.6 psi and a baseline strain reading taken as shown in Figures 23 and 24, note the very
low strain reading as no mechanical end loads were obviously applied.
Next the beam was lightly evacuated to get most of the air out to simulate the first phase of folding and packaging,
then a strain check was done in this state, Figures 25 and 26, Note the tight bend radius over the edge of the end
piece and resulting large tensile and compressive strains that were measured throughout the beam, some
compressive strains were approaching 1% of the their zero load, i.e. 2.6 psi state. Also note that sensor 3 has lost
some data along its length, indicative of a break.
Figures 27 and 28 basically show the sensor surviving simulated roll packing, albeit at no where near the packing
density that would be required for IADs prepared for flight testing, but that no additional fibers were broken.
It became apparent from the folding tests and other normal operational issues, that fiber optic strain sensors can
suffer from potential handling and packaging issues. Shape sensor displacement tests using a protective tube around
the fiber sensor for protection, that could be used as an adjunct or alternative to strain sensors in the FSI model
validation approach, were conducted and those results showed that a fiber optic shape sensor could survive tight
folding radii without suffering fiber breakage. A discussion of that test and its results could not be presented here
due to lack of paper space, the author may be contacted for further discussion on the subject however.

Figure 23: Vectran Beam Prior to Folding.

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 24: Vectran Strain at 2.6 psi Pressure Only

Figure 25: Vectran Beam after Evacuation

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 26: Vectran Evacuated Beam Strain Measurements

Figure 27. Vectran Beam Folding Tests

19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 28. Folded Vectran Beam Strain Measurements

E. Test beam structural analysis

In studying the results of the sensor strain data for the Vectran beam, Figures 19, 20 and 21, and because the
measured sensor strain values were less than the mechanical strain values by a constant amount, an LS-DYNA
model was developed to simulate the Vectran beam material/construction and its deflection and strain response
under the same loading conditions that were applied to the real test beam. As part of that effort, Vectran and Kevlar
material coupons were sent to ILC Dover for uniaxial strain measurements tests and those results were compared to
the material constants used in the finite element analysis.
The details of the Vectran beam such as diameter, length, material, seam construction and the end plugs were
used to construct an LS-DYNA model of the fabric beam and load it with both internal pressure and end loads. A
key point to make is that a slight mistake was made in the construction of the Vectran beam built for the fiber optic
tests.
In order to make the beam, a single flat pattern was rolled over a mandrel so the edges of the pattern just barely
touched one another, than a 11/2 inch seam tape was laid down over the edges to create an adhesively bonded joint,
the same was done 180 degrees apart to simulate another surrogate bonded joint. Next the beam was turned inside
out and a second seam tape laid down on the inside of the 1st joint, we forgot to do this on the surrogate joint, i.e. the
one 180 degrees apart. The mistake was not detected until after the Day 1 testing when we began installing the
second and third sensors on the beam. Sensor 1 was not on a seam as planned, when we went to install sensor 2 on a
seam we noticed that only one seam tape was in place at the surrogate joint, of course there were 2 tapes on the real
joint as described above. Because the real joint with 2 tapes was not as attractive for sensor installation because of
various reasons, we decided to install sensor 2 on the surrogate joint with only the one seam tape.
At the time this did not seem to be of any consequence, but the results of the 3 sensor measurements and the finite
element analysis told otherwise. What we created was a beam that now had non-symmetric axial stiffness resulting
in a non-uniform strain distribution; this was detected in the senor measurements, the displacements measurements,
as well as simulated in the finite element model. In looking at Figure 21 one can see that fiber optic cable 2
measured higher strain than the other 2 sensors that were plus and minus 90 deg. from the seam sensor, in theory
these two sensors should read the same strain and they did. Also, because the seam sensor 2 was installed on is less
stiff than the other seam, i.e. 1 seam tape instead of 2, in theory it would see more strain.
A Finite Element Model of the beam as shown in Figure 30 was constructed to study beam strain distributions
based on beam material constants and seam tape influences, note the yellow strip showing the elements that had
20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
thicker cross sections specified to simulate the seam tapes, 3 times normal thickness for the real joint and 2 times
thickness for the surrogate joint.

Figure 30. Vectran Beam Finite Element Model

An LS-DYNA model was constructed with the following material assumption, a linear isotropic material instead
of an orthotropic non-linear material whose moduli could be different and dependent on load. This decision was
made after discussions with Chuck Sandy, ILC Dovers chief engineer, based on the difficulty in obtaining those
types of material constants and that the material model chosen has been successfully used in the past by ILC Dover
in their LS-DYNA models for the type of Vectran fabric we used in our beam construction.
Figure 31 is a composite of a number of results from the LS-DYNA analysis. Note the strain values in the region
where the 1-ply or 1-tape seam is, are higher by about 10% than in the non-seam areas, 1.1e-3 compared to 1.0e-3.
This number is close to what the strain sensor measured when the senor strain to mechanical strain ratio is applied,
the so called calibration constant. Taking the 1.1e-3 and multiplying by a c =.65 factor produces a value of 715
micro-inches which compares closely to the sensor strain in fiber optic cable 2 of around 750, Figure 21. Also, note
the strain in sensor 1 and 3 to be about 10% less than in cable 2 as predicted by the finite element results. A curious
note is that LS-DYNA predicted a slight rotation of the beams free-end as evidenced by a difference in the z-
21
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
displacement from one beam edge to the other. This was actually noticed when the mechanical displacement
measurement were made using the dial indicators. Even though we did not orient the indicators relative to seams, we
did note that one of the indicators was always consistently off from the others. At the time we did know why, it was
because the beam was not only elongating but curving due the uneven stiffness in it, causing the differences in the
measured axial displacements. Taking the average mechanical strain from Figure 21 of around 1,060 micro-inches
and the beam length of 56 inches, gives a deflection of .060 inches, almost exactly what the DYNA model
simulation results showed.
x,y,z dof pinned

Vectran
D=4.5
L=56 Rigid
Wseam=1.5 1-ply
end
seam
E=0.73e5 psi plates (1.5 wide)
T=0.04
P=7.0psi 2-ply
F=50lb seam
Z-displacement (1.5 wide)

Strain
~0.91e-3 in/in (2 seam tapes)
~1.0e-3 in/in
~1.1e-3 in/in (1 seam tape)

50 lb force (z-only) 2-ply seam

(1.5 wide)

Figure 31. Vectran Beam LS-DYNA Simulation Results

V. Sensor Evaluation Summary

Data Quality. Data Quality refers to the degree of correlation between the sensor strain and calculated
mechanical strain. The correlation behavior (constant, linear, non-linear) and repeatability from one installation to
the next are accounted for. Results of the various beam load tests showed that the strain measured by the sensor
varied from the calculated mechanical strain by a near constant value. This calibration constant can be used,
therefore to correct the strain measurement within a sufficient accuracy for FSI model correlation and IAD flight
testing and qualification.

Data Rate and Fidelity. Data Rate refers to the sampling rate of strain or shape measurements and Fidelity is
the combination of the sensor spatial density and measurement resolution. The fiberoptic processor used in the Cal
Poly test was able to generate strain measurements for 3 fibers over nearly the length of the beam at 1 cm spacing at
a 1 Hz sampling rate. This results in a volume of data far greater than required for steady state response
measurements and corresponding model validation.

Integration Suitability. This FOM is a projection of how well the sensor technology can be integrated into
either a ground or flight IAD, based on the results of the strain sensor folding test, and flutter test article
experiments. This includes the difficulty to integrate the sensor, its ability to survive packaging, and meet flight
environmental requirements. The adhesive bonding of the strain gauge used by the technician was repeatable and
22
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
resulted in good adhesion to the fabric surface. Special care is required to prevent breakage of unsheathed fibers
when handling and packaging on a flight article, this is not a limitation for a wind tunnel test article that has no
requirement to be folded and packaged. Strategic placement may be required to locate fibers away from tightly
folded areas. It is expected that strain measurement will not be as critical during for the flight test as the structural
correlation will have been completed during wind tunnel testing. The fibers would therefore be used in strategic
locations. Fibers are resilient to temp., corrosion, radiation, and on-orbit charging.

VI. Conclusion

This project was formulated to support development of technologies that will one day enable High Mass Mars
Entry Systems to deliver men and supplies to the surface of Mars. A key component to accomplishing this goal has
been identified and is referred to as an Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator or IAD. As part of the proposed IAD
development process, structural strain and IAD shape test data will be needed for both analytical model validations
and large-scale flight testing and qualification. A number of emerging strain sensor technologies appeared
promising and a sensor evaluation effort was proposed to evaluate and rank a selection of candidate sensors. To that
end a sensor evaluation methodology was developed and implemented to evaluate fiber optic based strain and shape
sensors and a metalized rubber sensor, unfortunately the elastomeric based sensor ran into development challenges
and was not able to support a complete and through evaluation at this time.

A test approach was developed to evaluate sensor data quality and IAD integration suitability that required the
design and construction of a number of elements and components. A test setup to evaluate data quality required a
mechanical test rig to be constructed at both Cal Poly Pomona and Nanosonic Incorporated to collect accurate
mechanical strain measurements on candidate IAD material test beams. Urethane coated Vectran, Kevlar and Nylon
test beams were constructed at both Cal Poly Pomona and Boeing Huntington Beach using different design and
construction approaches to ensure a representative supply of fabric beams for sensor integration evaluation and load
testing. Both fiber strain sensors and metalized rubber sensors were installed and their installation procedures
examined and evaluated. Test plans and procedures were developed to mechanically load test beams with increasing
mechanical end loads and at different inflation pressures to record both sensor based strain and mechanical based
strain measurements for later data quality comparison purposes. In addition, a rig to test the fiber based shape senor
was designed and constructed and a test plan and approach to simulate IAD flutter with shape sensor measurement
developed.

Pretest calibrations of the test beams in the mechanical test rig were used to develop and refine the test rig design
as well as the test methods and procedures themselves. Both the Kevlar and Vectran beams were repeatedly loaded
over a range of combined mechanical loads and inflation pressures and repeatable mechanical beam elongation
measurements using dial indicators were observed. The first day of fiber strain sensor installations were limited to
one sensor on both the Vectran and Kevlar beam. Initial load test and uniform senor measurements in areas of
constant beam strain were used to provide confidence in the sensor installation method. Initially lower than
expected sensor readings prompted the team to quickly assess the situation and develop a plan to install additional
sensors to further evaluate the state of strain occurring in the tests beams. For Day 2 testing, two additional sensors
were installed using the same procedure but at locations 90 and 180 degrees from the sensor installed on Day 1. This
resulted in one sensor being on a construction seam and the other two being midway between the seams but on
opposite sides of the beam from one another.

Day 2 testing accomplished all load test for both Vectran and Kevlar beams, strain sensor measurements were
recorded from sensors in 3 different locations and from all 4 dial indicators. An involved data reduction procedure
of the large amounts of sensor data was developed to present the sensor strain measurements and make comparisons
to the mechanically derived strain calculation. It was found that strain along the length of the beam did not vary, but
that depending on the location there were differences in the strain. An LS-DYNA finite element model of the beam
showed that because one seam was stiffer than the other because of a construction error that approximately a 10%
higher strain would occur in the weaker seam than in the acreage portion of the beam. This analytical strain
prediction was also observed in the measured strain senor readings. Coupon material tests of the Vectran and Kevlar
fabrics used in the beam construction were performed at ILC Dover, additional material test data for the same
Vectran material from a tests performed by the NASA Wallops Flight Facility was also provided. Material property
data from these tests were used to derive LS-DYNA linear isotropic material constants that resulted in excellent

23
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
correlation between the analysis model, the strain sensor measurements and the mechanically derived strain
measurements.

Data reduction and plotting of the sensor strain compared to the mechanical strain showed a consistent percent
difference of around 65-80% depending on whether it was for the Vectran beam sensor or the Kevlar sensor. A
number of error sources were discussed none of which could completely account for this difference. One error
source identified that flexibility of the test rig could result in larger measured axial elongations than were actually
occurring, lead to questioning of exactly how stiff the test rig really was. A follow-up deflection measurement of
the head end of the rig where the beam was hung showed slight deflections that when factored in reduced the
measured mechanical strain by about 8%, still not enough to account for all the percent differences in the two
measurements. The conclusion is that a calibration constant accounting for the actual installation of the fiber on the
fabric or for the fiber sensor itself possibly being out of calibration is required to convert senor strain into the actual
strain. For the Vectran sensor a calibration constant of 1.42 would be used for the correction factor. Shape sensor
tests were also conducted using a flutter test article to acquire displacement shape under dynamic conditions. The
results showed good qualitative correlation using a novel shape sensor integration approach that was developed
using a protective Miniflex tubing to prevent kinking and fiber breakage during the folding and packaging
necessary to prepare an IAD for flight testing.

A data quality and integration suitability comparison showed that fiber based strain and shape sensors meet or
exceed all the IAD test data requirements except for strain sensor integration on a flight test unit would need further
development. A mitigation or even more preferred approach would be to use shape sensors for data collection and
model validation at this stage in the IAD development process.

An FSI model validation strategy and IAD development methodology was developed as a strawman to
recommend areas of further fiber optics based tests and related developments. Preliminary design specifications for
both a ground based senor system to support wind tunnel testing and IAD packaging studies and a shape sensor and
high speed data acquisition system to support full-scale flight testing was also provided to guide further
recommended follow-on development activities.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize a number of key individuals who made significant contributions to making
the project a success. Jason Gordon the Boeing Company, Cliff Willy, Chuck Sandy and John Lin, ILC Dover,
Trevor Rice and Alex Sang, LUNA Innovations, and Arakel Melidonian and Professor Don Edberg, Cal Poly
Pomona.

References
1
Anderson, M.S., Bohon, H.L., Mikulas Jr., M.M., "A Structural Merit Function for Aerodynamic Decelerators",
NASA TN D-5535
2
Anderson, M.S., Robinson, J.C., Bush, H.G, Fralich, R.W., A Tension Shell Structure for Application to Entry
Vehicles, NASA TN D-2675
3
Faurote, G.L., Burgess, J.L., "Thermal and Stress Analysis of an Attached Inflatable Decelerator (AID) Deployed
in the Mars and Earth Atmospheres", NASA CR-111920, Aug 1971
4
Luna Innovations website. http://www.lunainnovations.com/

24
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics