STATIC LOAD TEST QUALIFICATION OF A GEOSTATIONARY SPACECRAFT

PRIMARY STRUCTURE

Anton Nippe (1), Gabriel Bianchi (2), Harald Segelke (3)

OHB System AG, Universitätsallee 27-29, 28359 Bremen, Germany

(1)
anton.nippe@ohb.de, (2) gabriel.bianchi@ohb.de, (3) harald.segelke@ohb.de

ABSTRACT
The MTG PF structure follows the “classical”
This paper describes the static load test qualification
configuration of geostationary platforms with a
program carried out in the frame of the Meteosat Third
rectangular box envelope formed by sandwich panels
Generation (MTG) Spacecraft Platform (PF)
supported by a primary structure consisting of a Central
development program. Due to the industrial organization
Tube and sandwich panel shear webs. A more detailed
of the project this had to be done in two different test
description is given in §2.
campaigns: the first to qualify the Central Tube (CT) and
the second to qualify the remaining parts of the PF. Here
Although the MTG PF structure builds on the heritage of
the focus is placed on the second PF level test which was
SGEO, the primary structure of the former is
under the direct responsibility of OHB System.
significantly strengthened in order to support the heavy
suite of scientific payload instruments mounted at the
A challenging aspect of the program was the definition
top. Because of this, a static load qualification test
of a manageable number of test load cases (for each test
campaign was considered necessary in order to verify the
campaign) to cover all the foreseen load events of the
structure prior to the vibration test campaign.
structure. For both test campaigns, this was done by using
the flight configuration FEMs to identify the load cases
leading to the highest line loads of the primary interfaces
and highest stress states for the primary structural
components. Then a FEM of the test article and test set-
up was established and evolved to define the final
configuration and the final test load cases. The careful
analysis work involved in the overall process made it
possible to minimize the required test load cases and
significantly simplify the test set-up.

Finally, after execution of all the test cases, it is shown

how all the qualification targets were successfully
achieved and a good level of correlation was observed
between the test predictions and the test results.

1. INTRODUCTION
The MTG program is a pan-European effort headed by Figure 1. MTG-S [6]
ESA and EUMETSAT for the development of the next
generation of European geostationary weather 2. MTG STRUCTURE OVERVIEW
forecasting satellites.
In order to understand the qualification logic a brief
The MTG space segment will consist of six satellites overview of the MTG structure is given in this section.
carrying two different payload suites. The system will be
composed of four MTG-I satellites equipped with 2.1 MTG Configurations
imaging payloads and two MTG-S satellites equipped
Both satellites are equipped with two payload
with sounding payloads (see Figure 1). Both systems
instruments mounted at the top of the PF, which in terms
share a common three-axis stabilised platform broadly
of size and mass can be classed as “major” and “minor”.
based on the OHB SGEO platform, which is already
For MTG-S the major payload is the Infra-Red Sounder
flying.
(IRS) while the minor payload is the Ultraviolet, Visible
& Near-infrared (UVN) instrument. For MTG-I the
Thales Alenia Space France (TAS-F) is the prime
major payload is the Flexible Combined Imager (FCI)
contractor for the space segment and OHB is the major
while the minor payload is the Lightening Imager (LI).
sub-contractor responsible for the MTG-S mission and
The simple side-view sketches in Figure 2 show the
the MTG common platform, which is the focus of this
arrangement of these payloads for the two MTG
paper.
satellites. The major and minor payloads are slightly
heavier for MTG-S and therefore lead to a greater
proportion of driving load-cases (LCs).
Figure 2. MTG Satellite Configurations
2.2 PF Primary Structure
The elements of the primary structure are indicated (in
bold) in the illustration (see Figure 3) of the Structural
Model (SM) used for the PF level test campaign. Only
one isometric view is shown since the layout can be
considered symmetric across the two lateral axes.
Therefore, the primary structure consists of the following
elements: the CT, 2 PF Panels, 4 Propulsion Panels, and
4 Payload Panels. Both the CT and the Panels are based
on CFRP sandwich construction. The CT is supplied by
RUAG Sweden (Ruag-S) while the Panels are supplied
by Airbus Defence & Space Spain (ADS-S). From Figure
3 it can also be seen that the panels for the 3 deck levels
were also included in the SM. The Lower and Mid Decks
are necessary in order not to overload the CT during
testing while the Earth Deck was also the main interface
for the Payload Instruments load introduction tools.
Narrow Earth Deck Support panels are also present on
the X-Axis sides to flow the loads from the edges of the
Earth Deck to the Propulsion Panels.
Figure 3. MTG Structural Model (SM)
Although the PF structure is considered “common”, there
are some variations between the two satellite versions.
The most significant is the need for dedicated Earth Deck
panels, which need to support different payload
instruments. Since MTG-S carries heavier payload
instruments and has a higher overall mass it was decided
to base the test article on this variation of the PF.
2.3 Overall PF Structure
The full PF structure consists of all the elements shown
in Figure 3 with the addition of Aluminium Radiator
panels on the Y-Axis sides and CFRP Closure Panels on
the X-Axis sides to obtain a fully closed off box structure.
3. OBJECTIVES
The overall objective was to demonstrate that the MTG
PF structure could meet the given stiffness and strength
requirements. In more detail, the objectives can be
broken down as follows:
• Qualify the Primary Structure
o Qualify the CT
o Qualify Primary Structure Panels
o Qualify Primary IFs between Panels and CT
o Qualify Launch Vehicle Adapter (LVA) Flux
• Verify the Primary Structure Stiffness
• Provide correlation data for Primary Structure FEM
4. STATIC QUALIFICATION APPROACH
Due to the complex industrial organization of the project
the MTG PF was qualified in two steps: the first to
qualify the CT, the second to qualify the rest of the PF.
This approach also allowed de-risking the CT at an earlier
stage before other parts of the PF were available.
However, this also meant that additional care had to be
taken in the PF level test campaign not to exceed the
qualification envelope already achieved for the CT.
For both steps, the same qualification approach was used
for the definition of the Test LCs. This can be briefly
summarized in the following sequence:
i. Identification of the critical Flight LCs, which
lead to the lowest Margins of Safety (MoS).
ii. Definition of “representative” Test LCs to
reproduce the MoS.
This process is described in more detail for the PF
qualification in the following two subsections.
Furthermore, from hereafter only the analysis and test
campaigns specific to the PF qualification are described.
4.1 Determination of PF SM Critical Flight LCs
The critical LCs, leading to the lowest MoS on the
primary Panels, were identified by considering all the
sizing LCs for both PF variants. For simplicity, all the
LCs were resolved to Quasi-static (QS) LCs (e.g. Sine
Loads are converted to enveloping QS LCs). The process
was carried out in two steps in collaboration with the
Panels supplier (ADS-S): firstly, the QS LCs were
applied to the PF FE Models of MTG-I and MTG-S and
the loads at all the Panel IFs were extracted and provided
to the supplier. In the second step the IF loads provided
(directly traceable to the PF level QS cases) were used by
the supplier to carry out the analysis work at panel level
to determine critical LCs based on lowest MoS criteria.
In order to be in a position to independently assess the
system level relevance of the critical LCs selected by the
supplier a preliminary critical LCs selection process was
carried out in advance by OHB System by considering
line loads at the primary IFs.
More detailed descriptions for the analysis
methodologies used for the two approaches are given in
§5.1 and §5.3 respectively.
A good level of coherence was found between the two
methods thus giving a good level of confidence in the
identified LCs.
Further filtering at system level was applied by OHB by
carefully considering the critical MoS obtained to
determine the relevance for the PF (e.g. LCs only leading
to low MoS in close proximity to inserts were discarded
since these were considered as local effect already well
covered by insert qualification). With this methodology,
it was finally possible to select just 11 critical LCs from
the over 500 sizing LCs. These critical LCs were
comprised of the following categories:
• Global QS
• Payload Instruments
• Hoisting
4.2 Definition of PF SM Test LCs
The determination of the Test LCs was an iterative
process in which the test article setup was also defined.
The preliminary part of this work was carried out by
OHB with the creation of an FE model of the test article
and a preliminary setup consisting of the support
structure and load introduction tools.
Due to accessibility limitations to the test article the
definition of the Test LCs was steered away from trying
to implement Global QS LCs which would require loads
to be introduced through the main tank IFs within the CT.
Instead, the focus was placed on trying to cover all the
qualification needs by just introducing representative
Payload instrument and Hoisting loads via the Earth
Deck at the top of the SM. Due to the particular
configuration of MTG (i.e. Geo platform with heavy
Payload instruments on top), this approach was possible
since the Payload instrument LCs were either the driving
ones or lied closely behind the Global QS LCs.
As explained in §2.2 the SM was based on the Sounder
variant of the PF with an Earth Deck that only provided
interfaces to the Sounder Payloads. Therefore, a further
target in the Test LC definition was to cover Payload
Instrument LCs from MTG-I with MTG-S Payload
instrument LCs instead.
Therefore, the first step in the process was to check if the
critical flight LCs to be reproduced belonged to the
desired group (IRS, UVN or Hoisting). If not, then a
Sounder instrument case that produces a similar
stress/strain state on the target panel was found. In the
first instance, this was done by using the primary IF line
load method mentioned above and described in more
detail in §5.1. Once the closest match was found, the next
step was to determine what modifications to the
identified QS LC vector (defined in acceleration
components) would be required in order to match the
stress/strain magnitudes in the critical areas of the panel.
This lead to the definition of the “Nominal Test LC”.
The next step in the process was to take the “Nominal
Test LCs” and apply these to the SM FE Model in the
form of equivalent explicit force vectors. The analysis
methodology is described in more detail in §5.2.
Normally the load vectors required further modification
to compensate for the different boundary conditions of
the test article. The final outcome of this process was the
definition of “Test LCs for Predictions”.
5. ANALYSIS APPROACH
This section describes in more detail the analysis
methods used to implement the qualification approach
described in §4. This description is specific to the PF
level qualification. Furthermore, to effectively explain
key steps, the qualification of only one panel is given as
an example: the panel selected is the Propulsion Panel
+X-Y since it was one of the most challenging and
interesting to qualify.
5.1 Preliminary Identification of Critical LCs
A simplified approach was utilized in identifying the
most critical LCs: for each of the over 500 sizing LCs,
the IF forces at each panel-to-CT-connection joint were
summed in all three axes. An example of the primary
interfaces considered is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Propulsion Panel +X-Y Primary Interfaces
Due to the fact that the highest forces were in the
longitudinal direction, and to further simplify the analysis
approach, only the summation of the loads in Z-Axis
were evaluated. In this way, one critical LC per joint was
identified, resulting in two critical LCs per joint: one for
MTG-S and one for MTG-I. Then using these results the
process described in §4.2 was applied in order to define
“Nominal Test LCs” belonging to LC groups compatible
with the SM test article.

5.2 Static Test Feasibility and Strain Tensor

Approach

The next step was to prove the feasibility of the static test
itself. The main goal was to prove that the same IF loads
on each of the joints could be reached.
At first, a reduced static test SM FEM needed to be
generated. This was done by taking the primary structure
(CT + Primary Structure Panels) and a simplified model
of the two instruments of the MTG-S satellite, the IRS
and UVN.

The ‘dummy payload instruments’ were modelled as

rigid links with their respective CoG masses.
The stiffness of the overall flight structure needed to be
represented, so dummy stiffener panels were introduced
as ‘support structure’ as replacement for radiators,
stiffeners and closure panels (see §6.2 support structure
iteration).
To prove the static test overall feasibility, SM IF loads
were compared to critical LC IF loads, while strain plots
of the SM FEM and both flight FEMs were generated.
Strain tensor plots give a good overview of overall load
distribution and load flux behaviour. Additionally, since
strain tensors are proportional to stress tensors both stress
and strain states, can easily be linked. First a comparison
of strain plots between MTG-I and MTG-S LCs was
performed. In detail, the comparison was performed for
vector and magnitude of the major strains - in particular
P1 major and P3 major strains as they represent tension
and compression respectively. It should be noted that for
CFRP panels, compression is usually the more critical
LC. Strains were calculated at the outer layers of the
layup only (Z1 and Z2, ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ of the panel).
This was simply done by requesting strains to be printed
out from the FEM as equivalent homogeneous elements
rather than ply by ply.
The comparison of the load fluxes of both flight
configurations lead to ‘pairing’ of critical MTG-I LCs
with similar critical MTG-S LCs. This was done by
visually comparing strain values and strain vector
orientation in critical areas. The plots showed that high
strain states could be found in areas were the load flux is
redirected, like mouse-holes or cut-outs.
Next, the calculated flight strains were compared to
theoretical test cases. As a first approach, an IRS flight
case instrument LC was introduced as a static load vector
to the IRS dummy tool of the SM FEM (see Figure 10).
The comparison of the SM FEM strain distribution and
strain magnitude to the MTG-S was very promising.
Figure 5. Feasibility Strain Plots Flight vs. Test Model
While changing the load vector of the two dummy tools,
it was shown that all identified critical LCs could be
covered with the proposed SM configuration, concluding
a successful feasibility analysis.
5.3 Critical LC Identification through detailed
MoS Analysis for Stress States at Panel Level
In the second step the IF loads provided (directly
traceable to the PF level QS cases) were used by the
supplier to carry out the analysis work at panel level to
determine critical LCs based on lowest MoS criteria.
After verifying the feasibility of the test approach at
system level, a detailed analysis of the primary panels
was performed by the supplier using the IF loads derived
from system level analysis. This was done via the inertia
release analysis method available in NASTRAN. From
all the sizing LCs defined, the critical ones were selected
based on MoS for the following failure modes: skin
rupture, core rupture and local buckling instability. Each
panel was sub-divided in zones based on the sandwich
composition and main IFs.
For each panel zone the LCs resulting in the lowest MoS
were selected. Out of these, only LCs resulting in a MoS
< 0.8 were finally selected. As stated in §4.1 critical LCs
identified in this detailed panel level analysis matched
very well with the critical LCs identified on system level.
As explained in §4.1 further filtering was applied at
system level to further reduce the list of critical LCs
based on PF level relevance.
5.4 Test Load Case Definition and MoS Analysis system with:

After the detailed selection of the Flight LCs, the final

Test LCs were defined based on the preliminary Test LCs " ∗ (3)
obtained during the feasibility study described in §5.2.
Starting from these a further analysis loop was carried out
using the SM FEM focusing on: CT and Panels MoS, For clarification, the following Figure 6 depicts the
LVA Load Flux, and Strain Tensor Plots. By iteration relationship of the two coordinate systems.
and comparison of these results with the reference Flight
FEMs, under the corresponding critical LCs, it was
possible to finalize the target Test load vectors.

The MoS analysis on panel level with respect to the test

load vectors focused on achieving the same magnitude as
the flight case MoS in order to achieve qualification
targets at sub-structure level. The calculations on CT
level on the other hand were monitoring MoS on the fully
integrated system-level in order not to over test the
structure (see §4). The CT MoS evaluation was
performed using the modified Tsai-Hill criterion for
plane stress states on a ply-by-ply level to account for the Figure 6: Element vs Fiber and Element vs SG orientation
difference in tension and compression [1]:
After the successful coordinate transformation and strain-
stress analysis, the MoS could be calculated. An example
of a high loading LC with low MoS at the CT is depicted
. . . in Figure 7.
(1 )
1
. . For accurate predictions of the test, SG A, B and C values
needed to be obtained. Due to the fact that A and B values
where: σ1 is the longitudinal tensile (“T”, strength value are in line with the element x and y values, respectively,
> 0) or compressive (“C”, strength value < 0) strength only the B value of the SG needed further calculation:

# $2! &/2
(direction of the fiber), σ2 is the transverse tensile or
compressive strength and τ12 is the in-plane shear (4 )
strength.
The allowables σult and τult were derived (by ply) with the
software ESAComp. The stress values were derived by In addition, the line load at the LVA was closely
calculating stresses from strains, sine the entire model analysed. The aim was to qualify for the launcher’s line
approach was based on the evaluation of strain tensors. load requirement while not to over test and damage the
The stress-strain relations in x-y coordinates (equivalent structure (as explained in §4). It needs to be noted that it
to the FEM element coordinate system) according to [5] was sufficient for one LC to reach this target.
are:
The line load formula utilized for the analytical
determination of line loads at the LVA is [2]:
∗
!
(2 )
(()
+
*+ + ∗ cos /0 1tan5 1 6 180°6: ∗
+
(5 )
; <= +C
The 3x3 matrix is the transformed reduced stiffness
>?@AB 2>?@AB
matrix of a generally orthotropic material and is
explained in detail in [5, p72ff]. It is composed of a
combination of engineering constants for the laminate
where: Fx ,Fy and Fz are the load vectors introduced with
and the angle of rotation θ. To take the orientation of the
respect to the global Coordinate System, α is the angle of
ply into consideration, a coordinate transformation
the circumference (0°-360°), hCoG is the longitudinal
matrix T [5, p75] had to be introduced. Therefore, the
distance between LVA IF and load introduction point and
stresses were transformed from the global coordinate
rLVDT is the radius of the main IF.
system (shown in Figure 3) to the ply specific coordinate
 Figure 7:High Loading Example of CT MoS

After iterating through the above-mentioned criteria, 6.2 Support Structure

“Test LCs for Predictions”, the final test vectors, were
defined. The Support Structure was designed and analysed as part
of defining the Test load vectors (see §5.2). The main
6. TEST CONFIGURATION purpose of the support structure is the representation of
the Closure and Radiator Panels in terms of load path and
This section explains the test configuration of the PF load distribution. Using strain tensor plots (as depicted in
level test. As with §5 the Propulsion Panel +X-Y is given Figure 9), load distributions could be understood and
as an example. effectively adapted while also monitoring the primary IF
loads.
6.1 Test Setup

An image of the test setup can is shown in Figure 8. The

test setup consisted of the following: the test article (SM),
the Support Structure, the load introduction tools for the
payload instruments and hoisting points, the test adapter
as the IF to the test rig, the actuators and the sensors.

Figure 9: Strain Distribution (yellow arrows indicate load

direction; orange is the Propulsion Panel +X-Y)

Figure 8: Test Setup The reproduction of these boundary conditions had to be

traded with the need to also have accessibility to the test
article. Finally, the design converged to the configuration
as shown in Figure 8.
6.3 Load Introduction Tools
The load introduction tools were designed to introduce
the load vectors applied by the actuators in a way that is
as close as possible to the Flight configurations of both,
the MTG-S and MTG-I. As an example, the IRS load
introduction tool is shown alongside the actual IRS
instrument in Figure 10.
Figure 10: IRS Instrument Test (left) and Flight (right, [7])
As explained in §4.2, only one SM was developed to
cover both Satellite configurations. In the case of the IRS
load introduction tool some interfaces were added in
order to cover qualification cases of MTG-I.
The top IF of Figure 10 (left) shows the three actuator IFs
in all three translational degrees of freedom. The lower
IF shows the dedicated load introduction points in the
Earth Deck of the SM.
To account for the mass of the tool, a counter-mass was
added to centre the CoG in line with the Z-Axis actuator.
This allowed for off-loading of the tool by ‘pulling’ on
the Z-Axis actuator itself in opposite gravity vector
direction.
6.4 Sensors
As typical for a static test, two types of sensors were
utilized to gather all the information needed: Strain
Gauges (SG) and Linear Variable Differential
Transducers (LVDT).
The SG positions were carefully selected based on the
analysis results.
The locations were either areas under qualification (low
MoS, high gradient areas for monitoring peak strain and
stress states) or low gradient areas for correlation
purposes. Additional SGs were placed on the load
introduction tool for monitoring the load input, at
selected IFs to understand IF behaviour and load transfer,
and on the adapter cylinder to monitor line loads at the
main IF.
Figure 11: Exemplary SG placement
The preferred rectangular rosetta type SGs were bonded
back-to-back, with their A-side pointing in positive
Global Z-Axis (the main loading direction) and C-side
pointing in lateral Global direction.
From the SG measurements for A, B and C, the shear
strain was calculated to [4]:
! 2 D ) (6 )
Due to the fact that εA≜εx and εC≜εy and with γxy, the
tested MoS could be calculated and stress and strain
comparisons made (as described in §5.4). For
comparison with the FEM results, the A-side pointed in
the X-Axis of the Element, and the C-side was parallel to
the Y-Axis of the Element (as depicted in Figure 6), but
from hereafter only the Global Coordinate System
(shown in Figure 3) will be referenced.
In addition, SGs were placed on the adapter cylinder
close to the LVA IF in order to directly measure the line
load flux. The SGs where placed back-to-back evenly
spaced around the circumference of the adapter. The line
load flux could then be simply calculated using the
following Equation based on the plain stress to strain
relationship [4]:
G
(( F∗ ∗ KL KMN ν ∗ HOL OMN J
2 ∗ H1 ν J
(7 )
where: LLt is the line load, E is the Young’s Modulus of
the isotropic Adapter material, ν is its Poisson’s Ratio and
A/Cex (external) and A/Cin (internal) are the strain
readings from the respective SG.
LVDTs were placed all around the SM to constantly
monitor displacements. They help identifying non-linear
structural behaviour and are necessary for adequate
model correlation. Of special importance was the live-
monitoring of the non-linear clamp-band behaviour to
identify possible gapping or slipping.
A combination of three translational and one rotational
DoF proved to be highly accurate even when one LVDT
malfunctioned. As can be seen in Figure 8, an additional
support structure, independent of the deformations of the
test rig and SM was constructed to account for
undisturbed sensor readings.
7. TEST RESULT EVALUATION
This section gives an overview of the results obtained
from the PF level test. Again, Propulsion Panel +X-Y is
used as an example.
7.1 Predictions and Sensor Readings

The test evaluation was performed after each test case to

check the validity of the test predictions and to identify
potential anomalies. The test evaluation is explained by
selection of the example case (Propulsion Panel +X-Y,
see also Figure 11).
The SG readings used to monitor the predefined
qualification areas of Propulsion Panel +X-Y can be seen
in Figure 12. Predictions are marked in dotted lines,
whereas the live measurements are marked with a solid
line. The figure shows SG 101, SG 104 and SG 105.

Figure 13: LVDT Test (solid line) vs Prediction (dotted

line)

The offset in deformation was later identified as a FEM

anomaly. The adapter cylinder used for the test was
modelled stiffer than the actual physical adapter itself.
Due to the small difference in stiffness at the ‘bottom’,
the error linearly increased with distance – and finally
lead to the measured offset at the ‘top’. After adapting the
stiffness to the correct values, prediction accuracy
increased to an overall deviation of 1%, and therefore
well within the tolerances of the test.

Figure 12: SG Test (solid line) vs Prediction (dotted line) 7.2 Qualification of Primary Structure

It can be seen from the plots that the measurements of After completion of each qualification test run, an
SG101 and SG104 were very well in line with the test evaluation of each panel under qualification was done.
predictions. Even though the strains were measured in As mentioned in the previous section, with respect to the
high gradient areas (at mouse holes), it can be concluded example case, two qualification areas were identified (see
that predictions in those critical areas (areas of stress Figure 11 SG 104 and SG 105).
concentration) could be very accurately predicted and a
very good correlation result could be achieved. Figure 14 shows the MoS predicated in direct comparison
A high gradient area between edge inserts was also to the MoS calculated from test.
monitored with SG101. According to the philosophy
described in §4.1 (i.e. high stress areas in proximity to
inserts considered covered by insert qualification) this
area was not originally considered as a qualification
target but was monitored to safeguard the test article due
to the low MoS predicted in this area following the
finalization of the test setup. Due to the proximity to the
Figure 14: MoS Results for exemplary LC (credit ADS-S)
inserts the gradients were very high in this area making it
difficult to achieve an accurate prediction.
It can be seen that the two qualification targets were
Given the expected uncertainties, the offset measured
successfully achieved (ID 104 and ID 105). In addition,
proved to be relatively small and results were considered
a third area in between the edge inserts (ID 101) not
very promising.
originally baselined for qualification achieved a lower
MoS than the flight critical LC. Hence, it was also
The measurements of the LVDTs for the example case
possible to claim an additional qualification target. In
for one direction are depicted in Figure 13. It can be seen
addition it can be seen that the load flux envelope
that the deformation of the SM at the very top was around
achieved in the preceding CT static test was not
25% higher than predicted. However, the overall
exceeded.
behaviour showed a very good linearity and a perfect
return-to-zero.
7.3 Qualification of LVA Load Flux between the test results and the predictions.

One qualification criteria was the requirement of 9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

qualifying to line load limits. In the case of MTG, the
Ariane 5 User Manual [3] requires a maximum tension
and compression flux that have to be exceeded (and
therefore qualified) during a static test.
Line Loads were evaluated by analytical calculation
(Equation (5)), by numerical FEM output and by SG
readings (Equation (7)) – for both, tension and
compression. In addition, the results were compared to
the launcher qualification limits. Figure 15 shows the
analytical, numerical and test evaluation in comparison
with the qualification loads exemplary for a high loading
LC.
The authors wish to thank the industrial partners who
contributed to the success of the test campaign described
in this paper. In particular the authors gratefully
acknowledge the significant contributions of Ramon
Jiménez and Javier Gonzales from ADS-S, and Pedro
Almorza for their support in the qualification of the
Primary Structure Panels. Special thanks to Jonathon
Komadina from OHB System for his technical minded
managerial and organisational support. The authors also
wish to thank Laurent Perrin and Mark Berrill, from
TAS-F and ESA respectively, for their active and
positive engagement at customer level.

10. ABBREVIATIONS
CoG - Center of Gravity
FCI - Flexible Combined Imager
FEM - Finite Element Model
IF - Interface
IRS - Infra-Red Sounder
LC - Load Case
LI - Lightening Imager
LVA - Launch Vehicle Adapter
LVDT - Linear Variable Differential Transducer
MoS - Margin of Safety
Figure 15: Line Load Evaluation of High Loading Case MTG-I/S - Meteosat Third Generation Imager /
Sounder
It can be seen, that the test results are well in line with the SG - Strain Gauge
line loads predicated by numerical and analytical analysis SM - Structural Model
– all three curves are well in line. It can be concluded UVN - Ultraviolet, Visible & Near-infrared
from Figure 15 that the qualification target was met.
11. REFERENCES
8. CONCLUSIONS
A challenging aspect of the overall static qualification 1. Kaw, Dr. A. (2005). Macromechanical Analysis of
program was the complex industrial organization. This Lamina –Tsai-Hill Failure Theory, Introduction to
required careful coordination of the various analysis Composite Materials, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p152
activities and a clear definition of areas of responsibility ff..
and associated interfaces. An overview of the system 2. ECSS-E-HB-32-26A (2013).pp143-144.
level approach of how this was managed for the PF SM
Test is given §4. 3. Ariane 5 User Manual, issue 5, revision 2 (2016). Pp.
The two methods used between OHB and the panel 4. Young, W., Budynas, R., Sadegh, A. (2012), Roark’s
supplier (ADS-S) for identifying critical LCs are Formulas for Stress and Strain, 8th ed., Mc Graw
presented (one based on primary IF forces, the second Hill, p122 ff.
based on minimum MoS). The method based on primary
IF Force allowed OHB to perform the task at system level 5. Jones, R. (1999). Mechanics of Composite Materials,
allowing for crosschecking of results and to start the Taylor & Francis, India,p74 ff.
activity at an earlier stage. A good level of agreement was
found between the two methods leading to the 6. www.ohb.de, 20.04.2018
identification of a manageable number of critical LCs.
By careful analysis of the test setup and slight 7. https://www.eumetsat.int, 24.04.2018
modification of the test load vectors it was possible to
cover critical global QS and Imager Payload LCs by only
reproducing Sounder Payload instrument LCs. This
greatly simplified the test setup and made it possible to
only test the SM in the Sounder configuration.
Finally, after execution of all the defined Test LCs, all
the qualification objectives were successfully met.
Furthermore, a good level of correlation was found