See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357332138

Investigation of Shock Signatures Observed in a Flight during Stage Separation

at Electronic Package Bay: A Case Study

Conference Paper · December 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 29

4 authors, including:

Narendra Nath Venkateswaran Kp

University of Auckland Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre
10 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sundararajan Thanupillai
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Space Transportation System - VSSC-ISRO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Narendra Nath on 26 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune, INDIA

Investigation of Shock Signatures Observed in a Flight during Stage

Separation at Electronic Package Bay: A Case Study
Narendra Nath, Venkateswaran KP, Dr. Sundararajan T, and Dr. Geetha S
Space Transportation System, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, ISRO, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India,
695022
narendra2232in@gmail.com, kpv.isro@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Staging is the most crucial event in a launch vehicle. An efficient separation system
should impart minimum disturbance to the ongoing stage / satellite by separating the
lower stage without any re-contact. This paper discusses about one of the missions,
wherein an unexpected shock signature was seen at a critical navigation package location
situated on electronic package bay during one of the stage separations of the launch
vehicle. Various onboard shock sensors and separation events were investigated to find
the source and for similar signature in previous flights. It was noticed that similar
signatures were seen in some of the flights and could not be noticed easily as the primary
shock used to be comparatively high. A hypothesis was brought out and a transient
analysis was done to prove the hypothesis and found that all the measured frequencies
were present if the proposed phenomenon takes place. Proposed hypothesis considered
the frictional release of energy from the fork and groove joint situated close the bay which
might have initiated the second shock while in flight.

Keywords- Shock, shock response spectrum, separation system, accelerometers

simultaneous actuation cannot be relied upon.

I. INTRODUCTION
Aerospace industries like launch vehicle, The best preferred option currently available

missiles, fighter planes are demanding is pyrotechnic actuation which could meet all

numerous actuation devices for either the requirement but it induces high shock

separation of stage or actuation of levels.

deployment mechanisms. In contrast, it is Launch vehicle and missile stages have to be

also expected to be of compact size, least separated after the stage performance and

weight, highly reliable, high power to weight commonly used separation system is

ratio and cheap in cost. Pneumatic and pyrotechnic. These pyros have advantages

hydraulic actuators are reliable and testable, like instantaneous ignition providing

but they are bulky in size, weight and simultaneity, long storage life, compact size
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
INDIA
and less cost. Even though pyros are widely
adopted in launch vehicles and missiles
where single shot operations are needed, pyro
shock can be fatal to electrical relay chains,
adjacent structures, electronic packages,
satellites or onboard payloads. During the
pyro operation, detonation generates the high
energy explosive gases which either sever the
structure or actuate the separation mechanism
resulting in sudden release of strain energy of
the pre-strained separation joint. Explosion as
well as strain energy release together
generates a shock pulse which makes the
environment hostile for the mechanical
structures as well as sensitive onboard
electronics packages.
Pyrotechnic shock is a very complex
phenomenon to understand, especially in
launch vehicles. Shock transmissibility and
attenuation by structures is not yet fully
understood. Launchers are generally 40 to 50
meters in length and are made up of various
tankages, inter stages, truss structures and
sometimes composite structures. Flange
joints, hinge joints, spherical bearing joints,
tongue and groove joints are commonly used
joint between the structures. It is quite
cumbersome to predict the shock at different
locations of launch vehicle.
In one of successful flight of the launch
vehicle, an unexpected additional shock
signature was seen after 140ms from the
primary shock which was measured 14m
away from the initiation point. Shock
response spectrum (SRS) of both the shock
shows different peaks i.e. it has different
frequencies contents. This paper would be
discussing the investigation for the cause of
the second shock and brought out a hypothesis
which could have occurred during flight.
II. BACKGROUND
There were two shock sensors mounted in
the launch vehicle, one was close to satellite
interface and another one was on the
electronic package bay (EPB) below the
navigation package. Second shock signature
was measured in EPB shock sensor exactly
140ms after the primary shock which
occurred during one of the staging events of
the launch vehicle. Shock signature time line
plot is shown in figure-1 and it clearly shows
two distinct shock signatures of the same
order. Trimmed timeline to 200ms and
corresponding SRS is plotted in figure-2. Red
and fluorescent green curve in right hand plot
of figure-2 shows satellite shock specification
and blue is the SRS/Q of measured data. It is
further evident that flight measured shock
levels are well within the environmental
shock specification but the source of second
shock must be known. SRS plot is cumulative
and could not show the peak response
contribution of each shock. The shock sensor
details are given in table-1 and filter cutoff
(fc) was 1500Hz.
Table 1: Shock sensor details
Location Range Direction
EPB +/- 100g Axial
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
INDIA
Figure-1. Timeline plot of shock signature measured
at EPB.
Figure-2, Trimmed timeline plot (200 milli-seconds)
of shock signature and it’s SRS/Q plot comparing
with specifications measured at EPB.
Upper stage configuration of launch vehicle
is shown in figure-3. Sensor locations at EPB
is shown in Figure-4.
Figure-3, Upper stage configuration of the launch
vehicle showing details of all the elements.
SRS of both the shocks are compared in
figure-5. Higher responses in low frequency
(<1000Hz) range are seen in primary shock
however, response levels due to the second
shock are less in low frequency range. The
peak response in First shock is around 29g at
the frequency 1400Hz. Second shock has two
peak responses, one is 27g at 1250Hz
frequency and second of 29.5g at 1700Hz
frequency. First and second shock signatures
are not matching with each other, it means the
excitation to both the shocks can be from the
different source.
Figure-4, Shock sensor location sketch as well as
actual onboard picture.
Figure-5, SRS of first as well as second shock
separately.
III. INVESTIGATIONS
Various flight parameters were
investigated to find out that any other sensor
has picked up the similar response or could
have showed any signature of source. The
detailed investigations are brought out here.
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
INDIA

A. Bending Moment Measurement measured timeline data is plotted in Figure-7

Accelerometers response
for the stage separation event and 4.92g is the
Bending moment measurement
peak acceleration recorded wherein the
accelerometers (BMMA’s) were generally
second shock signature was not noticeable.
positioned at different locations of the launch
This means that either the second shock did
vehicle to measure the bending mode of the
not get transmitted to the spacecraft or was
launch vehicle throughout the flight. Four
not a real shock at all. Trimmed data and it’s
BMMA’s located at various locations along
SRS for the same is plotted in Figure-8 which
the length of the vehicle are plotted in Figure
shows that levels are well within the
6. All the four BMMA’s responded to the first
environmental test levels.
shock event and suffered saturation due to the
high acceleration levels (usual phenomenon).
The sensors revived only after the time of
occurrence of the second shock. Hence, the
second shock signature could not be captured
in any of the BMMA’s.

Figure 7: PA shock measurement timeline during

stage Separation (1 or 2 bit data only)

Figure 6: BMMA at thrust frame (1), PA (2), PLF (3)

and third stage (4) responses are plotted. BMMA
saturation/data loss observed after the first shock
event, hence, second shock could not be captured.

B. Payload adapter (PA) shock sensor

response
Spacecraft is the most critical article in the
launch vehicle and continuous monitoring of
the launch environment used to be done using
vibration, shock, axial and bending mode
measurement accelerometers. PA shock
during separation events were measured by
the shock sensor which was mounted at
payload adapter fore-end. Shock sensor
Figure 8: SRS of PA shock measured during stage
separation shows its very benign.
C. Previous Fight Shock Comparison at
EPB
A detailed shock analysis was done for
around 40 flights and compared to understand
if similar signature existed. Because of space
constrains all the plots cannot be brought out
in this paper. Some of the flights, a second
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
shock like signature was noticed and one
among them is plotted for more clarity in
figure-9. Furthermore, the charge density of
the linear shaped charge (LSC) were also
compared to see if it is a function of the
charge density, but all the charge densities
were well within the specifications and could
not find any relation with shock signature.
Figure 9: PA shock measurement timeline during
stage Separation (1 or 2-bit data only)
Based on all the flight shock data analysis, the
following conclusions were drawn. From the
data analysis, it was evident that unusual
shock signatures were recorded in some of
the earlier flights also. In this flight, the
primary separation shock and second shock
levels were comparable in amplitude, hence it
could be easily identified as an anomaly.
Usually, first shock used to be greater than
10g, but in this flight, first shock amplitude
was only 5.43g. LSC average charge density
and peak shock co-relation could not be
established. SRS of all the flights are within
the ETL specification except
frequency exceedance in some of the flights.
In a similar incident where a second shock
like signature was compared with the current
second shock signature along with FFT in
Figure 10. A single frequency (approx.
700Hz) content is seen in earlier flight;
INDIA
however, in this flight multiple frequency
contents are seen. This single frequency
content was seen in most of the flights, but
multiple frequency content is seen in this
flight only.
Figure 10: Earlier and current flights second shock
signature after 140ms from the primary shock is
plotted along with FFT. Earlier flight has single
frequency however current flight shows multiple
frequencies.
D. Payload Fairing Separation Event
Shock Analysis
Payload faring separation event shocks
were also analysed for the all the previous
flights and found that the almost 50% of the
flights, an additional shock was seen at the
order of 2-5g at around 140 to 180ms from
the first shock event. Connector snap-off time
for the PLF separation system is only 35-
50ms and there is no physical event during
140ms. One of the typical shock signatures is
shown in Figure 11, where second shock
higher signature is clearly evident. The second
signature looks like single frequency.
Figure 11: EPB shock measurement timeline during
PLF Separation event.
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
INDIA

E. Re-contact of Separating Stages

Second shock could be due to the re-
contact of separating body and it was
necessary to rule-out any re-contact. Ongoing
vehicle body rates were compared in pitch,
yaw and roll axes. Figure 12, shows all the
three-body rate comparison for the current
flight in red line, previous flight in green and
second last flight in blue. All these body rates
show no sudden change in the ongoing
Figure-12, Navigation system measured pitch, yaw
vehicle body rates, which confirms that there and roll rates during the stage separation.
was no re-contact after the separation event. G. Sympathetic detonation of LSC
Further, dynamic pressures, tail-off thrust and Stage separation mechanism in this case
angle of attacks were very benign in this was through linear shaped charge (LSC)
flight which also strengthen the conclusion of severing the structure which connects the
no re-contact, which could cause the second separating stage with the ongoing stage. For
shock at EPB. redundancy, two initiating devices were used
to initiate LSC at two locations. It was
F. Object falling on EPB
There could be a possibility that an object suspected, that if delay in separation between

can fall from the above tankages or wrapped two chains could cause the second shock

solar panels due to stage separation shock. phenomenon.

Considering the relative velocities of falling The initiation commands were issued

object and ongoing vehicle which were together and travel time from the initiation

moving in same direction, an object should device to the LSC squib was computed to be

fall from 10-15mm above the EPB plate ~300 micro-seconds. Further, delay in the

which can produce second shock after 140ms. LSC squib initiation was only ~5-6 milli-

There were no object sitting at 10-15mm seconds and travel time of this initiation and

from the EPB plate. Moreover, the LVUS severance of connecting plate takes only ~30

underwent flight acceptance vibration test at micro-seconds. Adding all together, the

ground before the flight which would have whole separation events got completed in

brought out if any loose article integrated to ~5.3-6.3 milli-seconds which was well away

the stage. Hence, this possibility can be ruled for the second shock duration of 140 milli-

out. seconds.
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
Secondly, the sympathetic detonation i.e.,
delayed detonation of one LSC due to
mechanical shock from the detonation of
other LSC, was suspected and a test was done
to demonstrate. Two LSC detonation ends
were connected close by and one LSC was
detonated and checked if other LSC got
initiates because of first LSC shock. The test
showed that other LSC could not initiated,
hence sympathetic detonation was less likely.
H. Electrical chain measurement
Shock sensor measurements were taken
only when the events were planned i.e., shock
sensor measurements were not
throughout the flight, however,
measurements initiated just before the
scheduled shock events and closed after the
separation events. These shock data used to
be stored in the onboard storage and
telecasted multiple times. So, there were a
chance of overlapping of data while
telecasting or stray data telecasting.
Electrical teams had actively gone through
the measurement chain and data handling of
onboard software. They concluded that
current measurement was having no lacuna.
IV. HYPOTHESIS
From the above investigations, there were
no firm conclusion that can be drawn because
the phenomenon was quite random. It
appeared in some of the flights and
disappeared in most of the flight. Now, a
hypothesis was proposed considering all
INDIA
other parameters did not created the second
shock.
EPB is normally attached with conical
adapter and upper stage tank. This conical
adapter is attached to the vehicle end called
propulsion adapter ring (PAR) using struts.
These struts are having fork and groove joint
at the ends. PAR end of the strut is having
vertical groove and fork joint, however
conical adapter end is having horizontal fork
and groove joint. PAR is having two band
joint interfaces; fore end of the ring has
payload fairing band joint and aft end is
taken having second stage separation system band
the joint. These bands are tensioned to 100kN
and 80kN respectively. Further, PAR fore
end has to carry payload fairing static and
dynamic loads due to aerodynamics. PAR
middle where struts are connected has to
carry upper stage tankages, engine,
propellant, upper stage adapters like; payload
adapter, satellite adapters, double satellite
adapters, electronic package bay etc. and
spacecraft masses.
All these upper stages inertial load has to pass
to the PAR through the struts. PAR end of the
strut is having freedom to move axially due
to the inertial loads, however, conical adapter
end cannot move axially as it has freedom in
tangential direction only. Band tension
applied to the fore and aft end of the PAR,
will try to make ring oval which further stress
the conical adapter end of the strut. This
cumulative effect of the loadings could have
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
INDIA

eaten away the fork and groove clearances strut joining location to study if the peak
which could have resulted the frictional frequencies could be reproduced through FE
contact between the fork and groove. transient analysis[1][2]. Various
It has been seen that the additional shock combinations were studied by changing the
signature was noticed some of the flights transient as well as location of the excitation.
during stage separation events, second stage Among all, the best combination of location
separation events and several fights during is plotted in Figure 14 which produces almost
payload fairing separation events measured at all the frequencies present in the measured
EPB. The second shock could be the release first and second shocks.
of this frictional coupling between the fork A 0.1 milli-second triangular pulse with 2g
and groove. Tribological stick and slip could peak amplitude was given at the excitation
lead to induce shock which could be of the location and response SRS/Q at sensor
order of 3-4g. This release of frictional location is plotted in Figure 15.
energy would be like transient to the system
and excite the stage.
Certain fight data further strengthens this Figure-13, Finite element model of the launch vehicle
after the stage separation.
hypothesis. This second shock signature is
seen only once among all the separation
events. It happened because, once the
frictional coupling is released the joint get
relaxed and it would not re-appear for any of
the separation event. Second shock signature
has only high frequency content i.e., above
500Hz. High frequency content could be
generated either by pyros or through sudden
release of mechanical energies like strain
energy or frictional energies. Figure 14, EPB FE model showing the excitation and
shock sensor location for the best combination of the
response.
V. ANALYSIS & RESULTS
VI. DISCUSSION
A finite element model was generated to
Both the measured shock signature plot
simulate the launch vehicle during the stage
shown in Figure 5 shows four major peaks for
separation using beam, shell and solid
the primary shock at ~450Hz, ~600Hz,
elements as shown in Figure 13. Various
~900Hz and 1400Hz, however, second shock
transient excitations cases were tried at the
has two distinct peaks at ~1250Hz and
 2021, 12th National Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace & Defense Related Mechanisms, ARMS-2021, Dec, 2021, Pune,
INDIA
~1700Hz. Transient analysis result SRS/Q
plot shown in Figure 15 shows peaks
~450Hz, ~525Hz, ~1350Hz, ~1450Hz,
~1650 and ~1925Hz. Excitation at different
locations yielded different combinations of
high frequency responses. This shows that
there is a possibility that joint relaxation at
different locations could give rise to different
second shock every time. Thus, it is possible
that closest to the measurement location, a
strut joint might have relaxed due to the far
away separation event causing a second
shock.
Figure 15, SRS/Q of the analysis response at the
sensor location showing all the peak frequencies.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A detailed investigations of launch vehicle
onboard sensors were brought out in the
search of source or similar signature of the
additional shock measured at a very critical
location during one of the stage separations.
View publication stats
After investigating several flights as well as
separation events, it was found that this is not
a unique signature but due to low amplitude
of first shock, this seemed to be problematic
however, these shock levels were benign and
well within the environmental test levels of
the critical package. A hypothesis was
proposed and to prove the hypothesis a
transient analysis was done which concluded
that all the measured frequencies were
present in the analysis response signalling
that proposed phenomenon might have
happened.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to extend my sincere gratuity to
Director, VSSC who has given opportunity to
publish this paper. I am thankful to the
internal reviewer as well as VSSC editorial
board for their guidance. It will be my
pleasure to acknowledge project team for the
inputs.
REFERENCES
[1] MD NASTRAN 2010 Dynamic Analysis
User's Guide,2010. MSC Software
Corporation
[2] MD NASTRAN 2010 Quick Reference
Guide,2010. MSC Software Corporations
[3] Internal reports