Infrared and Laser Engineering, Volume. 52, Issue 5, 20220742(2023)
Low thermal expansion optimization of composite support structure for missile-borne optical system
Figures & Tables(23)
Fig. 2. Simulation calculation cloud chart of thermal expansion deformation of titanium alloy support structure
Fig. 8. Strain-temperature curves obtained from thermal expansion deformation test and simulation analysis
Fig. 13. Cloud chart of simulation calculation of thermal expansion deformation
Table 1. Test matrix
View tableView in ArticleTable 1. Test matrix
Group number Layers Quantity A [048] 10 B [9048] 6 C [(0/45/90/−45)6]S 10
Table 2. Test results of thermal expansion coefficient along the length direction of test piece
View tableView in ArticleTable 2. Test results of thermal expansion coefficient along the length direction of test piece
Group number Coefficient of thermal expansion×10−6/℃ Average× 10−6/℃ Coefficient of variation A1 1.286 1.397 0.117 A2 1.359 A3 1.153 A4 1.509
Table 3. Material parameters of TU/SYT49S-130
View tableView in ArticleTable 3. Material parameters of TU/SYT49S-130
Parameter Value Longitudinal elastic modulus/GPa 135 Transverse elastic modulus/GPa 8.35 Poisson's ratio 0.3 Density/g·cm−3 1.04 Shear modulus/GPa 5.31
Table 4. Thermal expansion coefficient of carbon fiber and epoxy resin[11]
View tableView in ArticleTable 4. Thermal expansion coefficient of carbon fiber and epoxy resin[11]
Parameter T700 carbon fiber (longitudinal) Epoxy resin Coefficient of thermal expansion/℃−1 −0.381×10−6 56.8×10−6
Table 5. Reduction ratio of thermal expansion deformation of two-dimensional composite support structure compared with titanium alloy structure
View tableView in ArticleTable 5. Reduction ratio of thermal expansion deformation of two-dimensional composite support structure compared with titanium alloy structure
Iteration order Ply shape optimization Ply thickness optimization Ply sequence optimization 1 45.8% 54.4% 59.4% 2 70.7% 72.2% 74.2% 3 71.7% 73.7% 76.0% 4 80.3% 82.1% 84.1% 5 88.2% 89.4% 89.8%
Table 6. Optimization results of ply shape of composite support structure in five iterations
View tableView in ArticleTable 6. Optimization results of ply shape of composite support structure in five iterations
Iteration order CATIA model before optimization Optimization result of ply shape Thermal expansion deformation/mm Reduction relative to thermal expansion of titanium alloy 1 1.17×10−2 45.8% 2 6.32×10−3 70.7% 3 6.12×10−3 71.7% 4 4.25×10−3 80.3% 5 2.54×10−3 88.2%
Table 7. Optimization results of ply thickness of composite support structure in five iterations
View tableView in ArticleTable 7. Optimization results of ply thickness of composite support structure in five iterations
Iteration order Thickness after optimization/mm Number of plies after optimization Thermal expansion deformation/mm Reduction relative to thermal expansion of titanium alloy Main body Side plate Main body Side plate 1 8.0 4.5 64 36 9.86×10−3 54.4% 2 7.25 4.75 58 38 6.01×10−3 72.2% 3 7.25 4.75 58 38 5.69×10−3 73.7% 4 7.75 4.75 62 38 3.87×10−3 82.1% 5 5.75 3.5 46 28 2.29×10−3 89.4%
Table 8. Optimization results of ply sequence of composite support structure in five iterations
View tableView in ArticleTable 8. Optimization results of ply sequence of composite support structure in five iterations
Iteration order Ply sequence before optimization Ply sequence after optimization Thermal expansion deformation/mm Reduction relative to thermal expansion of titanium alloy Main body Side plate Main body Side plate 1 [012/3010/−3010]S [04/308/−308]S [03/−30/302/0/−30/30/−303/ 302/−30/30/−30/0/−30/03/ −30/30/03/302/−30/30/0]S [0/302/−30/302/−302/302/ −302/02/30/−30/0/−302/30]S 8.76×10−3 59.4% 2 [013/308/−308]S [05/307/−307]S [0/302/0/−30/302/0/30/−30/0/30/02/−30/0/30/−30/0/30/02/ −30/0/−30/−302/0]S [0/−302/0/30/0/−30/0/ −302/30/−30/303/0/−30/302]S 5.57×10−3 74.2% 3 [09/3010/−3010]S [05/307/−307]S [0/303/−30/02/−302/30/04/ −30/02/30/−303/304/−302/ 30/−30]S [0/−302/302/−30/303/ −30/30/02/−30/0/−302/0/30]S 5.18×10−3 76.0% 4 [017/307/−307]S [05/307/−307]S [0/−30/02/303/02/−30/03/30/ 04/302/03/−304/02/−30/30]S [02/302/0/−30/30/−302/304/−30/02/−303]S 3.44×10−3 84.1% 5 [07/308/−308]S [04/305/−305]S [0/−30/30/−302/30/02/30/0/ −30/304/−303/0/−30/0/30/0]S [0/303/0/30/02/−303/30/−302]S 2.20×10−3 89.8%
Table 9. Results of modal analysis
View tableView in ArticleTable 9. Results of modal analysis
Order Composite support structure Titanium alloy support structure First Vibration mode diagram Frequency/Hz 1 312.5 1 054.9 Second Vibration mode diagram Frequency/Hz 1 361.7 1 290.4 Third Vibration mode diagram Frequency/Hz 2 334.6 1 921.1
Table 21. [in Chinese]
View tableView in ArticleTable 21. [in Chinese]
续表 2 Continued Tab.2 Group number Coefficient of thermal expansion×10−6/℃ Average× 10−6/℃ Coefficient of variation A5 1.616 1.397 0.117 A6 1.601 A7 1.328 A8 1.196 A9 1.542 A10 1.383 B1 38.546 37.95 0.059 B2 36.729 B3 39.558 B4 38.998 B5 39.875 B6 34.006 C1 4.125 4.141 0.101 C2 4.102 C3 4.156 C4 3.939 C5 4.564 C6 3.970 C7 3.674 C8 3.537 C9 4.391 C10 4.957
Tools
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Xuan Wang, Chenqi Zhao. Low thermal expansion optimization of composite support structure for missile-borne optical system[J]. Infrared and Laser Engineering, 2023, 52(5): 20220742
Paper Information
Category: Material & Thim films
Received: Oct. 25, 2022
Accepted: --
Published Online: Jul. 4, 2023
The Author Email:
© Copyright 2018-2021 | Chinese Laser Press.
All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备15018463号-20