2.5D Silica / DG-UHTR TPS Composite Koo Research Group Ryan McDermott, Dr. Jitendra Tate, Dr. Joseph Koo, Kurt Schellhase, Ethan Liu Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page:
Thesis Advisory Group DR TATE DR KOO DR ASIABANPOUR Associate Professor Sr. Research Scientist Associate Professor Ingram School of Engineering Cockrell School of Engineering Ingram School of Engineering Texas State University The University of Texas at Austin Texas State University Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 2
Advanced Thermal Protection Material Matrix Architecture Epoxy, phenolic, Compression cyanate ester, molding, 2D, 2.5D, polysiloxane 3D Reinforcement Fillers Carbon, silica, glass Multiwall carbon nanotubes, nanoclay, graphite Project Focus Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 3
Advanced Thermal Protection Material Matrix Architecture Epoxy, phenolic, Compression cyanate ester, molding, 2D, 2.5D, polysiloxane 3D Reinforcement Fillers Carbon, silica, glass Multiwall carbon nanotubes, nanoclay, graphite Project Focus Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 4
Study 1: MX2600 vs S/DG-UHTR Research by Kurt Schellhase MX2600 S/DG-UHTR Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 5
S/DG-UHTR as an Ablative Proprietary (patent pending) inorganic mix of polysiloxane chemistries Low temperature curing (260°C) 1 Heat resistance to high temperature 2 environments Low heat transfer 3 High chemical resistance 4 Minimal smoke or toxic fumes Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 6
Char Yield (TGA)* 100 97.5 98 96.7 95.8 96 94 92 90 88 86.6 86 85.3 84 82 80 78 S/Ph MX S/Ph F0 S/DG F1 S/DG F2 S/DG F3 MX2600 Silica / Phenolic Silica / DG-UHTR F1: 35wt% F2: 40wt% F3: 48wt% *Refer to the JSR paper “Material Properties Characterization of Novel Silica/ Polysiloxane Ablatives” by Kurt Schellhase. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 7
Oxyacetylene Test Bed (OTB) [1] IR Pyrometer HD Camera IR Camera Thermocouple Torch Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 8
Experimental Procedures 3 samples tested per material • Heat Flux 1000 W/cm 2 • Oxygen: Acetylene 1.1 : 1.0 • Exposure Time 40 s • Sample Diameter 15.5 mm • Sample Thickness 12-16 mm Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 9
OTB Test Results Recession Rate (mm/s)* Mass Loss Rate (g/s)* 0.080 0.034 0.071 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.065 0.058 0.054 0.028 0.050 0.047 0.026 0.023 0.035 0.031 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.020 0.020 S/Ph MX S/Ph F0 S/DG F1 S/DG F2 S/DG F3 S/Ph MX S/Ph F0 S/DG F1 S/DG F2 S/DG F3 MX2600 MX2600 Silica / Phenolic Silica / Phenolic Silica / DG-UHTR Silica / DG-UHTR F1: 35wt% F2: 40wt% F3: 48wt% *Refer to the JSR paper “Material Properties Characterization of Novel Silica/ Polysiloxane Ablatives” by Kurt Schellhase. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 10
OTB Test Results Heat Soaked Temp ( ° C)* Heat Soak over Time (°C)* 373 360 350 328 305 296 290 291 283 283 260 S/Ph MX S/Ph F0 S/DG F1 S/DG F2 S/DG F3 MX2600 Silica / Phenolic Silica / DG-UHTR F1: 35wt% F2: 40wt% F3: 48wt% *Refer to the JSR paper “Material Properties Characterization of Novel Silica/ Polysiloxane Ablatives” by Kurt Schellhase. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 11
S/DG-UHTR Performance* Better thermal stability 1 Lowest peak heat soak temperature 2 Lowest recession rate 3 Lowest mass loss rate 4 *Refer to the JSR paper “Material Properties Characterization of Novel Silica/ Polysiloxane Ablatives” by Kurt Schellhase. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 12
Study 2: 2D vs 2.5D vs 3D Research by Ethan Liu [2] [3] Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 13
2D Composites PRO CON Inexpensive Delamination Complex Shapes [2] Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 14
3D Composites PRO CON Expensive Lower delamination, Lower tension, ballistic, and compression, impact damage shear and torsion [3] properties Higher tensile strain-to-failure Durability and values long-term properties are not Higher fully understood interlaminar toughness Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 15
2.5D Composites NEEDLE BOARD MAIN DRIVE NEEDLES 2D WEAVE FINAL 2.5D PREFORM FEED ROLLS [4] Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 16
2.5D Composites PRO CON In-plane properties Complex shapes are diminished Higher Durability and delimitation long-term resistance properties are not fully understood Higher interlaminar fracture toughness Higher interlaminar impact tolerance Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 17
Test Samples 2D C/Ph 2.5D C/Ph 3D C/Ph MX 4926N provided by Sun Allcomp Inc. (CA) Airbus-Safran Launchers Research Institute Cytec-Solvay Inc. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 18
Experimental Procedures 3 samples tested per material • 1000 W/cm 2 Heat Flux • Oxygen: Acetylene 1.2 : 1.0 • Torch Flow Rate 20 SLPM • Exposure Time 40 s • Sample Diameter 15 mm • Sample Thickness 15 mm Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 19
OTB Test Results Recession Rate (mm/s)* Mass Loss Rate (g/s)* 0.020 0.019 0.039 0.031 0.031 0.015 0.013 0.023 0.022 0.023 0.010 0.016 0.005 0.008 0.003 0.000 0.000 2D 2.5D 3D 2D 2.5D 3D *Refer to the SAMPE 2017 presentation “A comparative study of the effects of fiber architecture on the ablation properties of Carbon/ Phenolic” by Ethan Liu. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 20
OTB Test Results Ave Surface Temp ( ° C)* Heat-Soaked Temp ( ° C)* 2420 600 2,397 2400 462 480 2380 360 2,355 314 311 2360 2340 240 2,323 2320 120 2300 2280 0 2D 2.5D 3D 2D 2.5D 3D *Refer to the SAMPE 2017 presentation “A comparative study of the effects of fiber architecture on the ablation properties of Carbon/ Phenolic” by Ethan Liu. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 21
Normalized Thermal Diffusivity* 2D 2.5D 3D 1.400 1.225 1.050 0.875 0.700 50 100 150 200 250 300 Temperature ( ° C) *Refer to the SAMPE 2017 presentation “A comparative study of the effects of fiber architecture on the ablation properties of Carbon/ Phenolic” by Ethan Liu. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 22
2.5D C/Ph Performed the Best Overall* Lower surface temperature 1 Comparable mass loss and recession 2 Comparable thermal wave penetration 3 Lower thermal diffusivity 4 *Refer to the SAMPE 2017 presentation “A comparative study of the effects of fiber architecture on the ablation properties of Carbon/ Phenolic” by Ethan Liu. Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 23
2.5D Silica / Dyna-Glas-UHTR [6] [5] Goals Higher interlaminar strength 1 Mass loss and recession rate comparable to 2D 2 Lower surface temperature and thermal diffusivity 3 Cost effective 4 Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 24
Sample Manufacturing 2.5D preform fabrication 1 (Allcomp) Custom infusion mold creation 2 Resin infiltration 3 Refine 4 Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 25
2.5D Preform Fabrication Challenges Adequately join 2D plies in z 1 direction Maintain preform shape [7] 2 (100mm x 100mm) Maintain in-plane silica fabric 3 integrity Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 26
Resin Infusion Vacuum Infusion 1 Process (VIP) Resin metering with 2 peristaltic pump Heating to control flow 3 Green cure in place 4 Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 27
Resin Infusion Challenges Control flow of DG-UHTR resin 1 100% saturation of preform 2 Control off-gassing during the cure process 3 Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 28
Experimental Procedures Ablation Testing - Oxyacetylene test bed (OTB) 1 Mechanical Testing 2 Morphological 3 Scanning Electronic Microscope (SEM) 4 Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) 5 Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 29
Timeline Reporting March Material Acquisition Resin August Infiltration November Testing 2.5D Fabrication December-February October Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: 30
THANK YOU EMAIL rjm142@txstate.edu TELEPHONE 469-323-9218 Advanced TPS Composite | Ryan McDermott Page: [8]
Recommend
More recommend
