Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T23:44:47.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Study on shock reduction during pyro-actuated separation mechanism by use of shock absorbers and dampers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2025

A. Chakraborty*
Affiliation:
Advanced Systems Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, India
D. Laxman
Affiliation:
Advanced Systems Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, India
R. Srinivasan
Affiliation:
Advanced Systems Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, India
S.A. Khalane
Affiliation:
Advanced Systems Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, India
P.A. Ramakrishna
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Chennai, Chennai, India
H. Murthy
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Chennai, Chennai, India
*
Corresponding author: A. Chakraborty; Email: asl_ac@rediffmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current emphasis in aerospace component development is on creating safe, reliable and cost-effective technologies. However, the intricate design of stage separation systems renders component reliability a critical factor in determining mission success or failure. One of the technical challenges involves the development of various aerospace mechanisms, such as payload separation, heavy propulsion system separation, ejection of auxiliary components and detachment of rigid components. These stage separation mechanisms commonly employ pyrotechnic devices, which, by their operational nature, impart shock to the spacecraft, potentially causing damage or adverse effects on flight instruments. Therefore, it is imperative to explore multiple viable concepts aimed at reducing shock and experimentally ascertain the impact of shock using diverse shock attenuation techniques. While existing literature primarily addresses shock attenuation with distance from the shock source, limited attention has been given to diminishing shock at the location of the shock-generating element. This study employed various shock-attenuating devices, including dampers, metallic foam structures, viscous materials and dampeners, to assess the effectiveness of shock reduction. Furthermore, the study investigated shock reduction resulting from the elimination of rigid connections, such as bolted joints, from pyro-actuated mechanisms. Through a series of experiments, a conclusive analysis was conducted to determine the approach for achieving a substantial reduction in pyro shock.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. Typical pin puller configuration.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Different dampers used for test. (a) Aluminum Foam (b) Polyurethane foam (c) Steel Honeycomb (d) Aluminum catcher with conical interface.

Figure 2

Table 1. Details of test instruments (shock sensor)

Figure 3

Figure 3. Model of test hardware & testing scheme.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Pin puller test hardware on test stand.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Detail of shock sensor.

Figure 6

Table 2. Details of test articles

Figure 7

Figure 6. Shock attenuator structures before and after firing.

Figure 8

Table 3. Shock levels in location 1 of the different shock attenuation configuration

Figure 9

Table 4. Shock levels in location 2 of the different shock attenuation configuration

Figure 10

Figure 7. Comparison of the shock data in axial direction for various configurations.

Figure 11

Figure 8. Shock response spectrum (SRS) plot of the test with different shock attenuators.

Figure 12

Figure 9. Mechanism of pyro bolt, before and after the operation.

Figure 13

Table 5. Details of test articles for damper pyro bolt

Figure 14

Figure 10. Test setup and location of the shock sensors near the field.

Figure 15

Table 6. Results of shock attenuation configuration

Figure 16

Figure 11. Maximum shock level recorded in axial direction of pyro bolt.

Figure 17

Figure 12. Post-test results of pyro bolt.

Figure 18

Figure 13. SRS plot of the test with different damper materials.

Figure 19

Table 7. Details of test configurations

Figure 20

Figure 14. Pyro bolt before and after testing for configurations 1-5.

Figure 21

Figure 15. M20 pyro bolt with configurations 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

Figure 22

Table 8. Test results of the different isolation configuration

Figure 23

Figure 16. Maximum shock level recorded for different configurations.

Figure 24

Figure 17. Comparison of the SRS with different shock isolation configurations.

Figure 25

Figure 18. Typical shock plot with pyro-actuated separation bolt.

Figure 26

Figure 19. Test setup of pyro bolt with pyro cartridge.

Figure 27

Figure 20. Connection details and test scheme of pyro bolt with pneumatic initiation.

Figure 28

Table 9. Test results of pyro and pneumatic initiation configurations

Figure 29

Table 10. Test results of the second test with pneumatic initiation

Figure 30

Figure 21. Maximum shock levels in the axial direction in a different configuration.

Figure 31

Figure 22. Shock details of pyro bBolt fired with (a) pyro cartridge, (b) pneumatic initiation.

Figure 32

Figure 23. SRS of test with pneumatic initiation.