| Literature DB >> 29874847 |
Jingshi Shen1,2, Xiaodong Zeng3, Yuxiang Luo4, Changqing Cao5, Ting Wang6.
Abstract
The Chinese space station is designed to carry out manned spaceflight, space science research, and so on. In serious applications, it is a common operation to inject gas into the hull, which can produce strain of the bulkhead. Accurate measurement of strain for the bulkhead is one of the key tasks in evaluating the health condition of the space station. This is the first work to perform strain detection for the Chinese space station bulkhead by using optical fiber Bragg grating. In the period of measurements, the resistance strain gauge is used as the strain standard. The measurement error of the fiber optical sensor in the circumferential direction is very small, being less than 4.52 με. However, the error in the axial direction is very large with the highest value of 28.93 με. Because the measurement error of bare fiber in the axial direction is very small, the transverse effect of the substrate of the fiber optical sensor likely plays a role. The comparison of the theoretical and experimental results of the transverse effect coefficients shows that they are fairly consistent, with values of 0.0271 and 0.0287, respectively. After the transverse effect is compensated, the strain deviation in the axial detection is smaller than 2.04 με. It is of great significance to carry out real-time health assessment for the bulkhead of the space station.Entities:
Keywords: fiber Bragg grating sensor; space station; strain; transverse effect
Year: 2018 PMID: 29874847 PMCID: PMC6021825 DOI: 10.3390/s18061834
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1A graph with the mentioned methodology.
Figure 2Schematic of the space station (a) and installation of FBG sensors in the cabin (b). Top view of the bulkhead (c) and right view of the bulkhead (d).
Figure 3The strain values of Points A and B in the axial and circumferential direction at different pressures. (a) Point A: circumferential strain measurements; (b) Point A: axial strain measurements; (c) Point B: circumferential strain measurements; (d) Point B: axial strain measurements.
The absolute error of strain for Points A and B in the circumferential and axial direction.
| Point | A (με) | B (με) | Bare Fiber (με) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure Values | Circumferential | Axial | Circumferential | Axial | Circumferential | Axial | |
| 50 | 1.26 | −20.50 | 0.10 | −19.01 | 0.14 | −0.20 | |
| 55 | 0.30 | −21.20 | 0.03 | −19.93 | 0.26 | −0.13 | |
| 60 | 0.04 | −21.88 | 0.46 | −21.02 | 0.22 | 0.52 | |
| 65 | 0.02 | −23.29 | 0.21 | −22.65 | 0.53 | 0.98 | |
| 70 | 0.18 | −23.66 | −0.40 | −23.36 | −0.17 | 1.14 | |
| 75 | 0.17 | −24.67 | −0.75 | −24.54 | 1.24 | 1.25 | |
| 80 | 0.40 | −25.39 | −1.86 | −26.25 | 0.59 | 1.44 | |
| 85 | 1.07 | −26.63 | −2.85 | −26.61 | 0.94 | 1.82 | |
| 90 | 1.98 | −27.72 | −3.44 | −27.57 | 2.11 | 2.25 | |
| 95 | 2.36 | −28.93 | −4.52 | −27.53 | 2.45 | 2.14 | |
Figure 4The simulation model of the sensor and the cantilever beam: (a) modeling dimensions of the cantilever beam; (b) the position of the FBG sensors on the cantilever beam.
The strain measurement results of FBG sensors and resistance strain gauges.
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| −26.8 | −30.7 | 78.6 |
| −53.3 | −59.1 | 157.7 |
| −80.1 | −88.7 | 236.6 |
| −106.9 | −120.5 | 316.1 |
| −133.4 | −151.2 | 395.6 |
| −160.4 | −181.9 | 474.5 |
| −187.3 | −210.3 | 552.7 |
| −214.4 | −241.0 | 631.7 |
| −241.3 | −269.4 | 710.5 |
| −268.3 | −299.0 | 789.2 |
| −295.2 | −326.3 | 868.5 |
| −322.1 | −355.8 | 947.0 |
| −349.2 | −382.0 | 1026.3 |
| −375.9 | −410.4 | 1105.3 |
| −402.9 | −438.8 | 1184.5 |
| −429.7 | −466.1 | 1263.6 |
| −457.0 | −496.8 | 1342.6 |
Figure 5The top view of cabin pasted with the FBG sensor.
Figure 6The comparison of the measurement results of the FBG after compensation and resistance strain gauge for Point A (a) and Point B (b).