Aerospace Systems Research Institute, Iran Space Research Institute, Tehran, Iran


The paper concerns with the experimental analysis of the pyroshock wave propagation in the structure of Kavoshgar's payloadon the ground. The source of waves is the explosion of pyrotechnic materialacting as the actuator of separation mechanism for the payload subsystems. The shock sensors are attached in different locations of structure to measure the acceleration amplitude along three orthogonal directions after the activation of pyrotechnic material.The experimental setup is used for measurement of the acceleration history as well as the evaluation of the shock response spectrum at specific locations during two-stage separation of payload subsystems. The experimental acceleration record is evaluated to eliminate the noise signals and incorrect data. The variations of shock  response at different payload locations are evaluated to determine the amplitude attenuation of the wave passing through the structure body and joints. The measured data are also employed to determine the working condition and design criteria for the equipment of Kavoshgar payload.


  1. Chang, K.Y., “Pyrotechnic Devices, Shock Levels and Their Applications,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Proceedings of Pyroshock Seminar, ICSV9, 2002.
  2. Keegan, W.B., Dynamic Environmental Criteria, NASA Technical Handbook, NASA-HDBK-7005, 2001.
  3. Fillippi, E., Attouoman, H. and Conti, C., “Pyroshock Simulation Using the Alcatel Etca Test Facility,” Launch Vehicle Vibrations, 1st European Conference, CNES, Toulouse, France, 1999.
  4. Agrawal, J.P., High Energy Materials, Wiley-VCH, 2010.
  5. Mulville, D.R., “Pyroshock Test Criteria,” NASA Technical Standard, NASA-STD 7003, 2011.
  6. Moening, C.J., “Pyrotechnic Shock Flight Failures,” IES Pryotechnic Shock Tutorial Program, 31st Annual Technical Meeting, Institute Environmental Science,
  7. Ullio, R., Marucchi-Chierro, P.C. and Spazio, A., “Utilization of Prediction Methods in the Shock Environment Evaluation,” ProceedingsEuropean Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Mechanical Testing, Noordwijk, Edited by C. Stavrinidis, A. Rolfo, and E. Breitbach. European Space Agency, ESASP-468, 2001, pp. 239–245.
  8. Morante, R., Wang, Y., Chokshi, N., Kenneally, R. and Norris, W., Evaluation of Modal Combination Methods for Seismic Response Spectrum Analysis, Report: Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY (US), 1999.
  9. Lee, D.O., Han, J.H., Jang, H.W., Woo, S.H. and Kim, K.W., “ShockResponse Prediction of a Low Altitude Earth Observation Satellite During Launch Vehicle Separation,” International Journal of Aeronautic and Space Science, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2010, pp. 49–57.
  10. Troclet, B. and et. al., “FEM/SEA Hybrid Method for Predicting Mid and High Frequency Structure-Borne Transmission,” The Open Acoustic Journal, Vol. 2, 2009, pp. 45–60.
  11. Zhou, F.M., Zhang, J. and Qi, Y., “Statistical Energy Analysis of Conservatively Coupled Systems under Transient Excitations,” Journal of Shandong University Technology, Vol. 20, 2006, pp. 84–87.
  12. Hayhurst, C.J., Clegg, R.A., Livingstone, L.H. and Francis, N.J., “The Application of SPH Techniques in Autodyne –2D to Ballistic Impact Problems,” 16th International Ballistics Symposium and Exhibition, Ballistics '96, San Francisco, California, USA, 1996.
  13. Himelblau, H., PierSol, A.G.,Wise, J.H. andGrundvig, M.R., Handbook for Dynamic Data Acquisition and Analysis,Technical Report, Institute of Environmental Sciences, 1996.
  14. Kacena, W.J., McGrath, M.B. and Rader, W.P., Aerospace Systems Pyrotechnic Shock Data, NASA Contractor Report, Vol. 1, 1970, p. 215.