- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Role of collisions in erosion of regolith during a lunar landing

Kyle J. Berger1, Anshu Anand1, Philip T. Metzger2, and Christine M. Hrenya1,*

  • 1Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80303, USA
  • 2NASA Kennedy Space Center, Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations Laboratory, Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899, USA

  • *Corresponding author: hrenya@colorado.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 87, 022205 – Published 19 February, 2013Erratum Phys. Rev. E 91, 019905 (2015)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.022205

Abstract

The supersonic gas plume of a landing rocket entrains lunar regolith, which is the layer of loose solids covering the lunar surface. This ejection is problematic due to scouring and dust impregnation of surrounding hardware, reduction in visibility for the crew, and spoofing of the landing sensors. To date, model predictions of erosion and ejection dynamics have been based largely on single-trajectory models in which the role of interparticle collisions is ignored. In the present work, the parameters affecting the erosion rate of monodisperse solids are investigated using the discrete element method (DEM). The drag and lift forces exerted by the rocket exhaust are incorporated via one-way coupling. The results demonstrate that interparticle collisions are frequent in the region immediately above the regolith surface; as many as 20% of particles are engaged in a collision at a given time. These collisions play an important role both in the erosion dynamics and in the final trajectories of particles. In addition, a direct assessment of the influence of collisions on the erosion rate is accomplished via a comparison between a “collisionless” DEM model and the original DEM model. This comparison shows that the erosion dynamics change drastically when collisions are considered and that the erosion rate is dependent on the collision parameters (coefficient of restitution and coefficient of friction). Physical explanations for these trends are provided.

View figure in article

Erratum

Erratum: Role of collisions in erosion of regolith during a lunar landing [Phys. Rev. E 87, 022205 (2013)]

Kyle J. Berger, Anshu Anand, Philip T. Metzger, and Christine M. Hrenya
Phys. Rev. E 91, 019905 (2015)

Article Text

References (29)

  1. L. D. Jaffe, Science 171, 798 (1971).
  2. B. J. O’Brien, S. C. Freden, and J. R. Bates, J. Appl. Phys. 41, 4538 (1970).
  3. P. T. Metzger, J. E. Lane, C. D. Immer, and S. Clements, in Lunar Settlements, edited by Haym Benaroya (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2010), pp. 551–576.
  4. A. B. Morris, D. B. Goldstein, P. L. Varghese, and L. M. Trafton, in Proc. of the 27th Intl. Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics, Vol. 1333 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2011), pp. 1187–1192.
  5. C. Conrad, R. F. Gordon, Jr., and A. L. Bean, Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, Vol. 1, pp. 9.11-9.12 (1969).
  6. D. Scott, J. Irwin, and A. Worden, Apollo 15 Technical Debriefing, Rep. MSC-4561, NASA Manned Space Center, Houston, TX, p. 9.14 (1971).
  7. P. T. Metzger and R. P. Mueller, in Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0, Addendum, NASA SP-2009-566-ADD, pp. 234–248 (2009).
  8. P. T. Metzger, J. E. Lane, C. D. Immer, J. N. Gamsky, W. Hauslein, X. Li, R. C. Latta III, and C. M. Donahue, in Proceedings of Earth and Space 2010, 12th Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, Honolulu, HI, March 14-17 (ASCE, Reston, VA, 2010).
  9. R. A. Bagnold, The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes (Methuen, London, 1941).
  10. J. F. Kok, E. J. R. Parteli, T. I. Michaels, and D. B. Karam, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 106901 (2012).
  11. M. Sørensen and I. McEwan, Sedimentology 43, 65 (1996).
  12. N. Huang, Y. L. Zhang, and R. D’Adamo, J. Geophys. Res. 112, 11 (2007).
  13. Z. Dong, N. Huang, and X. Liu, J. Geophys. Res. 110, D24113 (2005).
  14. J. F. Kok and N. O. Renno, J. Geophys. Res. 114, D17204 (2009).
  15. J. E. Lane, P. T. Metzger, and C. D. Immer, in Proceedings of Earth and Space 2008, 11th Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Challenging Environments, Long Beach, California, March 3-5 (ASCE, Reston, VA, 2008).
  16. J. E. Lane, P. T. Metzger, and J. W. Carlson, in Proceedings of Earth and Space 2010, 12th Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Challenging Environments, Honolulu, HI, March 14-17 (ASCE, Reston, VA, 2010).
  17. J. E. Lane and P. T. Metzger, Part. Sci. Technol. 30, 196 (2012).
  18. P. T. Metzger, J. Smith, and J. E. Lane, J. Geophys. Res. 116, E06005 (2011).
  19. C. Immer, P. Metzger, P. E. Hintze, A. Nick, and R. Horan, Icarus 211, 1089 (2011).
  20. M. A. Hopkins, J. T. Jenkins et al., Mech. Mater. 16, 179 (1993).
  21. I. Goldhirsch, M.-L. Tan, and G. Zanetti, J. Sci. Comput. 8, 1 (1993).
  22. T. Pöschel and T. Schwager, Computational Granular Dynamics: Models and Algorithms (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005).
  23. P. A. Cundall and O. D. L. Strack, Géotechnique 29, 47 (1979).
  24. R. Garg, J. Galvin, T. Li, and S. Pannala, Documentation of open-source MFIX-DEM software for gas-solid flows, from https://mfix.netl.doe.gov/documentation/dem_doc_2010.pdf.
  25. E. Loth, AIAA J. 46, 801 (2008).
  26. E. Loth, AIAA J. 46, 2219 (2008).
  27. K. F. Malone and B. H. Xu, Particuology 6, 521 (2008).
  28. R. Brito and M. H. Ernst, Europhys. Lett. 43, 497 (1998).
  29. See https://mfix.netl.doe.gov/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 87, 022205– Published 19 February, 2013
  • Received 11 September 2012

©2013 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation