Unmanned in-situ exploration is an important technique to study the physical and mechanical parameters of lunar composition and evolution. The impact penetrator is an effective device for in-situ detection of the lunar soil profile at predetermined depth. Because of the lack of real lunar soil samples, it is very difficult to study and evaluate the performance of the impact penetrator. In order to truly reflect the interaction between the impact penetrator and lunar soil particles, a simulation model of the lunar soil body was established by means of discrete-element analysis, and the model parameters were matched and verified by the experimental method. Based on this model, the interaction behaviors between the penetrators with different head configurations and the lunar soil body were simulated. The stress field distribution in the lunar soil body and particle movement patterns during the penetrating process were revealed, which reflects the working principle and performance of the penetrator. The numerical simulation on the interaction process between the impact penetrator and lunar soil particles provides a feasible and effective method for the design and optimization of the penetrator, which will contribute to the development of lunar subsurface in-situ exploration technologies.
AndrewM. A Brief History of the Moon. Cham: Springer, 2017.
2.
GuoDLiuJJiJ, et al.Preliminary study on the global geotectonic framework of the moon. Chin J Geophys2016; 59(10): 3543–3554.
3.
FisackerlyRCarpenterJHoudouB, et al.Accessing, drill and operating at the lunar south pole: status of European plans and activities. Analyst2016; 135(2): 327–331.
4.
ZacnyKBar-CohenYBrennanM, et al.Drilling systems for extraterrestrial subsurface exploration. Astrobiology2008; 8(3): 665–706.
5.
LingYLuWXiongP, et al.A miniature flexible sampler for subsurface lunar exploration. Acta Astronaut2016; 123: 8–15.
6.
JaumannRHiesingerHAnandM, et al.Geology, geochemistry, and geophysics of the Moon: status of current understanding. Planet Space Sci2012; 74(1): 15–41.
7.
LiPJiangSTangD, et al.Design and testing of coring bits on drilling lunar rock simulant. Adv Space Res2017; 59(4): 1057–1076.
8.
LiHWenWWangF, et al.Current status and development trend of surface penetrating radar in the application of lunar and deep space exploration. Remote Sensing Technol Appl2017; 32(4): 634–642.
9.
GaoYFrameTEDPitcherC. Piercing the extraterrestrial surface: integrated robotic drill for planetary exploration. IEEE Robotics Automation Mag2015; 22(1): 45–53.
10.
ZouYXuLWangQ. Progress in China’s lunar exploration program. Chin J Space Sci2016; 36(5): 610–619.
11.
WangQLiuJ. A Chang’E-4 mission concept and vision of future Chinese lunar exploration activities. Acta Astronautica2016; 127: 678–683.
12.
ZacnyKNagiharaSHedlundM, et al.Pneumatic and percussive penetration approaches for heat flow probe emplacement on robotic lunar missions. Earth, Moon, and Planets2013; 111(1–2): 47–77.
13.
MarczewskiWSchröerKSeiferlinK, et al.Prelaunch performance evaluation of the cometary experiment MUPUS-TP. J Geophys Res Planets2004; 109: 17.
14.
KnapmeyerMFischerHHKnollenbergJ, et al.The SESAME/CASSE instrument listening to the MUPUS PEN insertion phase on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Acta Astronautica2016; 125: 234–249.
15.
SpohnTSeiferlinKHagermannA, et al.MUPUS-a thermal and mechanical properties probe for the Rosetta lander Philae. Space Sci Rev2007; 128(1–4): 339–362.
16.
SewerynKGrygorczukJWawrzaszekR, et al.Low velocity penetrators (LVP) driven by hammering action – definition of the principle of operation based on numerical models and experimental tests. Acta Astronautica2014; 99: 303–317.
17.
KömleNIHütterESMacherW, et al.In situ methods for measuring thermal properties and heat flux on planetary bodies. Planet Space Science2011; 59(8): 639–660.
18.
RichterLCostePGromovVV, et al.Development and testing of subsurface sampling devices for the Beagle-2 lander. Planet Space Sci2002; 50(9): 903–913.
19.
HaarmannRJaumannRClaasenF, et al.Mobile payload element (MPE): concept study for a sample fetching rover for the ESA lunar lander mission. Planet Space Sci2012; 74(1): 283–295.
20.
RichterLCostePGromovVV, et al.Development and testing of subsurface sampling devices for the Beagle 2 lander. Planet Space Sci2002; 50(9): 903–913.
21.
KömleNIPoganskiJKarglG, et al.Pile driving models for the evaluation of soil penetration resistance measurements from planetary subsurface probes. Planet Space Sci2015; 109(1): 135–148.
22.
SewerynKSkockiKBanaszkiewiczM, et al.Determining the geotechnical properties of planetary regolith using low velocity penetrometers. Planet Space Sci2014; 99: 70–83.
23.
ZhangWJiangSJiJ, et al.A drilling tool design and in situ identification of planetary regolith mechanical parameters. Adv Space Res2018; 61(9): 2444–2456.
24.
ChenHJiangSLiuR, et al.Particle directional conveyance under longitudinal vibration by considering the trough surface texture: numerical simulation based on the discrete element method. Shock and Vibration2018; 2018: 13.
25.
ChenHLiLZhangW, et al.A vibratory conveying method for planetary regolith: preliminary experiment and numerical simulation. IEEE ACCESS2019; 7: 29386–29396.
26.
ZhangWJiangSTangD, et al.Drilling load model of an inchworm boring robot for lunar subsurface exploration. Int J Aerospace Eng2017; 2017: 11.
27.
ShenYJiangSXuC, et al.Modeling and experimental validation for hammer-driven type penetrators under horizontal condition. Shock and Vibration2016; 2016: 10.
28.
ShenYHouXZhangK, et al.Study on the dynamic characteristics of a hammer-driven type penetrators in the penetration process. Adv Mech Eng2017; 9(2): 1–11.
29.
CorbettGGReidSRJohnsonW. Impact loading of plates and shells by free-flying projectiles: a review. Int J Impact Eng1996; 18(2): 141–230.
30.
SmrekarSCatlingDLorenzR, et al.Deep space 2: the mars microprobe mission. J Geophys Res1999; 104(E11): 27013–27030.
31.
ZacnyKCurrieDPaulsenG, et al.Development and testing of the pneumatic lunar drill for the emplacement of the corner cube reflector on the Moon. Planet Space Sci2012; 71(1): 131–141.
32.
MizutaniHFujimuraATanakaS, et al.LUNAR-A mission: goals and status. Adv Space Res2013; 31(11): 2315–2321.
33.
CuiXDingH. Approximate theoretical and experimental research development of cone penetration resistance in static cone penetration test. Adv Mech2004; 34(2): 251–262.
34.
HanWLuF. Evaluation of theoretical analysis method for cone resistance based on bearing capacity theory. Agric Sci Tech Equip2008; 175: 40–42.
35.
ElsworthD. Analysis of piezocone dissipation data using dislocation methods. J Geotechnical Eng1993; 119(10): 1601–1623.
36.
WangXZhangQZhangS, et al.A study of the additional stress caused by the tip resistance of a Y-shape pile with considering abnormality effect. Rock Soil Mech2016; 37(5): 1268–1280.
37.
YuHMitchellJK. Analysis of cone resistance: review of methods. J Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Eng1999; 125(9): 812–814.
38.
ButlaskaJArroyoMGensA, et al.Multi-scale analysis of cone penetration test (CPT) in a virtual calibration chamber. Can Geotechnical J2014; 51(1): 51–66.
QuanQ.ChenC.DengZ., et al. Recovery rate prediction in lunar regolith simulant drilling. Acta Astronautica2017; 133: 121–127.
41.
TangJQuanQJiangS, et al.A soil flowing characteristics monitoring method in planetary drilling and coring verification experiments. Adv Space Res2017; 59(5): 1341–1352.
42.
LiCJiangHCaiG, et al.Dynamics analysis on vibration slow sheering extrusion crasher based on ADAMS-EDEM coupling. Mining Res Develop2017; 37(4): 54–57.
43.
CundallPAStrackODL. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique1979; 29(1): 47–65.
44.
DonzéFV. Impacts on cohesive frictional geomaterials: a DEM analysis applied to concrete. Eur J Environ Civil Eng2008; 12(7): 967–985.
45.
Al-HashemiHMBOmarSBA. A review on the angle of repose of granular materials. Powder Technol2018; 330: 397–417.
46.
WangJZhaoDLiangYet al. Angle of repose of landslide debris deposits induced by 2008 Sichuan Earthquake. Eng Geology2013; 156: 103–110.
47.
WuTHuangWChenX, et al.Calibration of discrete element model parameters for cohesive soil considering the cohesion between particles. J South China Agric Univ2017; 38(3): 93–98.
48.
YuHS. Cavity Expansion Methods in Geomechanics. Dordrecht: Springer, 2000.
49.
YuHSHoulsbyGT. A large strain analytical solution for cavity contraction in dilatant soils. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomechanics2010; 19(11): 793–811.
