Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multidisciplinary Optimisation of a Business Jet MED Hinge for Production by Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
EADS Innovation Works UK
Co-authors - Jon Meyer – EADS Innovation Works, Alex Diskin – Israeli Aerospace Industries
6th Altair European Technology Conference
April 22nd - 24th 2013, Turin, Italy
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 2
Contents
Why the Main Exit Door Hinge?
Problem Formulation
Preliminary Analysis
Context
Results
Conclusion
Page 3
Project Context
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 4
Cleanskies
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 5
MED Hinge – Installed Location
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Installed Location
Page 6
MED Hinge - Operating Kinematics
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Forward Hinge
Page 7
MED Hinge – Detailed Design
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Main Pivot Step Runner
Hatch Pivot
Page 8
Preliminary Analysis
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 9
Analysis – Static Load
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Distance from centre of area to application point on GN Hinge = D = 746mm
Centre of area for MED
FDessure ACVF 2
Pr *5.0
2/
4746Pr
pressurez
essure
FF
HingesN= F
hingeessurey d
dFF *Pr
NFy 6320 NFZ 2373
Page 10
Analysis – Static Load
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
F
NFy 6320
NFZ 2373
NFy 6320
Flight Direction
Page 11
Analysis – Fatigue Load
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
982mm
Door Load
Reaction Force
• ~12kN opposed forces
• 80000 cycles
• 100% applied load
Page 12
Design Detail – Original
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Preliminary de-featuring of manufacturing data
Page 13
Establishment of Grid Independence
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 1 2 3 4
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a)
Tetrahedral (2nd order) Element Size
Chart Showing Results of Grid Sensitivity Study
Averaged Stress
Max Stress
Enhanced BC - Max Stress
Enhanced BC - Averaged Stress
Page 14
Grid Selection
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Baseline 4 585 470 5.24
1 677 624 5.98
571 5.752 670
Baseline 0.5 679 626 6.04
New BCs 2 776 650 6.5
Reversed 2 670 571 5.75
Baseline
Baseline
Grid Sensitivity
Element
SizeModel
Max
Stress
Averaged
Stress
Displacem
ent
~1% difference in max stress
~8% difference in averaged stress
300% increase in CPU time
Page 15
Original IAI Analysis
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
550MPa
Page 16
Model Validation
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
530MPa 670MPa
Page 17
Displacement due to Static Loading
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Max Displacement = 6.84mm
Hingeline displacement =
4.55mm
Page 18
Optimisation Problem Formulation
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 19
Optimisation Definition
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Design Space
Non - Design Space
Loads and Constraints
Objective
Loading Perturbation
Page 20
Material Choice - Compliance Optimization
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
IAI GN Hinge
Model Material Volume Def
(mm)
Mass
(Neck kg)
Stress
(max MPa)
Stress
(Av MPa)
M0 15-5PH Baseline 5.61 1.25 670 626
M1 15-5PH Solid 2.36 2.3 580 486
M2 15-5PH 75 2.82 1.8 580 490
M3 15-5PH 50 5.6 1.2 722 561
M4 15-5PH 35 13.2 0.9 1700 1100
M5 Ti64 Solid 5.6 1.3 576 480
M6 Ti64 75 6.8 1 579 484
M7 Ti64 50 12.9 0.7 642 470
M8 Ti64 45 16.1 0.58 800 687
M9 Ti64 40 23.2 0.52 1200 850
M10 Ti64 35 32.2 0.45 1700 1100
Page 21
Additive Manufacturing - Complexities
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Process Type
Material Type
Static Properties
Feature Sizes
Fatigue Properties
Material Process Type
Fatigue Stress
(MPa) at 80k
cycles
Titanium 6/4 EBM ~650
Titanium 6/4 DMLS ~350
15-5Ph Steel DMLS ~400
Material Process Type
Static Stress
(MPa)
Titanium 6/4 EBM ~900
Titanium 6/4 DMLS ~900
15-5Ph Steel DMLS ~1000
Page 22
Introduction of Additional Constraints
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Penalisation Parameters
Structural Angles
Intersections
Non-design Space
<35°
x
z
y
Page 23
Secondary Analysis – Fatigue Inclusion
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Compliance Minimum Mass
Stress + Displacement + Volume
Stress + Displacement + Fatigue
Consistently Infeasible
Stress + Displacement + Volume + Fatigue
Page 24
Optimisation Results
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 25
Optimal Structural Design
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Asymmetric Design
Page 26
Inclusion of Symmetry Plane
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Symmetric Design
Page 27
Direct Comparison
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Max stress = 615MPa
Stress change = ~ +8%
Max Displacement =8.8mm
Displacement change = 55%
Mass change = -53.2% (neck region)
Max stress = 654MPa
Stress change = ~ +11%
Max Displacement =9.89mm
Displacement change = 70%
Mass change = -37.6% (neck region)
Titanium
Design 1 - No symmetry
Design 2 Symmetry
Page 28
Design Extraction and Validation
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Max Fatigue Stress – 530MPa
Max Static Stress – 810MPa
Mass reduction of 57% including material change
Static Case
Page 29
Manufacture
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 30
Manufacturing
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Material Choice
Fatigue Requirements
Weight Saving
Cost
Process Type
5 Hinges per build
Electron Beam Melting
Less required support
Significantly higher fatigue performance
No Distortion, No heat Treatment
Page 31
Concluding Statements
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
Page 32
Conclusions
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
1. Topology optimisation can achieve significant weight savings even when applied to
heavily constrained, lightweight structures.
2. The use of structural optimisation in conjunction with additive manufacturing (AM) can
yield significant savings beyond the scope of those achievable through the isolated use of
each technology alone.
3. The use of additive manufacturing for the construction of topology optimised designs
subjected to high cycle fatigue must be carefully considered
4. Material, process type, build orientation and post processing are critical factors for any
fatigue loaded component created using PB AM. This is especially true for TO structures
created with PB AM.
5. Solving for minimum mass could not produce a feasible design under all constraints until
allowable stress levels were raised beyond the safe limits for production via AM.
6. The topology optimised design shown in this presentation could not be cost effectively
produced using any manufacturing other than Electron Beam Melting Powder Bed AM
coupled with HIPing and polishing.
Page 33
Martin Muir EADS Innovation Works UK
E-mail : [email protected]
Jonathan Meyer EADS Innovation Works UK
E-mail : [email protected]
Alex Diskin Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd
E-mail : [email protected]
Thank you
MDO Optimized MED Hinge for Production through Additive Manufacturing
Martin Muir
