slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Rod Dreisbach The Boeing Company Computational Structures Technology boeing

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Rod Dreisbach The Boeing Company Computational Structures Technology boeing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 173 Views
  • Uploaded on

First MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Structural Mechanics Cambridge, Massachusetts USA June 12-15, 2001. Enhancing Engineering Design and Analysis Interoperability Part 3: Steps toward Multi-Functional Optimization. Rod Dreisbach The Boeing Company

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Rod Dreisbach The Boeing Company Computational Structures Technology boeing' - otis


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

First MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and Structural Mechanics

Cambridge, Massachusetts USA

June 12-15, 2001

Enhancing Engineering Design and Analysis InteroperabilityPart 3: Steps toward Multi-Functional Optimization

Rod Dreisbach

The Boeing Company

Computational Structures Technology

www.boeing.com

Russell Peak

Georgia Tech

Engineering Information Systems Lab

eislab.gatech.edu

typical current approach optimize idealized parameters vs detailed design
Typical Current Approach: Optimize idealized parameters (vs. detailed design)

G1 : b = cavity3.inner_width + rib8.thickness/2

+ rib9.thickness/2

...

Need

fine-grained

CAD-CAE

associativity

G

Idealizations

“It is no secret that CAD models are driving more of today’s product development processes ... With the growing number of design tools on the market, however, the interoperability gap with downstream applications, such as finite element analysis, is a very real problem. As a result, CAD models are being recreated at unprecedented levels.” Ansys/ITI press Release, July 6 1999

http://www.ansys.com/webdocs/VisitAnsys/CorpInfo/PR/pr-060799.html

=

K

f

(

r

,

b

,

h

)

3

1

P

P

=

f

C

=

f

be

1

2

ht

se

p

2

r

t

e

0

e

Detailed Design Model

Analysis Model

(with Idealized Features)

Channel Fitting Analysis

multi functional optimization mfo
Multi-Functional Optimization (MFO)
  • Term as coined at Boeing
  • Multitude of operational functional requirements
  • Concurrent consideration during product design process
  • Idealized design variables used in optimization associated directly with product (detailed design)
progress on necessary components
Progress onNecessary Components
  • Design-Analysis Integration
    • CAD-CAE Associativity
    • Connect diverse CAE models to same CAD model:

Varying discipline, behavior, fidelity, method, tool

    • Multi-directional
  • Object-Oriented View of Optimization
  • Enhanced FEA Modeling for Built-Up Structure
x analysis integration techniques
X-Analysis Integration Techniques

a. Multi-Representation Architecture (MRA)

b. Explicit Design-Analysis Associativity

c. Analysis Module Creation Methodology

slide7
COB-based Constraint Schematic for Multi-Fidelity CAD-CAE InteroperabilityFlap Link Benchmark Example
test case flap linkage analysis template reuse of apm
Test Case Flap Linkage: Analysis Template Reuse of APM

deformation model

linkage

L

al1

effective length,

eff

mode: shaft tension

cross section

area,

A

al2

L

A

t

s2

t

material

linear elastic model

youngs

modulus,

E

al3

s1

q

s

reaction

condition

Sleeve 2

Sleeve 1

Shaft

d

s1

d

s2

A

L

stress

mos

model

eff

Extensional Rod

(isothermal)

D

L

L

o

allowable stress

x

L

1

x

2

A

s

E

e

F

Margin of Safety

(> case)

allowable

actual

MS

Linkage Extensional Model (CBAM)

Flap link (APM)

reusable idealizations

flap link apm implementation in catia v5
Flap Link APMImplementation in CATIA v5

Design-Idealization Relation

Design Model

Idealized Model

catdak overview xaitools cat ia d esign a nalysis k nowledge manager
CATDAK OverviewXaiToolsCATIA Design-Analysis Knowledge Manager

Design & Idealizations

(APM)

CAD-Analysis

Template Coordination

Analysis Template

Usage (CBAMs)

CATDAK

XaiTools

Analysis

Inputs

CATIA

Model

API

VBScripts

Analysis

Outputs

(Design Updates)

VBScripts

Analysis

Templates

Traditional

Solvers

API = application programming interface

progress on necessary components1
Progress onNecessary Components
  • Design-Analysis Integration
    • CAD-CAE Associativity
    • Connect diverse CAE models to same CAD model:

Varying discipline, behavior, fidelity, method, tool

    • Multi-directional
  • Object-Oriented View of Optimization
  • Enhanced FEA Modeling for Built-Up Structure
partition of engineering entities
Partition of Engineering Entities

1

æ

ö

c

ç

p

÷

e

ç

÷

D

1

N

ç

÷

=

2

f

\'

ç

÷

2

e

ç

÷

f

è

ø

Enhanced Optimization Model (EOM)

Engineering

Math Opt Model

Opt. Model

Solution Method Model

Find

Design variable

Notation

solder joint

height(h)

(a )

PWB material type

Maximize

:

Solder Fatigue life

THESIS FOCUS

Context-Based Analysis Model

Analysis Building Block

Printed Wiring Assembly (PWA)

Solution Method Model

Solder

T

body

Component

Component

0

1

Joint

body

body

Solder Joint

4

3

body

PWB

2

Printed Wiring Board (PWB)

Previous work

Analyzable

[Peak et al. 2000,

Analysis Tools

Product Model

1999,

Tamburini

Design Tools

Wilson, 2000]

optimization model diversity
Optimization Model Diversity

OPTIMIZATION MODEL CLASS

Optimization Object 1

Optimization Object 2

Min Weight

Min Weight

subject to

subject to

Stress

Buckling

Design variables

Area, Material

Stress

Design variables

Area

1D EXTENSIONAL STRESS MODEL

Analysis Model(s)

Enhancement and/or Addition

Objective, design variable, and/or constraint function enhancement

OPTIMIZATION MODEL CLASS

Optimization Object 1

Optimization Object 2

Optimization Object 3

Min Weight

Min Weight, Cost

Min Weight

subject to

subject to

subject to

g (x)<0

g (x)<0

g (x)<0

h(x) =0

h(x) =0

h(x) =0

X(H)

X(H,LL,LR)

X(H,LL,LR,Mat)

2D PLANE STRAIN MODEL

optimization model enhancement
Optimization Model Enhancement

=

r

f

LA

1

=

³

g

MS

(

A

)

0

1

stress

=

r

f

LA

1

=

³

g

MS

(

A

)

0

1

stress

OPTIMIZATION MODEL I

Minimize

Weight

Subject to

Normal Stress Margin of Safety

Design variables

X

={A}

OPTIMIZATION MODEL II

Minimize

Weight

Subject to

Normal Stress Margin of Safety

Design variables

X

={A, material}

minimization of weight of a linkage x area subject to extensional stress
Minimization of Weight of a LinkageX(area) subject to (extensional stress)

L

A

t

s2

t

y

s1

L

q

s

D

L

L

eff

Sleeve 2

Sleeve 1

Shaft

P

P

e

s

x

E, A

,

d

s1

d

s2

A

L

eff

=

r

W

AL

Margin of Safety

(> case)

allowable

actual

MS

³

MS

0

deformation model

Extensional Rod

(isothermal)

analysis context

product structure:

linkage

L

al1

effective length,

eff

D

L

L

o

x

L

1

x

2

mode:

shaft tension

cross section

area,

A

al2

A

material

linear elastic model

youngs

modulus,

E

al3

condition:

linkage

s

E

density, r

flaps down

reaction

e

F

goal:

optimization

minimize weight

weight,W

constraint

allowable stress

s

L

eff

MSstress

Design Variable

A

minimization of weight of a linkage x area material subject to extensional stress
Minimization of Weight of a LinkageX(area, material) subject to (extensional stress)

L

A

t

s2

t

y

s1

L

q

s

D

L

L

eff

Sleeve 2

Sleeve 1

Shaft

P

P

e

s

x

E, A

,

d

s1

d

s2

A

L

eff

=

r

W

AL

Margin of Safety

(> case)

allowable

actual

MS

³

MS

0

deformation model

Extensional Rod

(isothermal)

analysis context

product structure:

linkage

L

al1

effective length,

eff

D

L

L

o

x

L

1

x

2

mode:

shaft tension

cross section

area,

A

al2

A

material

linear elastic model

youngs

modulus,

E

al3

condition:

linkage

s

E

density, r

flaps down

reaction

e

F

goal:

optimization

minimize weight

weight,W

constraint

allowable stress

s

L

eff

MSstress

Design Variable

area,A

material

optimization model enhancement1
Optimization Model Enhancement

=

r

f

LA

1

=

³

g

MS

(

A

)

0

1

stress

=

³

g

MS

(

A

)

0

2

buckling

OPTIMIZATION MODEL III

OPTIMIZATION MODEL IV

Minimize

Weight

Subject to

Normal Stress Margin of Safety

Buckling Margin of Safety

Design variables

X

={A, material}

minimization of weight of a linkage x area subject to extensional stress buckling load
Minimization of Weight of a LinkageX(area) subject to (extensional stress, buckling load)

L

A

t

s2

t

y

s1

L

q

s

D

L

L

eff

Sleeve 2

Sleeve 1

Shaft

P

P

e

s

x

E, A

,

d

s1

d

s2

A

L

eff

=

r

W

AL

Margin of Safety

Margin of Safety

(> case)

(> case)

allowable

allowable

actual

actual

MS

MS

³

MS

0

deformation model

Extensional Rod

(isothermal, buckling)

analysis context

product structure:

linkage

L

effective length,

eff

D

L

L

o

x

L

I

moment of inertia,

1

x

cross section

2

mode:

shaft tension

area,

A

A

material

linear elastic model

youngs

modulus,

E

condition:

linkage

s

E

density, r

flaps down

reaction

load,P

e

F

goal:

optimization

minimize weight

Extensional Rod

weight,W

(Buckling)

constraints

L

o

E

P

s

cr

I

allowable stress

L

eff

MSstress

MSbuckling

Design Variables

A

minimization of weight of a linkage x area material subject to extensional stress buckling load
Minimization of Weight of a LinkageX(area, material) subject to (extensional stress, buckling load)

L

A

t

s2

t

y

s1

L

q

s

D

L

L

eff

Sleeve 2

Sleeve 1

Shaft

P

P

e

s

x

E, A

,

d

s1

d

s2

A

L

eff

=

r

W

AL

Margin of Safety

Margin of Safety

(> case)

(> case)

allowable

allowable

actual

actual

MS

MS

³

MS

0

deformation model

Extensional Rod

(isothermal, buckling)

analysis context

product structure:

linkage

L

effective length,

eff

D

L

L

o

x

L

I

moment of inertia,

1

x

cross section

2

mode:

shaft tension

area,

A

A

material

linear elastic model

youngs

modulus,

E

condition:

linkage

s

E

density, r

flaps down

reaction

load,P

e

F

goal:

optimization

minimize weight

Extensional Rod

weight,W

(Buckling)

constraints

L

o

E

P

s

cr

I

allowable stress

L

eff

MSstress

MSbuckling

A

Design Variables

material

progress on necessary components2
Progress onNecessary Components
  • Design-Analysis Integration
    • CAD-CAE Associativity
    • Connect diverse CAE models to same CAD model:

Varying discipline, behavior, fidelity, method, tool

    • Multi-directional
  • Object-Oriented View of Optimization
  • Enhanced FEA Modeling for Built-Up Structure
chip package products shinko
Chip Package Products Shinko

Quad Flat Packs (QFPs)

Plastic Ball Grid Array (PBGA) Packages

advanced product information driven fea modeling challenges
Advanced Product Information-Driven FEA Modeling: Challenges

Main challenges

  • Differences between design & analysis geometries
  • Variable topology multi-body geometries
  • FEA requirements: node matching, aspect ratio
  • Relative body sizes
    • Degree of indirect inter-body coupling
  • Mixed analytical bodies
  • Idealized inter-body interfaces
  • Loads & interfaces on non-explicit boundaries
  • Idealization-induced anomalies
    • Ex. - Shell mid-/outer-face matching
  • Arbitrary shapes (complex 3D surfaces …)
multi representation architecture context
Multi-Representation Architecture Context
  • Composed of four representations (information models)
  • Provides flexible, modular mapping between design & analysis models
  • Creates automated, product-specific analysis modules (CBAMs)
  • Represents design-analysis associativity explicitly
approach outline test cases
Approach Outline: Test Cases
  • Benchmark test cases
    • “diving board”
    • eWidget
    • simplified PBGA
  • Production test cases(representative production-like problems for industry)
    • Chip package (Shinko)
      • Thermal analysis - Phase 2
      • Thermomechanical (stress) analysis - after Phase 2
    • Air frame structural analysis (Boeing)
    • PWA/B (JPL/NASA,…)
      • Thermomechanical, ...
airframe structural analysis radar support structure for boeing
Airframe Structural AnalysisRadar Support Structure(for Boeing)

Design Model

Automatic FEA Pre/Post-processing & Solution

(in vendor-specific Solution Method Model)

pwa thermomechanical analysis for jpl nasa
PWA Thermomechanical Analysis(for JPL/NASA, ...)

Goal: Generalization of previous work [Zhou, 1997]

summary
Summary

Progress …

  • Design-Analysis Integration (maturing)
    • CAD-CAE Associativity
    • Connect diverse CAE models to same CAD model:

Varying discipline, behavior, fidelity, method, tool

    • Multi-directional
  • Object-Oriented View of Optimization (initial progress)
  • Enhanced FEA Modeling for Built-Up Structure (in-progress)

Further work needed …

  • High-level operational criteria, such as Product Design Requirements and Objectives
  • Need to leverage recent optimization tools
    • Ex. iSIGHT, ProductCenter, etc.
    • Provide enhanced modularity & knowledge capture
ad