Advertisement

A simplified model for structural stiffness and crashworthiness optimisation of composite fuselages

  • Lennart Weiß
Research Paper
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a multi-objective optimisation for the initial design of crashworthy composite structures is proposed. The focus is on the optimisation model with its minimisation of inhomogeneous deformation capability. It promotes homogeneous contribution of all crash elements, as a representative of structural crashworthiness. For the first time, homogeneous contribution has been identified as a metric for crashworthiness of composite structures and been transferred into a mathematical expression. The structural model uses discrete elements for very efficient computation in combination with the genetic algorithm NSGA-II. Clustering as a machine learning technique is applied to the Pareto set of solutions in order to identify representative structural solutions. The approach uses positioning of elements and the shape of the spring characteristic of these elements as variables. The method enables the simultaneous consideration of static and crash loads, which is demonstrated by a case study featuring a composite aircraft fuselage substructure. So far, static and crash loads have been only considered separately, but never at the same time. The novelty of this approach is in the combination of an appropriate simplified modelling technique and a new formulation of the optimisation model. The proposed optimisation is beneficial in improving the crashworthiness of composites, as optimisation of the geometry and material behaviour enables a non-linear response to be obtained in an otherwise brittle material.

Keywords

Multi-objective Multi-disciplinary Composite structure Crashworthiness System response NSGA-II 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Erik Kappel for his thoughtful review as well as to Dr. Lars Fiedler, Mr. Lars Margull and Dr. Dieter Hachenberg of AIRBUS Operations GmbH who provided valuable support in the undertaking of the research summarised here. The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for the invaluable remarks and the time dedicated.

References

  1. Bendsøe MP (1989) Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem. Struct Multidiscip Optim 1:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bisagni C, Lanzi L, Ricci S (2002) Optimization of helicopter subfloor components under crashworthiness requirements using neural networks. J Aircr 39(2):296–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cavazzuti M, Baldini A, Bertocchi E, Costi D, Torricelli E, Moruzzi P (2011) High performance automotive chassis design: a topology optimization based approach. Struct Multidiscip Optim 44:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Comaniciu D, Meer P (2002) Mean shift: a robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pp 603–619Google Scholar
  5. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erfani T, Utyuzhnikov SV (2012) Control of robust design in multiobjective optimization under uncertainties. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(2):247–256MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eschenauer HA (2006) Structural behaviour and optimal layout of light constructions. Arch Appl Mech 75:441–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forsberg J, Nilsson L (2007) Topology optimization in crashworthiness design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo L, Tovar A, Penninger CL, Renaud JE (2011) Strain-based topology optimisation for crashworthiness using hybrid cellular automata. International Journal of Crashworthiness 16(3):239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hajela P, Lee E (1997) Topological optimization of rotorcraft subfloor structures for crashworthiness considerations. Comput Struct 64(1–4):65–76. Computational structures technologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallquist JO (2006) LS-Dyna theory manual. Livermore software technology corporationGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamza K, Saitou K (2005) Design optimization of vehicle structures for crashworthiness using equivalent mechanism approximations. J Mech Des 127:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hashemi SMR, Walton AC (2000) A systematic approach to aircraft crashworthiness and impact surface material models. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 214(5):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heimbs S, Middendorf P (2011) Design, analysis and testing of a composite crash absorber for aeronautic applications. In: 3rd ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on the Mechanical Response of Composites. Hannover, Germany, Composites 2011, pp 537– 544Google Scholar
  15. Jansen PW, Perez RE (2011) Constrained structural design optimization via a parallel augmented Lagrangian particle swarm optimization approach. Comput Struct 89(13–14):1352– 1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Köke H (2014) Form- und materialoptimierung von faserverbundstrukturen. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Magdeburg, DLR-Forschungsbericht 2014–16Google Scholar
  17. Köke H, Weiß L, Hühne C (2015) Beso with strain controlled material assignment. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2015. IEEE, Sendai, JapanGoogle Scholar
  18. Langtangen HP (2008) Python scripting for computational science. Texts in computational science and engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Linke M, Schilberg D, Zobory L, Reimerdes HG (2002) On the crashworthiness of rail vehicles - investigation into the underframe deformation and energy absorption behaviour. In: 8th Mini Conf. on Vehicle System Dynamics, Identification and Anomalies. Budapest, Nov 11–13Google Scholar
  20. Liu Y, Day ML (2008) Bending collapse of thin-walled circular tubes and computational application. Thin-Walled Struct 46(4):442– 450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer RR, Kikuchi N, Scott RA (1996) Application of topological optimization techniques to structural crashworthiness. Int J Numer Methods Eng 39(8):1383–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedersen C (2004) Crashworthiness design of transient frame structures using topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193(6–8):653–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Pereira MS, Ambrósio JAC, Dias JP (1997) Crashworthiness analysis and design using rigid-flexible multibody dynamics with application to train vehicles. Int J Numer Methods Eng 40(4):655–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perez RE, Jansen PW, Martins JRRA (2012) pyOpt: a Python-based object-oriented framework for nonlinear constrained optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 45(1):101–118MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rozvany GIN, Bendsøe MP, Kirsch U (1995) Layout optimization of structures. Appl Mech Rev 48 (2):41–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soto CA (2001) Structural topology optimisation: from minimising compliance to maximising energy absorption. Int J Veh Des 25(1/2):142–163. Special IssueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suleman A, Sedaghati R (2005) Benchmark case studies in optimization of geometrically nonlinear structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 30(4):273–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waimer M (2013) Development of a kinematics model for the assessment of global crash scenarios of a composite transport aircraft fuselage. PhD thesis, Universitä,t Stuttgart, DLR-Forschungsbericht 2013–28Google Scholar
  30. Weiß L (2017) Initial design of crashworthy composite structures. PhD thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig, DLR-Forschungsbericht 2017–09Google Scholar
  31. Weiß L, Hühne C (2015) Experimental investigation on the deformation of CFRP cylinders using piezo-actuators. Compos Struct 132(0):944–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weiß L, Köke H, Hühne C (2013) Simplified modelling of stiffened panels for simultaneous static and dynamic optimisation. In: Zingoni A (ed) Research and applications in structural engineering, mechanics and computation - Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, SEMC. CRC Press, Cape Town, pp 323– 324Google Scholar
  33. Weiß L, Glaser T, Hühne C, Wiedemann M (2014) Characterisation of the sliding friction response of peel-ply textured surfaces. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 63(0):123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weiß L, Köke H, Rohwer K, Hühne C, Wiedemann M (2015) Analysis of the deformation energy of straight composite z-frames subjected to critical buckling loads. Finite Elem Anal Des 98(0):50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wittlin G, Lackey D (1983) Analytical modeling of transport aircraft crash scenarios to obtain floor pulses. Contractor report 166089, NASAGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang XY, Xei YM, Steven GP, Querin OM (1999) Bidirectional evolutionary method for stiffness optimization. AIAA J 37(11):1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DLR – German Aerospace CenterInstitute of Composite Structures and Adaptive SystemsBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations