Multi Disciplinary Optimization of An Aircraft Landing Gear PDF

Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization
of an
Aircraft Landing Gear
Fatma Koçer,
Product Line Manager,
Optimization Products
Altair Engineering, USA
Altair Proprietary and Confidential Information Copyright © 2008 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved.
Background
http://www.nafems.org/events/congress/2007/vendor/
Agenda
Aircraft Landing Gear Description

Landing Event Objectives
Taxiing Event Objectives
Aircraft Landing Gear Optimization

Damping Curve Optimization
Torsion Link Design Evolution
Lug Re-design for Static Loading
Lug Re-design for Dynamic Loading
Lug Re-design for Fatigue Optimization
Landing Gear Design Objectives
Landing gear design considers an aircraft landing event and a

taxiing event.
In the landing event, energy of the descending aircraft must be

absorbed by the landing gear without generating reaction loads
that exceed the design limit loads. This reaction load, as a
function of landing gear stroke, is referred to as the Dynamic
Load-Stroke Curve.
Taxiing event is simulated as two discrete events: braking and

turning. These events generate high stresses in the torsion links
and lugs.
Landing Gear Model
Landing Parameters
Lift Sink
Speed Drop Simulation must account for landing
conditions
Initial tire spin-up equivalent to 150mph (

240 km/hr) approach speed
Lift = Weight on each gear = Half of the

aircraft landing weight
Constant sink velocity
Weight Forward
Landing Objective
Find the “damping coefficient profile”

such that
the “dynamic load/stroke curve” is
below the “dynamic load envelope”
1 in = 2.54 cm
1 kips = 4.5 kN
Taxiing Simulation
• Landing condition do not generate critical stress

• Loads for the turning and braking occur when the gear is stroked 17.5 inches (44.5 cm)
• Static Analysis
• Nonlinear geometry
• Contact elements in joints
• Elastic material properties
• Components are steel and titanium

• Stresses in steel components should not exceed 120ksi (827 MPa)
• Consider manufacturability
• Machined from die forgings
Taxiing Objectives
Optimize torsion links and lugs

such that
stress and manufacturing requirements are met
Optimization Process for the Damping Curve
MotionView Model
HyperStudy
HyperStudy Updates Model
Design Variables
Solver neutral MBD pre-
processor, including use of
flexible bodies
Manages NVH
Simulations MBD Analysis
NVH
HyperStudy MotionSolve
Solver neutral design of

experiment, multi-disciplinary
optimization and stochastic Extracts Results
Results
simulation engine. Results
MotionSolve Study
Study Results
Results
-- Optimal
Optimal parameters
Multi-body dynamics solver parameters
-- Sensitivities
Sensitivities
Automatic Optimization of the Damping Curve
9 10
5 6 7 8
4
1 2 3
Solution converged in 19 iterations Baseline dynamic load curve is optimized such

that it is below the dynamic load envelope
FE Model and Design Space for Topology Optimization
Nonlinear Gaps + Bars used in lugs to capture proper

bearing and heel-toe load distribution
Topology Design
Space
OptiStruct Proposals and Interpretations
Min compliance
such that
Vol. fr. < 30%
extrusion
Min compliance
such that
Vol. fr. < 30%
draw
Topology Interpretations
Min volume
such that
stress < 65ksi
draw
Design Fine-tuning
Free Shape and

Shape
Optimization
Optimization Process for Torsion Links
Topology
Optimization
Design Space
Topology Optimization
and Load
Stiffness Material Layout
Topology
Optimization
Geometry
Extraction
Size and Shape Optimization

Fine-tuning the Design
Topology Optimization Results Summary
Mass reduced from 120 lbs. (54.4 kg) to 88 lbs. (39.9 kg) (27% savings) per
link while meeting stress requirements
Topology Optimization in CATIA V5
Lug Re-design for Taxiing
Radius
variable
2 height 2 Height
Shape Variables
variables variables
Freeshape variable for fillet
Stress Contours
Baseline Optimized
Lug Re-Design for Landing using ESLM
Objective: Minimize Mass

Constraint: Stress <= 220ksi (1520 MPa)
Design variables: 7 shapes
Equivalent Static Load Method (ESLM) Baseline configuration

displacement
4.6 lbs mass reduction
Time Step t0 t1 t2 … tn time
Load set feq0 feq1 feq2 … feqn
subcase sub0 sub1 sub2 … subn
Optimized configuration
Lug Re-Design for Fatigue
Why not Just Optimizing Stresses to Improve Fatigue Life?

• Many factors that influence fatigue life are not considered in
linear/nonlinear analysis
• Simply optimizing the stress level can even deteriorate fatigue life
Fatigue-Based Design Optimization Process
Modifies
Modifies the design
FEM
FEM
Morpher
HyperMorph
Morpher
Runs HyperMorph
Radioss Optimizer Radioss
HyperStudy
Stresses
Responses:
stress, Runs Optimizer
volume, etc. HyperStudy
Extracts the
responses
Stress-Based Optimization Process
Results:
Damage,
Extracts
Safety Factor
Fatigue-Based Optimization Process

Problem Formulation: Design Variables
Baseline
Design / Shape Variable

Stress Based Optimization Problem
Minimize stress values

(max. stress value from the critical node group)
Objective function history Design variable history
Method: Adaptive Response Surface method (HyperOpt)
Stress Based Optimization Results
Baseline
Max v. Mises Stress: 762 MPA Min Safety Factor:0.44
Optimal
Max v. Mises Stress: 653 MPa Min Safety Factor:0.48
Fatigue Based Optimization Problem
Maximize safety factor

(min. safety factor value from the critical node group)
Objective function history Design variable history
Method: Adaptive Response Surface method (HyperOpt)
Fatigue Based Optimization Results
Baseline
Safety Factor: 0.44

v. Mises Stress: 762 MPa
Optimal
v. Mises Stress: 640 MPa Safety Factor: 0.5
Comparison of Results
Baseline
Safety factor : 0.44
v. Mises stress : 762 MPa
Mass : 133.00 kg
Stress based Fatigue based
Safety Factor : 0.48 + 9% Safety factor : 0.5 + 13%

v. Mises stress : 653 MPa v. Mises stress : 640 MPa
Mass : 133.67 kg Mass : 133.45 kg
Future Work: Include dynamic effects
Basic FEM-model Radioss
FEMFAT
Adapted
FEM-model
HyperStudy
yes Convergence no
New design
criteria reached
Basic FEM-model Radioss
Motionsolve
Adapted
FEM-model
FEMFAT
Enhanced
Optimization Loop
HyperStudy
yes Convergence no
New design criteria reached
Summary and Conclusions
Topology optimization reduced the torsion link weight by 27.0%.
Shape optimization reduced stresses from 294 ksi to 120 ksi.
Size optimization meet the MBD system requirements in 19 analysis.
Simulation Driven Design Process is critical to

“achieve the best design faster”.
Stress based optimization improved fatigue results by 9%, fatigue based

optimization improved by 13% for a static loading.
Optimizing fatigue-sensitive parts using stress-based

formulation may not improve fatigue life as much and in some
cases it may be misleading.

Multi Disciplinary Optimization of An Aircraft Landing Gear PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi Disciplinary Optimization of An Aircraft Landing Gear PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization

Aircraft Landing Gear Description

Aircraft Landing Gear Optimization

Landing gear design considers an aircraft landing event and a

In the landing event, energy of the descending aircraft must be

Taxiing event is simulated as two discrete events: braking and

Initial tire spin-up equivalent to 150mph (

Lift = Weight on each gear = Half of the

Constant sink velocity

Find the “damping coefficient profile”

• Landing condition do not generate critical stress

• Components are steel and titanium

Optimize torsion links and lugs

Solver neutral design of

Solution converged in 19 iterations Baseline dynamic load curve is optimized such

Nonlinear Gaps + Bars used in lugs to capture proper

Free Shape and

Size and Shape Optimization

Freeshape variable for fillet

Objective: Minimize Mass

Equivalent Static Load Method (ESLM) Baseline configuration

Time Step t0 t1 t2 … tn time

Load set feq0 feq1 feq2 … feqn

subcase sub0 sub1 sub2 … subn

Why not Just Optimizing Stresses to Improve Fatigue Life?

Stress-Based Optimization Process

Fatigue-Based Optimization Process

Design / Shape Variable

Minimize stress values

Objective function history Design variable history

Method: Adaptive Response Surface method (HyperOpt)

Max v. Mises Stress: 762 MPA Min Safety Factor:0.44

Max v. Mises Stress: 653 MPa Min Safety Factor:0.48

Maximize safety factor

Objective function history Design variable history

Method: Adaptive Response Surface method (HyperOpt)

Safety Factor: 0.44

v. Mises Stress: 640 MPa Safety Factor: 0.5

Stress based Fatigue based

Safety Factor : 0.48 + 9% Safety factor : 0.5 + 13%

Basic FEM-model Radioss

Simulation Driven Design Process is critical to

Stress based optimization improved fatigue results by 9%, fatigue based

Optimizing fatigue-sensitive parts using stress-based

You might also like