Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

10 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Adb Tech Corner Torqueforboltedconnections 31oct2014
- Szavits-Nossan, A., 2008 - Advances and Uncertainties in the Design of Anchored Retaining Walls
- Stud Cat
- Casing Failure Due to Production
- A Methodology for Practical Cutting Force Evaluation
- rezultat
- Metallurgy & Welding
- 5193 hy-150
- As Me
- 1c33e40a-b06b-41b5-b9fe-42002d5cdeb0
- Gp 7 Business Proposal
- SDI - Composite Steel Floor Deck-Slabs C-2017
- jjj
- ETA Noncracked and Crack Concrete
- Hsc in As5100
- Crack
- Strata Control Exam Questions
- Recap 03 Design Criteria
- 9-1239
- 201404_datasheet-dualphase

You are on page 1of 21

Stephanie C. Thompson, Hannah Muchnick, Hae-Jin Choi,

David McDowell

G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia

Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA

G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia

Institute of Technology, Savannah, GA

and Optimization Conference, Portsmouth, Virginia

September 7, 2006

Systems

Realization

1

Laboratory

Outline

Selection

• Solution Finding Method: cDSP

• Example Problem: BRP design

– Robust Design

– BRP Deflection Modeling

– Problem Formulation

– Design Scenarios

– Results and Analysis

• Closing

Systems

Realization

2

Laboratory

Motivation

Material Selection Robust Design

• Designs are limited by the • Improving product quality by

finite set of available reducing sensitivity to uncertain

materials factors

– Noise factors

Material Design – Uncertain control factors

• Tailoring the properties of – Model uncertainty

materials to meet product • Robust design techniques

performance goals can be used to find design

• Complex multiscale material solutions that reduce

models are needed, but they sensitivity to uncertainty in

increase design complexity material properties, thus

• Designers need a method for leaving design freedom for

choosing between material material design or selection

design and material selection

• Use robust design techniques to design a blast resistant panel

that is robust to uncertainty in material properties and loading

conditions

Systems

Realization

3

Laboratory

The Compromise Decision Support

Problem

• A general framework for

solving multi-objective

non-linear, optimization

problems

– Given

– Find

– Satisfy

– Minimize

• Hybrid formulation

based on Mathematical

Programming and Goal

Programming

Mistree, F., Smith, and Bras, B. A., "A Decision Based Approach to Concurrent Engineering," Handbook of Concurrent Engineering, edited by

H.R. Paresai and W. Sullivan, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993, pp. 127-158.

Mistree, F., Hughes, O. F., and Bras, B. A., "The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm,"

Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, edited by M.P. Kamat, AIAA, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 247-286. Systems

Realization

4

Laboratory

Example Problem: Blast Resistant

Panels (BRPs)

plastic deformation (crushing) of the core layer

• Three layer metal sandwich panel with a square honeycomb

core

while meeting mass and failure constraints

• Robustness : minimize variance of deflection of the back

face sheet due to variation in noise factors

Fleck, N.A. and V.S. Deshpande, 2004, "The Resistance of Clamped Sandwich Beams to Shock Loading". Journal of

Applied Mechanics, Vol. 71, p. 386-401.

Systems

Realization

5

Laboratory

Designing a Robust Solution

Noise Factors

blast load, the BRP should be robust to

uncertainty in t0 and p0.

In order to maintain design freedom in the

to uncertainty in yield strength and density of

each layer.

p0, t0

σY,f, ρf, σY,c, ρc, σY,b, ρb

Systems

Realization

6

Laboratory

Predicting Panel Deflection:

Three-Stage Deformation

The BRP energy absorption and deformation is divided into 3 Stages:

– 0 ~ 0.1ms

– Impulse encounters top face sheet

– 0.1 ~ 0.4 ms

– Impulse energy is dissipated as the matrix

of the core crushes and deforms

– 0.4 ~ 25 ms

– All remaining impulse energy is dissipated

as the back face sheet stretches and bends

Fleck, N.A. and Deshpande, V.S., 2004, "The Resistance of Clamped Sandwich Beams to Shock Loading".

Journal of Applied Mechanics. 71: p. 386-401. Systems 7

Realization

Laboratory

Predicting Panel Deflection

Nomenclature:

front face sheet ρc = density of core

Total kinetic energy/area at end of Stage I: ρ b = density of back face sheet

p0 = peak pressure of impulse load

2 p02t02

KEI =

( ρ f σY , f ) t0 = characteristic time of impulse load

δ/L = deflection per length of back face sheet

Stage II: Core crushing dissipates some energy σy,f, = yield strength of front face sheet

Total kinetic energy / σy,c, = yield strength of core material

area at end of Stage II:

σy,b, = yield strength of back face sheet

2 2

2p t

KEII = 0 0 hf = front face sheet thickness

(ρ σ f Y, f + ρ c Rcσ Y ,c + ρbσ Y ,b ) hb = back face sheet thickness

H = core thickness

Crushing strain:

2 p02t02 ( ρbσ Y ,b + ρc Rcσ Y ,c ) hc = core cell wall thickness

εc =

λc Rcσ Y ,c H ρ f σ Y , f ( ρ f σ Y , f + ρbσ Y ,b + ρc Rcσ Y ,c ) Rc = relative density of core

λs = core stretching strength factor

Xue, Z. and Hutchinson, J.W., 2005, "Metal sandwich plates optimized for

pressure impulses". International Journal of Mechanical Sciences. 47: p. λc = core crushing strength factor

545–569. Systems

Realization

8

Laboratory

Predicting Panel Deflection

Stage III: Remaining energy is dissipated through bending and

stretching of back face sheet

Plastic work/area in Stage III dissipates the kinetic energy/area

remaining at the end of Stage II:

2

δ H δ

W P

III

2

3

[

= σ Y , f h f + σ Y ,c Rc Hλ S + σ Y ,b hb ] + 4σ Y ,b hb

L L L

Equate plastic work/area dissipated in Stage III to the kinetic energy

remaining after Stage II to solve for the deflection of the back face sheet

WIIIP = KE I − KE II

Xue, Z. and Hutchinson, J.W., 2005, "Metal sandwich plates optimized for pressure impulses". International Journal of

Mechanical Sciences. 47: p. 545–569. Systems

Realization

9

Laboratory

Predicting Panel Deflection

Deflection Equation:

2 1

3 I 2

0 σ Y , f h f + σ Y , c Rc H λS + σ Y ,b hb

−3 (σ Y ,b hb H ) ± 9σ Y ,b hb H 2 +

2 2

L ( ρ f h f + ρc Rc H + ρb hb )

δ=

(

σ Y , f h f + σ Y ,c Rc H λS + σ Y ,b hb )

2 I 02 ( ρb hb + ρc Rc H )

where H = H (1 − ε c ) = H −

λc Rcσ Y ,c ρ f h f ( ρ f h f + ρb hb + ρc Rc H )

Variance of Deflection:

∂δ ∂δ ∂δ ∂δ ∂δ ∂δ ∂δ ∂δ

∆δ = ∆σ Y ,b + ∆σ Y ,c + ∆σ Y , f + ∆ρb + ∆ρ c + ∆ρ f + ∆p0 + ∆t 0

∂σ Y ,b ∂σ Y ,c ∂σ Y , f ∂ρ b ∂ρ c ∂ρ f ∂p0 ∂t0

Systems

Realization

10

Laboratory

Compromise DSP (cDSP)

Given Satisfy

A feasible alternative: 3 layer sandwich Constraints:

core panel with square honeycomb core • mass/area less than 100 kg/m2

• deflection less than 10% of span, relative

Assumptions: density greater than 0.07 to avoid buckling

• air blast impulse pressure of exponential • constraints for front face sheet shear-off

form

• blast occurs on the order of 10-4 seconds Bounds: bounds on design variables and

• no strain hardening deviation variables

Parameters: area of panel, geometric Goals:

constants for analysis, mean and • minimize deflection of back face sheet

variance of noise factors • minimize variance of deflection of back

face sheet

Find

Design variables: Minimize

• material density

• yield strength Weighted sum of the deviation

• layer thicknesses variables

• cell wall thickness • Scenario 1: Minimize deflection only

• cell spacing • Scenario 2: Minimize variance of

deflection only

Deviation variables: underachievement of • Scenario 3: Equal priority on both goals

goals

Systems

Realization

11

Laboratory

Design Variables and Bounds

Certain Design Variables

Lower Upper

Bound Bound Units

hf 0.001 0.025 m

p(t)

hb 0.001 0.025 m

H 0.001 0.02 m

hc 0.0001 0.01 m

B 0.005 0.05 m hf

Uncertain Design Variables

Lower Upper

Bound Bound H

Units

3 hb

ρf 2000 10000 kg/m

3

ρb 2000 10000 kg/m

5 hc

ρc 2000 10000 kg/m

σ Y,f 100 1100 MPa

σ Y,b 100 1100 MPa B

σ Y,c 100 1100 MPa

Noise Factors

Mean Variance Units

p0 25 3.75 MPa

to 0.0001 0.000015 seconds

Systems

Realization

12

Laboratory

Design Constraints

Designer / Customer Requirements:

• Mass per Area – Less than 100 kg/m2

• Back Face Sheet Deflection – Less than 10% of Length (10cm)

• Relative Density of Honeycomb Core – Greater than 0.07 to avoid buckling

• Front Face Sheet Shearing – Must not fail in shear

– At clamped ends

– At the core webs

• Uncertain Material Properties – Must remain in bounds

are imposed as “robust” constraints; i.e. the worst case value including the

variation due to uncertain factors is used to evaluate the constraint

Systems

Realization

13

Laboratory

Goals and Scenarios

Deviation Variables: di-, di+ Scenario 1: Optimizing

• Measure the deviation from

the goal • W1 = 1 All priority on

• As we minimize the • W2 = 0 deflection goal; none

deviation variables, we on robust goal

approach the targets

Goal 1: Minimize Deflection Scenario 2: Stabilizing

Tδ / δ + d1− − d1+ = 1 • W1 = 0 All priority on

Tδ = 0.05 m • W2 = 1 robust goal; none

on deflection goal

Goal 2: Minimize Variance of

Deflection

T∆δ / ∆δ + d 2− − d 2+ = 1 Scenario 3: Robust

• W2 = 0.5 both goals

Deviation Function:

Z = W1 ⋅ d1− + W2 ⋅ d 2−

Systems

Realization

14

Laboratory

Verifying the cDSP Results

Constraint Bounds Starting Point

Units Type Lower Upper Lower Mid Upper

BRP Dimensions

Cell Spacing, B mm between 1 20 20 20 20

Core Height, H mm between 5 50 15.767 14.4633 13.035

Cell Wall Thickness, h c mm between 0.1 10 2.2925 3.9364 6.2386

Front Face Sheet Thickness, h f mm between 1 25 13.443 8.3285 6.5977

Back Face Sheet Thickness, h b mm between 1 25 21.611 25 25

Worst Case Material Properties

Yield Strength, Back MPa between 100 1100 1100 1100 1100

Yield Strength, Core MPa between 100 1100 1100 1100 1100

Yield Strength, Front MPa between 100 1100 1100 1100 1100

3

Density, Back kg/m between 2000 10000 2000 2000 2000

3

Density, Core kg/m between 2000 10000 2000 2000 2000

3

Density, Front kg/m between 2000 10000 2000 2000 2000

Worst Case Constraint Analysis

2

Mass kg/m at most 100 100 100 100

Deflection m at most 0.100 0.0905 0.0912 0.0929

Relative Density of the Core no unit at least 0.070 0.2161 0.3549 0.5266

Mu no unit at most 2.309 0.2535 0.6163 1.0403

Gamma no unit at most 0.600 0.1969 0.3178 0.4012

Systems

Realization

15

Laboratory

Verifying the cDSP Results

0.9

Lower

0.8

Mid

0.7 Upper

Deviation Function Value

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Iteration

Systems

Realization

16

Laboratory

Comparing the Scenarios:

What is a Robust Solution?

0.1000

0.0800

Deflection (m)

0.0600

0.0400

Nominal Deflection

0.0000

Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3:

Optimizing Stabilizing Robust

Systems

Realization

17

Laboratory

Investigating the Need for New

Materials

All the solutions tend towards higher yield strengths and lower

densities Yield Strength (MPa)

3

Density (kg/m )

Back Core Front Back Core Front

Scenario 1: Optimizing 1075.00 1075.00 1075.00 2200.00 2200.00 2200.00

Scenario 2: Stabilizing 1075.00 1062.02 823.53 2434.23 3142.39 2200.00

Scenario 3: Robust 1075.00 1075.00 1075.00 2200.00 2200.00 2200.00

Since there are no materials that have properties that satisfy these

ranges of material properties, a material must be designed or

problem formulation must be reevaluated

3

Yield Strength (MPa) Density (kg/m )

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Back 1050 1100 2000 2400

Core 1050 1100 2000 2400

Front 1050 1100 2000 2400

Common 1050 1100 2000 2400

Systems

Realization

18

Laboratory

Investigating the Impact of the Mass

Constraint

Robust solutions were found for three values of the mass constraint

3

Mass per Area Yield Strength (MPa) Density (kg/m )

Constraint Back Core Front Back Core Front

85 1073.29 676.56 1074.80 2226.94 2586.78 2211.02

100 1075.00 1075.00 1075.00 2200.00 2200.00 2200.00

115 1075.00 1075.00 1075.00 2200.00 2200.00 2200.00

Constraint Back Core Front B hc

85 24.427 44.594 4.406 14.898 0.531

100 25.000 14.463 8.329 20.000 3.936

115 25.000 13.406 14.318 20.000 4.081

Mass per Area Constraint Deflection (m) Variance of Deflection (m) Total (m)

85 0.0856 0.0139 0.0995

100 0.0661 0.0251 0.0912

115 0.0570 0.0221 0.0791

Systems

Realization

19

Laboratory

Closure

blast resistant panel that is robust to uncertainty in

loading conditions and material properties.

minimizing deflection and minimizing the variance of

deflection.

optimizing, stabilizing, and robust solutions.

three values of the constraint.

Systems

Realization

20

Laboratory

Acknowledgments

Graduate Research Fellowships from the National Science Foundation.

Financial support from AFOSR MURI (1606U81) is also gratefully

acknowledged.

Systems

Realization

21

Laboratory

- Szavits-Nossan, A., 2008 - Advances and Uncertainties in the Design of Anchored Retaining WallsUploaded bybusyspider
- Stud CatUploaded byJames Clayton
- Casing Failure Due to ProductionUploaded bySLACKENGINEER
- Metallurgy & WeldingUploaded byVe Doua
- Adb Tech Corner Torqueforboltedconnections 31oct2014Uploaded byChoudhry Walid
- A Methodology for Practical Cutting Force EvaluationUploaded byNguyen Que
- 5193 hy-150Uploaded bym58foot
- As MeUploaded byGivemedk
- rezultatUploaded byPop Polly
- 1c33e40a-b06b-41b5-b9fe-42002d5cdeb0Uploaded bycklcon
- Gp 7 Business ProposalUploaded byDaniel Wong
- SDI - Composite Steel Floor Deck-Slabs C-2017Uploaded byBenhja
- jjjUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- ETA Noncracked and Crack ConcreteUploaded byDonald Hamilton
- Hsc in As5100Uploaded byMahbub Alam
- CrackUploaded bysunil reddy
- Strata Control Exam QuestionsUploaded byMartin January
- Recap 03 Design CriteriaUploaded bysandi123in
- 9-1239Uploaded byAbdul Aziz
- 201404_datasheet-dualphaseUploaded bydelta lab sangli
- A Comparative Study on Force Based Design and Direct Displacement Based Design of Reinforced Concrete FrameUploaded bysa
- Steel as Material of Bridge 3Uploaded byOwen Kudzanai Mabumbo
- Drilling Rate Prediction (2)Uploaded byGILMAR
- In-situ Residual Stress Reduction, Martensitic Decomposition and Mechanical Properties Enhancement Through High Temperature Powder Bed Pre-heating of Selective Laser Melted Ti6Al4VUploaded byHaider Ali
- TriangleUploaded byBiprajit Saha
- Full Text 01Uploaded byErik Wahyu Pradana
- rp-f101_2010-10Uploaded byAladdin Gachanja Hassan
- 00001076Uploaded byShahrukh Raza
- aaaxczbewsgbsUploaded byAbed Al RhMan NaSsar
- Caz de analiza in AnsysUploaded bysima

- Csfb and SmsosgsUploaded bynaleen buddhika
- COLORIMETRO HUNTERLAB Measuring Plastic Pellets Colorflex EzUploaded byEdinsonPalaciosGarcés
- White Paper 01 of 2012-International Grey TrafficUploaded byM Imran Alee
- MetaStorm Paris Guide ExerciseUploaded byVijay Manohar
- Results of a Detailed Gravity Survey in the Alamosa Area, Alamosa County, Colorado 6979261Uploaded byRobert Gates
- Low-vibration angle grindersUploaded byIjsrnet Editorial
- MAC Presentation - TokenizationUploaded bySratix
- Oracle OBIEE Tuning GuideUploaded byali01966
- 331539165-Astm-e1220.pdfUploaded bygaurav522chd
- D204.pdfUploaded byprateek
- OMTUploaded byEhsan Rohani
- Formatting CitationsUploaded byabhijeet7362
- Jmeter TutorialUploaded bysanthoshjsh409
- Cloud SBAC PAD2009 TutorialUploaded bysubramanyam62
- Solution ManualUploaded byAnonymous gZxj89
- Lab 2: Split ratio and distillation columnUploaded byHikaru Moka
- ABCs of Z_OS System Programming_ VoUploaded byAsim Javed
- FastIron 07202r ReleaseNotesUploaded byAnonymous BeIblLaI
- 18Siemens_mccbUploaded bySolid
- Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures, MIL-HDBK-5Uploaded bypozolab
- Classical CryptoUploaded byPhạm Văn Hưng
- Merkert Smart Cards and Bio MetricsUploaded bysmillysam
- 0417_w10_ms_11Uploaded bysimplesaied
- HW2Uploaded byMara Alyssa Cunanan Dalisay
- Juniper Simulator With Designer for JNCIAUploaded byGokool Kamal
- Paramax GearboxUploaded byWan Shafiq
- PT4115-89EUploaded byAnonymous aDAfzv
- Acpi LinuxUploaded byido2003
- BITE-LOK Tube fittings.pdfUploaded byQUYEN TRAN
- 2005 Yamaha Waverunner FX High Output Operator manualUploaded byGerman de los Heros