modern trends in airframe structural design komarov
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
1/32
1
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Modern Trends in AirframeStructural Design
Professor Komarov V.A.Director of Institute AVIKON
Of Samara State Aerospace University
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
2/32
2
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Plan of the presentation
1. General view on the modern structuraldesign problems.
2. New ideas for improving design process.3. The example of using a new ideas for research aerodynamic and weight
efficiency of morphing wing.
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
3/32
3
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Airframe design process
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
4/32
4
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Time and resource expediture
The main reason of greater charges of time and resources in sequential designparadigme is use very simple, (insufficiently exact) mathematical models on earlystage of design.
For reduction of designing time it is suitable use of highly accuracy mathematical modelson early stage design.
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
5/32
5
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
New paradigm for Airframe Structure Design
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
6/32
6
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
The problem of weight estimation in structuraldesign
1. Choice of structure topology (skeleton design).2. Estimation of structural mass fraction.3. Weight estimation of the wing, fuselage, etc.4. Weight check.
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
7/32
7
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Choice of structure topology
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
8/32
8
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Estimation of structural mass fraction
Definition of flight vehicles takeoff grossweight via equation of existence
where
pp f sys st
pl o mmmm
mm = 1
st st
o
mm
m=
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
9/32
9
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Example of calculation a wing mass fractionvia weight equation
Typical weight equation (Eger)
( )015,0
5,431
114
cos10
7
0
32
5,175,000
4
01st ++
+
++
= p
k k
c p
mnk m p
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,30,35
0,4 st mm o = 270 000 kgm o = 685 000 kg
M
e l v i l l
L i p t r o t e
F a r r e n
T a y e
D e n t
K o z l o v s k y
D r i g g s
B a d y a g i n
R a y m e r
E g e r
P a t t e r s s o n
T o r e n b e e k
S h e j n i n
A v e r a g e
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
10/32
10
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Weight Check
1. Definition of the weight limits for different part of structure before design.
2. Analyses of weight penalty after design (if necessary).Looking for decrease of structural mass.
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
11/32
11
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Unconventional flight vehiclesMorphing Wing from TUDelft
?= st m ??= st m(http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=fd5540a7-0cfe-44e5-b1bc-c806fa0410b8&lang=en )
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
12/32
12
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
New ideas for improving design process
1st
idea. Load-carrying factor Frame
Thin-wall structure
3D-structure
=
=n
iii l N G
1
=
=n
iii S RG
1
=V
eqv dV G
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
13/32
13
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Definition of structural mass viaload-carrying factor
Theoretical structural material volume
Real mass of structure
or
G take into account topology, geometry and external loads specific durability of material
coefficient of full-mass structure, (it depends on design andtechnology perfect)
G-criteria allows to calculate absolutely mass of unconventionalstructure with high accuracy
[ ] in
iii
n
i
iT l F l V ==
== 11
N
[ ] G
V m T st == G
m st =
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
14/32
14
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
2nd idea. Size less criteria of load carryingperfection of structure
Load-carrying factor is proportional to the linear sizes (coordinates of nodals) of structure andvalue of nodal forces (at retaining of the law of distribution of external loading) dimensional quantity
Sizeless criteria coefficient of load carryingfactor
where P- specific load L- specific size
whence ( aerodynamic analogy : )
P GC K
=
PLC G K = qS C Y y=
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
15/32
15
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Example of simple structures
C K = 2,00
l
a
c
b
d
a P
l
C K = 3,41a P
b
d
a
c
h
C K = 10,00
l
a P
b a
l
b a a P
C K = 1,00
a) c)
b )
d )
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
16/32
16
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
New weight equation for definition of full wingmass and wing mass fraction
Specific size square of wing in degree -Specific load lift
whence
Weight equation :
S
S g mnC G o K =
**
*
S g mn
GC
o* K
=
g mnY = 0
S g nC m K wing = S g mnC m o K wing =
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
17/32
17
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Example of structural topology choice
3,563,032,682,832,752,692,553
1,981,891,831,811,781,761,682
2,071,941,841,711,701,681,621
= 0,4 = 0,5 = 0,6 = 0,4 = 0,5 = 0,6
Strategy IIStrategy I
Panel structures
Membranestructures
Wing
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
18/32
18
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Example of morphing wingaerodynamic and weight efficiency research
Grant CRDF: REO-1386
2 4
1
4
c t i p = 3
c
r o o
t
= 4
2 12
b /2 = 20
Axis of symmetry
6
2 4
2 . 1
9 3 5
4 . 3
8 7
2 . 3
8 7
4 . 7
7 4
Wing 1a
Wing 1b
Wing 2a
Wing 2b
Wing 3a
Wing 3b
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
19/32
19
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Scheme of wing parts joints
2
Inner wing
Beam Outer wing
Rolls
Fuselage joints1
Rigid connection3
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
20/32
20
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
3 rd idea. Using 3D-model with variable density
Model
Traditional material
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
21/32
21
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
.Hypothetic material with variable density
Algorithm of density distribution optimization
[ ]
0
01
1.
2.
3.
i
i
eqvi
i
const
=
=
[ ] [ ] E E
=
=
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
22/32
22
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Test
3D-model of the wing structure p
8-layers of 3D-solid finite elementsBoundary conditionsof console
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
23/32
23
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Comparison of load-carrying factor coefficientcalculations for thin-wall structure and 3D-solid model
with variable density
22.50 22.34 22.23 22.16 22.1122.7523.1423.81
25.05
28.10
19.58
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Iteration n
C K
solid (8 layers)
Aspe ct ra tio b /c = 8
w ing box
41.15 40.83 40.61 40.45 40.3541.6342.41
43.7346.11
51.74
35.56
3436384042444648
5052
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Iteration n
C K
s olid (8 laye rs )
Aspec t ratio b /c = 12
w ing box
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
24/32
24
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Wind tunnel model 1
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
25/32
25
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Wind tunnel model 2with pressure of orifices
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
26/32
26
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Spanwise load distributions
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
27/32
27
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
3D-model with variable density of material
X
Y
Z
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
28/32
28
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
External loads
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
29/32
29
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Comparison of weight perfection
0,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1
Morph
Trap
Morph for uniform loa d dis tribution
t c
C K
d i m e n s
i o n
l e s s e q v
i v a l e n
t o
f w
i n g w e i g
h
ge om e trica l pa ra m e te r of te le s cope wing
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
30/32
30
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Comparison maximum aerodynamic efficiency
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Morph
Trap
L/D max
t c
m a x
i m u m
a e r o
d y n a m
i c e
f f i c i e n c
geome trica l parame ter of teles cope wing
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
31/32
31
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Pressurized cabin, pressure vesselSpecific volume volume - VSpecific load pressure P
Some results for reservoirs:
Spherical
Cylindrical
Spherical from CM
Cylindrical from CM
V P G
C K
=
23=
K C
3= K C
3= K C
3= K C
-
7/31/2019 Modern Trends in Airframe Structural Design Komarov
32/32
32
EWADE 2007 Komarov V.A.
Conclusion
Load-carrying factor allows :
1. To put in according to load-carrying scheme(topology of structure) the certain dimensionlessvalue which defines weight perfection of a design.
2. To build "weight" formulas for any designs.3. To accumulate the knowledge in convenient form(dimensionless!) for analysis of existing andperspective designs.
There are 3 new ideas in the lecture, which can be usefulto increase efficiency of early stage design.
K C