AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013. 1 MY METALLIC DESIGN CAPABILITY MAINTENANCE STUDIES. By Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc. 2012 to Date.
Aug 14, 2015
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
1
MY METALLIC DESIGN CAPABILITY MAINTENANCE STUDIES.
By Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc. 2012 to Date.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
This is presentation gives examples of metallic airframe design work I have undertaken on my own
initiative to maintain my capabilities with the Catia V5.R20 toolset in addition to Workbooks 1 and 2,
and my current AIAA design study. The descriptive work contained herein is based Cranfield
University MSc and University of Portsmouth MSc academic studies Cranfield Aerospace design
standards, my FATA technology research project INCAT training, EASA CS 25-571 and referenced
texts.
2
MY METALLIC DESIGN CAPABILITY MAINTENANCE STUDIES.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Section 1:- Design Guides For Machined Parts:
Section 2:- My CATIA V5.R20 Design Capability Machined Part Examples (Methodology: FDT:
and 2D drawing development).
Section 3:- My CATIA V5.R20 Design Examples of Sheet Metal Parts (Methodology and 2D
drawing development).
Section 4:- My CATIA V5.R20 Assembly Design Examples (Methodology).
Section 5:- My CATIA V5.R20 GSA Design Examples (Methodology and SAFESA methods of
error control).
Section 6:- Advanced Metallic Technology.
3
Machined metal, Sheet metal, Assembly design, and Analysis, presentation contents.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The metallic structural components designed for AIAA design project by myself include the wing ribs
which are to be produced as double sided machining's from Aluminium Lithium alloy by 5 axis high
speed machining the machining methods, standards, and design practices (parts shown are
designed by myself), which are applied in all machined component design undertaken to date. The
following sections contain my examples of machined part design, sheet metal design, and metallic
assembly, and FEA worked examples for proficiency practice more examples will be added.
The one of the most effective weight reduction features for the all metallic aircraft wings has been
the adoption of large scale five axis high speed machining of many structural components
previously made by the sheet metal fabrication route, and the use of ruled surfaces, and minimum
fillet radii, and if essential scalloping. This includes integrally machined wing cover skin stringers,
machined spars (with web crack stoppers), and ribs, thus enabling a reduction in fastener weight,
less scope for fatigue cracking propagating from fastener holes, reduced parts count and assembly
costs. Also joining high speed machined components can be achieved with bath tub joints or
integral end tabs without the need for separate cleats and additional fasteners. Other weight
savings have been gained from the application of titanium alloy in place of steels for highly loaded
or high temperature components produced as near net shape forgings, or even in the case of
Super Plastically Formed titanium alloy structures employed as lower wing access port panel
covers, replacing the formally sheet fabricated covers. Titanium is also more compatible than
aluminum when used with composites in that it is not susceptible to galvanic corrosion and has a
compatible coefficient of thermal expansion. Also the adoption of Aluminium Lithium alloys in such
applications as wing ribs with a density saving of 5% over conventional aluminium alloy structures.
4
Design of Machined and sheet metallic components for the design studies.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
1 piece machining
5 piece welded assembly
5
Machining verses Fabrication
Consideration should be given to integrating smaller details into 1 piece machining to reduce
weight parts count and assembly operations as shown below.
Benefits of machining detail :- Only 1 item required to manufacture, hence inventory
reduced: No sub-assembly / welding time: Weight reduction: Better quality: Better
accuracy.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
6
SECTION 1:- DESIGN GUIDES FOR MACHINED PARTS.
X+
Z+
Y+
A
B
X+
Z+
Y+
A
B
Project Metallic wing ribs.
Test Box assembly.
5 Axis Machining.
See references (1) , (2), (3) and (4) for all material in this section.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 1(a) Example of 3 axis machining:-
3 Axis Machining:-
During machining the cutter can move simultaneously
along the X,Y & Z axes. The tool axis orientation is fixed
during machining. Usually used for simple geometries
where missed material is not a major issue.
(This example shows the spiral milling of a shallow
pocket feature on a compound surface).
Figure 1(b) Example of 5 axis machining:
5 Axis Machining:-
During machining the cutter can move along the X, Y &
Z axes and rotate around e.g. the X & Y axes
(designated A & B axes motion) during the machining
cycle. This capability enables the Fanning and Tilting of
the tool during machining for complex deep pockets
where excess material is an issue.
Fig 1 (a/b):- Machining Methods for Metallics applied in the design studies.
X+
Z+
Y+
A
B
Figure 1(b)
X+
Z+
Y+
Figure 1(a)
7
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Design for Manufacture:-
To machine an External Flange surface produced as a
result of splitting the model with a „complex‟ surface is both
time consuming and costly.
Therefore to aid manufacturing, the „complex‟ surface can
be replaced by a „ruled‟ surface provided the Chord Height
Error (CHE) is within the values specified in Design
Standards. (see Figure 2)
Where the CHE value exceeds the specified maximum, the
flange is produced by splitting the model with a „faceted‟
surface. (see Figure 3).
A bespoke „Flange‟ application will be available in the near
future to automate the creation of the „Faceted Ruled
Surface‟. As this was not available at the time of writing, the
exercise accompanying the course requires manual
generation of this geometry
External Flanges produced by complex surfaces are
permissible, but should only be used in extreme cases and
in agreement with manufacturing due excessive machining
costs
Fig 2 /3:- Machined Metallics:- Chord Height Error applied for design studies.
Figure 2 Figure 3
CHE
Preferred Non-Preferred
8
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Design for Manufacture:-
In Figure 4 the area shaded in Black indicates the 5
Axis Landing, and is the remaining material following
machining of the internal face of the closed angle
flange, and represents the difference between the „as
designed‟ and „as manufactured‟ part.
In such cases, it is a mandatory requirement for
allowances to be made for the loss of fastener seating
area.
The remaining material can be further reduced by
additional machining.
The area shown in Black in Figure 5 represents the
preferred condition of 5 axis landings following
machining.
Figure 4
Figure 5 Preferred
Fig 4/5:- Machined Metallics :- 5 axis landings applied in the design studies.
9
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 6:-Fillet and Corner Radius.
Fillets used in the design studies.
Standard fillet radius : 4.0 mm
Non-Standard : 2.5 mm, 0.5 mm, 6.0 mm, 8.0 mm & 12.5 mm
Imperial Size : 3.0 mm (1/8”) used on US projects.
Fillets less than 3.0 mm must be evaluated by stress and fatigue
analysis
Fillet Corner Radius
Cutter Radius
Cutter Fillet
10
Corner Radius
Standard corner radius are produced : cutter radius + 0.5mm
(minimum)
Standard Cutters Generated Radius(mm) Generated Radius(inch)
9.00
12.0
16.0
20.0
25.0
32.0
50.0
5.00
6.50
8.50
10.5
13.0
16.5
25.5
0.21
0.27
0.33
0.41
0.52
0.65
1.00
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Corner radius
Flange height
11
Figure 7:-Flange Height and Corner Radius Ratio.
Corner Radius Cutter Dia Flange Height (4xd)
– 5.0 9.0 36.0
– 6.5 12.0 48.0
– 8.5 16.0 64.0
– 10.5 20.0 80.0
– 13.0 25.0 100.0
– 16.5 32.0 138.0
Avoid using long cutters by working to a maximum 4 x cutter diameter:
Any flange height more than 4xd must be discussed with Machining rep:
Long cutters cause, bad finish, reduce tool life, increased cost and manufacture (slower, speeds,
feeds and smaller depth of cuts).
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
12
Figure 8:- Split Corner Radius maintains flange height /corner radius ratio.
Smaller corner radius to maintain standard flange height & corner radius ratio
A split corner radius can be used to fulfil tighter fastener spacing & maintain flange height
and corner radius ratio
A minimum of 1.5 mm clearance from fastener to corner radius is required
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
13
Figure 9:- Flange & Stiffener thickness / height ratio.
Thickness
Flange
Height
Free standing
flange 1:10
Supported
flange / stiffener
1:25 Aluminium
1:20 Titanium
Aluminium 1:25 (Supported) Steel / Titanium 1:20 (Supported)
Thickness Flange Height Thickness Flange Height
1.0 25.0 1.0 20
1.5 37.5 1.5 30
2.0 50.0 2.0 40
2.5 62.5 2.5 50
3.0 75.0 3.0 60
Minimum flange / stiffener thickness are constantly being challenged by design to reduce weight.
Minimum thickness on Aluminium : 1.0 mm up to flange / stiffener height of 25 mm (Supported)
Minimum thickness on Titanium & Steel : 1.5 mm up to flange / stiffener height of 20 mm (Supported)
Avoid free standing flanges due to buckling as the ratio goes to 1:10 (Stress raiser).
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
14
Minimum web thickness are constantly being challenged by design to reduce weight.
Improved cutter technology and new manufacturing methods will all contribute to reduce web thickness.
It is difficult to identify generic sizes but current guidelines are listed below ;
Figure 10:- Web Thickness (Bases).
Aluminium Steel / Titanium
Supported bases up to 250 mm x 250 mm envelope 1.0 mm 1.2 mm
Unsupported bases up to 150 mm x 150 mm envelope 1.2 mm 1.5 mm
Unsupported bases up to 250 mm x 250 mm envelope 1.5 mm 2.0 mm
Tooling lug Tooling lug
Supported
Unsupported
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
15
Figure 11:- Chamfers / Hand finishing and Part marking.
Chamfers
Chamfers to be standard angles where possible (3-axis parts) 30º, 45º, 60º, 75º are common sizes: Dimensions
parallel to the machine datum and not from OML face: Chamfer form is easier to produce than radius form
including multiple chamfers.
Datum Plane Radius form non-preferred Multiple Chamfer
OML
Hand Finishing
Minimise hand finishing requirements, details should have all sharp edges removed ONLY: Blend out scanned
peak heights, cutter mismatches and dwell conditions only if stated: Stress / Fatigue strongly reject hand
finishing due to fatigue life: NB Excessive hand finishing increases the product cost, lead time manufacture and
risk of scrap.
Part Marking
Part marking position & type to be identified on drawing: Part marking to be viewable once details are
assembled: Class 1 parts to be permanently part marked in accordance with specification ( minimum envelope
size 20 x 40): Class 2 & 3 parts to be part marked to a minimum envelope of 20 x 40, all other parts are bag &
label.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
16
• Details parts that are made out of extruded plate, extrusions, and forgings have „Grain Direction‟
identified see figure 12:
• Grain direction is determined by the structures group & shown on 2d drawing:
• If removal of Dead Zones is critical, then a note on the drawing is required:
• If grain direction is not critical then a note is required on the 2d drawing : Grain direction
immaterial or Grain direction control not required for structural purposes.
• Max Material sizes : Material ThicknessLength Width
Aluminium 160 mm 4000 mm 1250 mm
(Thickness in 5mm increments)
Titanium 100 mm 4000 mm 1250 mm
(Thickness in 5mm increments)
• Any components outside these sizes would require a forged billet or forging
• Material has different thickness bands which are defined as „Ruling Section‟ or „Ruling
Dimension‟.
• Each band has different properties, Structures group will determine the „Maximum Ruling
Dimension‟ for each detail.
Grain Direction.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
17
Figure 12:- Grain direction definition.
ST
LT
L
L
LT
LT
ST
ST
ST
Parting Plane
ST Across parting plane.
Figure 12(a) Plate, Strip, and Sheet. Figure 12(b) Extrusion.
Figure 12(c) Forging. Figure 12(d) Grain direction on 2-D drawing.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
18
Figure 13:- Scalloping on Flange top profiles.
Tooling lug Cutter Dia
4 rad
5 mm rad minimum
4 mm flat on flange top
Scallop depth = 1 x
fastener diameter
10 mm flat for 16 Dia Cutter
6 mm flat for 12 Dia Cutter
3 mm flat for 9 Dia Cutter
Scalloping should be avoided at all times, but if scalloping is required, the above manufacturing
options should be used to assist tooling lugs & preferred cutters.
The use of ball end cutters should be avoided, due to bad finish & increase in machining time.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
19
Avoid steps in webs
Keep webs simple to avoid tooling & reduce
machining run time
Figure 14:- Steps in webs and two sided machining features.
0.25mm min
Step condition
Machine pockets stage 1
Machine aperture stage 2
When designing details that require
machining from 2 stages avoid
mismatch / false cut features by
designing a step.
Figure 14(a) Web Steps should be avoided.
Figure 14(b) Web Steps conditions for 2 stage cutting process.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
20
Flange & Stiffener Tops Up to10 deg
Produce flange top parallel to
web up to 10 deg
Over 10 deg
Produce flange top normal to flange over 10 deg to
avoid sharp edge
Avoid sharp edge
Figure 15:- Designing out stress raisers in flanges and stiffeners.
Sharp edge Modify Stiffener end to make normal
Stiffener end
Plan view
Plan view
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
21
Figure 16:- Designing out stress raisers in flange thickness changes.
Non-preferred
1.8 mm 6.0 mm
1:3.3 ratio
Preferred
1.8 mm 2.5 mm 3.8 mm 6.0 mm
Flange & web thickness should be no greater than 1:3
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
22
T Max 0.3 T
Min 2.0 rad
Counterbores
T
0.3 „T‟ min
Countersink
The depth of counterbores should be no greater
than 0.3 times the thickness of the material. Countersink should be no more than
70% Holes to be 1.5 mm away from fillet
Fastener hole to flange edge to be 2 x dia + 1mm
Figure 17:- Stress Raisers:- fasteners and thickness / fillet radius ratios.
Thickness & fillet radii ratios.
t r
h
Radius „r‟ : The lesser of
r = 0.5 t
r = 2 h
t 1 r
h
Radius „r‟ : The lesser of
r = t 1
r = 2 h
t 1 r
t 2
Radius „r‟ : The lesser of
r = t 1
r = t 2
t 2
t 1
Radius „r‟ : The lesser of
r = t 1
r = 0.5 t 2
r
Radius „r‟ : The lesser of
r = 0.5 t 1
r = 0.5 t 2
t 2
t 1
r
Note : where the rule results in a radius of less than 4.0 mm then 4.0 mm will be used.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
2
3
Figure 18:- Designing to avoid KT‟s stress raisers in of machined parts.
KT 1.5 mm min
separation
Corner
rad
Flange
rad
Corner
rad
Flange
rad
Corner rad & Flange rad Non-Preferred Preferred
5-Axis Landing
Fillet Fillet
Corner
rad Corner
rad
KT 1.5 mm min
separation Non-Preferred Preferred
KT
1.5 mm min
separation
External
rad
External
rad
Fillet
Fillet
External rad & Fillet
Non-Preferred Preferred
Stiffener rad & Flange rad
Stiffener
rad
Stiffener
rad
KT
Flange
rad
1.5 mm min
separation
Flange
rad Non-Preferred Preferred
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
24
Figure 19:- Web scalloping stress raisers in an acoustic fatigue area.
Figure 19(a):- Shows the result of a acoustic fatigue on a test box
aluminium spar with scalloped web stiffeners.
Crack failure
at fillet / radii.
Figure 19(b).
Make flange top flat.
Figure 19(c).
Figures 19(b) and 19(c) Scalloping of stiffeners should be
avoided as the cracks start at fillets/radii, so where possible
keep stiffener tops flat.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
25
Surface
Drill H8’ Drill
‘H11’ Ream ‘H7’
Blind hole
Hole normal to
surface
Depth of countersink
Figure 20:- Hole design for manufacture standards.
Standard hole sizes to rationalise existing drill sizes (Check with Cranfield University machining standards):
„H‟ tolerances to be used where possible:
Tooling / jigging holes to be 6mm „H8‟ where possible:
Freeze fit bushed holes to be „H7‟ reamed:
Loctite bushed holes to be clearance holes:
Clearance, fastener, anchor nut etc. holes to be „H11‟:
Holes to be normal to surfaces:
Blind holes to have angle of drill tip on drawing:
Countersinks to be modelled on details or dimensioned on 2d drawing:
Holes that require modelling : 12.5 mm & above: Jigging / Tooling holes: „D‟ shaped holes:
Holes below 12.5 mm to have point & vector.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
26
Figure 21:-ASME 14.5M Geometrical Dimensioning and Tolerancing / F,D&T.
Fig 21(a):-2-D Catia Geometrical Dimensioning & Tolerancing. Fig 21(b):- 3-D Catia Functional Dimensioning & Tolerancing.
Datum axis is created to replicate assembly build philosophy (e.g. datum face & 2 tooling holes )
Identify features & tolerances to be controlled on assembly (e.g. positional tolerances, profile tolerance, flatness
tolerance etc.
Inspect in restrained condition (light finger pressure) unless specified in freestate.
Inspect on a CMM (co-ordinate measuring machine) which has a six degrees of freedom i.e. linear X,Y,Z & rotational X,Y,Z.
Boxed dimensions to 3 decimal points on metric drawings & 4 decimal points on imperial drawings.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
27
SECTION 2:- MY CATIA V5.R20 DESIGN CAPABILITY MACHINED PARTS.
See references (2), (5), and (6) for all methodologies used in this section.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
28
Outside
No Hyperlink
Hyperlink to Task
KEY
Single or
Multi-Use
Part?
Start
Insert Bodies
& Geometrical Sets
Snap data to
Key Diagram
Is part
correctly
positioned in
Production
Assy?
Y
Copy / Paste Special
„As Result‟ required
reference elements
N
Begin Modelling Multi-Use
Single-Use
Copy / Paste Special
A\C axis „As Result‟ in
Production Assembly
Inside or
Outside of
Production
Assy?
Inside
Single or
Multi-Use
Part?
Copy / Paste Special A\C axis „As
Result‟ Outside of Assembly
Single-Use
Multi-Use
Chart 1:- General Model Conditioning Process: Single & Multi-Use Parts
Task 1(a)
Task 1(b) Task 2
Task 3
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 1(a):- Copy / Paste Special „As Result‟ - A\C Axis Outside the Production Assembly
The A\C axis and the part‟s datum axis is copied
into the model outside of the Production
Assembly product structure.
Method:-
1. Begin a new Part:
2. Open the Key Datum part either in it‟s own
window (as illustrated), or its‟ assembly window.
If the latter, the Key Datum part needs to be
„active‟ within the Product Structure:
3. Firstly copy the „REF_A\C‟ axis (naming is project
dependant) in the „Key Datum part‟:
4. Paste the copied axis into the „new part‟ using
the „Paste Special – As Result‟ option:
5. Repeat the process to copy in the new part‟s
„Datum Axis‟ from the Key Datum part
e.g. J/XXX/1 – FRAME DATUM X700:
3
5
4
1 2
5
29
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 1(b):- Copy / Paste Special „As Result‟ - A\C Axis in Production Assembly.
The A\C axis is copied into the model within the
Production Assembly product structure.
Method:-
1. Activate the part containing the reference „A\C
axis‟ (naming is project dependant):
2. MB3 on the „A\C axis‟ and select „Copy‟ in the
contextual menu:
3. Activate the „receiving‟ part for the A\C axis:
2
1
3
30
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 1(b):- Copy / Paste Special „As Result‟ - A\C Axis in Production Assembly.
The A\C axis is copied into the model within the
Production Assembly product structure.
Method:-
4. MB3 on the active „part node‟ and select „Paste
Special‟ in the contextual menu:
5. Select „As Result‟ in the Paste Special window:
6. Click „OK‟ and the „A\C axis‟ is copied into the
receiving part as an „isolated‟ element:
7. Ensure „Absolute Axis System‟ of part is „current‟
e.g. Gold in colour.
If not, MB3 on Absolute Axis System and select
„Set As Current‟ via the contextual menu
4
5
6
7
31
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 2:- Inserting Bodies and Geometrical Sets.
This task is common to both Single and Multi-use
parts and regards the preparation of the part‟s
Specification Tree with respect to the addition of
Geometrical Sets; Reference Geometries;
additional Bodies, etc., to facilitate the modelling
process
Method:-
1. Use the Insert -> Body, and/or Insert ->
Geometrical Set functions to build the model
structure
2. Illustrated is a suggested structure, however the
content may vary depending upon the part type
3. If necessary, you can re-arrange the items
position in the tree using the „Reorder Children‟
function as illustrated
4. Select item(s) to be reordered, then click on the
green arrows to reposition them in the tree until
the required structure is achieved, then click „OK‟
1
2
3
32
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 2:- Inserting Bodies and Geometrical Sets (continued).
Include additional Geometrical Sets and Bodies
to further manage the structure of the data
Method:-
5. Creating a structure within an existing
Geometrical Set enables you to manage various
aspects of the geometry more distinctly
6. You can add additional Bodies in advance, or
during the modelling process
As Geometrical Sets, the Bodies can be re-
ordered into a logical sequence in the structure
Typically as a „rule of thumb‟, adopt the Boolean
method of modelling if the Specification Tree is
likely to exceed 20 features
5
6
33
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Example Specification Tree Structures
34
Machined Part
Generative Sheet
Metal Part
Multi-surface Part
- Option 2
Task 2:- Inserting Bodies and Geometrical Sets (continued).
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 3:- Copy / Paste Special „As Result‟: Reference Elements.
Copy / Paste „As Result‟ the reference element(s)
to be used for the design e.g. Surfaces, Datum
Planes, etc., into the appropriate geometrical set
within the part.
Note: task is not applicable to Multi-Use parts
Method:-
1. Activate the part within the Production Assembly
containing the reference element(s):
2. Locate the e.g. PORT „Master Surfaces‟,
elements within the Specification Tree of the
„reference part‟ and select them:
3. MB3 on any one of the chosen elements and
select „Copy‟ in the contextual menu:
1
2
3
35
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Task 3: Copy / Paste Special „As Result‟: Reference Elements (continued).
Method:-
4. Activate the „receiving‟ part e.g. „FRAME_700‟:
5. Copy / Paste Special „As Result‟, the selected
elements into the relevant geometrical set within
the „receiving‟ model structure:
6. Repeat the process for the STBD „Master
Surfaces‟:
7. Following the pasting of the PORT & STBD
surfaces the content of the geometrical sets is as
illustrated:
The process is repeated until all the required
reference elements are copied into the „receiving‟
part to facilitate its‟ design.
5
4
7
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Cranfield Aerospace Design Standards used throughout the project.
When creating a new part ensure an axis system has been created. If not create one at 0, 0, 0:
Ensure „Part Number‟ attribute and the CATPart filename prefix are the same (based upon project part
naming convention):
Modelling location is dictated by part type and Project Specifications.
Refer to document design standards for specific Model Conditioning rules regarding positioning
of Single and Multi-use parts.
Insert Bodies and Geometrical Sets as required and rename them with short meaningful, descriptive names.
The name can be new, or appended to the system generated name.
More specific model conditioning requirements are outlined below in this presentation for Machined Parts
and Sheet Metal.
37
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The objective of this exercise was to design a fast jet fuselage frame based only on the Outer
Mould Line surface model of the forward fuselage, and the key datum model of the forward
fuselage frame and longeron stations. The modeling exercise followed the stages outlined below to
produce the Frame_X700 model shown in figures 26 and 27 and can be examined at an interview
on my laptop.
Stage 1:- Build the Vehicle Assembly Product Structure: Insert / Position / Condition part
FRAME_X-700.
Stage 2:- Create Stiffener Layout Sketch: Define Stiffener Planes: Remove „FWD_Body‟ from
the base feature.
Stage 3:- Create External Joggle body and „Remove‟.
Stage 4:- Create the FWD Stiffeners figure 22.
Stage 5:- „Remove‟ the Stiffener Caps body: Create and Add „Picture Frame‟ body.
Stage 6:- Create reference sketch for penetrations: Create sketch for Pad Up‟s: Create Pad Up‟s
and Penetration features and outer Joggle.
Stage 7:- Create Fuel Sealing Groove for FWD face each side.
Stage 8:- Apply Fillet radii to Stiffener Walls and „Caps‟.
Stage 9:- Create an additional body containing the part‟s penetrations: The penetrations are
created using the Hole function, and positioned according to the previously created reference
sketch.
Stage 10:- Repeat stages 1-9 for aft side of the frame where appropriate.
38
Capability Maintenance example :- 1 Machined Part – FRAME_X-700
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Reference sketches are used to determine
the layout or positioning of key features of
the design
The example illustrated shows a Stiffener
Layout sketch
The sketch is subsequently used for the
creation of a series of Planes which act as
„sketch supports‟ for the Stiffener Feature
sketches
Application of Reference Sketches to determine key design features.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
In addition, it is also possible to use a
Reference sketches as „symmetry
elements‟ in the definition of other
sketches.
This example shows how a series of
„Pocket‟ profiles could be constrained to the
Reference sketch
If the Reference sketch is modified,
elements referencing the modified
element(s) are repositioned accordingly as
shown in the lower image
Application of Reference Sketches to determine key design features.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
It is permissible to add a geometrical set to
the part Specification Tree specifically for
the management of sketches in order to
locate them readily rather than search
through the tree for them
Note that features created from these
sketches „clone‟ the sketch on which they
are based such that all are highlighted
when anyone one of them are selected
If the sketches in the „PartBody‟ appear as
„shown‟, but are not visible on screen it is
likely that the „SKETCHES‟ geometrical set
is „hidden‟
The Sketch Management process employed in the frame design exercise.
„Cloned‟
Sketches
PartBody sketch „in show‟
but not visible in model
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
As an alternative to using a geometrical set as a
„container‟ for all sketches, you could consider
using them only for Reference sketches
Sketches in the tree, at any level, can be
presented to you more logically than in a
geometrical set by using the menu function Tools
-> Parameterization Analysis
By selecting on in the window, the location of
the „original‟ sketches in the Specification Tree
are shown – „clones‟ are not shown
A further benefit of the function, in terms of sketch
management, is the capability to also identify
sketches in a variety of „solving states‟ e.g. under
or over-constrained, etc.
Further uses could also be to:
- verify if other issues exist within the model
- simplify the presentation of Specification
Tree entities e.g. Bodies
- display only „Knowledge‟ entities
The Sketch Management process employed in the frame design exercise.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
As the design task progresses, the content
of the geometrical sets increases,
sometimes to the point where identifying
relevant geometry is problematic due to the
quantity of elements
Typically elements used to construct other
geometry are only likely to need to be
modified occasionally, if at all
The „Group‟ function can „package‟ away
such elements, yet they remain accessible
for modification when / if required
In this example the only elements to be
visible in the „tree‟ are the two which are
currently „shown‟
Note the difference between the „tree‟
length of the geometrical set and the
„Group‟, and then consider how many other
elements in other geometrical sets could
be managed in the same way?
Geometrical Sets – „Group‟ Function employed in the frame design exercise.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
To Create or Manipulate a „Group‟
MB3 on geometrical set & select „Create
Group‟ via contextual menu
Select required „Inputs‟ – the elements to
remain visible in the specification tree
Click „OK‟ to create the „Group‟
MB3 on Group and select either to
(a) expand the content to e.g. modify an
element
(b) edit the „Input‟ list
(c) remove the group and revert back to a
geometrical set
Select „Collapse Group‟ to „repackage‟
elements
1
2
3
4
4b
4c
4a
5
Geometrical Sets – „Group‟ Function employed in the frame design exercise.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
FWD Side Features:-
Figure 22:- Capability Maintenance example 1 Machined Part – FRAME_X-700
Penetrations
Stiffeners
„Picture Frame‟
Pad Up
Pocket Base &
System Pad
Up‟s
Internal \ External
Joggles
Groove (Fuel Sealing)
- One Each Side
Stiffener
Caps
45
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
This is a double sided 5 axis machining and the complete frame was modelled as shown
starting with outer mould line (OML) surfaces.
FWD Side AFT Side
Figure 23:- Capability Maintenance example 1 Machined Part – FRAME_X-700
46
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
47
Figure 24:- Key datum model for Machined FRAME_700 design position data.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
48
Figure 25:- Master OML surface geometry for Machined FRAME_700 design.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 26:- Example of my Catia V5.20 Frame X-700 Fwd face from OML surfaces.
49
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
50
Figure 27:- Example of my Catia V5.20 Frame X-700 Aft face from OML surfaces.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 28:- Example of my Catia V5.20 Frame X-700 Aft face with FDT applied.
51
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
52
Figure 29:- Example of my Catia V5.20 metallic design of undercarriage component.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 30:- My Catia V5.20 preliminary metallic design FATA Al/Li Rib 12.
53
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Chart 2:- Drafting of Machined Parts and Assemblies Catia V5.20 metallic design.
Create new drawing
Create Project Specific Drawing Border
Filtering Data for Assembly Views
Instantiate Catalogue Details if required
Annotate Views if required
Save CAT
Drawing
View Creation
View Modification Options
Assembly View Content Modification
Create Drawing Comments
= Hyperlinks
Manual Pre-selection
Scenes
From Scenes
Spatial Query
Lock the Views
Overload Properties
Modify Links
Local Axis System
No Hyperlink
Hyperlink to Task
KEY
54
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
55
Figure 31:- Example of my Catia V5.20 metallic machined assembly.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
56
Figure 32:- Example of my Catia V5.20 Sheet metal part design.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 33:- Example of my Catia V5.20 Frame X-700 draft views GD&T applied.
57
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
58
SECTION 3:- CATIA V5.R20 DESIGN EXAMPLES SHEET METAL PARTS.
See references (2), (5), and (6) for all methodologies used in this section.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
59
Generative Sheet Metal is typically used to design parts which are typically manufactured
using „V‟ benders or press tooling. This workbench cannot produce features such as Flanges
which reference surface geometry, or to create „Joggle‟ features.
Aerospace Sheet Metal is typically used to design parts which are typically manufactured
via the „Hydroforming‟ process. This workbench can produce features such as Flanges which
reference surface geometry, and to create „Joggle‟ features.
Functionality Overlap Certain functions are common to both workbenches (sometimes
with limitations), and others are workbench specific. The following table outlines these
functions:
Generative Sheet Metal only icons
Aerospace Sheet Metal only icons
Common Icons
Limited functionality compared to
Generative Sheet Metal workbench
Design of sheet metallic components for capability maintenance.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Chart 3:- The BAE Systems Catia V5 „New Part‟ Sheet metal process overview.
Select Generative Sheet Metal Design from Shareable Products tab in Tools / Options / General
Create New file
Enter Generative Sheet Metal Design workbench
Set Sheet Metal Parameters
Create Wall
Create Features
Check Flattened Component
Create Block and Heel Lines / Curves
Save CATPart
60
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 34:- My Catia V5.R20 Aerospace Sheet Metal Frame from OML surfaces.
61
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
62
Figure 35:- My Catia V5.R20 Aerospace Sheet Metal Floor panel design from surfaces.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
63
Figure 36:- Example of my Catia V5.R20 Aerospace Sheet Metal Fairing design.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
64
Figure 37:- My Catia V5.R20 Aerospace Sheet Metal Bracket from reference geometry.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
65
Figure 38:- Example of my Catia V5.R20 Generative sheet metal design work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 39:- Example of my Catia V5.R20 Generative sheet metal design work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
SECTION 4:- CATIA V5.R20 EXAMPLES ASSEMBLY DESIGN.
67 See references (2), (5), and (6) for all methodologies used in this section.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
N
Y
Is a Key
Diagram
available?
Does
Production
Assembly
exist?
Does Data
already
exist?
Is Reference
Geometry modelled
in local axis?
Chart 4:- Adding To or Creating Data in a Production Assembly.
Start
Y
N
Verify Position of Data
N
Open Production Assembly Create Production Assembly
Insert Existing Data Add New Data
Y Snap data to Key Diagram
Position as required
N
Y
No Hyperlink
Hyperlink to Task
KEY
68
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The methodology applied to product assembly creation.
Is also referred to as the „Vehicle Assembly‟
In CATIA V5 terms, it is the CATProduct holding all
the CATIA data relevant to the design of this
„vehicle‟, in effect, it is the „virtual aircraft‟ - the DMU
Within this structure, key parts are located with
respect to a Key Datum product which was also
used to position the „reference geometry‟
To ensure engineers working on the project have
access to the correct „reference data‟, the content of
the product structure is organised such that the data
is held within „master models‟ located in the upper
region of the tree structure in a component node
named „REF_REFERENCE_GEOMETRY‟
Designers take the required reference geometry
from the „master model(s)‟ into their own after
inserting and positioning it correctly within the A\C
environment
This „master geometries‟ methodology will be
employed throughout the FATA project and was
used in the assemblies of the robot shown in figure
40 as well as the analysis assemblies in the next
section.
Production (or Vehicle) Assembly Reference geometry ‘container’
‘Reference geometry’
assemblies by ‘design
discipline’
‘Design assemblies’
by ‘design discipline’
Std. Parts ‘container’
69
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Chart 5:- Catia V5. R20 Assembly Positioning Options.
Various positioning options are available, the majority of which were covered during the Fundamentals course
The functions illustrated are available in the Assembly Design and Digital Mock-Up (DMU) Navigator
workbenches
These functions illustrated have been used by myself at Cranfield University since 2003 and BAE Systems from 2009
and are employed on the FATA project.
70
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
71
Figure 40:- Example of my Catia V5.20 simple robot assembly in DMU.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Chart 6:- Creating a Production Assembly with Reference Geometry.
Create New Production Assembly
Create a New Reference Component and Fix
Check for latest and Insert Key
Diagram into Reference
Component and Fix
Check for latest and Insert
Reference Geometry into
Reference Component
Snap data to Key Diagram and Fix
Is the Reference Geometry
modelled in local axis?
Y
N
N
Y
Fix Geometry
Is a Key Diagram available?
Insert Reference Geometry into
Reference Component
Position as required
Fix Geometry
No Hyperlink
Hyperlink to Task
KEY
72
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
73
SECTION 5:- MY CATIA V5.R20 GSA DESIGN EXAMPLES.
See references (2), (5), and (6) for all methodologies used in this section.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The objective of this work is toolset skills enhancement with the Catia V5.R20 GSA system, below
are the limitations of the Catia V5 R20 FEA toolset which need to be considered when applying this
toolset:-
a)Material Linearity:- In Catia, it is assumed that the stress and strain are linearly related through
Hook‟s law, therefore metals should not be loaded into the plastic deformation region, and rubber
type materials cannot be analyzed by this toolset.
b)Small Strains:- The strains used in Catia are the infinitesimal engineering strains which are
consistent with the limitations above in (a). As an example, problems such as crushing of tubes
cannot be handled by this software.
c)Limited Contact Capabilities:- Although Catia is capable of solving certain contact problems,
they must be within the limitations noted above in (a) and (b). Furthermore, no friction effects can
be modeled by the software.
d)Limited Dynamics:- The transient response in Catia V5 is based on model superposition.
Therefore a sufficient number of modes have to be extracted in order to get good results. The direct
integration of the equations of motion are not available in this version.
e)Beam and Shell Formation:- In these elements shear effects are neglected. Therefore, the
results of thick beams and shells may not be very accurate although not an aerospace issue.
Although these issues seem severe limitations most basic mechanical design problems can be
analyzed using this tool set as such problems are governed by linear elastic analysis.
74
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement evaluating system limitations.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The stresses evaluated in Catia V5.20 GSA are von Mises stresses (after Richard von Mises (1883-
1913) in accordance with Maximum Distortion Energy Theory which states the only that portion of
the normal stress which causes shear distortion acts to promote yielding. These are called the
stress deviations or deviatoric stresses:- σ‟x : σ‟y : σ‟z and are defined such that:-
σx = σ‟x + ρ : σy = σ‟y + ρ : σz = σ‟z + ρ (eq 1.)
Substituting these expressions for the normal stresses in the strain energy density formula yields:-
uo = uv + ud
where:-
Uv = (1/2K) ρ² ud = (1/2E) (σ‟x² + σ‟y² + σ‟z² ) – v /E (σ‟x σ‟y + σ‟x σ‟z + σ‟y σ‟z ) + 1/2G (τ²xy + τ²yz + τ²zx )
Here, uv is the portion of the strain energy density due to volume change, and ud is the distortion
strain energy density. From Equation 1 and the definition of hydrostatic stress, ρ = ⅓ (σx + σy + σz ),
the deviatoric stresses can be written :-
σ‟x = ⅔ σx - ⅓(σy + σz): σ‟y = ⅔ σy - ⅓(σx + σz): σ‟z = ⅔ σz - ⅓(σx + σy)
These together with equation for the shear modulus in isotropic material:- G = E / 2(1+v) gives the
following expression for the distortion strain energy density:-
ud = 1+v / 3E {1/2 [(σx – σy)² + (σx – σz)² + (σy – σz)²] + 3(τ²xy + τ²xz + τ²yz) } (eq 2.)
For example in a uniaxial tension test, the only non zero stress is σx hence the distortion strain
energy density when yield occurs (σx = σyρ) is:-
ud = (1+v / 3E ) σ²yρ
75
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement evaluating system limitations.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
According to the maximum distortion energy theory of failure, yield occurs when the distortion strain
energy density equals the distortion strain energy density at the yield point of a tensile test
specimen therefore:-
1+v / 3E {1/2 [(σx – σy)² + (σx – σz)² + (σy – σz)²] + 3(τ²xy + τ²xz + τ²yz) } = (1+v / 3E) σ²yρ
The von Mises stress, σvm , a point is defined as:-
σvm √1/2 [(σx – σy)² + (σx – σz)² + (σy – σz)²] + 3(τ²xy + τ²xz + τ²yz) (eq 3.)
Therefore according to the maximum distortion energy theory, the failure criterion is:-
σvm = σyρ (eq 4.)
Here σvm is an invariant, having the same value regardless of the coordinate system used, so that in
terms of the maximum, minimum and intermediate values of principle stresses:-
σvm √1/2 [(σmax – σmin)² + (σmax – σint)² + (σint – σmin)²] (eq 5.)
or
σvm 1/√2 (σmax – σmin) √1+ (σmax – σint / σmax – σmin)² + (σint – σmin / σmax – σmin)²
From this one can deduce that:-
0.866 (σmax – σmin) < σvm < (σmax – σmin) (eq 6.)
Therefore von Mises stresses are less than the maximum principle stresses, which means that the
maximum shear stress failure criterion is slightly more conservative than the distortion energy
criterion. In plane stress:-
σvm = √(σ²x + σ²y - σx σy) + 3 τ²xy (eq 7.)
76
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement evaluating system limitations.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
There are two types of solid element available in Catia V5.R20 Generative Structural Analysis
which are Linear and Parabolic. Both are referred to as tetrahedron elements shown below.
Limited Hex elements are also available. As are Linear and Parabolic shell elements as well are
limited QUAD elements.
77
Solid Tetrahedron Elements.
Linear. Parabolic.
The Linear tetrahedron elements are faster computationally but less accurate. On the other hand,
the Parabolic elements require more computational power but lead to more accurate results.
Parabolic elements have the very important feature that they can fit curved surfaces better than
Linear elements. In Catia V5 solid machined parts are generally analyzed using solid elements,
where as thin walled and sheet structures are analyzed using shell elements. Linear triangular
shell elements have three nodes each having six degrees of freedom, i.e. three translations and
three rotations, the thickness of the shell has to be provided as a Catia input. As is the case with
the solid tetrahedron elements the Parabolic elements are more accurate.
Linear
18 DoF.
Parabolic
36 DoF.
Sheet Triangular Shell Elements.
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement evaluating system components .
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The element “size” and “sag” icons appear on each part on entering the Analysis & Simulation >
Generative Structural Analysis toolset. The concept of element size is self explanatory, i.e. the
smaller the element size the more accurate the results at the expense of longer computation time
and processor power. The “sag” is a unique Catia term, in FEA the geometry of a part is
approximated with elements, and the surface of the part and FEA approximation of a part do
exactly coincide. The “sag” parameter controls the deviation between the two, therefore the smaller
the “sag” value generally the better the results.
Catia V5‟s Finite Element Analysis module is geometrically based, therefore the boundary
conditions cannot be applied to nodes and elements. The boundary conditions can only be applied
at the part level. On entering the Generative Structural Analysis workbench, the parts are
automatically hidden. Therefore, before boundary conditions can be applied, the part must be
brought back into the visual working space, and this was carried out by pointing the cursor to the
top of the tree, the Links Manager.1 branch, right-clicking, selecting Show. At this point both the
part is visible and the mesh is superimposed on it, the latter was hidden by pointing the cursor at
Nodes and Elements and right-clicking Hide. This has been the methodology for each worked
example in this presentation, figures 41,43,45,46,48,49, show the parts, with constraints and
loading, where figures 42,44,47,50,52 show the total displacement magnitude analysis and Von
Mises stress analysis with maximum and minimum values in each case. The three analysis
examples in this presentation form a small part of my Workbook two which is leading into complex
studies of airframe structures.
78
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement evaluating system methods.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
To perform an accurate finite element analysis of a structure a number of stages have to be passed
through during the construction of a suitable simulation model. In passing through these stages
several representations of the structural problem have to be crated and subsequently assessed
from an error viewpoint, these correspond to the various levels of abstraction which the stress
engineer has to consider in creating a finite element model.
The most important is the Idealised World which takes the real world model and turns it into a form
which can be analysed by the Finite Element Method. This is a very profound level of abstraction
which converts the structural model with its welds, rivets, bonded joints etc. into a smoothed model
in which each component, together with its boundary condition, loading situation etc. can be
mathematically defined. Thus, the decisions concerning such factors as the linearity or otherwise of
the structural behaviour are made at this stage. It is the most critical part of the whole finite element
analysis process as in a loose sense, the construction of an idealised world represents a transition
from a world “exterior” to the computer to an “interior” world.
Once the idealisation process has been performed a number of closely related representations are
constructed and are illustrated on the left hand side of Chart 7. These allow the generation of a
finite element model and, subsequently a finite element solution. Although they have a part to play
in the SAFESA Method they are not relevant to the description of the method as presented here.
The key aspects of the SAFESA are the identification of errors created in the idealisation process
and their treatment so that the eventual solution coming from the analysis corresponds in an error
controlled manner to the behaviour of the real world structure. 79
Catia V5.R20, FEA application of the SAFESA procedure to current work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The SAFESA method is a systematic error control procedure which is used to support Finite
Element Modelling and ensures the total consistence of error control irrespective of the end users
level of experience. Errors are injected into an analysis through a number of individual causes
which can be categorised under a number of general headings: -
Mathematical model of the structure: The derivation of an appropriate mathematical model to
fit the description of the real structure employs physical laws, mathematical manipulation and
behavioural assumptions. The behaviour assumptions are needed so that the physical laws can
be manipulated mathematically to yield a useful set of expressions. Each behavioural
assumption introduces approximations and associated errors. In certain cases the model
reduces the dimensionality of the problem for example, from 3 to 2 dimensions.
Domain: Domain error relates to the geometrical region and the associated geometrical
simplification of the structures being analysed. The domain in most analysis is typically not
complete and may be limited to a portion of the total structure, with boundary conditions applied
explicitly at the interface with the rest of the structure. Often errors are generated by eliminating
or simplifying geometric detail. For example small cut - outs may be ignored or local stiffening
material might be „smeared‟ into adjacent structure.
Material: The structural model to be used for the analysis, the dimensional reduction and
associated mathematical manipulations fix the framework within which the material response is
described. This can involve significant approximation and is a potential source of error with
structural idealisation.
80
Catia V5.R20, FEA application of the SAFESA procedure to current work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
81
Chart 7:- FEA modeling and SAFESA methods of error control.
SAFESA Error
Control
(1) Idealisation (2) Discretisation
& Meshing (3) Solving
(4) Post -
Processing
(5) Obtain
Qualification
Response
(6) Calculation of
Allowable
Response
(7) Comparison of
Qualification &
Allowable Response
(8) Validation
Review
(1.1) Global
Boundaries &
Loading Actions
(1.2) Global Load
Paths & Geometry
(1.3) Structural
Sub-Division
(1.4) Boundaries &
Loading Actions
for Features
(1.5) Load Paths &
Geometries for
Features
(1.6) Preliminary
Error Assessment
& Planning
(8.1) Follow Up
Error Assessment
(8.2) Test Program
(8.3) Experience
Data Key.
FEA Modeling
Start
End
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Boundary conditions and loading: The structural model also defines the form or type of the
boundary condition that can be applied and these are difficult to abstract from the physical
situation being analysed.
Error Treatment and Error Control: -In the preceding paragraphs the nature of the errors which
can occur in the analysis of a real world structure by the application of the Finite Element Method
has been highlighted. Realising that errors are present in a particular phase of the analysis process
is the beginning of the error control process, but methods required to treat and hopefully, bound
them. In performing this error control process there are two broad approaches adopted by
SAFESA. Firstly there are methods of error control which rely on a calculation process and which
often require exploiting the results from a finite element analysis. Essentially these are interior to
the analysis process and cannot supply objective error control but have a very important role to
play. Secondly there are exterior procedures which can be used to provide a measure of
objectivity, and these attempt to exploit information which is extracted from the real world problem.
These treatments are briefly outlined below: -
1) Interior Calculation Based Error Treatment Techniques: - Interior methods mainly employ
finite element models to check finite element models either by employing sequences of models
or by extracting the maximum information from a given model. Such a process is, essentially,
cyclic in nature with the analyst processing through a series of steps involving feedback loops.
Thus in an ideal situation the application of interior methods would begin with scoping
calculations, followed by hierarchical modelling and concluding with sensitivity studies.
82
Catia V5.R20, FEA application of the SAFESA procedure to current work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
2) Exterior Error Treatment Techniques: - As has already been discussed the interior methods
are not grounded in a reality which includes the real world. They represent a set of techniques
which, providing a datum point is available, are able to treat and control the additional errors
which are driving the analysis away from the datum. The datum being referred to in this case is
the finite element model which is directly related to a given real world structure together with
errors which cause the model to deviate from real world behaviour. In order to create a specific
datum structure it is necessary to characterise the structure in a unique manner.
The primary method for creating a starting point for the majority of analysts is to employ past
experience. Whilst this is an effective way to make progress it is not often done in a systematic
manner which allows a logical connection from the current problem to previously encountered
similar ones. Engineers rely on intuitive knowledge in deciding that one structure is sufficiently
close to a second example that the modelling procedures used in the first one, can be applied
to the second. Many years of experience in solving problems using finite element analysis
methods are a very valuable commodity in solving new structural analysis problems.
The question of how to relate one structure to another through a logical connection requires the
establishment of similarity rules. These, in turn, require that a set of parameters be identified
which uniquely define a given structure. A specific datum model for a given problem may be
either a complete model for a comparable problem or a model for a major sub component. In
the case of a complex structural design the error treatment process may therefore, require
several such models employed in a hierarchical sequence.
83
Catia V5.R20, FEA application of the SAFESA procedure to current work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
The individual processes described above for treating errors need to be embedded in a routine
process if they are to be of any value to an analyst. This embedding process has resulted in the
creation of the SAFESA Method. It transforms the error treatment and control processes into an
applicable, quality control, step-wise procedure.
Each step within this process may itself be considered as a procedure with input data, a process or
action resulting in the generation of an output data set as outlined on the right hand side of Chart 7
in steps 1.1 through 1.6. Although these steps feed information from one step to the next in a linear
sequential manner, feedback loops are possible as indicated by the dotted lines. Indeed it is
unlikely that a simple pass through the structure will be satisfactory. Initial assumptions about
structural behaviour etc. are often incorrect and require revising. The process is decomposing the
structure in a step-wise manner to chase down errors. At each step the errors are identified and the
associated treatment procedures applied. A flagging process is used to identify that errors at a
specific stage in the Method have not been adequately treated and must be handled satisfactorily at
a later stage or during one of the feedback loops. If an error source cannot be treated this will
remain flagged as untreated and will be picked up at step 8.2 when a test programme is defined to
provide the analyst with the information to understand the nature and influence of the error.
The Method is therefore, an algorithm with a stopping criteria which requires that no error flags
remain set when the final step is completed. All the aspects relating to error sources and the control
of errors discussed above are incorporated, with the exception of the use of a datum and the
associated similarity rules. The latter is omitted due to the current incomplete state of this work. The
remaining parts of the Method are comprehensive and are applicable to the analysis of any
structure, and Table 1 error treatment techniques for identified errors.
84
Catia V5.R20, FEA application of the SAFESA procedure to current work.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
ERROR SOURCES.
ERROR TREATMENT.
First Stage. Second & Subsequent Stages.
Domain. Experience / Simplification /
Calculations. Model improvement.
Boundary conditions. Experience / Existing test results /
Simple calculations.
Sensitivity analysis / Model
improvement.
Loading. Experience / Existing test results /
Simple calculations.
Sensitivity analysis / Model
improvement.
Behaviour. Experience / Simple calculations. Comparison with physical limits /
Model improvement.
Material. Experience / Simple calculations. Sensitivity analysis.
85
Table 1:- Error treatment techniques for the identified error sources.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Four examples of these ongoing studies are given here:-
1)Bearing Shaft Assembly using Analysis Connections:- Problem statement:- The assembly
shown in figure 41 consist of a shaft of 1” diameter and length 6”, and two bearings with dimensions
as shown. All parts are made of aluminum with E=10.15E7 psi and v = 0.346. The bottom faces of
the bearings are clamped and the shaft is subjected to a total downward load of 100lb distributed
on its surface. The objective of this analysis was to predict stresses and deflections in the structure.
Full stress report was produced the results are shown in figures 42(a) and 42(b).
2)Tensile Test Specimen Assembly:- Problem statement:- The assembly consisted of two steel
pins (1”diam x 3” long) and an aluminum block (10”x 4”x1”). The constrained and loaded assembly
is shown in figure 43. The end faces of the bottom pin are clamped, and the end faces of the top
pin are given a displacement of 0.01” (0.254mm) causing the block to stretch. The objective was to
determine the force necessary to cause this deflection and predict the stresses in the structure, for
this analysis Parabolic Tetrahedron elements were used for this analysis. A full stress report was
produced, the results are shown in figures 44(a) and 44(b).
3)Spot Weld Analysis:- Two sheets of made of steel having a thickness of 0.03” are spot welded
together at four dotted points as shown in figure 45. The edge AB of the bottom plate is clamped
and the edge CD of the top L section is loaded with a 10lb force. All the dimensions shown are in
inches. The objective was to use Catia V5.R20 Generative Structural Analysis to predict the
stresses in these parts. Linear Triangular elements were used for this analysis. A full stress report
was produced, the results are shown in figures 46 to 47.
86
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement worked examples.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
4) Analysis of a fastened assembly:- This assembly consisted of two plates, clamped together
with a preloaded steel bolt. One plate was loaded causing the bending of the entire structure.
The objective of this analysis was to predict the stresses and deflections to which the assembly
was subjected. The top plate was 1” by 1” square with a thickness of 0.125”: the bottom plate
was 1” by 2” with a thickness of 0.125” each had a 0.125” radius hole 0.5” from the trailing edge
as shown in figure 48. The bolt had a shaft radius of 0.125” and length 0.4”, and a head radius
of 0.2” and thickness of 0.1”. The assembly was constructed using Coincidence constraint's and
the material steel was applied. The resultant assembly being meshed, restrained, and contact
connected as shown in figure 49, then a tightening force of 50lbs was applied to the bolt
tightening connection, analysis was then undertaken of displacement, and Von Mises stress in
the assembly, the results are shown in figures 50(a) and (b). Subsequently a distributed load of
100lbf was applied to the leading edge of the lower plate as shown in figure 51 in the Z direction
as a distributed force, and the assembly was re-analysed for displacement and Von Mises
stress values, the results are shown in figures 52(a) and (b).
The final outcome of this research will be the analysis of metallic and composite wing structures in
support of my FATA wing research program.
87
Catia V5.R20, FEA Skills toolset enhancement worked examples.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
88
Figure 41:- Example my Catia V5.R20 FEA:- bearing assembly exercise load and constraints.
2 inch 1 inch
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Figure 42:- My Catia V5.R20 aluminum bearing beam assembly analysis.
Figure 42(a) :- Total displacement magnitude
analysis of the bearing beam assembly.
Maximum deflection = 0.000881691”
Minimum = 0”
89
Figure 42(b) :- Von Mises Stress (nodal
values) analysis of the same bearing beam
assembly. Maximum stress = 1902.12 psi,
Minimum stress = 17.7862 psi.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
90
Figure 43:- Example my Catia V5.R20 FEA:- tensile specimen exercise load and constraints.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
91
Figure 44:- My Catia V5.R20 two material tensile test specimen assembly analysis.
Figure 44(a) :- Total displacement magnitude
analysis of the tensile specimen assembly.
Maximum deflection = 0.01” Minimum = 0”in
the pins and Maximum deflection of 0.00851”
Minimum = 0.00148” in the test block.
Figure 44(b) :- Von Mises Stress (nodal values)
analysis of the same tensile specimen
assembly. Maximum stress = 50732.6 psi, in the
top pin Minimum stress = 51.8327 psi in the
test block.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
92
Figure 45:- My Catia V5.R20 FEA Spot welded sheet assembly problem structure.
C
D
A
B
5 in
12 in
3 in
4 in
2 in
2 in
2 in
2 in
2 in
C
D
A
B
5 in
12 in
3 in
4 in
2 in
2 in
2 in
2 in
2 in
1in
10 in
Sheet Material = Steel:
Sheet Thickness = 0.03 inch:
Top L section loaded edge C-D:
Bottom plate clamped edge A-B.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
93
Figure 46:- Example my Catia V5.R20 FEA:- Spot welded sheet exercise load and constraints.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
94
Figure 47(a) :- Total displacement magnitude
analysis of the spot welded sheet assembly.
Maximum deflection = 1.38369” Minimum = 0”.
Figure 47(b) :- Von Mises Stress (nodal
values) analysis of the spot welded sheet
assembly. Maximum stress = 35325.8psi,
Minimum stress = 265.515psi. Maximum
stress was in the weld line as expected.
Figure 47:- My Catia V5.R20 Sheet steel spot welded assembly analysis.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
95
Figure 48:- Example my Catia V5.R20 Bolted assembly components for analysis.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
96
Figure 49:- Example my Catia V5.R20 Bolted assembly constrained and preload for analysis.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
97
Figure 50:- My Catia V5.R20 Bolted assembly preload analysis.
Figure 50(b) :- Von Mises Stress (nodal
values) analysis of preloaded bolted
assembly. Maximum stress = 1818.98psi,
Minimum stress = 0.149288psi. Maximum
stress the bolt as expected.
Figure 50(a):- Total displacement magnitude
analysis of the preloaded bolted plate
assembly. Maximum deflection = 3.35588e-
005” Minimum =1.0” the max value being in
the bolt as expected.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
98
Figure 51:- Example my Catia V5.R20 Bolted assembly constrained meshed with distributed load.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
99
Figure 52:- My Catia V5.R20 Bolted assembly preload with added end load analysis.
Figure 52(a) :- Total displacement
magnitude analysis of the loaded
bolted plate assembly. Maximum
deflection = 0.0448786” Minimum =
1.0” the max value being in the lower
plate edge as expected.
Figure 52(b) :- Von Mises Stress (nodal
values) analysis of preloaded bolted
assembly. Maximum stress = 39003.4psi,
Minimum stress = 82.218psi. Maximum
stress the bolt region as expected.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
Although not the main focus of this study, new developments in the manufacturing of metallic
structural components are under investigation as an alternative to current high speed machining
which wastes a large part of the stock material, (reduced by near net forging). These new
innovative processes are termed Additive Manufacturing as they build up the material to form the
part instead of cutting away surplus material as is the case with current machining. GKN
Aerospace, Boeing, Airbus, and Cranfield University are all involved in research into this technology
for airframe applications and figure 53 illustrates how a leading edge rib structure could be
optimized for this process.
There are two types of Additive Manufacturing process which are: - (1) Powder Based
Technologies: (2) Wire Based Technologies, which will be outlined below based on a presentation
given by Dr. Wilson Wong GKN Aerospace (ref 13).
(1) Powder Technologies:- In this process powder is transferred from a hopper to the work build
plate and melted in the desired shape by either Electron Beam Melting: Selective Laser Melting.
Where as Nozzle Deposition feeds the powder through a nozzle direct to work under the laser.
Electron Beam Melting yields good mechanical properties and enables high part complexity, but
has relatively poor surface finish and is not as precise when compared to Selective Laser Melting.
Selective Laser Melting is highly accurate, and also enables high part complexity, but has a slow
part build up rate and develops residual stresses in the part. Nozzle Deposition features a higher
part build rate than the other two powder bed technologies and is suitable for build repairs, however
the method has a high power utilisation and is limited in part complexity. These processes and their
applications are shown in figures 54 and 55 respectively. 100
Section 6:- Advanced Metallic Technologies (Additive Manufacturing).
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
101
Advanced Metallic Technologies :- Additive Manufacturing (continued).
Figure 53:- Braced web leading edge rib candidate for Additive Manufacturing.
See reference (9), for all material reported in this section.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
102
Nozzle Deposition
Direct Metal Deposition.
Selective Laser Melting.
Electron Beam Melting.
Figure 54:- Powder Based Additive Manufacturing Technologies.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
103
Figure 55:- Powder Based Additive Manufacturing Technology applications.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
(2) Wire Based Technologies:- In this process the material is feed to the work piece as a wire and
is deposited to form the product by either a laser or an electron beam as shown in figure 56. Laser
Wire Deposition this is relatively fast and is suitable for repairs, however is suited for low complexity
parts, and yields a relatively poor surface finish. Electron Beam Wire Deposition is also relatively
fast yielding good mechanical properties, but is also limited on part complexity, and imparts residual
stresses, requiring post processing. The applications of wire based deposition additive
manufacturing are shown in figure 57.
Additive manufacturing offers significant savings in raw material, energy, cutting fluids, and lead
time over conventional machining, and hence cost reductions. However there are issues that need
to be addressed to qualify these processes as the machining replacement for metallic materials and
these are:-
Materials Variables:
Material Allowables:
Process Variability (between machines):
Materials Properties Variation:
Raw Material Cost: Process Speed:
Machine Costs:
Design and Analysis Toolset.
All of which are being addressed by current research programs. 104
Advanced Metallic Technologies :- Additive Manufacturing (continued).
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
105
Wire
Electron
Beam
Electron Beam Wire Deposition.
Laser Wire Deposition.
Figure 56:- Wire Based Additive Manufacturing Technologies.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
106
Figure 57:- Wire Deposition Additive Manufacturing Technology applications.
AIAA Mr. Geoffrey Allen Wardle MSc. MSc Capability Maintenance Examples 2012-2013.
107
1) AIAA Aerospace Design Engineers Guide 4th edition: by ADEG Subcommittee, AIAA Design
Engineering Technical Committee 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston VA 20191-4344 USA,
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1998.
2) CU/CoA/AAO/1 Issue 3 Cranfield College of Aeronautics Design Manual: Published by
Cranfield College of Aeronautics September 1999.
3) Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout: Professional Engineering Publishing: by Prof Denis
Howe: 2004: ISBN 186058432 2.
4) Airframe Structural Design: Conmilit Press Ltd Hong Kong: by Michael Chun-Yung Nui: 1992:
ISBN 962-7128-04X.
5) A350XWB Aircraft Configuration: Airbus presentation 2007: by Oliver Criou.
6) Catia V5 INCAT training material / Cranfield University MSc Aircraft Engineering module CAE
training material M2.
7) Catia V5.R20 FEA in Airframe Design Workbook 2: Private Study 2014: Mr. Geoffrey Wardle
(not a published document).
8) Automated Assembly of Aircraft Structures: by Vorobyov. Yu. A. et al : Published by the
National Aerospace University “KhAl”: Kh-Al – ERA Consortium 2013.
9) Additive Manufacturing GKN Aerospace Presentation: by Dumani Vukile and Wong Wilson
PhD.
Current reference material in use for this presentation list will be extended.