Topology Optimisation of Tertiary Structures and Mass Savings for Satellite Structures

Post on 25-May-2015

345 views 3 download

Tags:

description

For typical satellites, tertiary structure, i.e. supports for antennas, sensors and connectors, can represent up to 20-30kg. The introduction of new manufacturing processes like Additive Manufacturing combined with the topology optimisation capabilities of Optistruct allow to envisage mass savings of around 30%. The presentation shows the results of a topology optimisation performed by RUAG Space on an Antenna Support of the Sentinel-1 Spacecraft. It also shows how RUAG Space intend to implement this methodology combined with Additive Manufacturing in the development of future satellite structures.

Transcript of Topology Optimisation of Tertiary Structures and Mass Savings for Satellite Structures

Topology Optimisation of

Tertiary Structures and Mass

Savings for Satellite Structures

Mouriaux Franck

Senior Manager Engineering & Development

RUAG Schweiz AG

RUAG Space

Münich, 26.06.2014

Content

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 2

Objective

Bracket

Work

Optimisation Setup

Model Size

Geometry Generation

Comparison

Summary

Improvement

Objective

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 3

Design space,Loads and

ConstraintsPrinting

Designevaluation

StructuralAnalysis

Construction ManufacturingDesign space,

Loads and Constraints

Optimization

Compare current design against optimised design using ALTAIR

Optistruct

Time

Mass

Stress

Bracket

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 4

Upper S-Band Antenna Support of the Sentinel-1 Satellite

Material Aluminium

Mass-Bracket 1.626kg

Mass-Antenna 0.783kg

Dimensions 385x345x115 mm

1.Eigenfrequency >70Hz

Static Load 20g / 25g

Allowable Stress 163MPa

Outer dimensions of the existing

bracket => Design space

Antenna represented as a

concentrated mass and

connected with RBE3.

Provision for attachment bolts

accessibility

02.07.2014 5 │RUAG Space│

Bracket

First optimization setup

Objective

Minimize Massfrac

Constraints

First eigenfreq. > 70Hz

v.M. stress < 163MPa

Problem

Very low and unrealistic eigenfrequencies

=> no feasible design

02.07.2014 6 │RUAG Space│

Optimisation Setup

Second optimization setup

Objective

Minimize compliance

Constraints

First eigenfreq. > 70Hz

Mass fraction < 0.4…0.05

Note

Running the optimization with different mass fraction constraints will

lead to different stress levels.

=> Multiple runs are needed to find a suitable stress level.

02.07.2014 7 │RUAG Space│

Optimisation Setup

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 8

Full design space: 11.6kg.

Mass fraction: 0.09

Element size: 3mm

Model Size: 300’000 nodes.

No thin membranes possible

Model Size

Two optimization loops

02/07/2014 │RUAG Space│ 9

Meshing the

whole design

space

Loop #1

Target mass

of 4.5kg

Delete

unnecessary

elements and

remesh with

smaller

elements

Loop #2

Target mass

of 1.2kg

Model Size

02.07.2014 10 │RUAG Space│

Optimised Model

First automatic geometry generation (OSSmooth)

Further manual cleaning needed (ATOS, Geomagic)

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 11

Before cleaning After cleaning

Geometry Generation

02/07/2014 │RUAG Space│ 12

Thin bridges Unnecessary parts

Geometry Generation

Geometry

02/07/2014 │RUAG Space│ 13

Comparison

Current Design Optimised Design

Time 3-4 Days 4-5 Days

Mass 1.6 kg 1.0 kg

Eigenfrequency 89 Hz 140 Hz

v.M. Stress 75 MPa ~90 MPa

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 14

Summary

Mass reduced by 35%

Key Problems

Compromise between acceptable model size and element size

Effort for cleaning the geometry

Need for interpretation and manual work

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 15

Improvement

Better smoothing of «big steps» by OSSmooth

Checking of unnecessary parts by OSSmooth

Automatic mesh refinement

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 16

Thank you for your attention!

02.07.2014 │RUAG Space│ 17