871047

Structural Optimization of Landing

Gears Using STARSTRUC
A.M. Elsaie
Structural Technol ogy and Research Co.
R. Santillan, Jr.
Menasco Inc.
Aerosystems Div.
Col t Industries
ABSTRACT
The i mpact of s t r u c t u r a l opt i mi z a t i on i s
growi ng i n many i n d u s t r i e s due t o economic
pr e s s ur e s demanding e f f i c i e n c y i n t he desi gn
process. Thi s e f f i c i e n c y i mpl i e s devel opi ng
pr oduct s which a r e c o s t e f f e c t i v e and ahead of
t h e c o mp e t i t i o n a t t h e same t i me . The
motivation of t he present work i s t o provide t he
s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n e n g i n e e r wi t h t o o l s of
opt i mi zat i on techniques and pract i ces t hat have
been appl ied successful l y t o landing gears.
Modern l a n d i n g g e a r s have t o meet a
mul t i t ude of landing and ground handling design
l oads whose magni t udes a r e s e ve r a l t i me s t he
gr os s wei ght of t he a i r c r a f t . All t he desi gn
l oads have t o be i nve s t i ga t e d and t h e i r e f f e c t
on e a c h c o mp o n e n t mus t be e v a l u a t e d .
Furthermore, t he response of t he landing gears
t o a l l t he desi gn l oads must be cons t r ai ned t o
s a t i s f y t he design requirements while minimizing
i t s s t r u c t u r a l wei ght . The wei ght of t he
landing gear i s becoming an ever more important
f a c t o r , a s i n e f f i c i e n t d e s i g n can add
unne c e s s a r y we i g h t t o t h e a i r c r a f t a nd,
consequent l y, decr eas e t he payload o r us ef ul
load.
Typi cal desi gn exampl es of components of
landing gears ar e presented t hat demonstrate t he
performance of STARSTRUC a s an ef f ect i ve weight
opt i mi z a t i on des i gn t ool . The minimum wei ght
desi gn i s achi eved when t he l andi ng gear i s
subjected t o behavior c o n s t r a i n t s on s t r e s s e s ,
d e f l e c t i o n s , b u c k l i n g , and f r e que nc i e s of
vi brat i on.
IN THE ENGINEERING DESIGN of a st r uct ur e, t her e
ar e always two condi t i ons t o be s a t i s f i e d:
a)
The s t r uct ur e must perform a given funct i on
b) The over al l cost should be minimum
Tr a di t i ona l l y, performance i s consi der ed
s a t i s f a c t o r y when t he s t r u c t u r e c a r r i e s t he
imposed l oads s af el y and general l y behaves i n an
acceptable manner under a1 1 expected conditions.
The s t r u c t u r a l behavi or i s us ua l l y det er mi ned
usi ng t he f i n i t e el ement method of a na l ys i s ,
which f or most st r uct ur es i s not unduly di f f i c ul t
and has been successful l y automated.
A t t he pr es ent t i me , t he e ngi ne e r i s a l s o
becoming concerned about how hi s work r e l a t e s t o
i t s environment. I t i s now recognized t ha t i t i s
t he engineers' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a s c e r t a i n t h a t
hi s creat i ons ar e not only s t r uc t ur a l l y sound and
aest het i cal l y pleasing, but a l s o environmental l y
c o mp a t i b l e . Al l t h e s e a s p e c t s s houl d be
considered necessary condi t i ons f o r s at i s f act or y
performance. As t he e ngi ne e r i s now l a r ge l y
f r e e d from t he onerous t a s k of manual a na l ys i s ,
i t i s hoped t h a t he wi l l appl y more of h i s
cr eat i ve energi es and judgment t o aes t het i c and
environmental concerns.
While condi t i on ( a) above i s pr i ma r i l y a
problem of a na l ys i s , c ondi t i on ( b) i s one of
s ynt hes i zi ng t he s t r u c t u r e which s a t i s f i e s t he
gi ven performance c r i t e r i a a t a minimum t o t a l
cos t . Today t h i s i s by f a r s t i l l most l y t r i a l
and e r r o r procedure, t h a t i s , a s mal l number of
pos s i bl e s ol ut i ons a r e synt hesi zed and analyzed
f or s at i s f act or y behavior, then t he most sui t abl e
one i s s e l e c t e d. The r e s u l t i n g s t r u c t u r e wi l l
perform t he r equi r ed f unc t i on s a f e l y , but not
ne c e s s a r i l y a t t he minimum cos t . A hi ghl y
e f f i c i e nt technique f or s t r u c t u r a l opt i mi z a t i on
t herefore remains t he goal of many researchers.
I de a l l y, an opt i mi z a t i on t echni que f o r
s t r u c t u r e s shoul d be a computer-based procedure
using as input a s e t of commands very s i mi l ar t o
t he exi st i ng anal ysi s soft ware, and another s e t
s pe c i f yi ng t he t he des i gn r equi r ement s. The
out put of t h i s t echni que shoul d be t he optimum
desi gn pr e f e r a bl y i n pr i nt e d, pl ot t e d, and
dr a f t e d form. No t i me-consumi ng pr el i mi nar y
desi gn by t he engi neer shoul d be r equi r ed. The
e ngi ne e r may d e s i r e some i n t e r a c t i o n wi t h t he
comput er t o a l l ow him t o st udy t he e f f e c t of
c ha nge s i n t h e o v e r a l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n , but
o t h e r wi s e , t h e pr oc e dur e s houl d be f u l l y
aut omat ed. Above a l l , t he procedure must be
economical, and bet t er yet i n a desktop computer
i f t he si ze of t he s t r uct ur e i s not a det errent .
01 48-71 9118710428-1047$02.50
Copyright 1987 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
The c r i t e r i a f o r o p t i ma l i t y i s mi ni mum cost ,
b o t h f o r d e s i g n and ma n u f a c t u r i n g . S t r u c t u r a l
opt i mi z at i on reduces t he desi gn c os t due t o t he
e l i mi n a t i o n o f t he manual t r i a l and er r or . The
manuf act ur i ng c os t i s a l s o reduced because i t i s
n e a r l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l wei ght .
I t i s t h e r e f o r e r e a s o n a b l e i n s t r u c t u r a l
e n g i n e e r i n g t o assume t h a t mi ni mum we i g h t
r e p r e s e n t s mi ni mum c o s t as t h e c r i t e r i a f o r
o p t i ma l i t y . Thi s assumpt i on i s v a l i d p r o v i d e d
t h a t desi gns whi ch woul d be unusual l y expensi ve
t o manuf act ur e ar e avoi ded.
I t i s r e a l i z e d o f c our s e t h a t f o r c e r t a i n
t y p e s o f s t r u c t u r e s , such as a i r f r a me s and
l andi ng gear s where a premi um i s at t ached t o t he
wei ght , s t r u c t u r a l wei ght may a f f e c t t he t o t a l
c o s t and per f or manc e v e r y d e c i s i v e l y . The
l a n d i n g gear and i t s s u p p o r t s t r u c t u r e wei gh
f r om 3-8% o f t he a i r c r a f t wei ght . Ther ef or e on
a t y p i c a l t r ans por t a i r c r a f t , a 20% i ncr ease i n
t he l andi ng gear wei ght coul d c os t 3-4,000 l bs.
we i g h t - t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f 20 passenger s.
The mo t i v a t i o n o f t h e pr es ent ed paper i s t o
p r o v i d e t h e s t r u c t u r a l e n g i n e e r w i t h t o o l s o f
o p t i mi z a t i o n t echni ques and pr ac t i c es t h a t have
been appl i ed successf ul l y t o l andi ng gears.
DESIGN PARAMETERS
I n 1964, t h e c onc ept o f a d e s i g n par amet er
h i e r a r c h y was o u t 1 i n e d by Sc hmi t and Ma1 l e t ,
[I]*.
I n t h e i r vi ew, t h e h i e r a r c h y c o n s i s t e d
o f :
1-Type o f s t r u c t u r e
2-General arrangement
3- Mat er i al
4-Geometry o f t he s t r u c t u r e
5-Si ze o f t he el ement s
At one t i me , i t seemed t h a t an a l g o r i t h m
f o r s t r u c t u r a l o p t i mi z a t i o n c o u l d be devel oped
t o t r e a t a l l t he above f i v e par amet er s as desi gn
v a r i a b l e s . However , a t t e mp t s t o i n c o r p o r a t e
v a r i a b l e s f r o m t h e f i r s t t wo c a t e g o r i e s have
been r a r e , and t h e f e w r e s u l t s a r e n o t o f much
h e l p t o t h e p r a c t i c i n g engi neer . One such
exampl e i s wor k done by Mi c hel l , [2], who proved
t h a t t h e a b s o l u t e mi ni mum we i g h t des i gn f o r a
s i mp l y - s u p p o r t e d beam woul d be as shown i n
f i g u r e 1.
I t i s hoped t h a t a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e
w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be used t o o p t i mi z e f o r t h e
f i r s t t wo c a t e g o r i e s . T h i s may be ac hi ev ed
t hr ough a h e u r i s t i c appr oach o f i d e n t i f y i n g t he
s t r a i n ener gy d e n s i t y o r s t r e s s d e n s i t y o f t h e
s t r u c t u r e o f each f i n i t e e l e me n t t y p e a t each 7 .
l oad case.
* Square br acket ed number r e f e r t o r ef er ences a t
However, t h i s w i l l r equi r e a t remendous e f f o r t t o
devel op such a huge database.
Schmi t and Ma l l e t i l l u s t r a t e d t he concept o f
desi gn par amet er hi er ar chy by usi ng a t hr ee- bar
t r u s s wh e r e t h e member a r e a s , t h e member
d i r e c t i o n s and t h e member ma t e r i a l s wer e a l l
consi der ed t o be desi gn var i abl es. By i n c l u d i n g
v a r i a b l e s f r o m c a t e g o r i e s 3, 4, and 5, t h e y
i d e n t i f i e d t he mai n pr obl em t h a t a r i s e s when t oo
many t y p e s of d e s i g n par amet er s a r e i nc l uded.
Ge n e r a l l y , t h e r a t e of conver gence i s much
sl ower . I n t he case of t he t hr ee- bar t r uss, over
100 desi gn i t e r a t i o n s were r equi r ed t o achi eve a
r easonabl y accur at e sol ut i on.
I n compar i son t o t h e we a l t h o f e x p e r i e n c e
w i t h e l e me n t s i z e s i n s t r u c t u r a l o p t i mi z a t i o n ,
t he exper i ence w i t h t he geomet r i c o p t i mi z a t i o n o f
s t r uc t ur es i s s t i l l ver y l i mi t e d , [3,4]. Thi s i s
due t o t he f a c t t h a t t r u e geomet r i c o p t i mi z a t i o n
r e q u i r e s t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r a l
ma t r i c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e nodal c o o r d i n a t e
v e c t o r . De v e l o p me n t o f a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e
g e o me t r i c o p t i mi z a t i o n s o f t wa r e t h a t can be
ec onomi c al l y used i s p r e s e n t l y q u e s t i o n a b l e .
Ther ef or e, r esear ch i n t o s t r u c t u r a l o p t i mi z a t i o n
has t e n d e d t o c e n t e r on t h e l a s t d e s i g n
par amet er s, i.e., t h e s i z e o f el ement s. T h i s
appr oach has been e x t r e me l y s u c c e s s f u l w i t h an
a p p r e c i a b l e we i g h t s a v i n g - o f u p t o 40% i n j u s t
about 4 t o 6 d e s i g n c y c l e s f o r most s t r u c t u r e s
[5,6,7,81.
STRUCTURAL OPT1 M IZATION METHODS
I t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t d e s c r i b i n g t h e many
o p t i mi z a t i o n a l g o r i t h ms i s beyond t h e scope of
t he pr esent ed work. Many books have been wr i t t e n
t o t h i s p r e s e n t s u b j e c t . One of t h e b e s t books
t h a t has been w r i t t e n by Fox, [9], i n 1971, l a y s
t he ground wor k f o r s t r u c t u r a l opt i mi zat i on, and
r e ma i n s a p i o n e e r i n g wor k f o r i n t r o d u c i n g t h i s
subj ect . Lat er , papers were pub1 i shed by Venkayya
[ l o] , and Schmi t , [ll], t h a t summar i zed t h e
s t a t e me n t and t h e s o l u t i o n t e c h n i q u e s o f t h e
s t r u c t u r a l o p t i mi z a t i o n probl em.
The d e s i g n v a r i a b l e s a r e d e f i n e d as t hos e
q u a n t i t i e s t h a t ar e changed dur i ng t he i t e r a t i v e
pr oc edur e wh i c h seeks an opt i mum. These N r e a l
number s a r e c o n v e n i e n t l y w r i t t e n as an N X 1
v e c t o r o f t h e d e s i g n v a r i a b l e D. Rec ogni z i ng
t h a t o n l y a s i n g l e s c a l a r can be o p t i mi z e d a t a
t i me , one must d e v i s e a per f or mance i ndex, such
as t h e s t r u c t u r a l we i g h t W wh i c h i s a s i n g l e -
v al ued f u n c t i o n o f D. W can al way s be chosen
such t h a t t he goal i s :
end o f paper .
The search f or t he optimum must be carri ed out
i n an N-dimensional design space popiilated by
bar r i er s, which quant i fy t he appl i ed cont rai nt r,
Because e ngi ne e r s usual "iy
r e s u l t s by s a y i n g s uc h
s t r es s es ar e t oo high, t he
and t he deflection i s t oo
i s t oo l ow; t h i s ~ u g g e s
aerformance can be formulated as M f ~~nc t i ona l i n
equal i t i es :
The mat hemat i cal rsrogramma' ng met hods ,
ge ne r a l l y c a l l e d t he '"search" o r t he " di r e c t "
LANDI NG G t WR DESIGN
y definition, can be any
l andi ng o r a t a
g e a r s ha s g r o
i n t r o d u c t i o n of s k i d s of t h e
Bi pl ane. During World War I , a i r c r a f t s had
shock absorbing landing gears, which used rubber
r i ngs around t he a x l e s where t hey at t ached t o
t h e s u p p o r t s t r u t s . Ol e opne uma t i c shock
absorbing s t r u t s were i n use by 1918. The narne
Oleopneumatic r ef er s t o t he use of t he a j r c r a f t
h y d r a u l i c o i l i n c o mb i n a t i o n wi t h a i r .
Re t r a c t a b l e l a n d i n g g e a r s wer e g e n e r a l l y
i nt r oduced i n t he e a r l y 19301s, Si nce t h a t
t i me , l andi ng ge a r s have become more and more
complex, pr i ma r i l y because of t he i ncr eased
demands imposed upon them. As an exampl e, t he
Lockheed C-5A pr esent ed a maj or chal l enge f o r
t he design of i t s landing gears t ha t supports a
weight of 732,500 Ib. This requi res many wheels
and r e l a t i ve l y low t i r e pressure.
Furt hermore, drag r equi r ement s precluded l arge
landing gear pods, t her ef or e complex r e t r a c t i o n
mechanisms were developed t o stow t he huge gear
i n a low-drag envelope. Obviously t he weight of
such a landing gear combined wi t h i t s s t r uct ur al
i nt eqr i t y represented a major design chal lenge,
As s how i n fi gure 2, a t ypi cal landing gear
c o n s i s t s of shock a br or be r s , wheel s, t i r e s ,
b r a k e s , l i n k a g e s , s t e e r i n g s y s t e ms , and
provisions f or jacking and towing,
Modern a i r c r a f t landing gear assembl i es can
be cl as s i f i ed i nt o two basic types:
df t he cant i l ever
a n t ' i l e v e r c o n f i q u r a t i s n 1
ope r a t e S n a t e l e s c ope a c t i on of a pi s t on- a xl e
nent i nsi de a cyl i nder andl or housi
t assembly type i s of course n
c a n t i l e v e r s t r u c t u r e a s t he
r r e a c t i on t o Si r e l whe e l t r a ns ve r s e
loading. The brace being e i t he r a sr par at e t r us s
member or i nt egr al with t he hou
2 f or i l l v s t r a t i o n s of t h e c
t y p e o f I a r t d j n g g e a r
I t e r a t - i ve i n ga t ur e , Among t he f a c t o r s t h a t
govern t he design of a landing ge r a r e t he l oad
p a t h s , t h e d e g r e e of i n d e t e r mi n a c y of t h e
s t r u c t u r e , and t h e m a t e r i a l s e l e c t f o n ,
St r uc t ur a l i ndet er mi nacy and l oad pat hs a r e
i nt e r t wi ne d i n t h a t one us ua l l y l e a ds t o t he
ot he r , An i nde t e r mi na t e s t r u c t u r e i s one i
which t he r e i s more t han one pat h f o r a l oa d t o
t ake, The l oad pat hs of a l andi ng gear a r e
g e n e r a l l y a f u n c t i o n of t h e f o l l o wi n g t wo
f act or s :
1 - Re l a t i v e s t i f f n e s s of t h e s t r u c t u r a l
component s, i . e. t he s t i f f e r component
react i ng proport i onat el y more load than t he
l e s s s t i f f component.
2-The socketing act i on between t he di f f er ent
components such a s t he pi s t on movement
i ns i de t he c yl i nde r which i s socket ed
i nsi de t he housing.
Anot her i mpor t ant f a c t o r i n t he des i gn of a
l andi ng gear i s t he number of l oadi ng c a s e s ,
perhaps a s many a s 20, t h a t have t o be examined.
The anal ysi s of t h a t many l oad cases, even f o r a
s i mp l e desi gn, can be a v e r y t i me- c ons umi ng
pr ocess. Re a l i z i n g t h i s p o i n t , and a t t h e same
t i m e e mp h a s i z i n g t h e i mp o r t a n c e o f i t s
s t r u c t u r a l wei ght demonst r at es t he r e a l b e n e f i t s
o f i n t r o d u c i n g s t r u c t u r a l o p t i mi z a i t o n as a
d e s i g n t o o l . Among t h e i mme d i a t e advant ages
t h a t f o l l o w t he use o f s t r u c t u r a l o p t i mi z a t i o n
ar e t he f ol l owi ng:
1- Wi t h a s o f t wa r e such as STARSTRUC
t h a t can handl e mu l t i p l e s t a t i c , s t a b i l i t y , and
v i b r a t i o n c ons t r ai nt s si mul t aneousl y, t he desi gn
engi neer can use t hese f eat ur es t o produce more
r e 1 i a b l e st r uct ur es.
2- Wi t h t h e d e s i g n e n g i n e e r f r e e d f r o m
t h e guess wor k o f t h e t r i a l and e r r o r , he can
c o n c e n t r a t e on mor e c r e a t i v e i d e a s such as
s i m p l i f y i n g t h e l o a d p a t h o r e x a mi n i n g t h e
e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n t ma t e r i a l sel ect i ons.
3-The a b i l i t y t o d e v e l o p mor e compl ex
f i n i t e e l e me n t model s t o o b t a i n mor e a c c u r a t e
r e s u l t s such as expandi ng t he model f r om si mpl e
beam t y p e model t o a model t h a t i n c l u d e s s h e l l
o r s o l i d el ement s.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
I n t h i s s e c t i o n , exampl es a r e pr es ent ed t o
demonst r at e t he e f f i c i e n c y and g e n e r a l i t y of t he
approach used i n t he pr esent ed program.
EXAMPLE 1 - T h i s e x a mp l e r e p r e s e n t s a
s i mp l i f i e d 2- di mensi onal l andi ng gear as shown
i n fSmll-e y Y 1 3. Tht s si mpl e mode? i s sel ect ed as ;
t e s t pr obl em, t h a t can be checked by hand
c a l c u l a t i o n s , due t o t h e f a c t t h e t h i s i s t h e
f i r s t t i me an o p t i mi z a t i o n a l g o r i t h m i s appl i ed
t o a l a n d i n g gear and no p u b l i s h e d wor k i s
a v a i l a b l e f o r compar i son. The i n i t i a l d e s i g n
v ar i abl es ar e sel ect ed as f ol l ows :
1 - F i r s t des i gn v a r i a b l e i s a t u b e w i t h
O.D./I.D.=3.5/2.9 i n . f o r beam number 1.
2- Second d e s i g n v a r i a b l e i s a t u b e w i t h
O.D./I.D.=4.5/3.826 i n. , f o r beam number s
2 and 3.
3 - T h i r d des i gn v a r i a b l e i s a t ube w i t h
O.D./I.D.=5.563/4.813 i n. , f o r beam number
4.
4- Four t h d e s i g n v a r i a b l e i s a r e c t a n g u l a r
s e c t i o n w i t h d i me n s i o n .5 X 3. i n. , f o r
beam number 5.
Two d e s i g n cases a r e p r e s e n t e d and t h e s e
ar e :
1-Case A: A l l e l e me n t s a r e made o f s t e e l
a l l o y w i t h t he f o l l o wi n g dat a:
-Modul us o f e l a s t i c i t y = 29E6 p s i
- Densi t y = ,283 l b / i n 3
- Al l owabl e s t r es s = 100 k s i
2-Case B: M a t e r i a l o f t h e d r a g b r a c e ,
e l e me n t number 5 i s changed t o
Al umi num a l l o y wi t h t he f o l l o wi n g
dat a:
-Modul us o f e l a s t i c i t y = 10E6 p s i
- Densi t y = 0.1 1b/ i n3
- Al l owabl e s t r es s = 50 k s i
Bot h cases converged i n one i t e r a t i o n w i t h a
wei ght savi ngs of 34% as shown i n Tabl e 1. It i s
i n t e r e s t i n g t o not e t h a t i n i t i a l l y , t he c r i t i c a l
b u c k l i n g l o a d f o r t h e d r a g br ac e i s much l o we r
t.han t he a1 Jowabl e st r ess. Ther ef or e, STARSTRUC
desi gned t h i s el ement f a r l o c a l buckl i ng.
EXAMPLE 2 - T h i s e x a mp l e r e p r e s e n t s an
i deal i z ed dr ag br ace wi t h geomet r y and l oadi ng as
shown i n f i g u r e 4, and mo d e l l e d w i t h 44 f l a t
s h e l l el ement s. Si x desi gn var i abl es ar e used t o
r e p r e s e n t t h e s i x p l a t e t h i c k n e s s e s as shown i n
f i g u r e 4. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s exampl e i s t o
a c h i e v e t h e mi ni mum we i g h t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
proposed conf i gur at i ons:
1. Case A: No Cut out s
2. Case B: One Cut out : El ement s 20, 21, 24
and 25 ar e el i mi nat ed.
3. Case C: Thr ee Cut out s : El ement s 8, 9,
12, 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 33,
36, and 37 ar e el i mi nat ed.
4. Case D: One B i g Cut out : El ement s 8, 9,
12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25
28, 29, 32, 33, 36, and 37 a r e
el i mi nat ed.
The above f o u r cases a r e o p t i mi z e d w i t h
s t r e s s a n d b u c k l i n g c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h t h e
f o l l o wi n g desi gn dat a:
1 - I n i t i a l t h i c k n e s s o f a l l s i x d e s i g n
var i abl es = .25 i n.
2- Mat er i al dens i t y = .283 l b / i n
3-Poi sson' s r a t i o = 0
4-Modulus o f e l a s t i c i t y = 29E6 p s i
5-A1 l owabl e nor mal s t r es s = 25 k s i
6- Al l owabl e buckl i ng l oad f a c t o r = 1.2
To our knowledge, t her e i s no publ i shed work
av ai l abl e f o r s i mi l a r conf i gur at i ons. Ther ef or e,
i t was d e c i d e d f i r s t t o s o l v e a c o mp l e t e
r e c t a n g u l a r p l a t e w i t h di mens i ons 6 X 36 i n .
u s i n g t h e above dat a. The b u c k l i n g l o a d f a c t o r
o f t h e i n i t i a l d e s i g n a s c a l c u l a t e d f r o m
STARSTRUC i s 1.7339 whi ch compares f avor abl y wi t h
t he a n a l y t i c a l s o l u t i o n o f 1.7254 cal cul at ed f r om
Eul er ' s buck1 i n g f or mul a. Thi s demonst r at es t he
ac c ur ac y o f t h e pr es ent ed appr oach. The r e s u l t s
o f opt i mi zed c onf i gur at i ons ar e shown i n Tabl e 2.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t i n a l l f o u r
c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , STARSTRUC t a k e s t w o d e s i g n
i t e r a t i o n s t o conver ge t o t h e mi ni mum we i g h t
desi gn. T h i s demons t r at es t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e
pr esent ed o p t i mi z a t i o n al gor i t hm.
Th i s exampl e can a l s o be c ons i der ed as a way
o f hand1 i n g g e o me t r i c o p t i m i z a t i o n wh e r e t h e
d e s i g n e n g i n e e r c a n c hange t h e g e o me t r y o f t h e
s t r u c t u r e , and t h e n o p t i mi z e each c o n f i g u r a t i o n ,
I n t h i s case, t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e d e s i g n
engi neer c oupl ed w i t h t h e pr esent ed appr oach can
l e a d t o t h e b e s t c o n f i g u r a t i o n .
CONCLUSIONS
T h i s p a p e r i s a n a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e t h e
d e s i g n e n g i n e e r s w i t h b a s i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g and
c o n f i d e n c e o f t h i s v a l u a b l e t o o l o f s t r u c t u r a l
o p t i mi z a t i o n . STARSTRUC has been used w i t h t h e
obvi ous r e s u l t s o f ma t e r i a l savi ngs on c r i t i c a l
c o mp o n e n t s s u c h a s t h e i a n d i n g g e a r s .
F u r t h e r m o r e , w i t h s u c h a t o o l t h e d e s i g n
e n g i n e e r d o e s n o t h a v e t o s p e n d v a l u a b l e
e n g i n e e r i n g t i m e p e r f o r m i n g t r i a l and e r r o r
p r o c e d u r e o f t h e f i n l ' t e e l e me n t met hod o f
a n a l y s i s .
The u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e u p p e r and mi d d l e
management o f t h i s t o o l and i t s b e n e f i t s i s
c r u c i a l t o e x p a n d i n g t h e us age o f s t r u c t u r a l
o p t i mi z a t i o n e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e a i r c r a f t i n d u s t r y
wh e r e i t i s needed t h e mos t . I t i s e x p e c t e d
t h a t s t r u c t u r a l o p t i m i z a t i o n w i l l become a
s t andar d pr ocedur e i n t h e des i gn pr ocess. Next ,
s t r u c t u r a l o p t i m i z a t i o n s h o u l d be i n t e g r a t e d
w i t h t h e o t h e r e x i s t i n g t o o l s o f t h e d e s i g n
p r o c e s s w i t h t h e p u r p o s e o f i n c r e a s i n g t h e
e f f i c i e n c y of t h e whol e e n g i n e e r i n g i n d u s t r i e s .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The a u t h o r s w o u l d 1 i ke t o a c k n o wl e d g e t h e
e n c o u r a g e me n t a n d i n s p i r a t i o n o f Mr . J.G.
Rand01 ph, P.E., V i c e P r e s i d e n t , En g i n e e r i n g ,
Me n a s c o I n c . , A e r o s y s t e m s D i v i s i o n , C o l t
I n d u s t r i e s .
REFERENCES
Sc hmi t, L.A., and Ma1 l e t , R.H., " S t r u c t u r a l
Sy nt hes i s and De s i g n Pa r a me t e r Hi e r a r c h y " ,
P r o c e e d i n g s o f ASCE, Vol . 89, No. ST4, Aug.
1963, pp. 264- 299.
M i c h e l l , A.G.M., " The L i m i t s o f Economy o f
M a t e r i a l i n F r a m e S t r u c t u r e s " ,
~ h i l o s o ~ h i c a l Magaz i ne, Ser . 6, Vol . 8, No.
47, Nov. 1904, pp. 589- 597. . . .
~ o t k i n , M.E., a n d Be n n e t t , J.A., " Shape
Op t i mi z a t i o n o f T h r e e - Di me n s i o n a l Fo l d e d -
P l a t e S t r u c t u r e s " , AI AA J o u r n a l , Vol . 23,
No. 11. Nov. 1985. DD. 1804- 1810.
~ i F d , J.s., ed., G t i m i z a t i o n o f Comput er -
A i d e d De s i g n , E l s e v i e r S c i e n c e P u b l i s h i n g
Co., N.Y., 1985, pp. 231- 269.
5. Ol uyomi , M.A., " Ge n e r a l i z a t i o n o f t h e Ener gy
C r i t e r i a f o r S t r u c t u r a l O p t i m i z a t i o n b y t h e
F i n i t e El e me n t Met hod" Ph.D, D i s s e r t a t j o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f Tor r ont o, 1977, pp. 4-43.
6. Tabak, E.I., and Mr i g h t , P.M., i l O p t i ma l i t y
C r i t e r i a Met hod f o r B u i l d i n g Frames", Por cC
o f t h e ASCE, Jur _nal o f S t r u c t u r a l Di v i s i o n ,
s n , JUIY 1981, pp. ~ 7 - 1 3 4 2 .
7. E l s a i e , A.M., Ga t c h e l , S., T a b a r r o k , B., and
Fent on, R.G. ,"STARSTRUC: S t r u c t u r a l Op t i mi za-
t i o n So f t wa r e Syst em and i t s Ap p l i c a t i o n s " ,
Sevent h symposium on Eng. App. o f Mechani cs,
U n i v e r s f t v o f T a r r o n t o , J u n e 1984, DO.
. . .
209-221.
8. E l s a i e , A. M. , "STARSTRUC: S t r u c t u r a l
O p t i m i z a t i o n Pr o g r a m f o r L a r g e Sy s t ems ,
"1986 ASME I n t . Computers i n Eng, Conf . a n t
Exh., CED. Vol . 1, PVP - Vol . 101, J u l y 1986
DD. 11- 17.
. .
9. Fox, R.L., Op t i mi z a t 4 o n Met hods f o r Engi -
n e e r i n g De s i g n , Ad d i s o n - Wes l ey , Readin],
Massachusset t s, 1971.
10. V e n k a y y a , ' T t r u c t u r a i O p t i m i z a t i o n : A
R e v i e w a n d Some R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s " ,
I n t . J o u r n a l f o r Num. Meth. i n Eng., Vol . 13,
NO. 2. 1978. DD. 203- 228.
. . .
11. ~ c h m i t , L.A., " S t r u c t u r a l S y n t h e s i s - I t s
Genesi s and Devel opment ", AIAA J our nal , Vol .
19, NO. 10, Oc t . 1981, DD. 1249- 1262.
12. ~ l u e r r v . C.. "A u n i f i e d A a ~ r o a c h t o S t r u c - - - , ,
t u r a l i e > g h t Mi n i mi z a t i o n " , Comput er Met hods
i n Ap p l i e d Me c h a n i c s and E n g i n e e r i n g , Vol .
20. 1979. DD. 17- 38.
- , ,
13. Cu r r e y , N.S., L a n d i n g Ge:r De s i g i i Handbook,
Loc kheed- Geor gi a Company, Jan. 1982.
wi t h a Central Load
VISUAL. INDICATOR
BUMGEE SPRINGS
TTAXL LIGHTS
FIGURE 2.
L l O l l Landing Gear
Courtesy of Author of Reference [I31
x Node Number
x El ement Number
-
FIGURE 3.
2- Di mensi onal Landi ng Gear
TABLE 1.
Op t i mi z a t i o n Res ul t s o f Example 1
Desi gn I n i t i a l F i n a l Val ues I n. 2
Va r i a b l e El ement Va 1 u$ Case A Case B
No. No. I n .
1 1 3. 02 1.843 1. 843
3 4 6.11 3.140 3. 140
4 5 1.50 2.486 7. 209
TOTAL WEIGHT ( LB) 64.45 42.56 42.89
YO. OF ITERATIONS 1 1
Design Variable Numbers
Design
' ari abl e
-
No
I ni t i a l
Weight
(1b. I -
Final
Weight
( I b. )
0. o f
t er at i ons
FIGURE 4.
Drag Brace Model
TABLE 2.
Optimization Results of t he Drag Brace
x Node Number
x Element Number
-
Optimal Thickness Di st ri but i on
___l_lf__-- 1-
CaseA f CaseB I case c 1 Case D