Topology and Shape Optimization versusTraditional Optimization MethodsDr.-Ing. Elke Feifel, Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Mandt, Voith ...
OverviewTraction Principles of Railway Vehicles   Electric drive (E)                                                     D...
Final Drives  Complete wheel sets                                   High Speed Train CRH 3   Metro Pennsylvania     EMU Za...
Final Drives, Values and Objectives  Adapt the speed of the output of an electric        motor or transmission to the spe...
Production Technologies of Spur Gears                                                                   technologies by ho...
Optimization of a Spur Gear   Reduction of stress in root fillet   no collision with tooth of opposite gear             ...
Stress in Root Fillet due to 4 Loadcases    LC 1; dir 1                                LC 2; dir 1           LC 3; dir 1  ...
Shape Optimization of Root Fillet                              Optimization task  No.                     Objective       ...
Shape Optimization of Root Fillet                                                                          Shape change of...
Principle Stress in Root Fillet (LC4)                                                                  Original Contour   ...
Safety Factor of Root Fillet                                                                          3.0                 ...
Safety Factor - Comparison with Bionic Root Fillet                                                                        ...
Conclusion – Optimization of Root Fillet     Free shape optimization in root fillet of spur gear leads to reduction      ...
Spring – Requirements on Design     Specific spring stiffness C0,min     Restriction of design space     Equivalent str...
Topology Optimization to reduce Stiffness                   Topology OptimizationNo.    Objective           Constraints   ...
Topology Optimization to Reduce Stiffness                                                                          1      ...
Topology Optimization optimization results are framework structures members are objected to tension or compression     ...
Design Derived from Optimization Results restrictions on stiffness C0,min     fulfilled                                  ...
Freeshape Optimization       Design proposal:                                                          Results of shape op...
Conclusion – Optimization of a Spring    OptiStruct optimized design differs strongly from expected design    Topology o...
Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods   21
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Topology and Shape Optimization versus Traditional Optimization Methods

968

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
968
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Topology and Shape Optimization versus Traditional Optimization Methods

  1. 1. Topology and Shape Optimization versusTraditional Optimization MethodsDr.-Ing. Elke Feifel, Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Mandt, Voith TurboPräsentationstitel | Ort oder Vortragender | YYYY-MM-DD 1
  2. 2. OverviewTraction Principles of Railway Vehicles Electric drive (E) Diesel-Electric drive (DE) trolley wire diesel engine generator electric traction electric traction converter motor converter motor Diesel-Hydromechanic drive (DHM) Diesel-Hydraulic drive (DH) diesel diesel engine engine hydrodynamic final transmission drive gearbox final driveTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 2
  3. 3. Final Drives Complete wheel sets High Speed Train CRH 3 Metro Pennsylvania EMU Zagreb MoR China USATopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 3
  4. 4. Final Drives, Values and Objectives  Adapt the speed of the output of an electric motor or transmission to the speed of the wheelset via one ore more gear ratios.  Mechanical power transmission with a minimum of wear, high efficiency and a minimum of noise and vibration.  Low weight and restricted space.Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 4
  5. 5. Production Technologies of Spur Gears technologies by hobbing Zahnstange- Bezugsprofil  development in manufacturing Form profile grinding - Fräser - Schleif- methods leads to wider variety technology scheibe in geometry  by modifying tooth root geometry critical stresses can be reduced Source: WZL, RWTH AachenTopology and shape Fingerfräser traditional optimization methods optimization versus 5
  6. 6. Optimization of a Spur Gear  Reduction of stress in root fillet  no collision with tooth of opposite gear dir 1  free-shape optimization in root fillet  most sever load positions dir 2  4 load cases due to 2 directions FLC4 (dir2) FLC2FLC1 FLC3 (dir1)(dir1) (dir2) root fillet Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 6
  7. 7. Stress in Root Fillet due to 4 Loadcases LC 1; dir 1 LC 2; dir 1 LC 3; dir 1 LC 4; dir 1 Principle Stress s1 s1,max s1,max Principle Stress s3 s3,max s3,max dir 1 dir 2Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 7
  8. 8. Shape Optimization of Root Fillet Optimization task No. Objective Constraints mimimize max. 2 s1 > s1,lim principle stress s1 mimimize max. 3 principle stress s1 mimimize max. 4 equivalent stress svTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 8
  9. 9. Shape Optimization of Root Fillet Shape change of optimized contour Original Contour Optimization 2 Optimization 3 Optimization 4Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 9
  10. 10. Principle Stress in Root Fillet (LC4) Original Contour  Reduction of tensile Optimization 2 Optimization 3 stress of  35% Optimization 4 sigma_1 (Original Contour) original contour sigma_1 (Optimized Contour 2) sigma_1 (Optimized Contour 4) sigma_1 (Optimized Contour 3) principle stress s1 (LC4) in root fillet optimized contourTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 10
  11. 11. Safety Factor of Root Fillet 3.0  fatigue strength considering mean stress 2.5 taken from Smith chart  Minimum safety factors: 2.0  0.87 original contour safety factor SF SFmin=1.17  1.17 optimized 1.5 Original contour No. 3 Contour Optimized  Increase of load capacity 1.0 Contour 3 of  35% SF SFmin=0.87 (Original) 0.5 SF (Optimized Contour 4) 0.0Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 11
  12. 12. Safety Factor - Comparison with Bionic Root Fillet 5.0 Safety Factor (Optimized Contour 4) 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 SFmin=1.17 1.5 optimized root fillet 1.0 („tension triangle“) 0.5 0.0-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 node Source: Roth, R.: Developing a Bionic Gear Root Fillet Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods Contour, VDI-Berichte 2108, 2010. 12
  13. 13. Conclusion – Optimization of Root Fillet  Free shape optimization in root fillet of spur gear leads to reduction of tensile stress and increase of load capacity of more than 35%.  Good agreement with safety factor of bionic root fillet contour based on the method of „tension triangle“  Speed up optimization process by using shape optimization  Shape optimization on fatigue strength instead of optimization on stressesTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 13
  14. 14. Spring – Requirements on Design  Specific spring stiffness C0,min  Restriction of design space  Equivalent stress smaller than slim Topology optimization Shape optimizationTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 14
  15. 15. Topology Optimization to reduce Stiffness Topology OptimizationNo. Objective Constraints Parameters 1 2 min. minimum1 volfrac < Vlim compliance membersize stress constraint min.2 volfrac < Vlim minimum compliance membersize spring stress constraint3 min. volume stiffness > minimum C0,min membersize 3 4 stress constraint max.4 volfrac < Vlim minimum displacement membersize Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 15
  16. 16. Topology Optimization to Reduce Stiffness 1 2  optimization results differ from design exspected  no feasible design 3 4Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 16
  17. 17. Topology Optimization optimization results are framework structures members are objected to tension or compression  small strain energy  large stiffness of structure large strain energy required  members subjected to bending  small stiffness of structure modifications of design space to force a structure objected to bending 4 4 4 4 mod1 mod2 mod3 mod4Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 17
  18. 18. Design Derived from Optimization Results restrictions on stiffness C0,min fulfilled 4 design good agreement with design mod4 proposal from engineering department allowable stress exceeded no feasible design sv  shape optimization with design derived from topology optimizationTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 18
  19. 19. Freeshape Optimization Design proposal: Results of shape optimization: equivalent stress shape change equivalent stress sv > sv,max sv < sv,maxTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 19
  20. 20. Conclusion – Optimization of a Spring  OptiStruct optimized design differs strongly from expected design  Topology optimization on minimum compliance has no feasible design  Modifying the design space leads to feasible design proposal which fulfills the requirements  „Intelligent“ solutions might get lost in numerical optimization processTopology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 20
  21. 21. Topology and shape optimization versus traditional optimization methods 21
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×