Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T15:40:24.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parameter optimisation of a carrier-based UAV drawbar based on strain fatigue analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2021

H. Chen Open the ORCID record for H. Chen [Opens in a new window] ,
X. Fang ,
Z. Zhang ,
X. Xie ,
H. Nie  and
X. Wei
H. Chen
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
X. Fang
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Z. Zhang
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
X. Xie
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
H. Nie*
Affiliation:
College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
X. Wei
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
*
hnie@nuaa.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carrier-based unmanned aerial aircraft (UAV) structure is subjected to severe tensile load during takeoff, especially the drawbar, which affects its fatigue performance and structural safety. However, the complex structural features pose great challenges for the engineering design. Considering this situation, a structural design, fatigue analysis, and parameters optimisation joint working platform are urgently needed to solve this problem. In this study, numerical analysis of strain fatigue is carried out based on the laboratory fatigue failure of the carrier-based aircraft drawbar. Taking the sensitivity of drawbar parameters to stress and life into account and optimum design of drawbar with fatigue life as a target using the parametric method, this study also includes cutting-edge parameters of milling cutters, structural details of the drawbar and so on. Then an experimental design is applied using the Latin hypercube sampling method, and a surrogate model based on RBF neural network is established. Lastly, a multi-island genetic algorithm is introduced for optimisation. The results show that the error between the obtained optimal solution and simulation is 0.26%, while the optimised stress level is reduced by 15.7%, and the life of the drawbar is increased by 122%.

Keywords

carrier-based UAVstrain fatiguesurrogate modelstructural optimisation
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 125 , Issue 1288 , June 2021 , pp. 1083 - 1102
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Johnson, C. and Barakos, G. A framework for optimising aspects of rotor blades, Aeronaut J (1968), 2011, 115, (1165), pp 147–161. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000005558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiba, M., Barton, D.C., Brooks, P.C. and Levesley, M.C. The development of an optimization algorithm based on fatigue life, Int J Fatigue, 2003, 25, (4), pp 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meng, D., Yang, S., Zhang, Y., & Shun-Peng, Z. Structural reliability analysis and uncertainties-based collaborative design and optimization of turbine blades using surrogate model. Fatigue & Fracture Eng. Mater. Struct., 2019, 42, (6), pp 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, C.J., Dai, J.H., Wei, T., et al. Structural optimization of a nose landing gear considering its fatigue life. J Aircr, 2012, 49, (1), pp 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munk, D.J., Auld, D.J., Steven, G.P. and Vio, G.A. On the benefits of applying topology optimization to structural design of aircraft components. Struct Multidiscipl Optim, 2019, 60, (3), pp 1245–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, T., et al. Metamodel-based optimization of the bolted connection of a wing spar considering fatigue resistance. Proc Inst Mech Eng G. J Aerosp Eng, 2016, 230, (5), pp 805–814. doi: 10.1177/0954410015598792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HBM nCode: DesignLife Theory Guide. HBM United Kingdom Limited, 2015, Rotherham.Google Scholar
Hardy, R.L. Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces, J Geophy, 1971, 76, (8), pp 1905–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, H., and Horstemeyer, M. Metamodeling with Radial Basis Functions, 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Austin, TX, AIAA Paper 2005-2059, April 2005.Google Scholar
Jin, R., Chen, W. and Simpson, T. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidisc Optim, 2001, 23, pp 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-001-0160-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simulia Isight: ISIGHT Users’ Guide. Dassault Systems, 2016, Paris.Google Scholar
Mckay, M.D., et al. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 1979, 21, (2), pp 239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florian, A. An efficient sampling scheme: updated Latin hypercube sampling. Probabilistic Eng Mech, 1992, 7, (2), pp 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, M.H., Tang, W.C., Xing, Y. and Ni, J. The clamping position optimization and deformation analysis for an antenna thin wall parts assembly with ASA, MIGA and PSO algorithm. Int J Precis Eng Manuf, 2017, 18, (3), pp 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar