Abstract
Measurements of component geometry are routinely made for inspection during manufacturing. Typically this results in ‘clouds’ of points or pixels depending upon the measuring system. Examples include points form laser-based or touch-probe co-ordinate measuring machines (CMMs). The point density may vary as will the cost and time taken to make measurements. There can also be gaps and occlusions in data, and sometimes it is only practical to collect sparse sets or points in a single dimension.
This data often provides an untapped source of quantitative uncertainty information pertaining to manufacturing methods. It is proposed that state-of-the-art uncertainty propagation and robust design optimization approaches, often demonstrated using assumed normal input distributions in existing parameters, can be improved by incorporating these data. Inclusion of this information requires, however, that the point cloud be converted to an appropriate parametric form.
Although the design intent of a component may be described using simple geometric primitives joined with tangency or at vertices, manufactured geometry may not exhibit the same simple form, and line and surface segment end locations are notoriously difficult to locate where there is tangency or shallow angles. In this paper we present an approach to first characterise point cloud measurements as curves or surfaces using Kriging, allowing for gaps in data by extension to universal Kriging. We then propose a novel method for the reduction of variables to parameterize curves and surfaces again using Kriging models in order to facilitate practical analysis of performance uncertainty. The techniques are demonstrated by application to a gas turbine engine blade to disc joint where the contact surface shape is measured and the notch stresses are critical to component performance.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Here we refer only to ‘black-box’ processes, but the difficulty associated with ensuring accuracy of input uncertainties is just as relevant to ‘intrusive’ approaches.
- 2.
It is typical to use \(\mathbf {x}\), but to avoid confusion with \(\mathbf {x}\) from a measurement set, we refer to the design variable vector as \(\mathbf {v}\).
- 3.
This methodology may have its own flaws but is not the focus of this paper, where it is assumed that the ‘cleaned’ curve is ‘correct’.
References
Broomhead, D.S., Lowe, D.: Multivariate functional interpolation and adaptive networks. Complex Syst. 2, 321–355 (1988)
Cressie, N.A.C.: Statistics for Spatial Data. Wiley, Hoboken (1993). Revised edition
Forrester, A., Sóbester, A., Keane, A.: Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling - A Practical Guide. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)
Forrester, A.I.J., Keane, A.J.: Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 45, 50–79 (2009)
Iman, R.L., Conover, W.J.: A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables. Commun. Stat. B 11, 311–334 (1982)
Jurecka, F.: Robust Design Optimization Based on Metamodelling Techniques, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Munich (2007)
Klimke, A.: Sparse Grid Interpolation Toolbox User’s Guide. Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Angewandte Analysis und Numerische Simulation, February 2008. Version 5.1
Morris, M.D., Mitchell, T.J.: Exploratory designs for computational experiments. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 43, 381–402 (1995)
Oberkampf, W.L., Helton, J.C., Joslyn, C.A., Wojtkiewicz, S.F., Ferson, S.: Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given uncertain parameters. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 85, 11–19 (2004)
Papoulis, A., Pillai, S.U.: Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., New York City (2002)
Park, G.-J., Lee, T.H., Lee, K.H., Hwang, H.-H.: Robust design: an overview. AIAA J. 44(1), 181–191 (2006)
Picheny, V., Wagner, T., Ginsbourger, D.: A benchmark of kriging-based infill criteria for noisy optimization. J. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 48(3), 607–626 (2013)
Quttineh, N.-H., Holmström, K.: Implementation of a one-stage efficient global optimization (EGO) algorithm. In: 20th International Symposium on Mathematical Programming (ISMP), Chicago (2009)
Sobol’, I.M.: On the systematic search of a hypercube. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 16(5), 790–793 (1979)
Xiong, F., Greene, S., Chen, W., Xiong, Y., Yang, S.: A new sparse grid based method for uncertainty propagation. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41, 335–349 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0441-x
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by Rolls-Royce plc. and conducted in the Rolls-Royce University Technology Centre for Computational Engineering, in the Computational Engineering and Design research group, Aeronautics, Astronautics, and Computational Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, at the University of Southampton, England.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Forrester, J., Keane, A. (2018). Characterization of Geometric Uncertainty in Gas Turbine Engine Components Using CMM Data. In: Schumacher, A., Vietor, T., Fiebig, S., Bletzinger, KU., Maute, K. (eds) Advances in Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. WCSMO 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67988-4_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67988-4_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67987-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67988-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)