Advertisement

Advanced RBF Mesh Morphing for Multi-physics Applications with Evolutionary Shapes

  • Marco Evangelos BiancoliniEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In many multi-physics fields the evolution of model shapes can be predicted in advance or determined in an evolutionarily manner during computing. For such applications, the analyst can use RBF mesh morphing to reliably handle geometrical variations and build-up automatic and efficient workflows. Depending on the extent of the modification between one shape configuration and the successive one, either a single or sequential multi-stage morphing approach (see Sect.  6.1.3) can be employed. A complete description of mesh morphing based on Fast RBF is provided in Chap.  6. In the following sections the basic principles of the application of mesh morphing for the simulation of evolutionary shapes are provided. The method is first explained step by step with a practical example about snow accretion and then advanced usage examples of ice accretion are provided. Successively, the chapter includes examples of the application of mesh morphing in FEA for Fracture Mechanics demonstrating how crack update and propagation can be consistently addressed. Shape optimisations of structural parts using the biological growth method (BGM) are finally presented.

References

  1. ANSYS Inc. (2017) ANSYS Fluent User’s GuideGoogle Scholar
  2. AFCEN RM (2007) Design and construction rules for mechanical components of nuclear installations. Section 1—Subsection Z, Appendix A16: Guide for Leak Before Break Analysis and Defect AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  3. Allain E, Paradot N, Ribourg M, Delpech P, Bouchet JP, De La Casa X, Pauline J (2014) Experimental and numerical study of snow accumulation on a high-speed train. In: 49th international symposium of applied aerodynamics, Lille, 24-25-26 March. FP18-2014-ALLAINGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson TL (2017) Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. CRC pressGoogle Scholar
  5. Appiah-Kubi P (2011) U.S Inflight Icing accidents and Incidents, 2006–2010. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2011Google Scholar
  6. Biancolini ME (2014) How to boost fluent adjoint using RBF Morph. In: Automotive simulation world congress 2014 on 9–10 October 2014 in Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. Biancolini ME, Chiappa A, Giorgetti F, Porziani S, Rochette M (2017) Radial basis functions mesh morphing for the analysis of cracks. Procedia Struct Integrity 8(2018):433–443, ISSN 2452-3216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2017.12.043 
  8. Carpinteri A, Brighenti R, Spagnoli A, Vantadori S (2003) Fatigue growth of surface cracks in notched round bars. In: Proceedings of Fatigue Crack Path. Parma, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. Chwalowski P, Florance JP, Heeg J, Wieseman CD, Perry B (2011) Preliminary computational analysis of the HIRENASD configuration in preparation for the aeroelastic prediction workshop. In: International forum of aeroelasticity and structural dynamics (IFASD), IFASD 2011-108, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole J, Sand W (1991) Statistical study of aircraft icing accidents. In: 29th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA, AIAA Paper 91-0558, 10 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa E, Biancolini ME, Groth C, Travostino G, D’Agostini G (2014) Reliable mesh morphing approach to handle icing simulations on complex models. In: Proceedings of the 4th EASN association international workshop on flight physics and aircraft design, EASN, Aachen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2013) RBF4AERO Project, http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/109141_en.html
  13. Galland F, Gravouil A, Malvesin E, Rochette M (2011) A global model reduction approach for 3D fatigue crack growth with confined plasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(5):699–716MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Heywood RB (1969) Photoelasticity for designers (chapter 11: improvement of designs). Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Mattheck C, Burkhardt S (1990) A new method of structural shape optimisation based on biological growth. Int J Fatigue 12(3):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NASA (2012b) 1st AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop, https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/dashlink/static/media/other/AEPW_legacy.htm
  17. Petty KR, Floyd CDJ (2004) A statistical review of aviation airframe icing accidents in the U.S. In: 11th conference on aviation, range, and aerospace, October 2004, Hyannis, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Pilkey WD, Pilkey DF (2008) Peterson’s stress concentration factors. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  19. Riccio C, Simms NJ, Oakey JE (2017) Predicting deposition onto superheater tubes in biomass and coal-fired combustion system, Conference PaperGoogle Scholar
  20. Trenker M, Payer W (2006) Investigation of snow particle transportation and accretion on vehicles. In: 24th applied aerodynamics conference, 5–8 June, San Francisco, California, AIAA 2006-3648Google Scholar
  21. Waldman W, Heller M (2015) Shape optimisation of holes in loaded plates by minimisation of multiple stress peaks. Defence Science and Technology Organisation Fishermans Bend (Australia) Aerospace Div, http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA618562
  22. Wright WB (2002) User manual for the NASA Glenn Ice Accretion Code LEWICE. Version 2(2):2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Enterprise Engineering “Mario Lucertini”University of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations