Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:21:52.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling lay-up automation and production rate interaction on the cost of large stiffened panel components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

M. Mullan ,
A. Murphy ,
D. Quinn ,
M. Price ,
J. Butterfield ,
S. Cowan ,
P. McElroy ,
P. Hawthorne  and
S. Robertson
M. Mullan
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
A. Murphy*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
D. Quinn
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
M. Price
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
J. Butterfield
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
S. Cowan
Affiliation:
Methods and Procurement, Bombardier Aerospace, Northern Ireland, UK
P. McElroy
Affiliation:
Methods and Procurement, Bombardier Aerospace, Northern Ireland, UK
P. Hawthorne
Affiliation:
Methods and Procurement, Bombardier Aerospace, Northern Ireland, UK
S. Robertson
Affiliation:
Methods and Procurement, Bombardier Aerospace, Northern Ireland, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an integrated design and costing method for large stiffened panels for the purpose of investigating the influence and interaction of lay-up technology and production rate on manufacturing cost. A series of wing cover panels (≈586kg, 19·9m2) have been sized with realistic requirements considering manual and automated lay-up routes. The integrated method has enabled the quantification of component unit cost sensitivity to changes in annual production rate and employed equipment maximum deposition rate. Moreover the results demonstrate the interconnected relationship between lay-up process and panel design, and unit cost. The optimum unit cost solution when using automated lay-up is a combination of the minimum deposition rate and minimum number of lay-up machines to meet the required production rate. However, the location of the optimum unit cost, at the boundaries between the number of lay-up machines required, can make unit cost very sensitive to small changes in component design, production rate, and equipment maximum deposition rate.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1201 , March 2014 , pp. 275 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

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

1. Wittig, J. Process automation for the production of large composite parts, Reinforced Plastics, January 2005, 49, (1), pp 30–33 Google Scholar
2. Poggiali, B. Production cost modeling: A spreadsheet methodology, 1995, S.M. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
3. Goss, I. Production Functions and Cost Models for Fibres in Advanced Composite Materials, 1986, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept of Materials Science and Engineering, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
4. Cinquin, I. Aeronautical Composite Structure Cost Reduction from the Material Aspect, NATO RTO ATV spring panel symposium and specialists meeting Loen, 2001, Norway.Google Scholar
5. Seresta, O., Gurdal, Z., Adams, D. and Watson, L. Optimal design of composite wing structures with blended laminates, 2007, Composites: Part B, 38, pp 469–480.Google Scholar
6. Yamazaki, K. Two-level optimization technique of composite laminate panels by genetic algorithms, AIAA Paper, 1996-1539, 1996.Google Scholar
7. Herencia, J.E., Weaver, P.M. and Friswell, M.I. Local optimization of anisotropic composite panels with T shape stiffeners, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, April 2007, AIAA-2007-2217.Google Scholar
8. Kristinsdottir, B.P., Zabinsky, Z.B., Tuttle, M.E. and Neogi, S. Optimal design of large composite panels with varying loads, Composite Structures, 2001, 51, pp 93, 102.Google Scholar
9. Seresta, O., Gurdal, Z., Adams, D. and Watson, L. Optimal design of composite wing structures with blended laminates. Composites: Part B, 2007, 38, pp 469–480.Google Scholar
10. Soremekun, G., Gurdal, Z., Kassapoglou, C. and Toni, D. Stacking sequence blending of multiple composite laminates using genetic algorithms, Composite Structures, 2002, 56, pp 53, 62.Google Scholar
11. Niazi, A., Dai, J.S., Balabani, S. and Seneviratne, L. Product cost estimation: technique classification and methodology review, J Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Trans ASME 2006; 128, (2), pp 563–75.Google Scholar
12. Curran, R., Raghunathan, S. and Price, M. Review of Aerospace Engineering Cost Modelling: The Genetic Casual Appoach, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2004, 40, (8), pp 487–534.Google Scholar
13. Leblanc, D.J. Advanced Composite Cost Estimation Manual (ACCEM), Report no. AFFDL-TR-76-87, Northrop Corporation, 1976, LA, CA, USA.Google Scholar
14. Mabson, G.E., Ilcewicz, L.B., Graesser, D.L., Metschan, S.L., Proctor, M.R., Tervo, D.K., Tutle, M.E. and Zabinsky, Z.B. Cost Optimization Software for Transport Aircraft Design Evaluation (COSTADE) – Overview, Report no. CR 4736, 1996, NASA, Hampton, VA, USA.Google Scholar
15. Kaufmann, M., Zenkert, D. and Åkermo, M. Material selection for a curved c-spar based on cost optimization, AIAA J, May–June 2011, 48, (3).Google Scholar
16. Kaufmann, M., Zenkert, D. and Wennhage, P. Integrated cost/weight optimization of aircraft structures, Struct Multidisc Optim, 2010, 41, pp 325–334.Google Scholar
17. Bader, M.G. Selection of Composite materials and manufacturing routes for cost effective performance, Composites Part A, 2002, 33, (7), pp 913–934.Google Scholar
18. Edwards, D.A., Williams, F.W. and Kennedy, D. Cost optimization of stiffened panels using VICONOPT, February 1998, AIAA J, 36, (2).Google Scholar
19. Kassapoglou, C. Simultaneous cost and weight minimization of composite-stiffened panels under compression and shear, 1997, Composites Part A, 28, (5), pp 419–435.Google Scholar
20. Kermo, M.A. and Astrom, B.T. Modelling component cost in compression moulding of thermoplastic composite and sandwich components, Composites: Part A, 31, 2000, pp 319–333.Google Scholar
21. Schubel, P.J. Technical cost modelling for a generic 45m wind turbine blade produced by vacuum infusion (VI), Renew Energy, 2010, 35, pp183–9.Google Scholar
22. Schubel, P.J. Cost modelling in polymer composite appications: Case study – Analysis of existing and automated manufacturing processes for a large wind turbine blade, Composites: Part B 43, 2012, pp 953–960.Google Scholar
23. Verrey, J., Wakeman, M.D., Michaud, V. and MÅnson, J.-A.E. Manufacturing cost comparison of thermoplastic and thermoset RTM for an automotive floor pan, Composites: Part A 37, 2006, pp 9–22.Google Scholar
24. Kendalla, K., Mangina, C. and Ortizb, E. Discrete event simulation and cost analysis for manufacturing optimisation of an automotive LCM component, Composites Part A 29A, 1998, pp 711–720.Google Scholar
25. Liu, W. and Butler, R. Optimum Buckling Design of Composite Wing Cover Panels with Manufacturing Constraints. 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 23-26 April 2007, AIAA 2007-2215.Google Scholar
26. Herencia, J.E., Weaver, P.M. and Friswell, M.I. Local optimization of anisotropic composite panels with T shape stiffeners, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2007, AIAA-2007-2217.Google Scholar
27. Feraboli, P, Composite materials strength determination within the current certification methodology for aircraft structures, AIAA J, July-August 2009, 46, (4).Google Scholar
28. Department of Defense. Composites Materials Handbook: Volume 3. Polymer matrix composites materials usage, design, and analysis. Military Handbook, MIL-HDBK-17-3F.Google Scholar
29. Niu, M.C. Composite Airframe Structures, 1st ed, Conmilit Press Ltd, Hong Kong, 1992.Google Scholar
30. ESDU structures sub-series. Failure criteria for an individual layer of a fibre reinforced composite laminate under in-plane loading, Engineering Sciences Data Units, Data Item 83014, ESDU International Ltd.Google Scholar
31. Renieri, M.P. and Garrett, R.A. Investigation of the Local Buckling, Postbuckling and Cripping Behavior of Graphite/Epoxy Short Thin-Walled Compression Members. McDonnell Aircraft Report, MDC A7091, NASC, July 1981.Google Scholar
32. Bruhn, E.F. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, 1st ed, Tri-State Offset Company, 1973.Google Scholar
33. Niu, M.C. Airframe Structural Design, 1st ed, Conmilit Press Ltd, Hong Kong, 1998.Google Scholar
34. ESDU structures sub-series. Buckling of rectangular specially orthotropic plates, Engineering Sciences Data Units, Data Item 80023, ESDU International Ltd.Google Scholar
35. Niu, M.C. Airframe Stress Analysis and Sizing, 2nd ed, Conmilit Press Ltd, Hong Kong, 1999.Google Scholar
36. Neoh, E.T. Adaptive Framework for Estimating Fabrication Time, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mass, USA, August 1995.Google Scholar
37. Lukaszewicz, D.H.-J.A., Ward, C. and Potter, K.D. The engineering aspects of automated prepreg layup: History, present and future, Composites Part B, April 2012, Engineering, 43, (3), pp 997–1009.Google Scholar
38. Shi, D., Jiang, J., Tian, E. and Lung, C. Perimeter-area relation and fractal dimension of fracture surfaces, J Mater Sci Technol, 1997, 13, pp 416–420.Google Scholar
39. Patton, D.R. A diversity index for quantifying habitat edge, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 1975, 3, pp 171–173.Google Scholar