Presentation on theme: "M. Muscat, M. Formosa, G. A. Salgado Martin"— Presentation transcript:
1Design of an Underwater Towfish using Design by Rule and Design by Analysis M. Muscat, M. Formosa, G. A. Salgado MartinDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MaltaR.Sinatra, A. CammarataDepartment of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of CataniaERDF Italia – Malta 2007 – 2013BIODIVALUE
2SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION Scope for the projectDescription of the towfishMethodology of DesignDesign by RuleDesign by AnalysisConclusions and DiscussionPrototype manufacturing
3Scope for the project Monitoring of sea water pollution Monitor jellyfish populationMonitor plankton populationThe towfish is very convenient to use when a large area of the sea needs to be scanned
4Description of the Towfish An underwater vessel towed behind a surface shipThe towfish is equipped with various sensors & camerasPositively buoyantDepth of dive controlled by hydroplanesMaximum depth of dive is 50mData, signals, power transferred via tow line
6Methodology of DesignThe Design of the Towfish is not governed by international legislation or code of standardThe towfish can be considered to be a pressure vessel acted upon by external pressure and various local loadsDBR first used to calculate some of the various dimensions and thicknesses of the towfish components mainly to prevent bucklingDBA Annex B of EN13445 part 3 was then used to carry out other buckling checks that were not possible with DBR
7Design by Rule Section 8 & Section 16 of EN13445 Part 3 Main cylindrical, hemispherical, conical shell & cylindrical arms designed against buckling (Section 8)Section 16 used to check for any reinforcement required due to local loads acting at the nozzle attachments and at the towlug area
8Design by RuleMethods presented in EN13445 not always applicable for the design of the towfish components.Conical end bearing reinforcementRectangular flange connection of the fixed part of the hydroplane to the main cylinder
10Material used for the towfish Structural steelMinimum yield stress ReH of 235 N/mm2Maximum tensile stress Rm of 360 N/mm2Resulted in a Design stress of f of 150 N/mm2Corrosion allowance not required
11Design by Rule (Buckling) The internal flanges connecting the main cylinder to the hemispherical and to the conical ends were assumed to act as heavy stiffenersNo need to include shell junction reinforcementsBuckling expected to occur within each main shell component
12Design by Rule (Buckling) Main cylinder thickness 3mmCylindrical arms thickness 2mmHemisphere thickness 2mmConical end thickness 2mm
13Design by Rule (Local loads) Total lift on both hydroplanes was -702NTotal drag on the towfish was 2519NLift on each rotating aileron was -254NDrag on each rotating aileron was -87NLift on each fixed part of the hydroplane was -97NDrag on each fixed part of the hydroplane was 100.6N
14Design by Rule (Aileron nozzle) As a conservative assumption, for the DBR part it was assumed that each aileron nozzle on the main cylinder side is carrying the lift and drag acting on each aileronDBR section 16 of MSA EN resulted in a reinforcement plate of thickness 3mm for the region of the aileron nozzleThe reinforcement was also extended so that it reinforces the area around the rectangular flange connection of the fixed part of the hydroplane
15Design by Rule (Towlug) By considering the lift and drag on the hydroplanes and towfish, the maximum value and direction of the resulting force on the towing lug could be calculatedThis resulted in a reinforcement plate of 3mm thickness in the towing lug region.
17DBR (conical end nozzles) For the design of the nozzles at the conical end the assumption that the local loads are acting on a cylinder having the same diameter of the cone at the point of the nozzle/bearing connection was taken.No reinforcement required
18Design by AnalysisANSYS Mechanical used within a DBA context in order to ascertain the structural integrity of the towfish especially in the parts that deviated away from the scope of Sections 8 and 16 of ENGPD & I design checks were carried out to ensure structural integrity of the pressure vessel component
19Finite element modelsPartial safety factors for the material different for GPD & I checksFor the GPD check the yield stress value used in the finite element material model was N/mm2For the I check the yield stress value was 235 N/mm2.
20For the buckling check of the towfish no pre-deformations according to the critical eigenvalue buckling shapes were considered.Local loads acted as force or moment perturbations to induce bucklingPartial safety factors for pressure action and local load actions appliedLinear elastic perfectly plastic material modelThe finite elements SHELL281 and BEAM181 were used in the software ANSYS Mechanical
21For all the FEA models (except for the towlug model) the nozzle moments created a situation of geometrical weakening so that both GPD and I check used large deformation analysis.For the towlug model only the I check required the use of large deformation analysis.
22GPD / I check on aileron nozzle/main cylinder Same loading situation as in the DBR methodPressure acting on the cylindrical shell & hydrodynamic lift and drag acting on the aileronFully fixed BC at the flangesSymmetry BC along length of cylinder
23The reinforcing plate in the region of the nozzle as described in the DBR section of this paper had a thickness of 3mm so that the total shell thickness in this region was 6mm.The cylindrical shell thickness elsewhere in the model was 3mm.The model deformation was as expected and confirmed the applied boundary conditions and loadings.
24GPD / I check on aileron nozzle/main cylinder The figure shows the von Mises stress obtained from the I check on the top surface of the shells.Yield stress 235N/mm2In the region of the nozzle the material remains wholly elastic with principal structural strains much below 5%
25GPD / I check on aileron nozzle/main cylinder The lift and drag on the ailerons is counteracted by both aileron nozzles that is the one on the main cylinder side and the one on the cylindrical arm side.Different from what was designed using DBR but is more faithful to the towfish prototype design
26GPD / I check on aileron nozzle/main cylinder The model includes the loading at the end of the fixed wings due to the hydrodynamic drag and buoyancy of the cylindrical arms.The model deformation was as expected and confirmed the applied boundary conditions and loadings.
27GPD / I check on aileron nozzle/main cylinder von Mises stress obtained from the I check on the top surface of the shells.In the region of the aileron nozzleand fixed wing connections the material remains wholly elastic with principal structural strain much lower than 5%.
28GPD / I check on elevator nozzle/conical end FE model used for the check against buckling for the region of the elevator nozzle connection to the conical end.The conical shell has a thickness of 2mm while the thickness of the shell for the nozzle is 5mm.
29The model deformation was as expected and confirmed the applied boundary conditions and loadings. The maximum principal structural strain occurred in the elevator nozzle/conical shell region and had values of 0.667% in the GPD check and 0.293% in the I check.
30GPD / I check on the towlug/main cylinder The thickness of the towlug shell is 4 mm.The thickness of the reinforcing plate region is 6mm.The cylindrical shell thickness elsewhere in the model is 3mm.The reinforcing plate in the region of the towing lug is of rectangular shape and has dimensions 70mm by 200mm.
31GPD / I check on the towlug/main cylinder In the region of the towlug area the material remains wholly elastic with some plasticity occurring in the internal flange that connects the main cylinder to the hemisphere.The maximum structural strain for both the GPD check and the I check occurred in the flange regions and was much less than 5%.
32Discussions and Conclusions The DBR approach and assumptions taken were quite suited for the preliminary design of the towfish.DBA is required in order to get more insight into the kind of failure mechanisms especially for the components that were outside the scope of the DBR method.At the main cylinder internal flanges some plasticity has occurred. In case that this plasticity may effect the service conditions of the flanges and so their thickness was increased to reduce the size of the plastic region.
33Discussions and Conclusions In all components the maximum structural strain in the FEA models when subjected to the maximum loads was less than 5%.Therefore the principles of the GPD check and I check were satisfied and the design of each component acceptable according to Annex B of EN13445 Part 3DBA can be further used to reduce the weight of the towfish while at the same time maintaining its structural integrity and fitness for purpose as regards to allowable deformations.
34Prototype Manufacturing Main changes to the original design:Flange tickness equal to 5 mm for all collars.Thickness reduced from 2 mm to 1,5 mm for ailerons, stabilizers and rudder.Cutting of the central screw to allow screwing of the main body to the ailerons.Skid supports moved to the central body’s external surface.Modified flange system for the camera housing (pod’s cap)conical surface approximated through planar surfaces
35Assembly of the Prototype Front view assembly of the prototype
36Assembly of the Prototype Rear view assembly of the prototype
37Coupling FlangeFlange used for the coupling of the rudder motor to the shaft.Connection flange-shaft is made using hole with steel plug
38Rudder MotorView mouting of the motor and rudder’s shaft.
39Motor Support Motor support and anchorages to the towfish frame Holes: 2 dof
40Cone Assembly Inside view of the cone assembly. Particular view assembly of the stabilizers and rudder
41Fixed Wing Support view of the fixed wing support The component has been modified to remove the problems associated with the screwing
42Cone support Supports fixed on the towfish cylinder by welding removible part while operating