Structure Optimization of Solid Rocket Engine Vacuum Pouring Cylinder Cover based on Response Surface

doi:10.23940/ijpe.19.02.p12.475484

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to make a vacuum pouring cylinder cover have an improved function, where two large solid rocket engines rather than one can be poured through simultaneously in a vacuum environment, the structure of the original vacuum pouring cylinder cover should be reformed. In addition to the original one, two other pouring ports are required. Therefore, to ensure its strength and stiffness properties, some stiffeners (or stiffen ribs) should be welded on its inner surface. Based on the response surface method and finite element analysis method, a multi-objective optimization model is obtained to optimize the structure of the two-engine pouring cylinder cover. Three sizes related to the stiffeners are defined as design variables, and the structural stresses and deformation values are calculated by using ANSYS software. Box-Behnken design experiments are conducted after narrowing the range of design variables by using a combination test. Design-Expert,a kind of common experiment design software, is used to optimize and solve the response surface. The optimal values of sizes of stiffeners for the two-engine pouring cylinder cover structure are obtained. The research results build asolidfoundation for the practical application of the project.

Key words: solid rocket engine, vacuum pouring cylinder cover, response surface methodology, combination test, multi-objective optimization method

Zhaoxia Cui, Wenwen Wang, Shuaida Li, Yunjie Zhu, Tao Yang, and Yu Zhou. Structure Optimization of Solid Rocket Engine Vacuum Pouring Cylinder Cover based on Response Surface [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(2): 475-484.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

Figures/Tables 18

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Table 3

Table 4

BBD test design data"

NO.	t/mm	H/mm	L/mm	Equivalent stress $σ$ /MPa	Maximum shear stress $τ$ /MPa	Deformation $δ$ /MPa	Mass M/kg
1	15.00	350.00	800.00	428.72	223.62	2.33	4926.72
2	20.00	300.00	800.00	350.50	183.81	2.27	5034.31
3	20.00	250.00	850.00	366.93	192.52	2.83	4918.28
4	20.00	250.00	750.00	392.67	207.21	2.76	4924.23
5	15.00	250.00	800.00	412.54	216.90	3.33	4758.52
6	20.00	300.00	800.00	350.50	183.81	2.27	5034.31
7	20.00	350.00	850.00	360.19	187.32	2.00	5141.40
8	20.00	300.00	800.00	350.50	183.81	2.27	5034.31
9	20.00	300.00	800.00	350.50	183.81	2.27	5034.31
10	15.00	300.00	850.00	414.26	217.48	2.96	4842.98
11	25.00	350.00	800.00	291.45	150.57	1.74	5360.22
12	25.00	300.00	750.00	312.69	162.86	1.96	5230.24
13	20.00	300.00	800.00	350.50	183.81	2.27	5034.31
14	15.00	300.00	750.00	442.14	233.35	2.65	4848.41
15	20.00	350.00	750.00	364.75	189.70	2.06	5149.90
16	25.00	300.00	850.00	303.64	159.36	2.01	5221.21
17	25.00	250.00	800.00	275.15	141.08	2.45	5081.00

Table 4

Table 5

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Table 6

Table 7

References 15

1	C. C. Hang, C. Y. Hsu, H. R. Tsai, “Minimum Weight Design of Submersible Pressure Hull under Hydrostatic Pressure”, Journal of Computers and Structures, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp.187-201, 1997 doi: 10.1016/S0045-7949(96)00342-2
2	B. W. Song, Q. F. Zhu, P. Wang, “Research on Optimal Design of UUV Pressure Shell based on Combined Design Method,” Chinese Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology for Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.561-565, May 2010
3	T. Xu, Y. Cheng, Y. M. Ran, “Analysis and Structural Optimization of Low Temperature Deformation of Axial Piston Pump Shell,” Chinese Journal of Pneumatic Pneumatics and Seals, Vol. 37, No. 12, pp.5-8, December 2017
4	X. J. Yang, “Finite Element Analysis of Bag Filter Case based on ANSYS,” Chinese Journal of Shanxi Architecture, Vol. 43, No. 28, pp.204-205, October 2017
5	J. F. Hu, Z. H. Yang, G. Y. Xu, “Reliability Robust Design of Micromanipulation Platform based on Response Surface Method,” Journal of Vibration and Shock, Vol. 15, No. 15, pp.245-252, August 2017
6	Y. Yang, X. Y. He, H. T. Gu, B. Zhang, “Optimization of Underwater Robot Shell Structure,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.614-619, March 2016
7	W. Shen, M. Liao, Q. Wang, “Lightweight Design of Gearbox Housing based on Topological Optimization,” Journal of Agricultural Machinery, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.234-241, August 2018
8	M. Li, “Research on Reliability Analysis of Response Surface Method,” Dissertation of Chongqing University, May 2016
9	G. Box and K. B. Wilson,“On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series Statistical Methodology, No. 1, pp.1-45, 1951
10	R. L. Mason, R. F. Gunst, J. L Hess, “Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments with Applications to Engineering and Science,” John Wiley and Sons Publication, the United States of America, 2003
11	L. Li, S. Zhang, Q. He, X. B. Hu, “Application of Response Surface Method in Experimental Design and Optimization,” Journal of Laboratory Research and Exploration, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp.41-45, August 2015
12	J.Z. Qin and J.G. Lu ,“Cultivation of Edible Fungi,” Northwest Agricultural and Forestry University Press, Xi’an, 2002
13	S. H. Jiang, X. H. Qi, Z. J. Cao, D. Q. Li, “Reliability Analysis of Slope System based on Stochastic Response Surface Method,” Journal of Geotechnical Mechanics, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.809-818, March 2015
14	J. Eusebio and C. Martinez, “Optimization of Geometric Parameters in a Welded Joint Through Response Surface Methodology,” Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 154, No. 15, pp.105-114, June 2017
15	Y. K. Sui and H.P. Yu “The Improved Response Surface Method and its Application to Engineering,” Science Press, Bering, 2011

Univariate analysis project	Variate	Quantitative/mm			The number of sampling points
Univariate analysis project	Variate	t	H	L	The number of sampling points
Stiffeners’ thickness	t	10 ~ 50	300	600	9
Stiffeners’ height	H	30	100 ~ 500	600	8
Stiffeners’ spacing	L	30	300	300 ~ 900	7

	y₁	y₂	y₃	y₄
R²	0.934	0.931	0.999	0.9975
R²(Adaj)	0.918	0.915	0.998	0.9943
R²(pred)	0.873	0.8654	0.995	0.9598
Adeq Precision	22.11	21.634	146.1	66.852

[1]	Prem Sagar and Amit Handa. Wear Resistance Prediction Model for Magnesium Metal Composite by Response Surface Methodology using Central Composite Design [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2020, 16(10): 1525-1534.
[2]	Liangfen Wei, Yong Li, Yong Wang, Xiangyu Chen, and Zhaohui Xu. Mining Minimal Failure-Causing Schema for Software Complex Configuration Space [J]. Int J Performability Eng, 2019, 15(12): 3253-3261.