Certification by Analysis Uncertainty Quantification

 View Only

  • 1.  Questions for March 19 Meeting on Structures

    Posted 21 days ago
    Edited by John Schaefer 21 days ago

    Hello Everyone,

    You are hopefully aware by now that our next full community meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 19 at 11:00 am US Eastern Time. The organizing team is aware that depending on your geographic location or conflicting commitments, not all of you will be able to attend live. To this end, we are planning to record the meeting.

    The subject of the meeting will be on the structures aspect of the Challenge Problem. If you have a question that you would like to ask, but you will be unable to attend the meeting live, please post your question to this thread. Time permitting, we will attempt to address these questions during the meeting so that you will be able to hear the answers when watching the recording later.

    Thanks!



    ------------------------------
    John Schaefer
    Associate Technical Fellow, Aerodynamics Engineer
    The Boeing Company
    ------------------------------



  • 2.  RE: Questions for March 19 Meeting on Structures

    Posted 18 days ago

    Hello John and members,

     

    Thank you for the clear instructions and for inviting advance questions ahead of the March 19 meeting. I plan to join the discussion live, but just in case, I'm sharing my question here to ensure it can be addressed if time permits.

     

    As having discussed with Mr. Wittenberg, I'd like to clarify the structural strength evaluation process. From previous discussions and his suggestions, my understanding is as follows:

     

    First, interface loads at nine locations are determined under the specified boundary conditions. Second, if the boundary condition is uniaxial, the value is used as is; for multiaxial boundary conditions, the resultant force is considered to act only in the z direction. In other words, loads in the X and Y directions are regarded as nonexistent from a strength evaluation perspective. I agree that this approach is proper for our challenge.

     

    If there are no objections, I suggest we establish this as our common understanding during the meeting and reflect it in the problem statement documentation. However, if anyone feels that another evaluation method would be more appropriate, I'm open to alternatives. In any case, I strongly believe we should agree on a shared approach to avoid confusion or divergent methodologies among participants.

     

    Looking forward to the meeting and everyone's thoughts!

     

     

     

    Best regards,

     

    Masataro AMANO

     

     




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Questions for March 19 Meeting on Structures

    Posted 16 days ago

    Dear John and colleagues,

     

    I have two questions for Thursday's meeting, I plan to attend but I prefer to post them already.

    1.  The challenge paper mentions the fuselage backup structure as part of the path of the aerodynamic loads. However, it is not part of the structural model and it comes after the pin joint in the load path (Fig. 6). Could you elaborate on how the fuselage backup structure should be considered in this exercise?
    2. My understanding is that in the option 1 the focus of UQ is on the numerator of the reserve factor, the load. I would like to know if my understanding is correct and thus we can use the strenght of the pin connection as given in the document "calculation_example_simple_method" (without uncertainties).

     

    Thank you and kind regards,



    ------------------------------
    Arianna Bosco
    Dr
    Siemens Industry Software
    Munich
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content