Segmented Structural Inserts for Lightweight Honeycomb Load Distribution

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Honeycomb sandwich structures in aircraft face challenges in efficiently distributing loads applied to their skins, leading to suboptimal weight savings and increased manufacturing time and cost due to traditional potting methods, which add weight and complexity.

Innovation Solution

The use of customized structural inserts manufactured via additive manufacturing processes, comprising multiple parts assembled to form a load-bearing configuration within the honeycomb sandwich panel, allowing for precise distribution of loads while minimizing weight and simplifying the manufacturing process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Strength

If traditional potting methods are used to enhance load-bearing capability, then load distribution is improved, but manufacturing time and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveload-bearing capabilityVSAvoidmanufacturing time
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The insert is divided into multiple segments or parts that can be separately manufactured and then assembled together. This segmentation allows for more efficient manufacturing of individual components while maintaining the overall load-bearing functionality, thereby reducing total manufacturing time compared to traditional monolithic potting methods

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The invention changes the material parameters by using additive-manufactured materials with optimized properties compared to traditional potting compounds. The insert material has superior strength-to-weight ratio and can be manufactured more quickly through additive processes, resolving the contradiction between strength enhancement and manufacturing efficiency

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Strength

If traditional potting methods are used to enhance load-bearing capability, then load distribution is improved, but manufacturing cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveload-bearing capabilityVSAvoidmanufacturing cost
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

Dividing the insert into manufacturable segments enables use of additive manufacturing technology, which reduces material waste and eliminates complex tooling requirements associated with traditional potting methods, thereby lowering overall manufacturing costs while maintaining load-bearing performance

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The invention replaces the mechanical potting process (involving material injection, curing, and finishing operations) with additive manufacturing processes that build the insert layer-by-layer, eliminating the need for sanding, machining, or additional material application steps and reducing labor and equipment costs

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Strength

If solid insert is used to receive loads, then load-bearing capacity is improved, but weight increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveload-bearing capacityVSAvoidinsert weight
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The insert features non-uniform cross-sectional geometry with varying wall thicknesses optimized for local stress distributions. Material is concentrated in high-stress areas and removed from low-stress areas, maintaining load-bearing capacity while minimizing overall weight through topology-optimized geometry

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The insert utilizes three-dimensional lattice or cellular structures that provide high strength-to-weight ratios by distributing loads through spatial frameworks rather than solid mass. This dimensional approach allows load-bearing functionality with significantly reduced material quantity and weight

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

4Weight of moving object

If honeycomb sandwich structure is used to decrease weight, then weight savings are achieved, but load distribution capability deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestructure weightVSAvoidload distribution capability
Core Design Contradiction:
Weight of moving objectVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The insert acts as an intermediary element embedded within the honeycomb core that mediates between the lightweight sandwich structure and external loads. It distributes concentrated loads from fasteners or attachments across broader areas of the honeycomb core, preventing local buckling while maintaining the overall lightweight advantage of the sandwich structure

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP2875946B1Structural inserts for honeycomb structures
Publication Date: 2021.04.21 THE BOEING CO
  • EP2875946B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2875946B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2875946B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A method and apparatus for manufacturing a sandwich structure. A cavity is formed in a core of the sandwich structure. A structural insert is placed into the cavity. The structural insert comprises a first number of parts configured to receive a load and a second number of parts assembled with the first number of parts to form the structural insert.