Containment Ring Problem: IWB Case Study

Boris Zlotin, Alla Zusman, and Len Kaplan

NOTE: This paper is the final installment of
A comparative case study using the Contradiction Table, 
Improver software, and Innovation WorkBench (IWB) software

Ideation International Inc. March, 2000 Detroit, Michigan Edited by Victoria Roza

Printer-friendly version

CONTENTS:

Introduction: Working with the IWB Software

Innovation Situation Questionnaire
 - Brief description of the problem
 - Information about the system
 - Information about the problem situation
 - Ideal vision of solution
 - Available resources

Problem Formulation
 - Situation model
 - Basic Directions for Innovation

Prioritize Directions and Generate Preliminary Ideas
 - Directions selected for further consideration
 - List and categorize all preliminary ideas

Develop Concepts
 - Combine ideas into concepts
 - Apply Lines of Evolution

Evaluate Results
 - Meet criteria for evaluating concepts
 - Reveal and prevent potential failures
 - Plan implementation

Summary

Introduction: Working with the Innovation WorkBench™ (IWB) Software

The Innovation WorkBench (IWB) software implements a five-step process for solving inventive problems, as follows:

Step 1: Problem documentation and preliminary analysis using the Innovation Situation Questionnaire
Step 2: Problem modeling and formulation using the Problem Formulator®
Step 3: Selection and prioritization of ‘directions’ for solving the problem
Step 4: Development of solution concepts
Step 5: Evaluation of results and revealing/solving problems that might arise during implementation

Each of the above steps were carried out for the containment ring problem and are described below. 

Innovation Situation Questionnaire

The engineered system, which is designed to contain the fragments resulting from an impeller burst of a maximum-speed fan, consists of the following: a fan, fan shroud (which controls the direction of the air stream), and an armor-steel containment ring. The problem to be solved is that the ring is too heavy and must be reduced in weight by 50%.

We can consider this problem with regard to the following systemic levels:

• Containment ring
• Fan
• Air conditioning system
• Aircraft
• Testing of ring

For the ring, the problem is as follows: the ring must be strong to withstand the impact of the impeller fragments, and the ring should not be heavy.

For the fan, the problem is as follows: the impeller can burst, but fragments should not fly away.

For the air-conditioning system, the problem is as follows: the impeller can be broken, but the air should be conditioned.

For the aircraft, the problem is as follows: the impeller can burst, but neither people nor equipment should be harmed.

For testing the ring, the problem is as follows: the ring's ability to capture flying fragments should be tested, but it is difficult to move the heavy ring back and forth.

Idea # 1: Make the ring as an assembly made of light-weight parts that are easy to move for testing purposes.

We can influence two systemic levels: the ring and the fan assembly. Let’s select the fan assembly as the system to be considered.

The fan assembly consists of the following elements:

• fan
• motor
• shaft
• motor support
• containment ring
• connectors or support to keep the ring

The primary useful function of the fan is to supply (i.e., move) air for the air conditioning system.

The fan rotates quickly and moves air. The air is conditioned so that the aircraft cabin can be supplied with conditioned air.

Other parts of the air conditioning system:

• pipes
• heat exchanger
• airflow distributors

Other systems located nearby:

• aircraft covering
• equipment

Other system interacting with the fan and air conditioning system:

• electrical power supply
• air supply
• exhaust air removal
• vibration dampers

Conditions around the system: indoor conditions

Reduce the weight of the ring by 50%.

The primary harmful function of the given system (the fan assembly) is that impeller fragments fly away if the impeller bursts.

The containment ring must be strong to contain the flying fragments – for this reason the ring is thick and, as a result, heavy.

The cause of an impeller burst is as follows: Rotation of the fan results in centrifugal forces that "pull" the parts of the impeller. The strength of the impeller material can be compromised by material defects and fatigue. As a result, the impeller can burst, causing the impeller fragments to fly off. Due to the high speed at which the fan rotates, the flying fragments carry high energy and can harm people and other parts of the aircraft.

The high weight of the ring makes it difficult to carry out the routine tests required by the FAA.

The "dead weight" of the aircraft equipment is also high.

If the weight problem is resolved at the expense of the ring's strength, the result will be inadequate protection from the flying impeller fragments, which in turn can result in death and/or damage.

The increased requirements for conditioning the air are met using a higher velocity airflow, but this means that the rotational speed of the fan increases. As a result, an impeller burst becomes more probable and the danger from the flying fragments increases. Because the energy of the flying fragments is increased, the ring must be stronger. As a result, the ring is heavier.

Known attempts to reduce the ring thickness resulted in a reduction in strength.

Idea # 2: Provide high airflow with low rotational speed of the fan. Perhaps utilize several slow fans instead of one that rotates quickly.

Similar problems exist in many other areas where weight and mechanical strength are critical issues, as well as other systems for protection against flying parts. We do not have any information about how these problems have been addressed.

Use an alternative method to contain the fragments.

Make the impeller unbreakable.

Others (see the problems on different systemic levels in the beginning of the Innovation Situation Questionnaire).

No containment ring is necessary.

An impeller burst is no longer possible.

• Material of containment ring
• Material of fan impeller
• Other objects around
• Airflow

• Mechanical forces
• Airflow energy
• Electrical energy
• Magnetic field (motor)

• Space inside the ring
• Space outside the ring

• Time during which the fan is not operating
• Time when the fan is operating
• Time before the impeller bursts
• Time after the impeller bursts

• Rotation

• Drastic changes are allowed.
• Any reduction in strength is unacceptable.

• Weight reduction of at least 30%
• Cost increase of no more than 5%
• About two weeks for new design
• One year for implementation

(Withheld)

(Withheld)

Problem Formulation

Prioritize Directions and Generate Preliminary Ideas

The following preliminary ideas resulted from the direct analysis of the Basic Directions:

Idea # 3: Utilize a "weak" ring that will absorb energy as it is destroyed

Idea # 4: Perform testing without removing the ring

Idea # 5: Reduce the mass of the fragments to reduce damage

Direction 1: Reduce weight

Operator: Abandon symmetry

Idea # 6: Vary the thickness of the ring tube. Reduce the thickness where permissible.

Operator: Strengthen individual parts

Auxiliary Operator: Substance modification

Auxiliary Operator: Generate mechanical stress

Idea # 7: Generate mechanical stress. For example, use additional rings which have been pressure-fitted to create a force directed toward the inside the ring.

Auxiliary Operator: Heat treatment

Idea # 8: Use thermal treatment to harden the ring material.

Idea # 9: Use of special threads, such as in bullet protection vests.

Idea # 10: Replace the ring with the airbag inflated by the impeller burst.

Operator: Transform the shape of the object

Idea # 11: Make a thin ring, which has reinforcing ribs (see figure, below). If the ribs are placed on the internal surface of the ring, flying fragments will lose a large amount of their energy smashing into the ribs.

Idea # 12: Make the ring corrugated in two planes.

Idea # 13: Find where the rings usually break and reinforce these places.

Idea # 14: Internal ribs with sharp edges can counteract flying fragments breaking them into smaller pieces.

Auxiliary Operator: Modify part of a substance

See idea # 8.

Idea # 15: Use a multi-layer ring: additional strengthening rings, rings having different hardness and elasticity, rings which have a gap in-between them filled with an energy-absorbing material. (See figure, below.)

Idea # 16: Make the ring out of separate layers so cracks, which develop inside, won’t spread.

See idea # 15.

Idea # 17: Use metal concrete or other composite materials

Auxiliary Operator: Use pre-stressed constructions

Idea # 18: Create inner stresses inside the ring: This can be done, for example, using wiring, banding, double ring structure, etc.

Operator: Separate opposite requirements in space

See ideas ## 5, 11, 13, 15: Ring with variable thickness, ribs; multi-layer ring.

See idea # 10: Replace the ring with the airbag inflated by the impeller burst.

Operator: Separate opposite requirements between parts and the whole object

See idea # 1: Make the ring as an assembly from light parts that are easy to move for testing.

Idea # 19: Change the ring thickness or strength or other containing capabilities at the moment of impeller burst.

Direction 5.3: Increase effectiveness of the useful action of [the] (containing fragments)

Operator: Intensify a field

Auxiliary Operator: Substances as energy accumulators

Idea # 20: Explode the ring in the moment of the impeller burst. Use the explosion wave to create a counteracting force.

Idea # 21: Disintegrate the fragments.

Idea # 22: Utilize special geometrical shapes to create traps for the fragments. For example, make the ring in the form of spring.

Idea # 23: Create a combination of pressurized air and liquid to counteract fragments.

Operator: Substitute a field with a more effective one

See idea # 20: Counteracting explosion.

Idea # 24: Create a safe pathway for fragments.

Idea # 25: Introduce strong fibers in the impeller blades that are capable to hold fragments after blades crash.

Operator: Introduce an insulating substance

Idea # 26: Use foam or foam-like material to absorb energy. Apparently, we need special type of foam like metal foam. We can also consider other fillings that can absorb energy (see also idea # 3).

See idea # 20: Counteracting explosion.

Operator: Counteraction by means of a similar action

See ideas ## 20, 21: counteracting explosion, disintegrating fragments

Consideration # 1: We can apply all ideas obtained for improving mechanical strength of the ring to the impeller blades.

See idea # 26: absorb the energy of fragments

Idea # 27: Define less dangerous directions and redirect fragments to these directions.

Idea # 28: Distributing the harmful energy between more fragments (see also ideas # 7 and 21: reducing energy /mass of fragments)

Idea # 29: Create a special pathway (spiral) to trap the fragments and to reduce their energy while traveling through the spiral route (see ideas ## 22 and 24). Also, see idea # 26: absorb the energy.

Direction 15.1: Improve the useful factor (Test convenience)
(NOTE: This direction has been addressed in a limited fashion as we do not have detailed information about the test procedure.)

Operator: Make an object dismountable

See idea # 1: Make the ring as an assembly from light parts that are easy to move for testing.

Operator: Apply disposable objects

Idea # 30: Disposable ring – consider that the ring will be destroyed while absorbing all the energy of the fragments (similar to idea # 3).

Idea # 31: Consider various types of support while transporting the ring.

Idea # 32: Learn in detail the process of transportation and look for the ways to reduce the number of liftings of the ring.

Idea # 1: Make the ring as an assembly made of light-weight parts that are easy to move for testing purposes.

Idea # 2: Provide high airflow with low rotational speed of the fan. Perhaps utilize several slow fans instead of one that rotates quickly.

Idea # 3: Utilize a "weak" ring that will absorb energy as it is destroyed.

Idea # 4: Perform testing without removing the ring.

Idea # 5: Reduce the mass of the fragments to reduce damage.

Idea # 6: Vary the thickness of the ring tube, reducing the thickness where permissible.

Idea # 7: Introduce preliminary stress. For example, use additional rings which have been pressure-fitted to create a force directed toward the inside of the ring.

Idea # 8: Use thermal treatment to harden the ring material.

Idea # 9: Use special reinforcing threads (fibers) such as those found in bullet-proof vests.

Idea # 10: Replace the ring with an airbag that inflates when the impeller bursts.

Idea # 11. Make a thin ring that has reinforcing ribs. If the ribs are placed on the internal surface of the ring, flying fragments will lose much of their energy smashing into the ribs.

Idea # 12: Make the ring corrugated in two planes.

Idea # 13: Determine where the ring usually breaks and reinforce those places.

Idea # 14: Internal ribs with sharp edges can counteract flying fragments, breaking them into smaller pieces.

Idea # 15: Use a multi-layer ring: additional strengthening rings, rings having different hardness and elasticity, rings which have a gap in between them, filling the gap with an energy-absorbing material.

Idea # 16: Make the ring out of separate layers so that if cracks develop inside they will not spread.

Idea # 17: Use metal-concrete or some other composite material.

Idea # 18: Create inner stresses inside the ring: This can be done using wiring, banding, double ring structure, etc.

Idea # 19. Change the ring thickness or strength or other containment capabilities the moment the impeller bursts.

Idea # 20. Explode the ring the moment the impeller bursts. Use the explosion wave to create a counteracting force.

Idea # 21. Disintegrate the fragments.

Idea # 22. Utilize special geometrical shapes to create traps for the fragments. For example, make the ring in the form of spring.

Idea # 23. Create a combination of pressurized air and liquid to counteract the fragments.

Idea # 24: Create a safe pathway for the fragments.

Idea # 25. Introduce strong fibers in the impeller blades that are capable of holding the fragments after the impeller bursts.

Idea # 26. Use foam or foam-like material to absorb energy. Apparently, we need a special type of foam such as metal foam. We can also consider other fillings that can absorb energy (see idea # 3).

Idea # 27. Define the least dangerous directions and redirect the fragments in these directions.

Idea # 28. Distribute the harmful energy between more of the fragments (see also ideas # 7 and 21: reducing energy/mass of the fragments).

Idea # 29. Create a special pathway (spiral) to trap the fragments and to reduce their energy while traveling through the spiral route (see ideas # 22 and 24). Also, see idea # 26: absorb the energy.

Idea # 30. Disposable ring – consider that the ring will be destroyed while absorbing all the energy of the fragments (similar to idea # 3).

Idea # 31. Consider various types of support while transporting the ring.

Idea # 32. Learn the details of the transporting process and look for the ways to reduce the number of liftings.

We can categorize the obtained ideas into the following groups:

1. Strengthening the ring via:

a) changing the ring material structure:

• creating inner stresses (wiring, banding, press-fit) (# 18, 7)
• introducing special reinforcing threads (fibers), using metal-concrete or other composite materials (# 9, 17, 25)
• special thermal treatment for hardening the ring material (# 8)
• using a multi-layer ring with layers with different properties (elasticity, hardness, gaps filled with energy-absorbing materials) (# 15)

b) changing the ring’s shape:

• vary the ring thickness to best accommodate the situation (# 6,13)
• create various reinforcing ribs (# 11)
• use two-plane corrugations (# 12)

2. Increasing the ring’s energy-absorbing properties via

a) changing the material structure:

• using foam and/or foam-like materials (metal foam, honeycomb, wiring, brushes) (# 3, 23, 26, 30)
• using a multi-layer ring with layers capable of moving relative to one another to absorb extra energy

b) changing the ring’s shape:

• spiral or other traps that can slow down the fragments (# 22)

3. Reducing the mass/energy of the flying fragments to reduce damage and allow the ring’s mechanical strength to be lowered via

• changing the ring’s material structure to make it capable of breaking into smaller pieces (# 5, 21, 28)
• introduce ribs with sharp edges capable of breaking fragments into smaller pieces (# 11, 14)

4. Improve testing convenience, including:

• perform the test without removing the ring (# 4)
• make the ring dismountable and transport parts of the ring rather than the whole thing (# 1)
• consider various types of special support during ring transport (# 31)

5. Strengthen the impeller blades to eliminate the need for the ring (# 25)

6. Define or create a safe pathway for the fragments (# 24, 27, 29)

7. Change the principle of operation of the ring, including:

• replace the ring with an airbag that inflates the moment the impeller bursts (# 10) or change its thickness (# 19)
• explode the ring to create a counteracting force (# 20) and/or break the fragments into smaller pieces

8. Replace the impeller with a safer method of providing air (# 2)

Develop Concepts

Step 1. Select two ideas that resolve the same sub-problem in different ways.

Idea # 17 (Use metal concrete or other composite materials) and idea # 11 (make a thin ring with reinforcing ribs) provide the same function (strengthening) in different ways – changing structure (# 17) and changing shape (# 11).

Step 2. Compare these ideas; each has its own advantages.

Idea # 11 is preferable from the main function point of view because it can provide greater strength. However, it is not easy to make ribs from the steel. The advantage of idea # 17 is that composite materials are easy to shape.

Step 3. Consider the idea that has better functional features as the "source of resources"; the other idea is the "recipient of resources."

We select idea # 11 as the "source of resources"

Idea # 17 is the "recipient of resources"

Step 4. Determine the elements that provide better functionality of the "source" idea.

The element providing better functionality is a steel tube.

Steps 5-7. Apply these elements to the "recipient."

We can combine two ideas having a steel tube with ribs made from a composite material.

A substantial number of the obtained ideas have already included features recommended by most of the patterns/lines above. For example, the idea of a multi-layer ring is in accordance with the patterns Building bi-and poly-systems and Segmentation; the idea of using composite materials fits the pattern Developing a substance's structure; ideas related to replacing the ring with an airbag or exploding the ring fit the pattern of Dynamization.

It might still be interesting, however, to consider the set of Operators/Lines entitled increasing controllability.

Operator: Introduce an additive to increase process controllability

Operator: Introduce a controlled section

Operator: Self-control

The Operators above allow us to further develop idea # 20 (explosive ring). A controlled section (detonator) and additives (explosives) should be placed in the light tube. The first fragment that will reach the tube will activate the detonator (self-control).

Evaluate Results

The following ideas were selected:

For short-term: Multi-layer ring; ring with ribs.

For mid-term: Explosive ring.

For long-term: Blades with fibers (wire) inside to keep pieces in place.

The short-term idea of utilizing a multi-layer ring creates a secondary problem – the increased cost associated with manufacturing the different layers and with the final assembly of the ring. We therefore have a secondary problem – reduce cost.

Idealization

Exclude auxiliary functions

Operator: Exclude preliminary operations (functions)

Idea # 33: Instead of manufacturing several layers and assembling them later, use surface hardening of the internal and external surfaces of the ring. Hardening the inner surface will allow the ring to better counteract the fragments. Hardening the outer surface can create additional inner stresses that in turn increase the ring’s overall strength. Together, these measures should allow the weight of the ring to be reduced without sacrificing its containment capabilities.

Reveal and prevent potential failures

7. Consider potentially dangerous moments/periods of time during implementation.

Idea # 34: According to the checklist, testing the ring can be dangerous itself – for example, reducing the ring’s strength can later produce a ring failure. To avoid this problem, it might be preferable to replace the current test procedure with one that utilizes ultrasound, acoustic emission or other "intro-vision" technologies.

The following ideas were suggested for testing:

For the short-term: Ring with hardened surfaces; ring with ribs.

For the mid-term: Explosive ring.

For the long-term: Blades with fibers (wire) inside to keep the fragments in place.

SUMMARY

This site last updated 12/20/09
Submit comments to webmaster@ideationtriz.com
© 2006-2009 Ideation International Inc.