White paper

Certification of eVTOL Aircraft

Leveraging engineering simulation to ensure safety, longevity and
structural integrity
 Special thanks to the following who provided
important and valuable input to this whitepaper

Patrick Safarian, Federal Aviation Administration

Wade Sullivan, Certification Program Manager, Part 23, Federal Aviation Administration
Brian Hernandez, Certification Program Manager, Rotorcraft, Federal Aviation Administration
Lionel Tauszig, EASA Senior Project Certification Manager, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
Richard Minter, Chief Expert, Airframe & Transmission, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
Karl Hoier, Project Certification Manager, Propulsion, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
Olivier Robelin-Marcel, Certification Expert, Transmission & Powerplant, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
Alastair Healy, Senior Expert Transmission, European Union Aviation Safety Agency
Jack Castro, Associate Tech Fellow, The Boeing Company
Allen Foulstone, Aerospace Engineering Manager, TLG Aerospace
Josh Sementi, Engineering Manager & FAA Designated Engineering Representative, TLG Aerospace
Andrew McComas, Chief Aerodynamicist, TLG Aerospace
Hemant Patel, Senior Director Research &Development, MSC Software
Larry Pearce, Principal Application Engineer, MSC Software
Hanson Chang, Senior Application Engineer, MSC Software
Ali Salman, Technical Consultant, MSC Software
Dan Marinac, Product Marketing Director, MSC Software
Jonas Wirgart, Product Marketing Manager, Computational Fluid Dynamics, MSC Software
Yuya Ando, Country Manager, Computational Fluid Dynamics, MSC Software
Thanos Poulos, Product Marketing Manager, Acoustics, MSC Software
Alexis Talbot, Acoustics Business Development Manager, MSC Software
Connor Lynch, Technical Business Development Manager, Applied Solutions, MSC Software
Jeff Hewitt, Global Aerospace Business Development Director, Applied Solutions, MSC Software
Andreas Schlaic, Lead Aerospace Engineer, Romax Technology, MSC Software
Hemanth Kolera-Gokula, Product Marketing Manager, System Dynamics, MSC Software
Chris Davidson, Senior Application Engineer, System Dynamics, MSC Software
Michael Tran, Product Marketing Manager, Materials & ICME, MSC Software

Legal note: none of the above names represents an endorsement or recommendation of

MSC Software.

Cover image courtesy of SMG consulting

2 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com

Executive summary
With new technology, comes new safety concerns

The world is going through a wave of commercial transportation innovation currently, with the advent
of the eVTOL industry. In major cities around the world, potential customers are excited to “fly above
the traffic” that plagues these major metropolitan areas. This is causing a flood of R&D funding into
new and existing aerospace engineering companies – some are helicopter companies, some are
airplane companies, and others are starry-eyed startups who have only recently completed their
initial prototypes. Whether these companies are large or small, these new aircraft will need to be
certified by the FAA & EASA to be safe enough to fly the public – which is a rigorous engineering
process that requires a vast amount of engineering simulation and testing, ultimately resulting in a
safe, reliable aircraft.

The new aircraft certification process is something that MSC Software has been involved with for
decades. With every new aircraft comes new and sophisticated technology that needs to be tested
and certified as safe for the general public. As such, a lot of “firsts” have come through our doors over
the last 50 years. The first jet aircraft, the first delta wing fighter jet, the first supersonic airplane,
and the first 4-engine, 2-story jumbo jet all were certified using our software tools.

The emerging eVTOL industry is no exception. Most of these new eVTOL aircraft companies are
considering brand new combinations of tilt-rotors, tilt-wings, all-composite fuselages, fly-by-wire
control systems, and rechargeable electric battery systems that have never been seen before in the
world of aviation. Engineers will need vast amounts of simulation and testing in order to raise these
new technologies to the levels needed for the eVTOL industry to become widespread.

The new aircraft certification process is something that we understand well, and we have helped
customers with it for many years. We are happy to continue this process with a new wave of engineers
focused on this new mode of futuristic, sustainable transportation.

hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 3

 Table of contents
Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1. The case for certification – Why do we need it? ...................................................................................... 5

2. The certification process – regulatory requirements............................................................................. 6

3. The partnership between test and analysis – test correlation and digital twins............................... 7

Before simulation software existed, how were aircraft historically developed?............................... 7

How are aircraft engineers using simulation software today?.............................................................. 7

Test and analysis – The “Digital Twin”....................................................................................................... 8

4. Recommendations for building an accurate finite element model..................................................... 10

What is calibration? How do you calibrate a finite element model? ................................................... 11

Successful post-processing strategies for certification...................................................................... 11

5. Engineering analysis workflows for certification ...................................................................................12

What are the simulation tools and workflows aircraft engineers are using today?..........................13

External loads, flutter and dynamic stability..........................................................................................14

Internal loads, structural design and lightweighting ............................................................................14

Aerodynamic design...................................................................................................................................15

Acoustics and noise prediction.................................................................................................................15

Propulsion and emissions..........................................................................................................................16

Controls and mechanisms ........................................................................................................................16

Manufacturability and costing..................................................................................................................17

Customer testimonials ...................................................................................................................................18

4 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com

1. The case for certification – Why do we
need it?
In the beginning of the aircraft industry, much like in the
beginning of the automotive industry, fatal accidents sadly
were all too common. New technology was being developed
and tested, and as such, the best engineers of the time
sadly saw promising new technology result in tragic loss
of life. Engineers would develop and put forth their best
aircraft designs, and when something bad happened, they
went back to the drawing board and fixed it – so that it
wouldn’t happen again.
But as the years went on, and more and more lives were
lost, a need arose for federal oversight. On June 30, 1956,
a Trans World Airlines Super Constellation and a United
Air Lines DC-7 collided over the Grand Canyon, Arizona,
killing all 128 occupants of the two airplanes. The collision
occurred while the aircraft were flying under visual flight
Authority (CAA) existed in the UK, and the Directorate
General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) existed in France. On July
12, 2002, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
was created, which pulled all of these together, enabling
the agency to analyze and research safety parameters,
implement and monitor safety rules, give type certification
of aircraft and components, and approve organizations
involved in the design, manufacture and maintenance of
aeronautical products.
Today, the FAA & EASA are mostly harmonized and together
they oversee a vast amount of standards, testing regimes,
and safety protocols – especially when it comes to new
aircraft being designed and approved to carry passengers
of the general public. This is something that new eVTOL
engineers reading this now know all too well. The good
news is that you are not alone in this endeavor to create the
aircraft of the future. We’re here to help.

Above: Wilbur Wright looks on as his brother Orville flies for the first time Above: A TWA Super Constellation Aircraft, similar to the one that
in their powered airplane. crashed on June 30, 1956.

rules in uncongested airspace. The accident dramatized

the fact that, even though U.S. air traffic had more than
doubled since the end of World War II, little had been done
to mitigate the risk of midair collisions.

On May 21, 1958, a bill was introduced to the US Congress to

create an independent Federal Aviation Agency to provide
for the safe and efficient use of national airspace. Two
months later, on August 23, 1958, the President signed
the Federal Aviation Act, which transferred the Civil
Aeronautics Authority’s functions to a new independent
Federal Aviation Agency (which later evolved into the FAA)
responsible for civil aviation safety.

Between 2002 and 2007, aviation witnessed one of its safest

periods for scheduled air carriers. Fatal accidents became
rare events with only .01 accidents per 100,000 flight hours
or .018 accidents per 100,000 departures. Above: A United Airlines DC-7 Aircraft, similar to the one that crashed on
June 30, 1956.

Governmental oversight of the growing aviation industry

wasn’t just an American thing, though. The Civil Aviation

hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 5

2. The certification process – regulatory
requirements
Technically, every new aircraft goes through certification in
a different way. But while the details are different each time
– wings are shaped differently, fuselages have windows in
different places, rotors are different sizes and thus require
different testing regimes – the basics stay the same. For
any typical eVTOL aircraft, we would likely see the following
common items:
• A set number of different materials which need to
be characterized
• Some sort of landing mechanism that may or may
not deploy
• A propulsion source that sends loads through the
entire structure
• A typical flight pattern where wind gusts also send
loads through the entire structure
• A fuselage where passengers sit, which may or may
not be pressurized
• Wing flaps and/or secondary rotors that control the
pitch, roll, and yaw of the aircraft
• Redundant systems to land the aircraft safely in
case of an emergency
Because of these commonalities, a set number of “ground
rules” have been set up by the FAA that provide the
framework for certifying these parts of a new aircraft.
The first step a new aircraft team takes is to determine
and agree on which airworthiness standards apply to their
project. For eVTOL, here’s some common ones:
• 14 CFR Part 21: Certification Procedures for Products
and Parts (Starting point for most new aircraft)
• 14 CFR Part 23: Airworthiness Standards:
Normal Category Airplanes
• 14 CFR Part 25: Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Airplanes
• 14 CFR Part 27: Airworthiness Standards:
Normal Category Rotorcraft
• 14 CFR Part 29: Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Rotorcraft
• 14 CFR Part 33: Airworthiness Standards:
Aircraft Engines
• 14 CFR Part 35: Airworthiness Standards: Propellers
• 14 CFR Part 36: Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and
Airworthiness Certification
• (Special Conditions Process) – Working with the
FAA to show compliance for aircraft that don’t quite
meet the above sections. Examples: electric aircraft
propulsion systems, rigid airships, etc.
The last section above is possibly the most important.
eVTOL vehicles have so many never-before-seen elements
that there isn’t a lot of historic precedence to certify.
Therefore, eVTOL vehicle companies need to work closely
with the FAA under the “Special Conditions Process” to
make sure their certification plan is well thought out and
agreed upon by both sides early in the process.
6 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com
Also, important to note here is that the FAA has recently
set up an office called the Center for Emerging Concepts
– which focuses exclusively on emerging technologies. This
team is currently working with new and novel technologies
to make sure they are safe enough for the general public.
This process works for OEM’s as well as suppliers, also – for
example, if “Joe’s Composite Shop” wanted to build and sell
composite parts to the eVTOL industry, their parts will still
need to meet the same standards as OEMs need to meet.
There are two scenarios here, though:
1. If Joe’s Composite Shop wants to build and sell
their parts to multiple OEMs, then they are the
responsible party and need to certify their parts
and prove the airworthiness of their parts and
components since they’re the ones seeking the
type design approval.
2. If Joe’s Composite Shop is contracted by a specific
OEM to build parts exclusively for the OEM, the FAA
doesn’t intervene with the business relationship
between an OEM and it’s supplier, and the OEM
might ultimately be the responsible party for
showing airworthiness of a component.
On the European front, the EASA has similar airworthiness
standards, but the EASA is also working on special condition
VTOL means of compliance (MOC) to certify eVTOL aircraft.
This exciting process began in 2019 and has gone through a
few phases of development already on a number of topics:
• Fly-by-wire systems
• Validation Loads for Structures
• Design Requirements
• Flight Simulators
This is by no means close to completion though… There
is a large amount still to be discussed including unique
aircraft configurations, electric distributed propulsion,
energy storage and distribution systems, high voltage
architecture, advanced and/or automated systems,
crashworthiness requirements, and noise standards, just
to name a few of the big items. Even when this “Method
of Compliance” (MOC) is completed, how it is applied may
vary due to the uniqueness of the each new eVTOL airframe
and engineering architecture. This is where government
regulation comes in to make sure, at the end of the day,
everyone on the ground and in the air is as safe as can be.
3. The partnership between test and analysis
– test correlation and digital twins
Before simulation software existed, how were aircraft
historically developed?
Historically, before computational engineering existed,
if a company had a prototype aircraft that needed to be
certified, they would use hand calculations as much as
possible to make sure the fundamentals of stress and
strain were covered when it came to ultimate material
allowables…but most of the complicated parts and
assemblies could not be calculated this way – and thus
almost every part, mechanism, and assembly needed to be
built and tested to prove to the government authorities that
it would work as it was designed to do, and that it would
survive in the real world once it was mass produced. This
was a frustratingly long process for aircraft manufacturers
worldwide. As an example, the original Boeing 737 design
process was publicly announced in 1958, and the delivery
of the first plane to roll off the assembly line happened
almost a full decade later in 1967.
As the aircraft industry matured over the years, engineers
have been working towards making this process faster,
easier, and more efficient – and they have been quite
successful at it. One of the most recent clean-sheet aircraft
to receive type certification by the FAA and the EASA was
the Gulfstream G650, which was publicly announced as a
project in 2008, and the first delivery to the public occurred
four years later in 2012. What led to this nine-year process
shortening into a four-year process? While there were
many efficiencies built into this new aircraft development
process, simulation software was a key component to this
shortened timeline.
To this day, this aircraft development process is still not as
fast as aircraft companies want it to be, which means that
MSC Software and Hexagon need to be as cutting-edge as
possible, always trying new innovations and pushing the
cutting edge of what’s possible using engineering simulation.
How are aircraft engineers using simulation software today?
Today, the engineering timeline for a new aircraft has
been drastically shortened due to the use of engineering
simulation software. But how are they using it? What are
aircraft engineers using simulation software for today to
certify a new aircraft? To answer this correctly, you must
start at the finish line – the answers these engineers
are trying to find. Ten of the most common engineering
questions that are commonly answered with simulation
software are:
1. Can I build it?
2. Is it durable?
3. Is it strong enough?
4. Is it safe enough?
5. Can I test it?
6. Will the performance meet the objectives?
7. Is it crashworthy?
8. Why did it fail?
9. Can it be lighter?
10. Is it too loud?
And recently within the past decade, another one has
cropped up that has taken hold in the public’s eye:
11. For the future, is what we’re building sustainable for
the environment?
It’s no doubt that the last question is critically important,
and the engineering world is following suit with electric
cars, and soon, electric aircraft in order to curb emissions
and enable the future of environmentally friendly
transportation (it’s no surprise that eVTOL has sprung up in
the timeline that it did).
Once simulation has been done and the initial prototypes
have been built, the testing process begins. Testing
requires a massive amount of time and effort to make sure
everything behaves as it should in the air, and that these
parts, sub-assemblies, and full assembly mechanisms
work and perform the same way that the analysis predicted
– as an important data point, the FAA & EASA require that
the test results must correlate to the predicted results
from the simulation within 10% (or less) in order for the
simulation to be accepted and considered “validated” for
certification. Though this 10% mark is pretty standard for
certification, some OEM’s strive for much higher levels of
agreement (5% or less) but lower levels of agreement on
non-critical items can be OK as well.
Depending on the configuration, thousands, tens of
thousands, or more load cases need to be simulated in this
way. In addition, hundreds of tests need to be done in order
to, among other things, validate that the simulations that
were previously done were correct, and the data correlates
well to it. This is when the term “Digital Twin” starts making
sense to an engineer… it’s when the as-manufactured part
behaves and performs exactly as predicted in the analysis(or
close to it). As another important data point, the 2006
certification of the A380 (by both the FAA and EASA) took
2,600 flight hours and a fleet of five test aircraft in order to
perform all the required flight tests for certification.
Test and analysis – The “Digital Twin”
What is a “Digital Twin” and why does it keep coming
up in engineering media outlets everywhere? With the
ubiquitous availability of engineering simulation software
and powerful computing capability worldwide, it’s only
natural that aerospace companies worldwide have created
initiatives to reduce or replace specific amounts of testing
with engineering simulation.
When the as-manufactured part behaves and performs
exactly as predicted in the analysis (or close to it),
confidence is built in the accuracy and integrity of the
engineering analysis performed prior to manufacturing,
and thus accurate predictions can be made with these
engineering models.
To achieve this close level of correlation, Test and Analysis
must be a partnership to successfully develop and certify a
new aircraft. In general, engineers typically start small and
build their way up. From the structural standpoint, this is a
common example of the “building block” approach when it
comes to engineering simulation:
hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 7
 1. Material coupons testing first, then:
2. Part-level joints & structural details, then:
3. Sub-assemblies & panels, then:
4. Fuselage & wing, then:
5. Full aircraft – complete.
Similarly, on the testing side of house, the same approach
is used:
1. Material allowables testing – making sure the
material is characterized properly
2. Test to failure (Limit loads testing) – testing to
failure to determine maximum stress & strain of a
particular joint design, composite layup, etc.
3. Test to validate the design principle of the sub-
assemblies and panels
4. Subsystem test – wing, fuselage, etc.
5. Full Aircraft test – flight test regime, ground
testing, full scale static test, full scale fatigue test
(pressurization cycling), etc.
This is all, of course, for structural stress and strain
testing only. Parallel testing regimes like this is done for
Above: Uber Elevate electric Common Reference Model, eCRM-001, revealed at the 2017 Uber Elevate Summit in Los Angeles, CA.
8 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com
Aerodynamic Loads & Flutter, Acoustics, Propulsion,
Controls & Mechanisms, and the like.
4. Recommendations for building an
accurate finite element model
“An analysis is only as good as the test it correlates to.”
– said every Structural Analyst who has gone through the
testing phase
While there are many types of engineering simulation
models and modeling technologies, the majority require
finite elements. And while it is somewhat easy to build a
complete finite element model and get a colorful rainbow
plot of stresses and strains, it takes a disciplined, focus
approach to get a finite element analysis that correlates
well to test. How is this done today by the experts? While
this can be a PhD-level discussion that spans the length
of an entire university course, there are certain common
steps an engineer can take to ensure their finite element
model is built correctly.
 Full aircraft testing Full aircraft simulation
(ex: ground vibration test, full (ex: internal loads modeling,
scale static test, full scale vibratory fatigue simulation)
fatigue test)

Assembly test Assembly simulation

(ex: full pressure test, wing (ex: fuselage pressurization,
bending test, bird strike test) wing bending)

Sub-assembly/panel test to Sub-assembly simulation

validate the design principle (ex: panels, wing flaps)

Part & Joint test-to-failure Part-level joint simulation &

(ex: measure stress, strain, structural details
define limit loads) (ex: wing stiffener design)

Material simulation
Material allowables testing (ex: material coupons, virtual
allowable prediction)

Above: Test & Analysis Partnership Pyramid: The Building Block Approach

System-level test & analysis

Subsystem-level test & analysis

Part-level test & analysis

Material allowables test & analysis

Above: The building block approach to Test and analysis correlation - “Test and analysis pyramid”

hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 9

For most types of finite element models, the following
steps are taken:
1. Creation of the model geometry
2. Selection of element type: Rod/Beam, Shell/Plate,
Tet/Hex
3. Idealization of material properties
4. Application of supports, constraints, and loads
5. Selection of analysis type
6. Solution optimization
Even though mostly every finite element model follows
these same six steps, there are many ways that finite
element models can be built incorrectly. It is essential
that in every stage of the modeling process, verification
of the input and validity of the assumptions are checked
and verified. To achieve the required level of accuracy,
all analyses require refinement. The accuracy of a finite
element model can be affected by the following:
• The assumption of linearity
• The representation of adjoining structures
• The material properties and idealization
• The accuracy of geometric representation
• The loading and boundary conditions
• The oversimplification of the model or behavior
• The mesh density
• The element types and shapes
• The numerical error in the solution
Once a finite element model is completed and running,
model validation is needed. Model validation steps should
be taken well before the solution stage, though. Using a
simple, common sense, building block approach, the
10 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com
following items should be built and tested incrementally
during the model building process:
• Material data quality
• Representativeness of the Geometry
• Choice of elements: derivations, shape functions,
orders, types, and options that affect formulation
and results
• Element properties that are assigned to the element
• Connectivity of the elements
• Consistency of element local direction
• Constraint equations
• Supports
• Loading
• Adequacy of the mesh density
• Numerical accuracy of the solution
• Validity of the idealization of the boundary conditions
What is calibration? How do you calibrate a finite element
model?
Calibration of a finite element model is usually undertaken
to ensure that specific features which have been modeled
provide a realistic estimate of the model stiffness or other
behavior. Examples include:
• Spring rate of a bolt can be estimated, and later
calibrated using test data to get realistic values.
• Determining Composite Material behavior using test
results from element level of BBA is calibration.
Calibration usually occurs by taking test data and making
sure the finite element model results correlate well to the
test results. If the results do not correlate, then the finite
element model should not be used to predict behavior of
the part or solution. In this circumstance, the engineer
must revisit their assumptions made on the finite element
model and make changes accordingly.
Successful post-processing strategies for certification
• Define the instrumentation requirements to provide
necessary data for comparison of FEA validation
prior to test
• The test plan should be submitted and approved by
the FAA prior to test
• The test setup must be conformed to FAA standards
prior to test

So, you have reached the level of having a running finite

element model – and you are now looking at results. Does
this mean you’re finished? Not by a long shot, unfortunately…
“Finite Element Analysis” does not just mean “Stress
Analysis” – there is much more to a successful FEA than
just getting stress results from a colorful fringe plot.
If you’re here at this stage, this means that you’re now ready
to use common-sense checks to make sure your model was
built correctly, and to make changes and updates to verify
that your results are the best and most accurate as they
can be. With this, there are several common-sense checks
you can make. While this list is not exhaustive, here are
some of the common checks to make:
1. Are the reaction forces and deflection as expected?
a. Check the equilibrium of forces against the Free
Body Diagram
b. Check excessive displacements or unexpected
Rigid Body Motion
c. Check if the deflected shape is rational – use of
animation is helpful
2. What’s your error estimation?
Strain gauges are the typical data acquisition method for
measuring the internal loads on components of an aircraft
during a structural test. There are specific needs regarding
these strain gauges, though:
• Identify and document the quantity, locations, and
orientations of gauges in the test plan according to
the analytical predictions – the FAA will have to agree
with these locations prior to test
• Establish Pass/Fail criteria for validation prior to test
One more comment regarding documentation – regarding
documentation of the test, there are also some critical
needs that should be met. The three critical documents
that are needed are the test plan (prior to test), the test
results (after test) and the finite element analysis results
report.
These three documents are critical to the successful
certification of an aircraft component or subsystem,
and should be written in a clear format so that anyone
can re-create the steps taken and get the same FEA and
test results that are documented in each of these three
documents.

a. Compare the average and unaveraged stress

values, to see if there is a large difference

3. Are there any areas with rapid changes in stress or

deflection?

4. If there are multiple load cases, are the results of the

load cases consistent?

In terms of certification of a new aircraft, the FAA’s Project

Specific Certification Plan (PSCP) defines the means of
demonstrating compliance with the regulations (i.e. 14CFR
Parts 23, 25, 27, 29, etc.). If the finite element analysis is
the means of demonstrating compliance to 14CFR, the
validation method and procedures should be specified:

• Means of Validation, and comparison to acceptable

test data
• Identify the test plan to validate the finite element
model (pressure test, body/wing bending test,
vibration test).
• Establish test conditions which represent similar
load application methods, structural stiffness, and
boundary conditions

hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 11

5. Engineering analysis workflows for certification

Design requirements Design configuration

and objectives

Performance and Aerodynamics

Loads and flutter
handling qualities

No Weights and systems Stress and design

Yes

Requirements met?

Performance
Certifiable
Weight
Cost
Flight test and Manufacturing
certification

Above: Typical design cycle of a new aircraft

12 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com

 Above: Simulation software tools used from concept through the end-of-life stages of an aircraft

What are the simulation tools and workflows aircraft
engineers are using today?
When a new aircraft is designed, there are three key sets of
airframe loads that are looked at over, over, and over again
– External Loads, Internal Loads, and Detailed Stress &
Strain. As can be seen in the above design cycle diagrams,
these all require vastly different engineering disciplines
and as such, they also require vastly different simulation
software tools, which over the past few decades have been
specifically tailored to the engineering question that is
trying to be answered. From the MSC Software / Hexagon
side, these are the software products that correspond to
each of these engineering disciplines:
This can become overwhelming, especially for startups
and small-to-medium businesses, often driving the need
to rely on highly experienced engineers in many different
engineering disciplines.
So, in this light, let’s look at this a little differently – let’s
take the perspective as it applies to eVTOL aircraft
development, and the issues that are being addressed
today with simulation software for new aircraft designs,
and explain why it matters.

1. External Loads, Flutter & Dynamic Stability – MSC

Nastran Aeroelastic Flight Loads
2. Internal Loads, Structural Design & Lightweighting –
MSC Nastran, Patran, MSC Apex
3. Aerodynamic Design – Cradle scFlow
4. Acoustics and Noise Prediction – Actran, MSC
Nastran
5. Propulsion & Emissions – Romax, Nastran, Marc,
Easy5
6. Controls & Mechanisms – Adams, Easy5
7. Design for Manufacturability & Costing – MSC Apex
Generative Design, Digimat, Simufact Additive, FTi
FormingSuite
Above: Multiple different design architectures exist today for eVTOL
vehicles, which requires vastly different engineering approaches to
ensure safety and reliability of the aircraft prior to mass production.

hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 13

External loads, flutter and dynamic stability Internal loads, structural design and lightweighting

1. External loads 1. Internal loads and detailed stress

a. The airframe must be able to withstand the
external loads being applied to it – which usually
come from a combination of three sources –
aerodynamic loads (wind and air flow over the wing),
inertial loads (mass), and applied forces (thrust,
landing forces, etc.).
b. CFD is often used to develop early aerodynamics
of an aircraft (approximate wing lift, aircraft drag)
and if budget and schedule allow for it, a wind tunnel
test is done to get lift and drag data.
c. Due to the thousands (and sometimes tens of
thousands) of load combinations an aircraft can
experience, a lower fidelity aerodynamic model is
used (the doublet-lattice method, which is what MSC
Nastran SOL 144 uses) to approximate the vertical lift
of an aircraft. Later in the design process, this result
can then be combined with the control system and
mass models for an integrated total aircraft model.
2. Flutter analysis and dynamic stability
Full aircraft finite element analysis is used to
predict subcomponent internal loads which support
detailed stress analysis to make sure all ribs, spars,
fasteners, and built-up assemblies can withstand
the loads applied to them, permanently deform, or
fail. The loads for this analysis come from the above
“External Loads” analysis.
2. Fatigue and damage tolerance
Predicting what will fail first on the aircraft (and
when), and thus allowing the engineering team to
create a maintenance and inspection schedule
around it to make sure that any fatigue cracking
can be detected and repaired prior to causing more
substantial failures.
3. Bird strike, fan blade out, and windmilling
Making sure that in case of emergency and a fan blade
is lost, or if a bird strike occurs, the passenger safety
will be ensured, and the aircraft can safely land.

a. Flutter is state where unsteady aerodynamics

and structural vibrations feed into each other in
an unstable fashion. Flutter analysis typically uses
Aero/Structural models similar to External Loads,
with refinements in some areas in order to confirm
that the aircraft is free from flutter within the
operating envelope.

b. Dynamic stability is also commonly performed to

ensure the flexibility of the wing does not cause any
dynamic instabilities such as excessive turbulence,
and if a wind gust occurs, the aircraft will recover
quickly and safely.

Above: In 2011, A Bombardier CRJ200ER struck a flock of large birds,

Above: An aircraft flutter analysis can prevent dynamic instability, which
can occur in flexible aircraft wings and flaps, especially with long and
skinny wings.
causing damage to the nosecone and forcing the pilot to make an
emergency landing. Engineering simulation software was used in this
design to ensure safe landing of the aircraft for quick repair.
Image source: AP Photo/MSNBC Photo Blog

14 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com

 Aerodynamic design
1. Conceptual design lift calculation
When users are deciding the size of their aircraft,
size of the wings, choosing their propulsion system,
etc. they need to quickly calculate the amount of lift
their aircraft design will have, which determines:
i. the number of passengers allowed, and/or
ii. how heavy the electric battery is allowed to be
(which thus determines range of the aircraft).
2. Conceptual design drag calculation
The amount of energy used for an aircraft to get
from one place to another is highly determined by
the aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft’s exterior.
Calculating the drag helps the user determine
whether their aircraft is aerodynamically efficient
(or not), which directly affects the range the aircraft
can have.
3. External loads – Full CFD analysis
When a user performs a full CFD analysis on the
exterior of the aircraft, the pressure and thermal loads
on all external surfaces can then be used to determine
the internal stresses and strains of each of the internal
aircraft components.
Above: A full CFD analysis shows the ground effect of a VTOL aircraft at
takeoff, and at the bottom an eVTOL aircraft in the air showing the air
movement around the rotors, which corresponds well to the CFD simulation.
Acoustics and noise prediction
1. External aeroacoustics
a. Predicting engine rotor noise to make sure that if
the aircraft is flying over a populated area, the noise
is not overwhelming for the population below.
b. If an engine fails, this can be extremely loud for
the passengers inside the aircraft. This failure mode
can be simulated, to make sure that the interior
cabin noise is minimized if this were to ever happen.
c. Depending on the type of rotorcraft (open rotor or
ducted fan), different noise mitigation techniques
can be proposed such as noise-absorbing materials
and acoustic liners. Simulation in the conceptual
phase (and later in the more detailed design phase)
can be used to optimize the effect of the above
devices in mitigating external noise.
2. Interior cabin acoustics
a. Ensuring passenger comfort by making sure the
interior cabin noise is at a comfortable decibel level.
b. Noise from the airframe and the landing gear can
have a significant effect on interior noise comfort
due to the multiple noise transmission paths.
Structure-borne noise transmission paths and air-
borne noise transmission paths can be simulated
and assessed during the aircraft design phase.
c. Similar to a road vehicle, trimmed acoustic
treatments, noise-absorbing glass panels and
optimized seals can help create a quiet and
comfortable environment for passengers. Simulating
these components can help optimize the location,
materials and arrangements of different type of trim
components, panels and seals to obtain the best
noise and vibrations performances for the lowest
cost and added mass.
Above: Chevrons can be seen in the back of the engine nozzles on a Boeing
747-800 to reduce noise.
hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 15
Propulsion and emissions 5. Motor & gearbox acoustics

1. Power density a. Simulating the directionality of the sound caused

Propulsion engineers simulate and calculate the
amount of power a vertical flight propulsion system
can produce – and thus verify that it can produce
more lift than the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW)
in order to successfully fly.
2. Thermal management
by the motor and gearbox is key to understanding
how the noise is experienced by an observer whilst
the aircraft is in flight.
b. Understanding the impact of vibration that this
sound causes on components, particularly power
electronics on the aircraft.

a. Since poor thermal management can lead to

demagnetization and/or degradation of electric
motor performance, thermal simulation is used to
determine what effects the different materials have
on the internal motor components (which all have
different thermal expansion properties).

b. On electric motors, the two most common issues

are insulation cracking between the stator and
windings, and fracture of the sleeve holding the
permanent magnets. Simulation is used to predict
this and prevent these modes of failure.

3. Duty cycle analysis & digital certification

a. Duty cycle analysis of the full transmission system

needs to be completed to determine component life.
Although dynamic characteristics of the gearbox and
motor are well understood when considering them
separately, they can cause troubles when bringing
them together. Simulating these components
together gives a dynamic signature that can be used
Above: A Rotordynamics analysis is performed to show the safety and reliability
to predict the in-flight behavior of the assembly, of the aircraft propulsion system, so that open propellers without a casing
together with interactions of different excitation “unducted fan” designs, as seen on the right on a Bombardier Q400, can safely
land in case of emergency (loss of a propeller blade, for example, which causes
sources. an unbalanced “windmilling” effect).

b. Understanding the fatigue characteristics of

each propulsion component and chosen material
allows the “Mean Time Between Overhaul” (MTBO) Controls and mechanisms
to be approximated and established for aircraft
maintenance schedules. 1. Hight lift system design and wing flap load

4. Rotor dynamics Simulating the load on a wing flap mechanism, as well as

For all rotating components including shafts, turbines
and propellers, simulating and understanding the full
dynamic signature is key to ensuring safety. As the
rotational velocity increases, the level of vibration
often passes through a ‘critical speed’ commonly
excited by unbalance of the rotating structure.
Simulation is performed to determine where these
critical speeds lie in relation to the vehicle’s intended
operating range, and whether they are a potential
hazard to the vehicle and/or passengers.
the load the flap imparts onto the rest of the structure
as the wing flap extends or retracts; then verifying
successful operation.
2. Landing gear load generation during deployment and
retraction
Evaluating forces necessary to extend and retract the
landing gear in the allowed time, but also verifying that
the bottoming loads do not impart excessive force on
the airplane structure.
3. Wing bending

If an ultra-light aircraft is designed to have flexible

wings, then users can verify that wing deformation

16 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com

 does not introduce destabilizing dynamics or
compromise the operation of flight control
actuation systems.
4. Rotor movement
Since eVTOL vehicles can commonly have rotors that
tilt, engineering simulation can be used to evaluate
performance, load requirements, and failure modes
associated with this function.
5. Doors and mechanisms
Verify rify performance and load-holding capability
of various aircraft mechanisms.
6. Fly-by-wire control systems design
Evaluate aircraft stability over all the possible
operating scenarios, considering both normal
operation, as well as operation with possible
failure events.
7. Assesing power demands and stability
Verifying timing, power requirements, and other
performance characteristics of mechanisms during
deployment and retraction.
Above: Wing flap deployment multibody dynamics analysis, showing the
stresses the wing flap mechanism experiences during deployment.
Manufacturability and costing
1. Subtractively manufactured parts
For CNC machining, users optimize and
simulate the entire manufacturing process
in a high-performance CAM system to predict the
machining time and cost that it takes to manufacture
a part or batch of parts.
2. Additively manufactured parts
a. For the conceptual design phase, users optimize
their parts for load path, minimize the amount of
material needed, and minimize the time it takes to
actually print a part using a 3D printer.
b. Users can also simulate the actual printing process,
thus predicting thermal distortion, minimizing
support structure needed, and ensuring first time
print success.
3. Composite layup & draped parts
For complex, doubly curved surfaces that are
common in Aerospace, users need to ensure part
integrity from the carbon-fiber draping process.
Using a built-in carbon fiber materials database or
a custom in-house proprietary materials database,
users predict the formability of composite laminates
before they’re built to ensure first-part success.
4. Stamped sheet metal parts
a. Precisely and accurately develop the flat pattern
of the part the first time, including fastener and rivet
hole locations, so that you can reduce the material
cost and the number of development trials for
production. This reduces or eliminates the need for
costly prototypes and tooling re-work.
Above: a composite draping analysis for an aircraft fuselage section is
shown next to an as-built composite aircraft section, where draping analysis
was required during the design process (Spirit ASTRA fuselage panel with
integrated composite stringers). Image source: www.compositesworld.com/
articles/how-much-is-that-composite-wing-in-the-window
hexagonmi.com Manufacturing Intelligence 17
Customer testimonials
As a company, we have seen many new aircraft designed,
certified, and flown successfully over the past 54+
years we’ve been in business – we are confident that we
understand the world of aviation research, development
and certification. But don’t just take our word for it, listen
to what our customers have to say:
“Almost every new Boeing product that I can think of has
been impacted positively by the products of MSC – and
the reason is due to the strong partnership between the
Boeing engineering team and the MSC engineering team.”
– John Tracy, Chief Technology Officer, The Boeing Company
“Airbus has confirmed the accuracy of Actran predictions
by comparing them with engine static testing results.
Actran is the only simulation tool able to accurately model
the main physical phenomena for engine nacelle radiation.”
– Jean-Yves Suratteau, Head of Numerical Methods, Acoustics &
Environment Dept., Airbus
“TLG is proud to use MSC Nastran to drive their industry-
leading capability in aircraft design, analysis and
certification for loads, dynamics, and flutter.”
– Robert Lind, TLG Aerospace
“The engineers at NASA were not able to test most of the
critical mission events on Earth so they had to rely upon
MSC Software simulation technology to design most of
the hardware and control sequences for this mission.
There was only one chance to get it right.”
– Dr. Chia-Yen Peng, Principal & Lead Engineer for the Loads and
Dynamic Simulation team at NASA JPL
“The correlation between test and analysis was close enough
to enable the successful design of rotors for bird strike.”
– Michael Urban, Manager of Structural Methods, Sikorsky Aircraft
Corporation
18 Manufacturing Intelligence hexagonmi.com
“There are no other codes in the world that can do this
combination of analysis.”
– Dr. Charles Lawrence, Structures & Acoustics Division, NASA
Glenn Research Center
“MSC Nastran/Patran usage through the development and
certification of the Airbus A220 aircraft program (formerly
known as the C Series) was critical to the success of
our ambitious endeavor to bring to the market the most
advanced single-aisle aircraft/clean sheet design and
the only new aircraft purposely-build for the 100-150 seat
market segment. Every step of the way, MSC Products
enabled us to deliver an efficient, safe & reliable aircraft
to meet the market’s high expectations.”
– Jean Nicolas Houle, Senior Engineering Specialist, Stress
Integration, Airbus
References
https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/wright-
brothers-first-flight-photo-annotated-180949489/
https://www.faa.gov/about/history/brief_history/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Aviation_
Safety_Agency
ht tp s: //w w w. av iationto day.c om /202 1/05/24/ev tol-
certification-now-challenges-still-lie-ahead/
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/
june/17/pipistrel-first-to-certify-electric-airplane
http://www.b737.org.uk/history.htm
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/737-classic.
page
https://simpleflying.com/how-are-new-aircraft-certified/
Hexagon is a global leader in sensor, software and autonomous solutions.
We are putting data to work to boost efficiency, productivity,
and quality across industrial, manufacturing, infrastructure, safety,
and mobility applications.

Our technologies are shaping urban and production ecosystems

to become increasingly connected and autonomous – ensuring a scalable,
sustainable future.

Hexagon’s Manufacturing Intelligence division provides solutions that utilise

data from design and engineering, production and metrology to make
manufacturing smarter. For more information, visit hexagonmi.com.

Learn more about Hexagon (Nasdaq Stockholm: HEXA B) at hexagon.com

and follow us @HexagonAB.

© 2021 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates. All rights reserved.