Dr.

Pietro Cervellera
Altair Germany
Manager Customer Relations
Aerospace Industry
cervellera@altair.de +49-89-379952-456

Reducing Weight in Aircraft Structures

November 27 2007, 2:00 – 2:40pm ET

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

 Reducing Weight in Aircraft Structures

Challenge: Find the lightest design

which meets all design
g requirements
q
while meeting the project deadlines
but also minimizing design and manufacturing costs

ƒ How to design a structure with minimum weight?

ƒ With trial and error, iterating trough design (CAD) and analysis (CAE)
ƒ With engineering intuition, with past experience
ƒ Is if effecti
effective?
e? Is it eno
enough?
gh?

ƒ Where to reduce weight?

ƒ At which level of complexity: at system level? At part level? At detail level?

ƒ When to reduce weight?

ƒ In the concept / pre-design phase?
ƒ Is weight reduction allowed by project’s scheduling and budget?
ƒ Do I have the needed information? What if requirements then change?
ƒ After part release? In a weight reduction loop? Airplane 7?
ƒ Can weight be reduced minimizing design changes?
ƒ A requirement relaxation would leads to weight save? How much?

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

 Reducing Weight in Aircraft Structures

Challenge: Find the lightest design

which meets all design
g requirements
q
while meeting the project deadlines
but also minimizing design and manufacturing costs

ƒ How to design a structure with minimum weight?

ƒ With trial and error, iterating trough design (CAD) and analysis (CAE)
ƒ With engineering intuition, with past experience
ƒ Is if effecti
effective?
e? Is it eno
enough?
gh?

ƒ Where to reduce weight?

ƒ At which level of complexity: at system level? At part level? At detail level?

ƒ When to reduce weight?

ƒ In the concept / pre-design phase?
ƒ Is weight reduction allowed by project’s scheduling and budget?
ƒ Do I have the needed information? What if requirements then change?
ƒ After part release? In a weight reduction loop? Airplane 7?
ƒ Can weight be reduced minimizing design changes?
ƒ A requirement relaxation would leads to weight save? How much?

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

 Fairchild Dornier 728 - Door Support Arm

Design details:
ƒ Connector element between door and
fuselage
ƒ Integral aluminum part
ƒ Machined in two directions
ƒ Three static load cases
• Door blocking
• Emergency opening
• Hit of damper mechanism on door

Project objectives:
ƒ Redesign part minimizing weight
ƒ Maintaining original stiffness by 3 load cases
ƒ Maintaining material and manufacturing
process
ƒ Strength and buckling allowables (not critical)
Cervellera, P., Optimization
p Driven Design
g
Process: Practical Experience on
Structural Components, Proc. 14th
Convegno Nazionale ADM/AIAS, Bari,
Italy, 30.8.04-2.9.04
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 4
 Fairchild Dornier 728 - Door Support Arm

design
1

design
2

design
1

1. Intuitive Design 2. Design Space 3. Design Result of

Topology Optimization
Optimization driven redesign

6. Optimized Design
5. Sizing with 4. CAD Proposal
Shape Optimization
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 5
 Fairchild Dornier 728 - Door Support Arm

ƒ How to design a structure with minimum weight?

ƒ With trial and error,, iterating
g trough
g design
g (CAD)
( ) and analysis
y (CAE)
( )
ƒ With engineering intuition, with past experience
ƒ Is if effective? Is it enough?

Project results:
ƒ Reduced development time and minimization of
CAD/CAE loops
• 12 weeks (design loop) vs
3 weeks (optimization loop)
Intuitive Design
ƒ Optimized mechanical properties
• Mass: -19% byy same stiffness
• Meets strength and buckling requirements
ƒ Innovative design
• Non-intuitive
N i t iti ribs
ib configuration
fi ti
Optimized Design
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 6
 Optimization driven design process

Pre-design Boundary conditions

Geomettry definittion

Design space
(FE or CAD model) requirements

Topology optimization study

Proposal 1 Proposal 2 … Proposal i

Interpretation of the results

Concept (CAD)

Detailed design Detailed

Optimization
Sizing
g

requirements boundary
safety factors
conditions

Automatic
Automaticoptimum
optimal sizing
sizing
Shape and/or size optimization

Sized FE Interpretation of the results

Final CAD Model

Verification analysis

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 7

 Reducing Weight in Aircraft Structures

Challenge: Find the lightest design

which meets all design
g requirements
q
while meeting the project deadlines
but also minimizing design and manufacturing costs

ƒ How to design a structure with minimum weight?

ƒ With trial and error, iterating trough design (CAD) and analysis (CAE)
ƒ With engineering intuition, with past experience
ƒ Is if effecti
effective?
e? Is it eno
enough?
gh?

ƒ Where to reduce weight?

ƒ At which level of complexity: at system level? At part level? At detail level?

ƒ When to reduce weight?

ƒ In the concept / pre-design phase?
ƒ Is weight reduction allowed by project’s scheduling and budget?
ƒ Do I have the needed information? What if requirements then change?
ƒ After part release? In a weight reduction loop? Airplane 7?
ƒ Can weight be reduced minimizing design changes?
ƒ A requirement relaxation would leads to weight save? How much?

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 8

 A350 Fuselage Tail Section 19 concept study

ƒ Objectives: Reduced mass & maintained or improved structural

performance
ƒ Design space model on base of A330 rear fuselage FE-model
ƒ In total about 130 load cases + 90 mirrored

FE- Analysis Model FE-Design Space Model for Optimization

Presented by Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher, EADS, at the German OptiStruct User Meeting 2005
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 9
 A350 Fuselage Tail Section 19 concept study

Two levels topology optimization Reengineered concept design

Project
j results:
ƒ New design concept derived for all design load Preliminary sized concept
cases
ƒ Homogenized stresses
ƒ Significant reduced peaks, increased fatigue life
ƒ Reduced internal loads
ƒ Preliminaryy bucklingg assessment shows sufficient
reserves
ƒ No displacement increase with a reduced mass of 10%
ƒ Expected mass saving 15-20%

Presented by Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher, EADS, at the German OptiStruct User Meeting 2005
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 10
 A380 Pax doors weight reduction campaign

Actuator bracket

Mass = - 35%
Door stop fitting

ƒ Results summary:
• Several applications
• Weight reduction in the
10% to 40% range
• Consistent development
time reduction

Mass = - 16%
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 11
 Reducing Weight in Aircraft Structures

ƒ Where to reduce weight?

ƒ At which
hi h level
l l off complexity:
l it att architecture
hit t llevel?
l? At partt level?
l l? At detail
d t il
level?

A/C Level MDO and

Global Sizing

A/C Requirements and specs. Subsystem architecture

Design space Feasibility
Boundary conditions Preliminary mechanical properties
Preliminary definition of parts
Subsystem
Optimization Driven
Sub-system
Part Concept Design

Structural Requirements and specs.

Design space
Detailed part configuration
Detailed mechanical properties
B
Boundary
d conditions
diti St
Stress reportt
detail
Optimization
Part
Driven Design

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 12

 Reducing Weight in Aircraft Structures

Challenge: Find the lightest design

which meets all design
g requirements
q
while meeting the project deadlines
but also minimizing design and manufacturing costs

ƒ How to design a structure with minimum weight?

ƒ With trial and error, iterating trough design (CAD) and analysis (CAE)
ƒ With engineering intuition, with past experience
ƒ Is if effecti
effective?
e? Is it eno
enough?
gh?

ƒ Where to reduce weight?

ƒ At which level of complexity: at system level? At part level? At detail level?

ƒ When to reduce weight?

ƒ In the concept / pre-design phase?
ƒ Is weight reduction allowed by project’s scheduling and budget?
ƒ Do I have the needed information? What if requirements then change?
ƒ After part release? In a weight reduction loop? Airplane 7?
ƒ Can weight be reduced minimizing design changes?
ƒ A requirement relaxation would leads to weight save? How much?

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 13

 Detail Part Optimization on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Paper:

47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural

Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 1 - 4 May 2006, Newport,
Rhode Island

Detail Part Optimization on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Robert M. Taylor*, Jason E. Thomas†, and Nicholas G. Mackaron‡
Shawn Riley§ Martin R. Lajczok**

ƒ Several applications discussing use of structural optimization on

detailed parts of the F-35 JSF

ƒ Also presenting how optimization fits in the aerospace design process

and in the typical project scheduling

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 14

 Detail Part Optimization on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Attachment fitting

ƒ High scheduling pressure

ƒ Topology provides insight into

load paths and allows reducing
g from the beginning
weight g g of the
design process

ƒ Followed directly by traditional

hand justification/sizing for
certification

ƒ Effective alternative to
configuration studies (picture 1)

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 15

 Detail Part Optimization on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Equipment bracket

ƒ Complex design including

stiffness, strength, stability and
eigenfrequencies requirements

ƒ Topology optimization drives

weight save suggesting optimal
configuration

ƒ Sizing and shape optimization

adds value by quickly delivering
a design which meets all
q
requirements by
y keeping
p g weight
g
to minimum

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 16

Trade-off study of a passenger door beam

Design details:
ƒ Door longitudinal beam
ƒ Integral aluminum part
ƒ Provide
P id b bending
di stiffness
tiff d
during
i
cabin pressurizing

Project objectives:
ƒ Trade-off study
• Weight vs configuration
• Weight vs stiffness requirement
ƒ Further strength,
strength buckling and
crippling allowables
ƒ Scheduling pressure
Cervellera
Cer ellera P.,
P Zhou
Zho M.,
M Schramm U., U Optimization
Optimi ation dri
driven
en design of shell
structures under stiffness, strength and stability requirements
Proc. 6th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization, Rio De Janeiro, 30.5.05-3.6.05
Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 17
Trade-off study of a passenger door beam

Free-sizing optimization Sizing optimization

Design space I-Beam configuration

Topology optimization Sizing optimization

Non design space

Truss configuration

ƒ P
Project
j t results:
lt
• Concept design method (~2-3
weeks)
• Trade-off diagram
– configuration/weight/stiffness
• Quantitative-based decision
making

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 18

 Weight reduction and uncertainties

ƒ Optimization specializes the design for

the
eggiven
e input:
pu
• Design space
• Boundary conditions
• Design requirements

ƒ Couple optimization with robust design

techniques
• Considering nominal
loads/requirements and perturbations
• Which changes are affecting the
design?
• Sensitivity analysis

ƒ Streamed and automated

Systems?
optimization-driven design process
• More what-if scenarios and trade-off
studies possible
• Faster reaction to design changes by
keeping weight to minimum

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 19

HyperWorks for Weight Reduction

ƒ HyperWorks offers an integrated platform for weight reduction

• Integrated solvers with optimization technology
• Complete and flexible optimization tools Structural Simulation
– Topology, sizing, shape, free-sizing, free-shape optimization
– Robust design
design, Design of Experiment
Experiment, Sensibility analysis
– For metallic and composite structures
• Best in class pre-processors Mechanical Simulation
– To create FE models
– To set-up analysis and optimizations
– Morphing technology for variants Results Visualization

• Powerful and effective ppost-processors

p Visualization
– To quickly extract knowledge from data

ƒ Altair offers a competent

p p
partner for weight
g reduction
• Training, consulting, mentoring, methods Optimization & Stochastic

• Engineering services
• Extensive aerospace experience and problems knowledge
• Complete weight reduction processes
Data Analysis

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 20

Summary

ƒ HyperWorks offers complete technology for weight reduction

• Integrated
I t t d FE modeling,
d li analysis,
l i optimization,
ti i ti visualization
i li ti

ƒ HyperWorks allows CAE-based weight reduction where previously not

possible because of lack of time
• Improved concept / pre-design phase
• Faster CAE tools allow more trade-off studies and what-if scenarios
• High-quality
High quality quantitative information available earlier
• Minimization of redesign loops and risk to be overweight

ƒ Optimization driven design integrates optimization with analysis

ƒ Can be used to directly design minimum weight structures from the
beginning of the process
• Right first time
• Light first time!
Application of Topology, Size
p Optimization
and Shape p on the
787 Wing Leading Edge
Structure
Steve Amorosi

Copyright © 2006 Altair Engineering, Inc. All rights reserved. 21