4th National Conference on Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis and Optimization

7th – 9th, October 2021, Virtual Conference

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) of a Typical Civil Aircraft Wing using

3DEXPERIENCE Platform from Dassault Systemés
1
Umashankar G, 1Bharath Kanaparthi, 1Emlin Vathsalan, 1Dayanidhi Panda, 1Ganesh Prasad,
1
Srikrishna Srinivasa Chittur, 1Geetha Avula
2
Dr. Abhay Pashilkar, 2Pankaj A C, 2Devendra Singh, 2Dr. Vijayakrishnan
1Dassault Systemés, Bengaluru, India Umashankar.G@3ds.com
2CSIR-NAL, Bengaluru, India apash@nal.res.in

Abstract
The aim of the collaborative project is to leverage the model-based unified platform approach to
develop a methodology for multidisciplinary optimization of a concept wing. The methodology
primarily delivers value mainly in three aspects critical to conceptual design process: requirements-
driven, integration between disciplines, and complete automation. It involves interaction of fully
parameterized conceptual wing design with performance assessment with respect to aerodynamics and
structures, wrapped up within a fully automatable optimization interface for exploring the optimal
parameters and performance in a multidisciplinary environment. In practice, it is often observed that
integration of multiple siloed point solutions pose challenges that restrict Engineers to explore the
design space. Hence, current processes are usually repetitive and disconnected, while requiring manual
intervention leading to major delays in delivery timelines for concept design review. The present paper
explains in detail the MDO methodology developed leveraging the unified CAD-CFD-FEA-0D
environment, automated to optimize design parameters meeting all the necessary requirements and
adhering to constraints (ex: fuel volume) within the design space. As a result of optimization, the best
result obtained shows the trade-off between increased Lift/Drag ratio and decreased structural weight
for cruise and dive flight conditions.

Keywords: Multi-Disciplinary Optimization, CFD, Structural Dynamics, MDO, Wing, Civil Aircraft,
Commuter Aircraft, Aerodynamics, Optimization

1. Introduction
Multidisciplinary Optimization (MDO) of an aircraft wing is critical in the design stage of a civil
aircraft to obtain enhanced performance with minimum possible structural weight. The approach of
using the 3DEXPERIENCE platform as a collaborative environment is a game changer to accelerate
the product development cycle by increasing virtual collaboration, improving execution and
accelerating innovation. The parametrized design variables considered in this study for the
aerodynamic optimization of the wing planform are wing area, aspect ratio and taper ratio. The design
variables for the structures are the thickness of spar, rib, stringers and skin. The specified constraints
are the fuel volume dominated by the space between front and rear spar of the wing, the permissible

1
stress and buckling factor. The location of the ribs and spars have also been parametrized during the
optimization process. The aerodynamic loads for the cruise angle of attack are computed using CFD
on the CAD models generated in the design space using CATIA Apps and transferred to the structural
mesh model for further stress and buckling analyses on using SIMULIA Apps on the
3DEXPERIENCE platform. The analyses have been carried out for the extreme load factors at the
designed dive speed. The optimization by design of experiments is carried out in the form of a nested
approach i.e. the structural optimization within an Aerodynamic optimization loop. The set objective
has been to obtain optimal performance of a wing with a maximum Lift to Drag ratio with minimum
structural weight subjected to fuel volume, stress and buckling constraints. The industry best practice
methodology shown in Fig.1, proposed by Dassault Systemés is fully integrated and automated
ensuring digital continuity employing a unified environment for multi-disciplinary optimization. The
individual simulation solver technologies available on the 3DEXPERIENCE platform are validated for
real world performance assessment. The proposed workflow is re-usable and replicable for similar
problem statements. Thus the target process enables simulation driven design decisions through a
model-based data-driven approach on the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform with the automation of
simulation processes. The key value of the platform approach is to provide an end-to-end solution
leveraging digital continuity, thereby accelerating the overall design and development cycle.

Figure 1: Fully automated and integrated model-based platform approach

2. Description of Modeling and Approach

2.1. CAD Model
The significant aspect of an automated design iteration process is to have a robust and completely
parametrized CAD. Semi span of wing CAD is built using CATIA based on the case data provided by
NAL.

2
According to the CAD modeling workflow presented in Fig.2, airfoil smoothing is performed as a first
step. The planform parametrization is done in terms of wing surface area, taper ratio, aspect ratio, root
incidence, dihedral angle and geometry twist on the semi span wing model. Once the robustness of
planform parameters are validated, the wing structure is parametrized in terms of rib thickness,
number of ribs and their location, front and rear spars location. Through the parametrization of wing
planform, the fuel volume is computed and exposed as an output variable to be monitored during the
optimization study. The whole process of parametrization is based on general rules presented in Fig.3
The complete wing parametric model to be used in the simulation processes is shown in Fig.4.

Figure 2: CAD modeling workflow

Figure 3: Parametrization rules

3
 Figure 4: Fully Parametrized CAD of wing semi span

2.2. CFD Model

The Fluid Dynamics Engineer Role on the 3DEXPERIENCE platform leverages 3DSFlow, a RANS
based finite volume solver to perform steady state external flow simulations for assessing aerodynamic
performance of the wing during dive and cruise conditions. Dassault Systemés SIMULIA’s body-
fitted meshing technology called Hex-Dominant Mesher (HDM) not only reduces model build efforts
with automatic fluid domain extraction, but also generates finite volume mesh with prism boundary
layers directly on native CAD geometry. This CAD embedded CFD solution automatically updates the
simulation model (mesh and scenario) when design changes occur during optimization loop.
Aerodynamic simulation on parametrized wing semi span is performed using Fluid Dynamics
Engineer (FMK) Role for 3 load cases viz., upbending dive condition, downbending dive condition
and cruise operating conditions as shown in Table 1.

Operating
Dive Cruise
Conditions
Pressure 101320 Pa 52423.8 Pa
Temperature 288.15 K 258.435 K
Velocity 139.5 m/s 111.11 m/s
Table 1: Operating conditions

The required angles of attack are estimated by the Angle of Attack (AoA) estimator, a 0D calculator,
and given as input to Fluid Dynamics Engineer Role. The fluid domain is tilted based on the AoA
estimator output. Airflow simulation is performed assuming that the wing is static and the incoming
airflow is inclined with respect to the estimated AoA. The geometry is kept static in order to eliminate
remeshing for every optimization loop, hence to save time for each CFD iteration. The planform
parameters that are considered for aerodynamic DOE as design variables are listed in the Table 2.

4
 Planform Parameters Baseline Value Lower Bound Upper Bound Intervals
Wing Area (S) 31 m2 28 m2 32 m2 0.5 m2
Aspect Ratio (AR) 10 9 12 0.5
Taper ratio (τ) 0.5 0.45 0.55 0.025

Table 2: Aerodynamic design variables

Figure 5: CFD Workflow

The fully automatic, body-fitted, hex-dominant mesh (HDM) consists of hex elements at the core,
prism elements at the boundary layer and tetrahedron & pyramid elements at the transition layer. The
mesh parameters are: global element size Max= 2000 mm; Min= 2 mm; local surface refinement
(wing top and bottom surfaces) size = 8mm. The boundary layer elements are meshed with prism type
elements having 15 number of layers with first cell height equal to 0.01mm (targeting y+ =1) as
represented in Fig.6.

Figure 6: Hex-dominant body-fitted CFD mesh

The flow solver in place uses Implicit Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) approach with a
segregated pressure-based compressible solver offering 2nd order spatial discretization. The turbulence

5
model used is Spalart – Allmaras (typical in concept aircraft aerodynamics) and the boundary
conditions include velocity inlet, pressure outlet, symmetry wall attached to the wing root, and free
slip wall at top, bottom, and wing-tip side of the bounding domain box (represents virtual wind tunnel)
as shown in Fig.7.

Figure 7: CFD Boundary conditions

Computation is run for 1000 iterations and flow convergence is checked by monitoring the graphs of
axial (Fx) and normal (Fz) forces, momentum and energy residuals vs. number of iterations. Sample
flow results and force convergence graph are presented in Fig.8.

Figure 8: CFD Flow convergence and filed plots

Sensors are introduced to measure the wing surface average pressure, axial and normal forces. The 3D
CFD surface average pressure data of the wing are stored in a tabular data format that is subsequently
mapped to the FEA solver as a boundary condition (pressure load) in structural simulations. Two
major advantages offered by this mapping capability include i) Map is stored within the Platform and
hence no need to export and import files ii) The map is tied to the geometry and CFD model, hence it
gets updated automatically when the CFD model is updated after a design change within the
optimization loop.

6
2.3. Structural Model
The Structural Model is built using Simulation Model Preparation App inside the 3DEXPERIENCE
Platform. The wing from root to tip is divided into 4 zones (Fig.9) namely In-board (IB), Zone A
(ZA), Zone B (ZB) and Zone C (ZC).

Figure 9: Wing divided into four Zones

The entire wing planform is discretized with a structured first-order shell element in maintaining
connectivity across all sections of the wing. The process of meshing is automated such that every time
design evolves in the design exploration phase, the mesh is generated automatically without any
human intervention maintaining acceptable good element quality. Since the wing is assumed to be
made up of Aluminum, corresponding material properties such as Young’s Modulus, Poisson's Ratio
& density are considered under the material property definition. Considering the variable stiffness
distribution along the length of the wing, skin surface over the wing (from leading edge to trailing
edge) and the spars are also divided into zones of variable thickness as shown in Fig.10(a) and Fig.10
(b). All the major structural features like number of ribs across the cross section, the thickness of the
ribs and the thickness of the surface skin, and spars are considered as design variables for the
Optimization study.

Figure 10(a): Surface Skin divided for Thickness Definition Figure 10(b): Ribs and Spars for Thickness Definition

Due to the seamless associativity between the CAD geometry and the simulation model (Fig.11), all
the changes made on the geometry are updated on the mesh model automatically including addition
and removal of ribs, change in spar location, etc. The structural simulation on the wing is performed
for 2 pressure load cases that are coming from the CFD simulation.

7
 Figure 11: Structural Simulation Workflow

The mapping of pressure data on structural model from CFD simulation is highly accurate (Fig.12)
and is done automatically by invoking the tabular data file generated by the CFD simulation during the
structural model setup.

Figure 12: Pressure mapping

The boundary conditions applied on the structural model are as below:

1. Structural constraints applied in ‘Y’ direction at the central face
2. Constraints applied in ‘Z’ direction at the support brackets that connect to fuselage
3. Structural constraints applied in ‘X’ direction for drag bracket
The analyses carried out are:
1. Stress analysis to check the strength of the structure against pressure load from CFD
Simulation.
2. Buckling analysis to check the Eigen value buckling factor against pressure load from
CFD simulation.

8
3. Multi-Disciplinary Optimization Workflow
The Multi-disciplinary Optimization workflow is structured in a way to consider all the design
requirements of the Wing. The workflow involves multiple activities (as shown in Fig.13) like DOE,
fuel volume calculation, Angle of Attack (AoA) estimator, CFD simulations for both Up-bending,
Down-bending load-cases and also the Cruise condition, encapsulated Structural Optimization for each
CFD design. It has conditional checks for fuel volume and CFD model convergence. The whole
workflow is driven by the DOE adapter on top which gives the planform variables as inputs.

Figure 13: Multidisciplinary Wing Optimization Workflow Process

Details of each activity labeled in Fig.13 are mentioned below:

3.1. Fuel Volume Calculation

The fuel volume calculation activity updates the geometry of the wing according to the inputs given by
the DOE adapter and measures the fuel volume of updated geometry using CAD utilities available.
There is conditional check next to fuel volume adapter where the decision is made, if the fuel volume
is within the limits the process will continue further, else it will go back to the DOE adapter and start
with the next design point.

9
3.2. Angle of Attack (AoA) Estimator
The Angle of Attack estimator is a FORTRAN code built to generate AoA values for the given input
planform variables. The legacy data of aerodynamic efficiency for different angles of attack are
considered as base by the AoA Estimator to compute the AoA for limit load cases like Upbending,
Downbending and Cruise conditions. This greatly reduces the size of DOE thereby improving the
turnaround time. The Angle of Attack Estimator activity takes the input values and runs a FORTRAN
code for 3 main computations.
1. Use legacy data to compute AoA for Up-bending and Down-bending limit load cases.

Compute Ratio of Lift Curve Slope to 2

Substitute values into the equation with initial guess for Kapa. Iterate on Kapa to
solve
Where:

, Prandtl-Glauert Mach number parameter

= ratio of two-dimensional lift curve slope to 2

= Sweepback of mid-chord

Ref: “General Aviation Aircraft Design”, Snorri Gudmudsson, p.346

Spanwise Lift Efficiency:

2. Use CFD results from the limit load cases to estimate AoA for the cruise case.

 Least –squares fit currently uses the tow Limit load cases for linear regression
 Solve for AoA where :

(AoA -

+ ( )

10
 3. Fit CFD results from limit load cases and cruise case to refine estimate of L/D for the cruise
point and compute objective function.
 Least-squares fit currently uses the three CFD cases for linear regression.
 Adjusts coefficients to cruise condition
 Resolve for AoA
 Computes Objective Function: Oj = (D/L) at the adjusted cruise point

where is the wing weight.

3.3. CFD Solver

The CFD Solver activity solves the CFD simulation models for the Upbending and Downbending load
cases considering the input planform variables for wing geometry and Angle of Attack from the AoA
estimator. There is a conditional check after the CFD solver activity to proceed to the Structural
Optimization only if the models have converged. If the model is not converged, it will go back to the
DOE activity directly to generate next set of design points.

3.4. Mapped pressure from CFD to structural FEA

The output pressure data from the CFD model is automatically saved in the 3DEXPERIENCE
database. This file is already called into the structural model at the time of model building. As the
entire workflow runs in a single environment the pressure data file will automatically get mapped on
to the structural model before the structural simulation activity.

3.5. Structural Optimization

The Structural Optimization activity is encapsulated within the workflow to find an optimal structural
model for each set of planform variables. The objective is to minimize the mass of the wing model for
the given planform variables considering the thickness parameters and number of ribs as design
variables and keeping the Stress and Buckling factor values within limits. The Structural Optimization
as shown in the Fig.14 & Fig.15 is driven by DOE component on top which gives the number of ribs
at Zone Inboard, Zone A, Zone B and Zone C as inputs. The Optimization activity has all the thickness
parameters of the Structural Model, total 55 parameters as design variables and stress limits as
constraints. Optimization for Up-bending and Down-bending models separately. The script after the
Optimization compares the optimal thickness values for each variable between Up-bending and Down-
bending models, picks the higher value between the two and gets updated accordingly on to the
Buckling model. Fully Stress Design (SFD) structural optimization technique which is specific to
thickness parameter changes is used for optimization.

11
 Figure 14: Complete MDO workflow in 3DEXPERIENCE Platform

Figure 15: Structural Optimization Workflow

3.6. CFD-1g
The CFD 1g activity is for the CFD cruise condition. It gets the inputs from the input planform
variables and AoA estimator for cruise.

3.7. DOE
The DOE adapter is the driver which gives the planform variable Wing Area, Aspect Ratio, Taper
Ratio and also the Front and Rear Spar Location parameters as inputs and take the responses L/D ratio
and Mass which are defined as the Objectives. The DOE Technique used is Optimal Latin Hypercube
and the total number of Design Points considered are 40.

12
 Figure 16: MDO Workflow

4. Results and Discussion

The MDO Workflow is executed and the results are analyzed in the Results Analytics App in the
3DEXPERIENCE platform. The final results are listed in a tabulated form as shown in the Fig.17 with
all the Inputs and Outputs for the corresponding 40 design points. All the designs are given a specific
rank based on the output values and the best design is given rank no.1 (highlighted in light green
color). Since the fuel volume calculation has a conditional check, 10 designs have passed fuel volume
above 1.4 kL criteria. All the designs that failed the criteria are shown in orange label.

The best configuration is found to have the following properties:

Aspect ratio: 9.277
Taper ratio: 0.46
Wing surface area: 30.2 sq.m
L/D ratio: 22.55
Half wing weight: 350.6 Kg

Only about 11 configurations from the 40 candidate configurations are found to meet the constraints.
This is examined carefully and it is found that the fuel volume constraint (minimum 1427liters)
dominated the results.

Another wing configuration with aspect ratio of approximately 12 is also found to be feasible with the
following parameters:

13
Aspect ratio: 11.72
Taper ratio: 0.54
Wing surface area: 31.97 sq.m
L/D ratio: 23
Half wing weight: 393.8Kg
As seen from the above, the higher aspect ratio wing results in a higher wing area as well as overall
weight and marginally better Lift to Drag ratio at cruise. This can be explained from the first order
analysis for the fuel volume dependence on the wing area and aspect ratio that goes as:
V  S1.5 / AR0.5

Figure 17: Final Results Table

The plots in Fig.18 show the relation between Planform variables vs L/D. It can be inferred from the
graphs that the wing aspect ratio is directly proportional to L/D ratio. Increase in taper ratio affects
L/D ratio for the given wing configuration. The twist applied to the wing CAD may also contribute to
the L/D ratio along with taper ratio parameter. Increase in wing surface area increases the lifting
surface area, thereby increasing the overall lift to drag ratio.

Figure 18: Planform Variables vs L/D

14
 The corresponding structural model parameters for the best design from Fig.17 are shown below in
Fig.19a & Fig.19b.

Figure 19a: Final Thickness Values of the Outer Skin Figure 19b: Final Thickness Values of Ribs & Spars

5. Conclusion
The MDO workflow shows the power of the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform from Dassault Systemés to
enable seamless associativity between modeling and simulation by synchronizing fully parametrized
CAD with automated multi-physics simulation workflows to perform multidisciplinary optimization
studies. Benefits of the overall process help in transforming industry challenges to business values by
accelerating product development time significantly. The proposed Multi-Disciplinary Optimization
framework comprising of Industry Standard Methodology has great potential to influence the early
conceptual design phase from coupon level to full scale. Based on this project experience, the turn-
around time for the conceptual design process could be cut down by approximately 60% leveraging
the described methodology.

6. Acknowledgments
The First Author acknowledges Mr. Mark Beyer (A&D Industry Expert), Mr. Pradeep Ramadoss
(Process Automation), Dr.Ravishankar Mariayyah (Process Automation), Mr. Gregory Laskowski
(Global Fluids Application team), Mr. Benjamin Duda ( Global Fluids Application Team), Mr.
Michael Sacks ( Global Fluids Application Team), Mr. Lin Sun (CFD R&D), Mr. Asif Khan (FEA
R&D), Mr. David Lau (FEA R&D), Mr. Kaushik Das (Mapping R&D) from Dassault Systemés for
their guidance and continuous support.

15
7. References
1. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John D. Anderson, 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Education.
2. Vehicle Design and Optimization Model for Urban Air Mobility, Arthur Brown and Wesley L.
Harris, October 2020, Aerospace Research Central.

3. Title 14 CFR Part 23 – Airworthiness Standards for Normal Category Aircraft.

4. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Supported by Knowledge Based Engineering, Jaroslaw

Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, Alan Morris, Michel van Tooren, May 2017, Wiley Publishers.

5. Luca Cavagna, Sergio Ricci, Lorenzo Travaglini, “An integrated tool for structural sizing,
aeroelastic analysis and MDO at conceptual design level” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol.47,
Issue 8, 2011, Pages 621-635.

6. FrancoMastroddi, MarcoTozzi, ValerioCapannolo, “On the use of geometry design variables in

the MDO analysis of wing structures with aeroelastic constraints on stability and response”
Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol.15, Issue 3, Pages 196-206.

16