JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 58, No. 4, July–August 2021

Structural Design Synthesis of Aircraft Engine Pylons

at Certification Level of Detail

Milan Stefanovic∗ and Eli Livne†

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035953
Structural optimization technology, as advanced as it has become, is still not used to fully automate the design of
airframe components at a level of analysis detail that would be acceptable for certification by regulatory agencies. It is
part of the development of certifiable structures but is still just a part, requiring significant manual labor invested by
stress engineers working with empirical and semi-empirical methods for detail analysis periodically along the design
path. The Paper presents an attempt to apply an integrated model-based systems engineering philosophy, fully
automated, to the process of designing and certifying aircraft structures with a level of detail and scope of modeling
that would meet certification requirements. The Paper presents comparisons, not available until now, between the
cost and time required by current design methods practiced in industry and required for certification and by an
integrated model-based design method in the case of a particular and important aerospace structural system: the
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

engine pylon. Weight and the development costs of the resulting designs are compared. It allows for the first time
an examination of the benefits of product weight performance of the integrated model-based approach as well as
engineering effort in a highly realistic certification-driven structural design case. The Paper also describes technical
modeling and design automation innovations required to build the practical certification level integrated design
optimization platform used here.

I. Introduction
A SEARCH of the aerospace literature would lead to very few
technical publications on the structural design of pylons. A few
reports covering safety incidents present and discuss the structural
layout of the pylons involved [1–3]. Very few technical publications
discuss specific pylon parts [4] or external store pylons in structural
detail [5,6]. The structural design synthesis of engine pylons is dis-
cussed in just a few technical papers in the public domain [7–10], and
in those few papers, the emphasis is on studying various structural
optimization methods in a conceptual way, especially topology opti-
mization, without inclusion of the details required and the thorough
analysis necessary to make the resulting design meet certification
requirements.
For the structure of an engine pylon to be certified, each and every
component of it, regardless of how large or small, has to be sub-
stantiated using industry-established analysis methods and test-
derived allowable values (empirical and semi-empirical) to meet all
structural behavior constraints. All potential modes of failure need to
be taken into consideration, including stress, buckling, fatigue, dam-
age tolerance, and so on. Structural optimization, based on trusted
solidly validated structural analysis, is the key to obtaining the low-
est-weight structural designs. Because of the statically indeterminate
nature of pylon structures, the design optimization process must
account for changes in internal load distributions due to changes in
components and subcomponents during the design process.
In theory, highly detailed finite element models (FEMs) capable
of capturing all local effects and modes of failure may provide the
design-oriented analysis foundation on which the optimization proc-
ess would be built. But state-of-the-art FEMs, as implemented in
commercial finite element codes of today, are still not capable of
Presented as Paper 2020-0662 at the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando,
FL, January 6–10, 2020; received 6 March 2020; revision received 19 Novem-
ber 2020; accepted for publication 18 December 2020; published online Open
Access 19 April 2021. Copyright © 2021 by the authors. Published by the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to
CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the eISSN 1533-3868 to initiate your
request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp.
*Ph.D., William E. Boeing Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics;
currently Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, Associate Technical Fel-
low. Senior Member AIAA.
† The segmentation of the document-based aircraft structural certif-
Boeing Endowed Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, William E.
Boeing Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Fellow AIAA.
935
capturing all potential local failures in a practical way. Moreover, new
materials, components, and subcomponents require testing to estab-
lish empirical and semi-empirical math models. As a result, certifying
authorities still insist that the certification of pylon structures (similar
to any other primary structure of the commercial aircraft), especially
those aspects of it that cover effects of highly localized nature, be
based on such empirical or semi-empirical data. These empirical data
are gathered over many years by rigorous testing and test/analysis
correlation studies or just before the beginning of the development of
a brand new pylon design to establish math models that can capture
the local behavior of parts made using new technologies. The struc-
tural certification process of an engine pylon is identical to the
structural certification process of the rest of the primary structure
of the commercial airframe.
Because of the need to separate, during the structural sizing
process, the calculation of internal load flows from the structural
failure analysis at the very fine level of detail, the typical commercial
aircraft structural design and certification process today is extremely
segmented, tedious, and very slow. Adopting a highly conservative
approach to safety assurance combined with a hesitance to change
(or even just tinker with) established historic design processes, key
performance metrics, such as weight or cost, may be secondary in
importance in the current design process. As a consequence, long
design cycles may yield low strength-to-weight performance struc-
tures that carry high price tag in both recurring (production) and
nonrecurring (engineering) categories.
In the nomenclature of what is known today as model-based
systems engineering [11], the processes that are not model based
are identified as document-driven processes or simply document-
based processes. To quote Ref. [11], “In a nutshell, model-based
engineering (MBE) is about elevating models in the engineering
process to a central and governing role in the specification, design,
integration, validation, and operation of a system. For many organ-
izations, this is a paradigm shift from traditional document-based and
acquisition lifecycle model approaches, many of which follow a
‘pure’ waterfall model of system definition, system design, and
design qualification. One of the biggest communication barriers that
exists between the traditional engineering design disciplines (includ-
ing the discipline of systems engineering) and MBE is that in a
model-based process, activities that support the engineering process
are to be accomplished through development of increasing detailed
models.”
ication process, as traditionally carried out by industry, stems mostly
 936 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE
from the way that the structural engineering disciplines evolved over
time and have been established through the history of aircraft engi-
neering. In the traditional document-based process, internal loads are
delivered to stress engineers, who then divide the overall structural
design task to many separate subtasks of designing individual
components and parts. Multiple engineers are assigned to the many
necessary structural design tasks, and they typically work separately
without interaction with designers of other parts of the structure using
dedicated handbook empirical or semi-empirical charts and spread-
sheet programs (or dedicated computer codes focused on capturing
local failure effects). When those engineers working on their tasks
conclude sizing work, the resulting sizing has to be assembled back
into an updated loads FEM, yielding a brand new distribution of
internal loads, which would, then, be sent back to the stress engineers
working on their assigned parts. The process would be repeated until
program prescribed convergence criteria are met. Because of the high
cost in man hours and time, convergence criteria are set such that the
process is finalized, typically with no more than three iterations. Such
convergence criteria directly correspond to a conservative margin of
safety policy for all of the designed parts.
In the structural and multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO)
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953
communities, the term used often to describe an approach in which a
single central model is used to optimize a complex system in one shot,
covering design variables and constraints with all subsystem and
overall system design considerations and freedoms, is integrated
design optimization [12–14]. In the case of MDO, integrated design
optimizes a system simultaneously across the disciplines involved in
modeling it as opposed to a sequential approach in which the system
is optimized discipline by discipline with periodic exchanges of
information between the separate optimization problems. In the
structural optimization, field studies of optimization by decomposi-
tion and multilevel optimization appeared quite early in the develop-
ment of the technology and continue to be of interest [12,15–18]. In
such methods, structural optimization problems are broken into
subproblems that can be optimized separately, to be connected again
periodically in some way in order to lead the full optimization
problem to convergence. None of the structural optimization by
decomposition or multilevel optimization studies published so far
tackles structural optimization problems at the level of detail that
would meet certification requirements.
The work described here is an attempt to extend the integrated
optimization philosophy to the process of designing and certifying
aircraft structures with a level of detail and scope of modeling that
would meet certification requirements. Very little has been published
Fig. 1 Pylon structure.
on the application of structural optimization technology to the struc-
tural design of real flight vehicles at levels beyond the conceptual
design phase or to description of capabilities created for that [19,20].
Very little has also been published on the impact of structural syn-
thesis in realistic design environments on the cost of the resulting
structures [21–23]. And practically nothing has been published about
the impact of adopting integrated product optimization methods on
the organizational restructuring that may be required and the saving
in schedule and man hours. As a matter of fact, the adoption of such
methods at the level of detail that would be acceptable for certifi-
cation may face organizational resistance because of its impact on
traditional organizational structures.
This Paper will present comparisons, not available until now,
between the weight, cost, and time required to design typical engine
pylons (Fig. 1) using both current sequential, document-based,
design methods and the integrated model-based design method. More
details of the structural layout feature of jet engine pylons will be
given in a later section of this Paper. The comparison here between
the two design processes used to design certifiable pylons allows
us for the first time to view in a quantitative way the benefits of the
integrated model-based approach in a highly realistic certification-
driven structural design case. Along the way, to build the model-
based integrated design optimization capability used here for this
design process efficiency study, quite a number of technical innova-
tions were necessary to make it practical and efficient. This Paper
describes those innovations, too.
It should be made clear that the work presented here does not cover
and does not implement all elements and processes of the model-
based systems engineering approach. The focus here is on a central
element of that approach and its equivalent approach in the field of
MDO, namely, the design optimization of a structure in one shot in an
integrated way, in which in a single automated process, with a central
math model, all constraints at all levels of detail may be accounted for.
II. Document-Based Certification Process Commonly
Used for Airframe Structural Certification
Before one can establish the benefits of the optimization-driven
model-based approach of sizing and certifying the pylon structure, a
currently used document-based process (Fig. 2) needs to be described
in both qualitative and quantitative terms.
To begin with, a baseline loads FEM needs to be established. This
model has to meet basic loads and aeroelasticity requirements and
typically is a modification of the already established pylon structure
 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE 937

Fig. 2 Document-based structures’ sizing process.

Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

concept, with the initial sizing of the major members determined
by comparisons to designs of previously designed structures of such
type that are scaled up or down based on some basic parameters
(weight, range, maximum thrust etc.). Once the starting model has
been developed, internal load distributions can be generated. The
internal loads data are generated by running all loading conditions,
static and dynamic (maneuver, gust, takeoff, landing, engine failure,
etc.). The sizing process can then begin. Here, the allowable data and
the methods for sizing have been preestablished based on tests or
detailed simulations that are acceptable for certification and translated
into empirical and semi-empirical formulas.
As previously mentioned, due to the staggering amount of sizing
work that needs to be performed, the entire effort is divided among
the engineering workforce, where, typically, each engineer is respon-
sible for sizing one structural component. This process is shown
in Fig. 3.
From the standpoint of the required effort to execute such a
process, there are major drawbacks: 1) a need for multiple cycles
of internal loads generation, 2) a need for checking the convergence
between the sizing and the internal loads processes, and 3) a need for
intermediate documentation of the internal loads and sizing results
and the passing of documents back and forth.
Internal loads generation in a document-based process is extremely
slow and costly, due to the requirement for detailed documentation,
the need to execute this process several times until convergence,
and tedious FEM postprocessing to generate updated internal loads.
It should be also mentioned that the external loads need upda-
ting at every cycle due to the overall structure’s stiffness and mass
changing.
Convergence checking takes considerable time, as well. In fact,
even if only a single cycle of sizing is performed, at least two internal
loads cycles are required. The first one is to establish and initial set of
internal loads, and the second one, after the sizing of all components
is completed and the FEM is updated, is to check if the internal loads
have exceeded the load convergence tolerance.
The previous depictions of the document-based process relate to its
quantitative side, the amount of engineering effort required for
execution. In Sec. VI, experimental figures from the execution of
this process will be presented to show exactly how inefficient, and
thus how long and costly, this process is.

Fig. 3 Segmentation of the document-based engineering process.

 938 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE
Examining the resulting pylon designs of the document-based
sizing process, it is apparent that there is no systematic approach to
achieving a weight-optimized design solution. On the contrary, as the
structural engineers working on the individual pylon components
encounter negative structural margins, the only way to rectify such a
situation is to increase the weight by thickening section/panel dimen-
sions or by increasing fastener diameters. The results of the numeri-
cal/design-process experiment that this Paper is presenting will
clearly demonstrate the effect of this on the evolution of the design.
III. Integrated Structural Pylon Design and
Certification Process
Structural optimization tools of considerable capability have been
developed and used by practically all aircraft development compa-
nies for many years. However, in their integrated capabilities, they
are still mainly limited to the conceptual design stage and, usually,
cannot and are not trusted to tackle the detail design and development
that would meet detailed certification requirements. The proposed
integrated model-based approach presented here (Fig. 4) has its
foundation in certification-grade design synthesis structural math
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953
model based on a FEM and supporting detail design math models
covering all local failures. Such a model would contain all necessary
ingredients for certification of the structural design: the design, the
loads, the empirical and semi-empirical methods of calculation
required for certification, and the allowable values. The model would
possess the required level of refinement for certification stress analy-
sis, which typically was missing from the FE-based optimization
efforts of the past. The same model, besides being the single and only
platform for pylon certification-grade design, can also be used for
spatial integration, weight and cost tracking, systems integration, and
so on, but most importantly, it would be driven by the optimizer’s
weight or cost objective accounting for all constraints at all levels of
detail.
Pursuing an integrated synthesis philosophy without creating
some set of fully automated processes and accompanying tools
requires manual creation of the numerous behavior constraint math
entities on top of the FEM, which would practically eliminate most of
the engineering effort reduction benefits. Therefore, a modular auto-
mated platform (MAP) for full automation of the design optimization
process that allows engineers to setup the optimization entities either
using intuitive graphical user interface or rapid batch mode has been
created.
MAP is best described by Fig. 5. MAP is based on features and
checks, also known in the structural optimization literature as design
descriptors and behavior functions, respectively. Each individual
feature represents a structural entity such as cross-section, panel, or
Fig. 4 The integrated model-based structures’ certification process.
fastener, whereas each check represents a set of empirical- or semi-
empirical-based analyses that are applied to the features.
Creation of the math model entities required for the empirical and
semi-empirical (close-form-based) optimization setup is the key
feature of the MAP. Without going into detail of every single check
and feature, Fig. 6 shows the basic idea of the MAP process used to
transform FEM-based internal loads entities into empirical safety
margin response/constraint for a cross-section.
The overall functionality of the MAP in terms of creating the
empirical and semi-empirical (handbook) constraints values from
the FEM generated entities is shown with Fig. 7.
To enable MAP, several key technological challenges, explained in
some details in the following, needed to be tackled: 1) dealing with
typically discontinuous allowable functions and their implementa-
tion into automated functional responses; 2) for buckling constraints,
using postbuckled knockdown factors to model the load redistribu-
tion above the limit loads practically; and 3) extending a small set
of empirical or semi-empirical allowable curves to a full range of
allowable values using allowable curve interpolation schemes
IV. Integrating Typical Stress Analysis Curves into
Model-Based Platform
Most of the empirical or semi-empirical analysis behavior func-
tions accepted for certification are often discontinuous [Fig. 8 and
Eq. (1)]. In the realm of computational mechanics, this sort of
function is described using a simple if/else statement. Albeit simple,
the if/else statement is not available as one of the built-in functions
in commonly used commercial structural gradient-based optimiza-
tion packages, such as OptiStruct® [25]. Therefore, if a response
requiring the use of the discontinuous function needs to be used
during the design synthesis model setup, the typical path for creat-
ing these would be to use a FORTRAN- or C-based external
response,


g
x; for x ≥ a
f
x  (1)
b; for x ≤ a
Given that creating external responses is not simple and, more
importantly, because the common structural gradient-based commer-
cial optimizers cannot create, at this time, approximate sensitivities
with external responses, this approach is undesirable. A solution to this
problem is the creation of a function that mimics the if/else statement
using mathematical functions that are commonly supported by the
commercial structural gradient-based solvers.
A switch function (SW) provides a value of either 1 or 0, depend-
ing on the argument value. Using the SW function, the discontinuous
 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE 939
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

Fig. 5 The modular automation platform layout (MAP).

Fig. 6 Section feature and check (design descriptors and behavior functions, respectively): FEM internal loads to empirical stress responses.

functions can be represented as a simple combination of constitutive Using the mentioned switch, the function f
x (1) can be repre-
continuous functions. SW is a binary function of the form sented without the need for the if/else logic as

f
x  1 − SW
x ⋅ b  SW
x ⋅ g
x (3)

 

MIN
x; a 1; for x ≥ a
SW
x  INT  (2) Such a simple switch function approach efficiently brings into the
a 0; for x ≤ a typical commercial structural optimization code environment the
 940 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

Fig. 7 Translation of overall FEM results to empirical constraint values.

kind of behavior functions representing all failure mechanisms that a

Fig. 8 Generic discontinuous function.
certification level of detail analysis requires. Note that, alternatively,
some high-order continuous function approximations (in the form of
high-order orthogonal polynomial expansion, maybe) may be used to
fit discontinuous empirical or semi-empirical failure mode functions
that are common in stress and buckling analysis certification. But
those may require special approval for inclusion in the certification
process. Also note that corner points in discontinuous functions such
as shown in Fig. 8 may lead to problems in the gradient-based
optimization process if the design, during its evolution, arrived at
such points and resided there for the next gradient calculation step.
But using finite differences for sensitivity analysis would have the
effect of locally rounding the abrupt slope changes, and the chance
that gradients would be required precisely at a point of discontinuity
of some behavior function are very low in practical applications. In all
the many optimization runs carried out for this paper, the optimiza-
tion process did not encounter any convergence problems due to the
discontinuity of the switch functions used.

Fig. 9 Shear-bearing lug efficiency factor.

 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE 941

V. Accounting for Nonlinear Postbuckled Structural

Fig. 10 Trend lines and corresponding second-order polynomial
functions.
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953
Behavior in Design-Based on Linear FE Models
Special consideration has to be given to the postbuckled analysis of
structural components. It is quite common in pylon structures design
to allow the membrane elements to buckle under loads larger than the
limit load. Now, our basis of optimization driven structural sizing is a
model-based platform that is based on a linear detailed FEM. The
load redistribution due to postbuckled states of the membrane mem-
bers have to be accounted for within this framework.
Panels allowed to buckle are depicted with the red hash lines
in Fig. 11.
Once the panels buckle under limit load, the remaining (non-
buckled) structure has to carry the additional load. Most notable
structural members that will be affected are the longerons and fittings.
When one uses the empirical (algebraic-expression-based) solution
to size the cross-section of the longeron or fitting members, the
additional load would be added to the load part of the calculation.
Because the strength calculation is a fairly simple linear calcula-
tion that relates the load and some geometrical property (area,
moment of inertia, etc.) to the stress, which is then compared with

Table 1 Polynomial factors the allowable stress to calculate the margin of safety, it really does not
D∕t a2 a1 matter if the postbuckled load increase for the longerons is taken into
account on the load side or the allowable stress side. Here is a simple
2 −0.1652 1.4906 example.
3 −0.1915 1.5425 For example, if the direct compressive stress is calculated using the
5 −0.2074 1.5408 formula
8 −0.2043 1.319
25 −0.0896 0.5557 P
σ (6)
A

And then the margin of safety is calculated as

Another typical set of curves represents a hurdle when trying to
Ftu
implement a model-based approach to empirical-based structural MS  −1 (7)
calculation. An example of such curves is given by Fig. 9 and comes σ
from Ref. [24] (p. 220, Fig. 7.5.3). If design synthesis of a structural
component is to be performed with a set of such of curves, it would and a postbuckling knockdown factor Kpb needs to be introduced.
dramatically limit the design space and moreover guide one toward The knockdown factor will represent the amount of additional load
the discrete type of the solution. Therefore, an interpolation scheme in the longeron/fitting components due to the buckled neighboring
has been devised for the work presented here. web panels:
It is a safe assumption that every curve from, or any similar type of
graph, can be fitted with a polynomial of some order. These curve fits
1  K pb  ⋅ P
σ pb  
1  K pb  ⋅ σ (8)
are shown with Fig. 10. A
Table 1 collects polynomial factors (a1 and a2 ) from all curves
from Fig. 10 and relate them to the corresponding D∕t ratios with. The margin of safety can we written as
Linear interpolation is now used across the D∕t range for the a1
and a2 coefficients. The resulting linear functions represent the basis Ftu ∕
1  Kpb 
MSpb  −1 (9)
for predicting the polynomial factors for any potential value of the σ
D∕t ratio:
This shows that, instead of increasing the internal load by the factor
Kpb that is greater than 1, we can simply reduce the allowable stress
a1  −0.044 ⋅
D∕t  1.6677 by dividing the allowable value by that same Kpb factor. Now, it is
a2  0.0044 ⋅
D∕t − 0.2092 (4)

Using these equations, every curve from can be represented with

the following equation:

 2
a
kbr 
0.0044 ⋅
D∕t − 0.2092 ⋅
D
a

−0.044 ⋅
D∕t  1.6677 ⋅ (5)
D

Of course, any general response surface technique can be used. The

response surface technique used for the current Paper was found to be
especially suited for the type of structural empirical/semi-empirical
data used for the various parts of the pylon and reflects the way that Fig. 11 Panels allowed to buckle over the limit load (shown are side and
stress engineers would work with such data for certification. top webs, divided into panels by the bulkheads).
 942 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE

There are three distinct postbuckled states driven by the dominat-

ing bending loads. These different postbuckled states are shown in
Fig. 13. Based on the dominating loads, there are different segments
of the cross-section that will carry the compressive load. These
different segments are marked in Fig. 13 by three different outlining
rectangles. The solid line rectangle defines the segment of the cross-
section that will be in compression under the up-bending load. The
dashed rectangle denotes the segment of the cross-section that will be
in compression under the dominating down bending load. Lastly,
the dash-dotted rectangle marks the segment of the cross-section that
will be in compression under the right-side bending load. Assuming
symmetry, the compressive segment under the left side bending is
omitted from the picture.
If the area of the stable cross-section (red hashed area in Fig. 13) is
denoted with Aistb , and the green hashed areas from the same figure of
three possible postbuckled state sections, respectively, with Aib1 , Aib2 ,
and Aib3 , the postbuckled factor Kipb can be calculated as
Fig. 12 A typical section of a pylon.

min
Aib1 ; Aib2 ; Aib3 

Kipb  (10)
Aistb
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

obvious that one can use the reduced allowable as the constraint value
of the optimization setup. The superscript i denotes the three different postbuckling states
Special attention has to be given to the Kpb factor determination. It identified with the Fig. 13.
is intuitive that the Kpb is the factor related to the cross-section of the The maximum of the three Kipb will be used as a uniform post-
pylon. Because the pylon cross-section changes from front to back buckled coefficient,
(every bay has a different cross section), it only makes sense to
determine this factor per bay. Ideally, Kpb could be calculated for K pb  max
Kipb  (11)
every inch of the cross-section. However, this would make the overall
setup of the optimization problem overly complicated. The Kpb
The Kpb represents the amount of additional load in the longeron
should be calculated as a ratio of total bay cross-sectional area to
members; thus, the total load going through the longerons can be
the stable part of the same section bays cross-section in the post-
buckled state. Out of all possible buckled states, the state with the expressed as
smallest stable cross-section should be used so that conservatism, per
certification requirements, is preserved. P  Pl  Pl ⋅ Kpb  Pl
1  K pb  (12)
Section A–A from Fig. 11 is depicted with Fig. 12. Various
possible buckling states of this section, which must be covered by To resemble the temperature knocking down of the allowable
analysis in order to achieve certification, are shown in Fig. 13. value, the lowercase Kpb will be introduced:

Stable cross-section Vertical up-bending Post-Buckled State

Right Side Bending Post-Buckled State Vertical Down Bending Post-Buckled State
Fig. 13 Stable vs unstable section areas (solid rectangle denotes compressive segment under up bending, dashed compressive segment under down-
bending, and dash-dotted compressive segment under side bending).
 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE
1 the optimization-driven sizing iterations, whereas the document-
kpb  (13)

1  K pb 
With this newly introduced postbuckling reduction factor, the
margin of safety can be calculated as
Ftu ⋅ kpb
MSpb  −1 (14)
σ
The postbuckling knockdown factor needs to be calculated for
each pylon bay separately. Because the sizing dimensions of the
cross-section will change during the iterations, the postbuckled
knockdown factor will be changing as well during the optimization
iterations. Taking into account this effect during the preliminary
design phase would represent a significant complication to the opti-
mization setup using the direct major principal stress. For expediency
and simplicity sake, these knockdown factors are assumed to be
constant during the pylon preliminary optimization-driven sizing of
each particular bay. However, during the final design phase, the
dynamic nature of these knockdown factors is considered in an exact
way.
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953
The postbuckled knockdown factor should be applied to the
longerons and fittings because these structural members stay shear
resistant and will see additional load.
The pylon is divided into bays by frames (bulkheads) that are
connected to the webs and the longerons. The placement of the webs
and their designs affect the buckling of the top, bottom, and side webs
in a way that is similar to the effect of the number of spar and rib in a
wing structure and their interactions with the skin affect skin buck-
ling. Note that inclusion of buckling constraints, global and local, in
the structural optimization process has been demonstrated [26]. Panel
buckling constraint evaluation using detailed FEMs can be carried
out, too, based on the quite advanced buckling analysis technology
based on linear or nonlinear structural analysis. But without sub-
stantial experimental case-by-case validation, this would not be
accepted for certification currently. In addition, inclusion of FEMs
for buckling analysis with enough refinement that would allow
capturing local effects would slow down the automated optimization
process significantly with current software and hardware computing
capabilities.
VI. Segmented Document-Based vs Integrated Model-
Based Approaches to Engine Pylon Design: Comparison
Figures 2 and 4 show the flow of the current, segmented, docu-
ment-based design process and the integrated, model-based, design
process, respectively. Note how the model-based design synthesis
eliminates the need for load redistribution design iterations. The
comparison between the two figures does not reveal maybe the key
differentiator; namely, the model-based approach sizes the entire
pylon with a single model allowing for load redistribution during
Fig. 14 The engine pylon (approximate fore/aft length 9 ft − 108 in:) and displacement distributions due to an example load case using three FE meshes.
On the left: a coarse mesh (typical element size 1.3098 in.); at the center, a medium mesh (typical element size 0.6567 in.); and on the right, a fine mesh
(typical element 0.3288 in.).
943
based approach sizes each individual component separately for a
fixed internal loads distribution that has to be periodically updated.
By switching from the traditional process to the model-based
integrated one, a significant level of process savings is achieved on
paper communication, the documents passed to individual stress
analysts/designers of the loads their parts are subject to and the
documents sent back by individual designers that would drive resiz-
ing of the elements of the system, a new FE model, and a new FE
analysis for new internal loads.
This integrated, automated, model-based approach to structural
sizing eliminates the unnecessary segmentation of engineering work
(one component sized by one analyst), dramatically reduces costly
documentation, and removes the iterative load cycles required by
current practice today. The resulting engineering process yields high
efficiency aircraft pylons plus significant reductions in time and
development cost and time that would be quantified in the following
sections.
To evaluate the process efficiency and product quality gains by an
integrated model-based approach to structural design compared to
the current approach accepted for certification, design processes
based on document and model-based approaches were executed in
their entirety (yielding two certifiable structures), identifying quan-
titatively the cost and weight savings stemming from the implemen-
tation of both approaches.
A generic realistic engine pylon model (Fig. 14) that is not an
actual current or future flying pylon but does reflect how engine
pylons are built is chosen as a case study, and it is created for this
Paper to contain all of the attributes of typical metallic built-up
aircraft pylon structure. Because of its relatively limited size (com-
pared to the full wing, fuselage, or empennage), it allows for the
complete structural certification cycle to be executed within typical
scientific work time limitations.
For the case study presented here, FE mesh refinement loads
solutions were carried out to quantify the effect of the FE mesh
density on the internal loads that would, in turn, drive the empiri-
cal/semi-empirical behavior functions that determine the margins of
safety for each local element (Fig. 14). The figure shows overall
deformation corresponding to three different mesh densities. Note
that internal load distributions need to be lumped from the FE mesh
(fine, medium, or coarse) into integrated loads that operate on sub-
components such as panels, longerons, and so on. The effect of the
mesh density onto the internal loads was found to be small, and
therefore not was considered as a potential variability factor (see
Table 2, for example).
Because the focus of the work presented here was on the compari-
son between the two certifiable design approaches studied, it was not
deemed necessary to work with a FE mesh that would produce
perfectly converged internal loads. The FE mesh selected followed
common practice and made efficient FE models and solution times
practical for this work. Both processes used here would work with
 944 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE

Table 2 Panel forces for varying element size With the analysis plan, size factors, and the processing times for all
of the checks (constraints), one can now calculate the engineering
Element size, in.
effort for each and every check for the document-based process. For
Web 1.3098 0.6567 0.3288
brevity sake, just a single formula (15) for calculating the engineering
Upper Web Nx, lbs/in. 2920 2910 2900 hours is provided here (fitting sizing). But in general, every structural
Upper Web Nxy, lbs/in. 4410 4300 4240
component type has a similar formula,
Lower Web Ny, lbs/in. 4210 4220 4220
Lower Web Nxy, lbs/in. 6210 5970 5860
TD
Fitt 
q  r  s ⋅ 
tSection  tCrippl  
tStatFast  tFatigueFast  ⋅ 4

much more refined meshes, if necessary. The automated integrated 
q  r  s  3 ⋅
tStatFast  tFatigueFast  ⋅ 4  2 ⋅ tChanFit
MAP capability developed for this Paper (see above) can work with  6 ⋅ tLug (15)
any FE mesh refinement that would be practical within current
structural modeling and optimization codes and hardware capabilities. Assuming three convergence loops, the total sizing effort is given
A document-based approach was completed using the FEM with Eq. (16). Repeat decay factor g takes values of 1, 0.5, and 0.25
for internal load extraction, followed by the detail design of all parts for the sizing loops 1,2, and 3, respectively,
based on a set of empirical equations that were coded into Excel
sheets (Excel coding was not counted toward the document-based g3 
X 
1
hours spent on sizing, assuming tools of this kind would be available TD
Sizing  1v⋅ ⋅
T D D D D
Long  T Webs  T Fr∕Blk  T Fitt 
in a typical aircraft development company), representing the report g1
g
and handbook based data typically used for structural design at the (16)
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

detailed component level. The integrated model-based design was

carried out using the MAP on top of the FEM and solved using the Executing the analysis plan following the document-based process
OptiStruct solver [25]. OptiStruct, as well as other equivalent struc- leads to be similar equations for the internal loads definition and loads
tural optimization codes, is based on the solution of a sequence of update.
approximate optimization problems using approximations/surrogates
developed over the years for structural synthesis and a gradient-based TD
IntLoads 
i  1 ⋅ tFEM  h ⋅
tLoadApply  tLoadExtract  (17)
optimization approach for the approximate optimization problems
[27]. The Method of Feasible Direction (MFD) (see Ref. [28], for
TD
Docum  i ⋅ tDocumemnt (18)
example) was used for all structural optimization runs in the work
reported here. The default algorithm’s parameters were used.
1
The duration of every single engineering operation was recorded TD
Loadupd :  v ⋅ ⋅ 60; where SL  1; 2 : : : Sizng Loop (19)
for both processes. The weight, as the key performance characteristic, 2SL−1
has been tracked through each of the sizing phases. All constraints
were checked, of course, to make sure that final designs are feasible TD
LoadConverg  h ⋅ tConverg (20)
and certifiable.
Lastly, for the assuming that 3 load cycles will be required to
A. Document-Based Process converge onto the design solution that has neither excessive positive
The overall sizing effort is pictorially described by Fig. 15 (see also nor negative margins, the effort required for model updates and
Ref. [29] for more detail). documentation can be calculated as:
Pylon parameters given with Table 3 provide the means of meas-  
urement of the engineering effort required for the pylon certification X
3
1
analysis. TD
Update 
g − 1 ⋅ h ⋅ tDocument  0.33 ⋅ ⋅ tUpdate  h ⋅ 1
conv
g1
g
The processing times for the all the different document-based
checks (constraints) are presented in Table 4. (21)

Fig. 15 Pylon sizing analysis plan.

 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE 945

Table 3 Pylon case study parameters for the document-based engineering effort

g 1,0.5,0.25 Repeat decay factor h 47 Number of critical load cases

i 7 Number of bays i1 8 Number of frames/bulkheads
Average number of frame/bulkhead to longeron fastener
j 15 Average number of longeron fasteners per bay k 4
connections
4 Number of webs (2 sides, upper, and lower) l 2 Average number of cutouts per web
Average number of frame/bulkhead to web fastener
m 8 n 9 Average number of panels within the frame/bulkhead
connections
p
8 n 24 Average number of stiffeners in a frame/bulkhead 8 8 Number of angle fittings
8 Number of channel fittings 12 Number of tension bolts
6 Number of lugs o 8 Number of all fitting/lug/tension bolt interfaces
p 64 Coarse FEM number of elements per bay q 4 Number of bays that are not connected with the upper link fitting
r 2 Number of bays that are connected with the lower link fitting s 2 Number of bays that connected with the front Spar fitting
t 2 Number of convergence loops within a single load cycle u 6 Number of pylon to wing fittings
v 0.333 Repeat factor

Table 4 Document-based processing times poor choice of initial values for all design variables would lead to
convergence problems in the series-of-approximate-optimization-
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

Typical execution problems process [27] is much reduced.

Engineering operation type Symbol
time, h The final documentation of the model-based results takes the same
FEM creation tFEM 4.0 amount of effort as the final documentation for the document-based
External load case application tLoadApply 0.2 process: 4.375 weeks. In both cases, the details of the final design and
Internal load extraction tLoadExtract 0.16 how it meets all requirements have to be prepared for the certification
Per bay final documentation tDocument 25.0
authorities.
A full breakdown of the integrated model-based engineering effort
Convergence checking per load case tConverg 1
will be presented in the results section with Table 11.
FEM update tUpdate 60
Section check tSection 0.166
Static fastener check (fastener shear and
VII. Results
tStatFast 0.05 A. Two Designs
plate bearing)
Crippling tCrippl 0.166 The two final designs, though they were developed to meet the
Panel buckling tPanelBuck 0.083 same set of requirements under the same loading conditions, differ
Fastener joint fatigue tFatigFast 0.25 dramatically. This is graphically depicted in Fig. 16, which shows the
final gauges of the side web.
Open hole fatigue tOpenHole 0.5
Note the overall wider distribution of higher thickness in the rear of
Channel/angle fitting check tChanFit 0.333 the pylon, close to where it is attached to the wing, in the document-
Lug checks tLug 0.166 based design compared to the more localized distribution of higher
Tension bolt check tTensBolt 0.05 thickness in that area of the integrated model-based design. The
document-based design of the side web is slightly thinner in the
middle of the web (between rear and front) relative to the integrated
Detailed hours required for the document-based process will be model-based design. Overall, the model-based design has the advan-
provided in with Tables 7–9 in the Sec. VII. tage of continuous internal loads redistribution throughout the design
process where the FE model and loads calculations based on it are
used continuously by the automated structural optimization process.
B. Model-Based Process
The model-based integrated design optimization process makes it
The integrated model-based sizing process consists of three major possible, therefore, for the design to localize material distribution as
tasks: loads development, sizing, and final documentation. The loads needed better than the document-based process in which load redis-
development in the process executed here (which is representative of tribution is carried out infrequently.
what it would be in industry implementation) takes 6.5 engineer- Details of the modeling, palette of constraints used (covering
ing weeks. stress, stress concentration, fastener failure, buckling, crippling,
The model-based sizing process is divided into three levels of fatigue, and damage tolerance failures subject to static and peak
design synthesis. Each level is separately tracked and documented dynamic loads), and the evolution of the design in each of the design
in terms of the engineering effort. While in essence the integrated processes can be found in Ref. [29].
model-based optimization could be run in one shot, with all design Figure 17 shows the weight evolution of the two processes, where
variables and all constraints participating from the start, this was not each iteration is a full weight analysis of the pylon.
considered a wise approach to adopt in a pioneering study such as Tracking the weight evolution of the integrated model-based proc-
the one presented here. Instead, a sequence of optimization runs was ess, each iteration is a full FE-based analysis combined with the many
carried out, gradually increasing the number of constraints affecting detailed analyses of parts and failure modes using the functions that
the design. Each run was a fully converged optimization run that met were added to the optimization code. Starting with an initial guess for
all its constraints. With the gradual addition of families of constraints all design variables, optimization begins with only stress constraints
to the optimization runs, we could see the effects of different classes and converges in 12 iterations (each iteration being an approximate
and groups of constraints on the evolving design until the final problem optimization [27]. Next, buckling constraints are added. The
design, driven by all constraints and all design variables, was reached. optimization converges in additional iterations, ending with iteration
Such a gradual progress in scope of the is advantageous not only 24. This follows, in iterations 25 to 29, with optimization covering
because of the insights that the designer gains about how different stress, buckling, and fastener failure constraints. The optimization
constraints affect the design and how different parts of the structure run with stress, buckling, fastener failure, and fatigue constraints
interact, but it also makes the optimization process smoother, with takes five iterations to converge, ending in iteration 33. Now, fittings
each optimization run providing initial design variables for the more failure constraints are added, and the optimization run requires just
complex problem that would be solved next. The danger that a three iterations to converge, showing that the design of the previous
 946 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE

B. Engineering Effort
The engineering effort summary and the nonrecurring cost differ-
entials are in Tables 6, 10, and 12. In Table 5, Loads, FEM, Fast,
Long, Webs, Fitt, and Fr/Blk, denote, respectively, loads, FE analysis,
fasteners, longerons, webs, fittings, and frames/bulkheads.
The model-based integrated engineering effort expressed in engi-
neering weeks is dramatically lower compared to the number of
weeks required to execute document-based sizing process, 13 vs
68 weeks, which translates to approximately $1.5 million of non-
recurring cost savings just for a single design cycle.
Assuming that cost of an engineering week is $10,000 Table 12
summarizes the cost of engineering between two opposing engineer-
ing approaches.

C. Weight Distributions of Final Designs

The weights distribution summary is given in Table 13. The table
compares, part by part, the final pylon designs obtained by the
document-based approach and integrated model-based approach.
Note substantial weight reductions by the integrated approach for
all parts and members, except for a very small increase in weight of
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

just one frame/bulkhead.

To take as little weight reduction credit as possible for the model-
based approach, the weight of the document-based approach sized
study pylon will take into account potential weight savings of 10% to
reflect a final optimization of the resulting document-based design
(commonly used in current certifiable document design processes).
The document-based optimization, done on a component by compo-
Fig. 16 Left-hand side web thickness after sizing: a) document-based nent fashion, is typically very limited. Typically, it is run in manual
process and b) model-based process. fashion (not using optimization algorithms, rather relying on stress
engineers’ intuition and trade studies) and is very much constrained
with the requirement that the interface loads (loads between the
step served as very good initial design for this last optimization run. components) remain unchanged to avoid the resizing of the neighbor-
Damage tolerance constraints were checked by systematically failing ing components. Because the cost of running new load cycle, sending
every part of the structure. There was no effect on the final design, information to the detailed structural designers, receiving modified,
indicating that in the case studied in this work damage tolerance designs, creating new loads models, and so on, in the document-based
constraints were not critical. The actual sequence of the gradual approach is so high, only a very limited number of such cycles are run.
constraints’ introduction into the design synthesis model mimics A 10% further reduction in weight, on top of the last sizing, may be
the way the document-based process is executed. Namely, with the the result of final model tuning. The weight history of the document-
document-based process, the way stress engineers execute the checks based process does show that this type of weight reduction is possible;
is done in very much the exact same order. refer to iterations 10–14, 16–17, and 24–25 in Fig. 17. Nevertheless,
The evolution history for the document-based design is also shown as previously stated, it comes at extra engineering cost.
in Fig. 17. Here, iterations means pauses to evaluate the total weight But even with an additional supposed weight savings of 10%, the
of the pylon as parts or groups of parts are resized manually and the document-based approach arrives at a pylon structural weight of
information is delivered, by documents, to the central management 805 lb. Compared to the weight of the integrated model-based
running the process. Only three FE analyses for loads redistributions process sized pylon of approximately 603 lb., the weight delta is
were carried out for this process: at the beginning and at the designs very significant: 202 lb per pylon or 404 lb per airplane.
marked as iteration numbers 16 and 24. As the history shows, the
designers of detailed parts and components find from time to time
Table 5 Model-based design synthesis
opportunities for reducing weight. The documents-based process effort hours
shows increases sometimes and sometimes decreases in overall
weight, depending on what the manual sizing of parts based on Sizing tasks Engineering hours
empirical and semi-empirical leads to. Level 1 setup spreadsheets 32
Level 1 response/constraint 1
Level 2 spreadsheet 24
Level 2 response/constraint 2
Level 3 section features 9.88
Level 3 section checks 1.08
Level 3 panel features 5.31
Level 3 panel check 1
Level 3 fitting/lugs features 3.15
Level 3 fitting/lugs checks 5.5
Sum 84.92
Sum, weeks 2.12

Table 6 Document-based engineering

effort summary: loads/FE cycles

TD
Loads TD
FEM TD
FastLoad Sum, h∕week
445 167.36 596.85 1209.21∕30.23
Fig. 17 Weight evolution of the two design processes.
 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE 947

Table 7 Document-based engineering effort summary: manual sizing of parts

TD
Long TD
Webs FTD
Fr∕Blk TD
Fitt TD D D D
Long  T Webs  T Fr∕Blk  T Fitt Loop 1 Loop2 Loop 3 Sum, h∕week
28.378 161.844 71.418 22.794 284.434 378.29 331.36 315.72 1025.38∕25.63

Table 8 Document-based engineering effort summary: Based on Ref. [22], current lifetime fuel cost per kilogram gross
cycle by cycle documents, updates, and final sizing weight is €1500–2000∕kg, or if translated to dollars per pound
(at the 2019 exchange rate between pounds and dollars of 1.14),
Task Load cycle 1 Load cycle 2 Load cycle 3/update
$3766–5022∕lb. Using the lower of the estimated costs per pound of
TD
Docum 175 175 350 weight, the 404 lb of weight savings would translate into $1.52
TD
Update 19.8 9.9 29.7 million. This would change, of course, with the fluctuating process
TD
conv 47 47 94 of jet fuel, but in any case, the savings in fuel burn due to the weight
Sum (h∕week) 473.7∕11.84 reduction reported here are substantial.

VIII. Conclusions
Table 9 Document-based engineering effort summary: The application of an integrated model-based process to the design
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

totals of the structure of an engine pylon at a level of detail and thoroughness

that would meet certification requirements leads to significant time and
Task Engineering hours, weeks cost savings and a resulting high-performance structure. All of the
Loads development 30.23 technological hurdles in the way of rapidly generating pylon models
Sizing 25.63 for integrated design synthesis that would be accepted for certification
Documentation/updating/convergence 11.84 have been cleared. The creation of the new modular automation plat-
Sum 68 form paves the path, implementing the multilevel sizing process, to the
model-based design synthesis process for pylon certification driven by
a gradient-based optimization algorithm. With more computing power,
the same level of total automation of the creation of the central FE
Table 10 Model-based engineering effort summary (times model and satellite empirical-/semi-empirical-based sizing functions
in hours and weeks) will make optimization-based on global search techniques practical.
The integrated model-based process introduced in this Paper can be
Tasks Engineering hours (Hours/Weeks) and should be extended to the entire aircraft, allowing for dramatic
Load development 260∕6.5 reductions in nonrecurring costs and development times.
Sizing tasks (hours) Certain changes to engineering organizations responsible for
Level 1 setup Spreadsheets 32 aircraft structural design will be required. In the document-based
Level 1 Response/constraint 1 engineering organizations, there are three groups that are respon-
Level 2 spreadsheet 24 sible for structural design for certification: structural design, loads,
Level 2 Response/constraint 2
Level 3 section features 9.88
and stress. The model-based platform would blend these into a
Level 3 section checks 1.08 single integrated organization whose engineers would be chal-
Level 3 panel features 5.31 lenged to participate in all three aspects of the structural design
Level 3 panel check 1 and certification process by using the design synthesis approach
Level 3 fitting/lugs features 3.15 presented here.
Level 3 fitting/lugs checks 5.5 The contributions of this work are 1) the development of a unique
Sum sizing (h∕week) 84.92∕2.12 capability for the integrated model-based optimization of engine
pylons based on analyses methods that are detailed and accurate
Documentation (h∕week) 175∕4.375
enough to satisfy current certification requirements; 2) innovations
in several aspects of the analysis and optimization problem formu-
lation for the integrated design capability; and 3) a side-by-side
comparison study of schedule, engineering time, and overall process
costs of the design of a realistic engine pylon to meet certification
Table 11 Model-based engineering requirements using a current document-based process and an inte-
effort summary: totals grated model-based process. Comparing the structural efficiency of
two resulting design, and downstream service costs impact, signifi-
Task Engineering weeks
cant superiority of the integrated model-based approach is rather
Loads development 6.5 obvious.
Sizing 2.12
Documentation 4.375
The Paper has the potential to introduce a paradigm shift in the way
Sum 13 engine pylons for commercial aircraft as well as complete airframes
are designed and certified.

Table 12 Engineering effort cost reduction

Task Document based Model based Difference Difference, % Cost difference
Loads 30.23 6.5 −23.73 −78.50 −$237;300
Sizing 25.63 2.12 −23.51 −91.73 −$235;100
Documentation 11.84 4.375 −7.465 −63.05 −$74;650
Sum —— —— −54.705 —— −$547;050
 948 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE

Table 13 Weight summary

Document based Model based Difference Difference, %
Aft_Bulkhead 26.66 18.005 −8.655 −32.46
Aft_Eng_Fitt_Bulkhead 80.48 45.368 −35.112 −43.63
Aft_Upper_Web 22.25 10.217 −12.033 −54.08
Frame_1 8.96 6.218 −2.742 −30.60
Frame_2 4.93 5.11 0.18 3.65
Frame_3 12.84 8.849 −3.991 −31.08
Frame_4 32.23 21.212 −11.018 −34.19
Frame_5 36.58 11.895 −24.685 −67.48
Frame_6 9.05 6.8 −2.25 −24.86
Fwd_Eng_Fitt_Bulkhead 71.99 62.984 −9.006 −12.51
LH_Front_Spar_Fitting 74.36 42.981 −31.379 −42.20
LH_Lwr_Longeron 37.92 24.664 −13.256 −34.96
LH_Side_Web 50.62 45.893 −4.727 −9.34
LH_Upr_Longeron 14.56 10.183 −4.377 −30.06
Lower_Web 93.59 59.686 −33.904 −36.23
Lwr_Link_Fitting 48.48 32.676 −15.804 −32.60
RH_Front_Spar_Fitting 74.25 42.955 −31.295 −42.15
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953

RH_Lwr_Longeron 37.92 24.664 −13.256 −34.96

RH_Side_Web 50.62 45.892 −4.728 −9.34
RH_Upr_Longeron 14.56 10.183 −4.377 −30.06
Upper_Link_Fitting 46.42 33.322 −13.098 −28.22
Upper_Web 45.87 32.928 −12.942 −28.21
895.15 602.685 −292.455 Avg: -31.16

References
[1] Flight Safety Foundation, Accident Prevention, Editorial Staff Report,
“Fractured Fuse Pin in Engine Pylon Results in Dragged Engine During
B-747’s Landing Roll-Out,” Vol. 52, No. 3, March 1995, https://
flightsafety.org/ap/ap_mar95.pdf.
[2] Wanhill, R. J. H., and Oldersma, A., “Fatigue and Fracture in an Aircraft
Engine Pylon,” National Aerospace Lab., NLR TP 96719, 1997, https://
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80112240.pdf.
[3] ATSB Transport Safety Report, “Engine Pylon Carcking Involving
Boeing 747-438, VH-OJT,” Australian Transport Safety Bureau, AO-
2016-148, June 2016.
[4] Fang, Y.-T., Xue, C. J., and Jiang, B. X., “Development of a Load Sensor
for Aircraft Pylon Interface Load Measurement,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 54, No. 1, Jan.–Feb. 2017, pp. 336–345.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033003
[5] Gilioli, A., Manes, A., Ringertz, U., and Giglio, M., “Investigation
About the Structural Nonlinearities of an Aircraft Pylon,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 56, No. 1, Jan.–Feb. 2019, pp. 273–283.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034882
[6] Cazier, F., Jr., and Kehoe, M., “Flight Test of a Decoupler Pylon for
Wing/Store Flutter Suppression,” AIAA Paper 1986-9730, 1986.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1986-9730
[7] Iuspa, L., Scaramuzzino, F., and Petrenga, P., “Optimal Design of an Aircraft
Engine Mount via Bit-Masking Oriented Genetic Algorithms,” Advances in
Engineering Software, Vol. 34, Nos. 11–12, 2003, pp. 707–720.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-9978(03)00100-5
[8] Alain Remouchamps, M. B., Bruyneel, M., Fleury, C., and Grihon, S.,
“Application of a Bi-Level Scheme Including Topology Optimization to
the Design of an Aircraft Pylon,” Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, Vol. 44, Dec. 2011, pp. 739–750.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0682-3
[9] Cai-Jun Xue, F.-J. X., “Structural Topology Optimization of a Pylon’s
Mount Using Ant Colony Algorithms,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 49,
No. 3, 2012, pp. 724–734.
[10] Coniglio, S., Morlier, J., Gogu, C., and Remi, A., “Original Pylon
Architecture Design Using 3D HPC Topology Optimization,” AIAA
Paper 2018-1388, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-1388
[11] Estefan, J. A., “Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering
(MBSE),” Incose MBSE Focus Group 25, California Inst. of Technol-
ogy, Pasadena, CA, Rev. B, 2007, http://www.omgsysml.org/MBSE_
Methodology_Survey_RevB.pdf.
[12] Haftka, R. T., and Gurdal, Z., Elements of Structural Optimization, 3rd
ed., Kluwer, Springer Netherlands, 1992, Chap. 10.
[13] Livne, E., Schmit, L. A., and Friedmann, P. P., “Towards an Integrated
Approach to the Optimum Design of Actively Controlled Composite
Wings,” Journal of Aircraft Special Issue on Multidisciplinary Optimi-
zation of Aeronautical Systems, Vol. 27, No. 12, Dec. 1990, pp. 979–
992.
[14] Livne, E., “Integrated Aeroservoelastic Optimization: Status and
Progress,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan.–Feb. 1999,
pp. 122–145.
[15] Schmit, L. A., Jr., and Ramanathan, R. K., “Multi-Level Approach to
Minimum Weight Design Including Buckling Constraints,” AIAA Jour-
nal, Vol. 16, No. 2, Feb. 1978, pp. 97–104.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.60867
[16] Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., James, B. B., and Dovi, A. R., “Structural
Optimization by Multilevel Decomposition,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 23,
No. 11, Nov. 1985, pp. 1775–1782.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.9165
[17] Vitali, R., Park, O., Haftka, R. T., Sankar, B. V., and Rose, C. A.,
“Structural Optimization of a Hat-Stiffened Panel Using Response Sur-
faces,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 1, Jan.–Feb. 2002, pp. 158–166.
https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2910
[18] Bindolino, G., Ghiringhelli, G., Ricci, S., and Terraneo, M., “Multilevel
Structural Optimization for Preliminary Wing-Box Weight Estimation,”
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 2, March–April 2010, pp. 475–489.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.41552
[19] Grihon, S., Krog, L., and Bassir, D., “Numerical Optimization Applied
to Structure Sizing at AIRBUS: A Multi-Step Process,” International
Journal on Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,
Vol. 3, No. 4, 2009, pp. 432–442.
https://doi.org/10.1051/ijsmdo/2009020
[20] Hansen, L. U., Heinze, W., and Horst, P., “Blended Wing Body Struc-
tures in Multidisciplinary Pre-Design,” Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2008, pp. 93–106.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0161-z
[21] Gantois, K., and Morris, A. J., “The Multi-Disciplinary Design of a
Large-Scale Civil Aircraft Wing Taking Account of Manufacturing
Costs,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 28, Nos. 31–
46, 2004, pp. 31–46.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0427-7
[22] Kaufmann, M., “Cost/Weight Optimization of Aircraft Structures,” Licen-
tiate Thesis, KTH School of Engineering Sciences, Stockholm, 2008,
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:13224/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[23] Kaufmann, M., Zenkert, D., and Wennhage, P., “Integrated Cost/Weight
Optimization of Aircraft Structures,” Structural and Multidisciplinary
 STEFANOVIC AND LIVNE
Optimization, Vol. 41, 2010, pp. 325–334.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0413-1
[24] Niu, M. C.-Y., Airframe Structural Design, Technical Book Co., Los
Angeles, 1988, p. 220.
[25] “OptiStruct—A Structural Analysis and Optimization Code,” Altair,
https://www.altair.com/optistruct/.
[26] Shin, Y., and Livne, E., “Finite Element-Based Analytic Shape Sensi-
tivities of Local and Global Airframe Buckling Constraints,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 4, July–Aug. 1999, pp. 697–709.
Downloaded by 142.126.229.11 on January 30, 2022 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035953
949
[27] Haftka, R. T., and Gurdal, Z., Elements of Structural Optimization––
Third Revised and Expanded Edition, Kluwer Academic, 1992, Sec. 6.4.
[28] Vanderplaats, G. N., “An Efficient Feasible Directions Algorithm for
Design Synthesis,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 22, No. 11, 1984, pp. 1633–1640.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.8829
[29] Stefanovic, M., “On the Structural Design Synthesis of Certifiable
Aircraft Engine Pylons,” Ph.D. Dissertation, William E. Boeing Dept.
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Wash-
ington, 2019.