Masudur Rahman Abir

(A0135571H)
Computer Aided Product Development

ASSIGNMENT 2
Optimizing Skin- Stringer panel design
 Use a case study to illustrate how design optimization is used in product
development. Please show the problem formulation and list the steps with
detailed information for design optimization.
Design optimization is the process of finding the best design parameters that satisfy the given
requirements or constraints. By making use of predictive tools to develop virtual models,
engineers have been able to cut down on the number of experiments that needs to be performed.
The development of such virtual models have meant that we can explore numerous design
considerations without much expense at substantially less time. This has made optimization a
powerful tool. Optimization involves the following steps:

A design objective function or a goal we want to reach. This can be weight saving, cost
saving, or any other criteria we look to achieve. The objective function is defined by
the design variables. The design variables are the parameters that are varied during the
optimization process. In addition, there are fixed parameters which remain unchanged.
The constraint conditions or the inequalities and equalities that define the design space
within which the optimized result should lie.
In addition, the optimization algorithm should be robust so that an optimal design or
convergence can be approached quickly. Generally, computer models help in the initial phases
of design by reducing the number of variants. Final tests are generally experiment oriented.

For example: One of the optimization process commonly used in industries is topology
optimization. Topology optimization is a technique to reduce mass by removing material from
a geometry while maintaining the boundary or the constraint conditions implied on the
structure. One of the most commonly used software in topology optimization is Tosca.
Beginning with a basic geometric model of the allowable design space, TOSCA works on
existing FEA to automatically remove material and adapt geometry until the performance
objectives are met under external loads. This process is shown in Figure 1. Starting from the
initial geometry of the finite element model, a variety of steps including topology optimization,
smoothening and generation of validation file, validation run and shape optimization is carried
out to obtain the optimized design geometry.

Page 1 of 5
 Figure 1. TOSCA Structure Topology Optimization

Case Study
To understand how design optimization is used in product development, we look into the work
by Kaufmann et. al [1] where an integrated cost/weight optimization of aircraft stringer-skin
panel was carried out. Stringer-skin panels are commonly used in aircraft fuselage. For large
commercial aircrafts, reducing stringer-skin panel weight would result in considerable fuel cost
savings. A stringer-skin panel is shown in Figure 2. Stringer-skin panel can have a variety of
thickness made of a variety of materials using different manufacturing techniques. Stringer-
skin panels can have an all-metal configuration, composite/metal configuration or an all-
composite configuration. Composite materials have a high strength to weigh ration in
comparison to metals and usage of such materials in place of metals results in considerable fuel
saving in flights. However, they are expensive to manufacture compared to metals because they
are made by curing in an autoclave. To optimize cost savings, we need to look at finding the
optimal design that would minimize manufacturing cost as well as operating cost (fuel cost)
i.e. the Direct Operating Cost (DOC).

Page 2 of 5
 Figure 2: Stringer-skin panel
The objective is to minimize Direct Operating Cost (DOC). The objective function is given by:

Minimize DOC= + .

Where,

= manufacturing cost

P= weight penalty.
W= structural weight.

The constraint condition is given by structural requirements such as buckling limitation, stress
and strain limitations, thickness of the skin and plies under a given load. This can be written
as:

< <

Where are the lower and upper boundaries of the structural requirements.

Page 3 of 5
 Figure 3: Optimization loop [1]
The optimization routine is shown in Figure 3. There different material configuration were
tested. They are: metallic skin - metallic stringers, composite skin - metallic stringers,
composite skin - composite stringers. These models are developed in the form of a finite
element model using Abaqus. This constitutes the design loop. The two most likely failure
criteria for a skin-stringer panel (such as buckling and compression-after-impact) were checked
during the FE analysis by means of a linear eigenvalue analysis and a static analysis. Python
was used for post-processing. The information obtained after applying constraints was fed into
the solver. From the design, calculations for material used were made by multiplying volume
and density to obtain mass/weight. The cost of the material can then be obtained. The cost of
processing the material and fuel cost per unit mass were also included to account for weight
penalty. These information were fed in DOC (Direct Operating Cost) loop and finally into the
solver. Once all the information are available, the solver could be used to optimize for the
objective function. In the solver, the inputs were converted into a set of mathematical equations.
An optimization algorithm was now required that would allow incorporation of these models.
It should not be too sensitive to disturbances in the form of non-smooth objective and constraint
functions, and thus lead to a good convergence rate. For this purpose, a gradient-based method
was chosen.

The results of the optimization is shown in Figure 4. The weight penalty is the cost of the
amount of fuel used during a lifecycle per unit kg, given in terms of /kg. For a small weight
penalty using an all-metal configuration (metallic skin - metallic stringers) is the best choice.
For a high weight penalty, a composite metal combination (composite skin - metallic stringers)
is optimal. This means using a composite skin-metallic stringer is optimal when fuel prices are
high. For low fuel prices, all-metal configuration are useful.

Page 4 of 5
 Figure 4: Cost and weight summation of the objective function for three
material configurations [1]
An aircraft might be used for at least 25 years. The quantification of weight penalty over a
considerable time period might be a challenge given the varying nature of oil prices. Also
weight penalty was considered a lumped value of the overall aircraft and needs to be adjusted
for the particular part that is optimized to improve the model.

To develop new cost-efficient designs, engineers consistently make use of optimization.

Optimization gives an insight into how several parameters interact and affect the outcome of a
decision and a way to quantify those parameters. It is a powerful tool for designers, paving way
for more efficient designs than the ones that exist.

Reference
1. Kaufmann, M., Zenkert, D. and Wennhage, P., 2010. Integrated cost/weight
optimization of aircraft structures. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
41(2), pp.325-334.

Page 5 of 5