Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Of A Regional Aircraft Wing Box

G. Schuhmacher, I. Murra, L. Wang, A. Laxander, O. J. OLeary# and M. Herold** Fairchild Dornier GmbH, 82230 Wessling, Germany

ABSTRACT
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) techniques were successfully applied in sizing the wing boxes of the newly developed Fairchild Dornier regional jet family. A common finite element model for the whole aircraft was used for the static and aeroelastic optimization and analysis purposes. A detailed design model in the order of thousands of design variables was constructed. All relevant sizing requirements for structural strength, aeroelastic behavior and manufacturing, resulting in over 800,000 constraints, were applied under all loading conditions. Many auxiliary tools for automating the process of preparing the huge amount of required input data, as well as the rapid assessment of results, were developed. Most of these tools were developed in close coordination with the MSC Software GmbH, since the MDO implementation process is centered around the optimization procedure in MSC.Nastran SOL 200. A new MSC.Nastran feature called External Server was utilized to integrate company specific wing buckling constraints into the Nastran optimization loop. An independent and comprehensive analysis of the conceived wing boxs structural sizes confirmed the validity of the results.

1 INTRODUCTION
The structural design of an airframe is determined by multidisciplinary criteria (stress, fatigue, buckling, control surface effectiveness, flutter and weight etc.). Several thousands of structural sizes of stringers, panels, ribs etc. have to be determined considering hundreds of thousands of requirements to find an optimum solution, i.e. a design fulfilling all requirements with a minimum weight or minimum cost respectively. The design process involves various groups of the airframe manufacturer and its suppliers, and requires the application of complex analysis procedures to show compliance with all design criteria. Traditionally the structural sizes of a wing box are determined by the stress group of the airframe manufacturer or its supplier. This is done by analyzing the stress and buckling reserves for a few selected load

cases and modifying the sizes, until the strength criteria are satisfied. The major shortfalls of this approach are: Modification of the structural sizes usually affects not only local stresses but also the internal load distribution. Therefore, this approach requires an iterative, complicated and time-consuming process. Since the design process is performed with a few dominating load cases only, there is a risk of not meeting the design criteria for the complete set of design driving load cases. Furthermore, fatigue requirements are only considered on an approximate basis. This can result in re-work and additional cost when the full set of load-cases and fatigue criteria are considered later in the design process. Due to resources and time limitations, the manual iterative process is usually stopped after achieving a design which is feasible, from a strength viewpoint, and which is close enough to the target weight. This design is not necessarily a minimum weight design. Aeroelastic requirements regarding elastic control surface effectiveness, aileron reversal and flutter are usually not considered by the stress engineers determining the structural sizes. In most cases there are significant time-delays until the design determined by the stress engineers is available for aeroelastic analysis. Shortfalls in the aeroelastic behavior then require significant additional efforts in order to find feasible solutions. Those solutions are usually non-optimal, expensive repair-solutions, which have to be introduced fairly late in the design process.1 Due to program requirements, the development cycles shrink continuously whilst the technical demands grow. These contradictory requirements can not be fulfilled by traditional sequential engineering practice. Because of its size and complexity and the problems explained above, there is a clear need for advanced tools integrating and accelerating the design process. Efficient model management and harmonization of analysis procedures play an important role in improving the workflow in multi-national projects.2

MDO team leader, Dr.-Ing., Engineer MDO team, Ph.D., Engineer, member AIAA MDO team, Dr.-Ing., Engineer Aeroelastics group, Dr.-Ing., Engineer # MDO team, Ph.D., Engineer ** MDO team, Dr.-Ing., Engineer

1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

However, the problems encountered by multi-national projects result primarily from poor coordination or poor communication between all partners, rather than the inherent challenges of the structural design process. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) Methods have proven to provide an efficient and powerful basis for integrating all disciplines and determining a feasible, minimum weight design. Within the last 20 years, several in-house MDO programs have been developed by the aircraft industry.3,4,5,6 A commercial software, capable of solving multidisciplinary aircraft design optimization problems (including aeroelastic requirements), is MSC.Nastran SOL 200. Despite the successful demonstration of the power and efficiency of these tools in solving various benchmarks and industrial applications, there is still a significant lack of comprehensive, real-life aerospace applications. This is due to technical as well as to cultural aspects. Several obstacles, which have prevented the broad application of MDO in aerospace projects are: Simultaneous consideration of all relevant criteria and analysis procedures requires several changes compared to that of the traditional, sequential design process. And generally speaking, change to established procedures and already defined responsibilities is usually met with strong resistance. The hierarchy of traditional aerospace companies usually does not have a functional unit performing the MDO tasks and organizing the required cooperation between all involved parties.1 Each discipline (e.g. stress, aeroelastics etc.) typically tailors FE-Models according to their individual requirements. For MDO these models must be harmonized to avoid unnecessary data handling complications. Development of MDO software requires tremendous resources. This is due to the fact, that it must be able to treat all relevant analysis and sensitivity calculations very efficiently within an integrated computational process, in order to optimize real-life, large scale aerospace applications. Due to the limited amount of detail within global aircraft FE-models, the strength and buckling analysis can not be performed based purely on FEanalysis methods. The detailed strength and buckling analysis is generally performed based on semianalytical, company confidential procedures, which must also be incorporated in the optimization process. This is crucial, since a design will never be accepted by a stress group so long as it is not fully compliant with their design criteria. A lot of effort and persuasion are required to overcome these obstacles. Nevertheless, the contradiction of continuously growing design complexity, requiring the integration of aerodynamics, structures, aeroelastics, flight controls and system design, on the one hand, and continuously shrinking development times on the other, can only be solved by such advanced

design tools and processes as represented by the MDO. The implementation of the MDO process at Fairchild Dornier (FD) started in March 2001. Since then, it has been successfully applied to the preliminary sizing of the wing box structure of the FD regional aircraft family (728-100/200/300, 928-200). The implementation of the whole process is centered around the optimization procedure SOL 200 of MSC.Nastran. The main merit of the work reported in this paper is to demonstrate the benefits of MDO techniques for the preliminary sizing of the wing box and other structural components. The produced structural sizes for the above mentioned wing components satisfy the minimum weight requirement and are capable of carrying all the applied loads without violating any of the imposed various design requirements. These design criteria included various stress, buckling, fatigue, manufacturing, lightning protection and aeroelastic (flutter, aileron reversal) requirements. In the MDO process all design conditions and applied loads were simultaneously considered. A detailed design model having thousands of design variables representing all the structural components treated in the sizing process was used. Due to computer storage and memory limits as well as the required real time for such a large optimization problem, the sizing due to the aeroelastic requirements was subsequently performed after achieving an optimum design with respect to all other design conditions. The conceived design for the total wing was subjected to detailed analysis under all loading and aeroelastic conditions, to ensure the validity of the sizing process. The result of this analysis will be briefly discussed.

2 The Structural Analysis and Design Process - Traditional and Today

Various departments and external suppliers are involved in the structural analysis and design process, (see Fig. 1). In general, Fairchild Dornier (FD) takes responsibility for all whole aircraft aspects (aerodynamics, aeroelastics, loads, overall stiffness and stress distribution etc.), which can only be analyzed and assessed by considering the interaction of all components within a whole aircraft analysis model. The suppliers take responsibility for the detailed analysis and design of single components (e.g. wing, empennage, tail-cone, engine etc.) based on the loads and criteria defined by FD. Within the FD aircraft development process, the conceptual design department determines the general aircraft configuration (wing size, engine position, fuselage cross-section, design masses etc.), whilst the aerodynamics group shapes the loft. Based on this information the structural design process starts by creating a simplified Beam Aircraft Model (BAM), which represents the estimated global stiffness distribution as well as the

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Fig. 1: The "Traditional" Structural Analysis and Design Process at Fairchild Dornier Aerodynamics Weights
Payload Fuel Loft

Aeroelastics
UnsteadyPanel Model

Weights
Structural- & Systems Weight

U-PAM

DAM (BAM)

Loads
Unsteady-Panel Model for Gustloads
Panel and Beam Model

U-PAMG

Loads

L O A D S

Flutter speed Aeroelastic Effectiveness

Dynamic Aircraft Model DAM

Structures / Strength Design

Whole Aircraft Model (WAM) WAM Results Beam Aircraft Model (BAM) Stress Results and Executable Models for Suppliers

Supplier 1

Supplier 2

Supplier 3

Supplier

Updated FEComponent Models from Suppliers

.... Detailed Strength Analysis and Design

Fig. 2: Today's Design Process automated by Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Techniques End Optimum Design
Final Design Improved Set of Design Variables Selection of Optimization Algorithm and Criteria Definition of Design Model

Optimization Algorithm
1. Set-up substitute problem 2. Solve substitute problem 3. Check convergence criteria

Objective and Constraints Functions & Sensitivities Evaluation Model Objective: weight, etc.
Definition of Design Criteria

Start

Multidiscipl. Team
Optimization Aeroelastics Structures Loads

Constraint Functions:
- Limit & Ultimate Stress - Fatigue Stress - Various Buckling Crit. - Flutter & Effectiveness

Design Model FE Properties: - Thicknesses - Stringer Sizes - ... Geometry not yet considered as design variables Updated Set of Analysis Model Parameters

Structural AnalysisModels & Loads

Structural- and Sensitivity-Analysis Constant Design Loads

Design Loads

External Server Buckling Criteria

Structural responses (stresses, flutter speeds, etc) Sensitivities of structural responses w.r.t. changes of the design variables

Flutter & Effectiveness

U-PAM, S-PAM

Limit, ultimate & fatigue stresses

WAM

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

global mass distribution (Fig. 1 shows a schematic mass representation which is substantially simplified compared to the real model). The BAM is coupled with an aerodynamic panel model to analyze all relevant aeroelastic effects (flutter, control surface effectiveness etc.). Furthermore, it is used by the loads group to calculate external loads resulting from the relevant flight and ground maneuvers as well as other design driving scenarios (fan blade off, bird strike etc.). The loads are usually partitioned into aerodynamic, inertia and concentrated loads and are supplied to the structures group as running loads along the elastic axes of fuselage, wing, control surfaces etc. In parallel to the process of calculating the external loads, a more detailed Whole Aircraft Shell FE-Model (WAM) is generated by the stress group in cooperation with the suppliers. The stress group also converts external loads into FE-Forces and -Moments to be applied to the WAM. With the loaded WAM, the internal loads (grid point forces and stresses) can be calculated and used as a basis for strength design. The internal loads and partially condensed models are then transferred to the various suppliers responsible for the detailed design of a specific substructure (wing, fuselage, empennage etc.). The WAM is a relatively crude model (250,000 degrees of freedom) which is nevertheless sufficiently accurate to determine the internal load-flow and the global stress distribution. Stress concentrations due to notches or local design details need to be analyzed with refined numerical or analytical models. The internal loads determined by the WAM are fed into locally refined analysis models containing all relevant details of the design. Based on these detailed models, the reserve factors for limit, ultimate, fatigue stresses and all kinds of buckling criteria are calculated and used to assess and determine the detailed design. Once detailed design sizes have been established and introduced into the FEmodels, FD assembles and updates the WAM. The updated WAM is then used to derive a BAM with equivalent stiffness in order to start a new loop of aeroelastic, loads and stress analysis followed again by detailed design. Through this iterative process, the effects of all changes (stiffness and mass distribution, refined aerodynamics due to wind-tunnel results etc.) are accounted for. The complete loop has to be cycled several times until the process is converged. The traditional work share described above is typical for most airframe manufacturers. One of the most important shortfalls of this approach is, that the detailed design process considers only static requirements, since the aeroelastic behavior can only be analyzed and assessed on a whole aircraft level. The consequences of this shortfall have already been described in the introduction. An additional problem is the tremendous amount of man-power and time required to determine the several thousands of design sizes subject to several hundreds of thousands of strength constraints.8 Due to the limited development

time, the process cycle shown in Fig. 1 is continued without waiting for the WAM to be re-sized. This means, that the process cycle i+1 is performed based on a WAM, which is sized for the loads of cycle i-1. Since man-power and time are expensive and limited, the traditional design process is usually stopped before a minimum weight design is achieved. These shortfalls can be overcome by automating the design process through MDO techniques. Fig. 2 shows how the MDO process has been organized at FD based on MSC.Nastran SOL 200. The key role for successful application is a Multidisciplinary Team consisting of representatives of all involved disciplines. Before the numerical optimization loop can be started, the design must be parameterized and all disciplines must make available their analysis models and design criteria. A very flexible approach of describing the design in parametric form is to utilize "constructive design models".5,10 However, the FD wing box sizes can also be parameterized by simply assigning design variables to the FE-properties (crosssections, thicknesses). The linking scheme between FE-properties and the independent design variables is represented by the Design Model and it is based on constructive, manufacturing as well as numerical considerations. Structural Analysis provides all relevant structural responses based on the analysis models and the current set of design variables. The Sensitivity Analysis calculates the first derivatives of all responses w.r.t. the independent design variables. A very important new feature of MSC.Nastran is the External Server, which allows the integration of userdefined design criteria described by Fortran routines. It therefore can be used to integrate various detailed design constraints, which are dependent on NASTRAN responses (stresses, displacements etc.). All detailed FD wing buckling criteria (skin, stringer, and column buckling and stringer crippling) have been implemented within this External Server. The objective function and all constraints are mathematically defined in the Evaluation Model based on structural responses. They are then transferred to the optimization algorithm to find an improved set of design variables. This set is converted into a new set of FE-Properties in order to initiate the next cycle. As a result of the non-linear relationship between the constraints and design variables, the full process must be repeated several times until an optimum design is found.

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Fig. 3: General layout of the outer wing box Machined Ribs Stringers Truss Ribs

Rear Spar

tST

Stringer hST t2 Front Spar with vertical and horizontal stiffeners t1 Skin

Lower Skin

Aileron

Fig. 4: FE-Model of the wing (93,000 DOF)

Pylon Rear Spar Center Wing Engine Front Spar Inner Wing Outer Wing

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3 Wing Box Design

Figure 3 shows the lower panel, the spars and the internal ribs of the outer wing box. The panels consist of a skin stiffened by rectangular stringers. The number of stringers decreases from inboard to outboard due to wing taper. Ribs are connected both to spars and panels. The panels and spars carry global bending and torsional loads, whilst the primary function of ribs is to stabilize the whole structure and transfer the local air load into the wing box. Since the panels and the spars are machined from solids, the sizes of skin and stringers can change between each pocket surrounded by two stringers and two ribs. It is even possible to have a varying skin thickness or varying stringer height within a pocket to provide the locally required strength and stiffness with a minimum weight. This results in several thousands of independent parameters defining the whole wing box design.

4 The Finite Element Model

The level of meshing detail of the wing model is shown in Fig. 4. This model is the same finite element model that is typically used for sizing by traditional methods. The wing box model mainly consists of Shell and Beam elements representing skin and stringers/stiffeners, respectively. The whole wing model with its major substructures (center, inner and outer wing) is given in Fig. 4. Combining wing box with fuselage and empennage FE models results in a WAM of approximately 250,000 degrees of freedom. A finite element model common to the stress, aeroelastics and the MDO group is used. This FE model satisfies the requirements of all groups involved. Harmonization of the initially different FE models proved to be very important to allow rapid and efficient exchange of data between all groups within the MDO process.

For the purpose of applying buckling constraints, the upper and lower surfaces of the wing are subdivided into so called Buckling Fields. Each buckling field consists of the finite element mesh between two adjacent span wise ribs and two chord wise adjacent sets of stringers. Mechanically speaking, this corresponds to each stiffened sub-panel on the wing. The skin elements within each buckling field were linked together and represented by a single design variable. The same applies to the stringer properties. Theoretically, the changes in stringers sizes should also affect second moment of inertia and the stringer offset. However, these effects are neglected during the optimization process for two reasons: firstly, their influence on the mechanical behavior is small; secondly, their consideration would cause a tremendous increase in the computational effort required for sensitivity analysis, as a consequence of their non-linear relationship to the design variables. Nevertheless, the stringer offset and the second moment of inertia are updated after the optimization before the analysis of the new sizes takes place. The sizes of the internal ribs and vertical spar stiffeners are not considered in the optimization process, since their impact on the internal load flow and global stiffness is negligible. The overall design model of the whole wing was structured corresponding to the major wing sections. Each of these components was subdivided again into upper and lower panels, front and rear spar, as well as skin and stringers. With this arrangement the total number of design variables reached 2515 as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Design variables Component No. of DV per wing section Center Inner Outer Total Upper skin 88 127 180 395 Lower skin 84 123 189 396 Upper stringers 168 244 336 748 Lower stringers 162 238 350 750 Front spar web 13 13 20 46 Front spar stiff. 18 12 40 70 Rear spar web 11 13 20 44 Rear spar stiff. 14 12 40 66 Total 558 782 1175 2515 Minimum and maximum sizes due to manufacturing or lightning protection were considered as lower and upper bounds for the FE-Properties. Special PCL (PATRAN Command Language) tools were developed to automate the creation and update of all corresponding design model input data for Nastran SOL 200.

5 The Design Model

The most important structural sizes of the wing box comprise the skin thickness and the stringer height and thickness. This applies to the panels as well as to the spars. Linear equations define the relationship between the independent design variables (DV) and the FE-Properties representing skin and stringers sizes: ti = ti0 * xk ; with Aj = Aj0 * xk ; I1j = I1j0 * xk

ti = skin thickness of element i Aj = area of stringer j I1j = 1st moment of inertia of stringer j xk = design variable k ti0, Aj0 , I1j0 = constants

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

6 Design Criteria
The mathematical objective of the optimization process is to find a minimum feasible weight. All relevant wing box sizing criteria comprising of limit, ultimate and fatigue stresses, buckling criteria, manufacturing requirements, control surface effectiveness and flutter criteria were applied in the form of in-equality constraints. The buckling constraints were communicated to NASTRAN during the optimization process by the External Server (see Section 2). Fatigue stress conTable 2: Wing box design constraints Wing Box Constraint Type Substructure Skin elements von-Mises stress Stringer and horizontal Axial, Tension and stiffener elements Compression stress Spar web elements Shear stress Buckling field skin Panel buckling Buckling field skin Crippling BF stringers Stringer buckling BF skin and stringer Euler buckling Lower panel skin Principle stress Panel joints Principle stress Spar web elements Principle stress Height of adjacent Maximum step size stringers Stringer thickness to Minimum ratio height ratio Outer wing box skin Aileron effectiveness Inner wing box skin Lowest flutter speed Total Number of Constraints

straints were applied to all fatigue sensitive areas of the wing box. These areas included the lower skin panels, major wing box joints (inner and outer wing joint, lower front and rear panel joints), front spar web at the pylon attachment and rear spar web at the landing gear attachment. Due to manufacturing requirements, a minimum stringer thickness to height ratio had to be adhered to. Furthermore, the relative step size of the stringer height was limited in spandirection to prevent excessive out-of-plane bending stresses. Table 2 gives an overview of all constraints.

Number of Constraints Center Inner Outer 416 1132 562 476 985 622 148 147 147 147 147 384 20 120 431 525 251 251 251 251 1042 108 408 199 995 280 364 364 364 364 508 42 115 538

Number of Load Cases 96 Ultimate 96 Ultimate 96 Ultimate 96 Ultimate 96 Ultimate 96 Ultimate 96 Ultimate 3 Fatigue 3 Fatigue 3 Fatigue

Constraints Total 202560 199488 91488 75552 75552 75552 75552 5502 510 1224 434 1964 3 1 805402

3 Trim cases (zero aileron effectiveness) 1 Flutter speed limit

The aileron effectiveness constraint is incorporated via a roll performance criterion which is required to be greater than or equal to zero at maximum true air speed. The applied Doublet-Lattice method (linearized aerodynamic potential theory) is not valid in the transonic flight regime, particularly at maximum true air speed. Therefore, equivalent conditions at lower Mach numbers had to be found. A set of three trim cases, i.e. pairs of Mach number and dynamic pressure, has been defined from which, on an empirical basis, the zero effectiveness curve can be extrapolated to maximum true air speed by a 2nd order polynomial. The flutter constraint is defined such that the lowest flutter speed, i.e. a flutter mode with zero damping, must not be lower than a prescribed limit velocity which depends on the flight altitude. All normal modes up to 50Hz are taken into account in the flutter analysis using the PK-method. The range of air speeds used for the flutter response is limited to a minimum required set. Because of the high computational effort required for flutter optimization, a pre-selection of very few critical flutter cases is indispensable.

In order to get an indication for these cases, a comprehensive flutter check covering the entire flight regime (i.e. a systematic variation of payload mass, fuel mass and flight level) is performed preceding the optimization runs. As can be seen from the above table, large amounts of input data for the optimization process had to be prepared in the correct format for MSC.Nastran SOL 200. The total amount of data required to describe the optimization model is multiple times greater than the FE-Model. Also a large amount of optimization results needed to be processed in a fairly short time. Therefore, many auxiliary tools had to be developed. Most of these tools have been programmed by a representative of the MSC Software GmbH as PCL utilities within MSC PATRAN, to allow efficient data exchange between the Optimization Model and the FE-Model.

7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7 RESULTS
As mentioned above, because of computer storage, memory restriction and the required real time for such large optimization problems, sizing with respect to aeroelastic requirements was performed after achieving an optimum design with respect to all strength, stability and geometric design criteria. Equally, for the same reasons the outer, inner and center wing were sized separately using several computers in parallel. A property update for the whole model corresponding to the optimization results was usually performed using a specially developed update tool. The conceived design for the total wing was subject to a detailed analysis under all loading and aeroelastic conditions to ensure the validity of the sizing process. Typical results from this analysis are presented in this section. Several tools were also developed for the purpose of post-processing the results of such an analysis. These tools enable the user to rapidly display the various results in tabular and graphical format to give a clear picture of all the parameters of interest.

A typical sizing result for skin thickness and stringer heights for the outer wing are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. Similar graphs along with corresponding tabular display of all other sized wing box structural components are also produced. Another valuable means of displaying the results is shown in Fig. 7. In this figure, the driving load cases that design a given section with respect to column buckling of the outer wing are displayed. The driving cases are resulting from symmetrical maneuvers at different speeds, altitudes, flap settings etc. Similar plots for other wing sections and other buckling criteria are also produced. In order to satisfy the aileron reversal constraint the stiffness of the outer wing was locally increased. Fig. 8 shows the increase of panel thickness in the upper skin to achieve this stiffness increase. The skin thicknesses obtained from static optimization were taken as lower bounds. Significant changes are essentially restricted to a zone reaching diagonally from the aileron attachment area inboard to the leading edge, close to the inner wing connection. Similar results have been obtained for the lower skin.

Fig. 5: Outer wing upper panels thickness

Fig. 6: Outer wing upper stringers height

15,00

60

Thickness [mm]

10,00 5,00 0,00 11-12 13-14 15-16

40 20 S12 15-16 13-14 S9 21-22 11-12 0

S14-FS S11-S12 S8-S9 21-22

23-24

25-26

27-28

29-30

29-30

27-28

25-26

S2-S3

23-24

Stringer Position

19-20

S3

Rib Position

Fig. 7: Critical load cases, outer wing upper panels, column buckling criteria Rib Position
11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 S14-FS S13-S14 S12-S13 300112 S11-S12 symmetrical manoeuvre S10-S11 (256,7 KTAS) S9-S10 300121 S8-S9 symmetrical S7-S8 manoeuvre 300119 S6-S7 (519,6 KTAS) symmetrical manoeuvre S5-S6 300115 (538,8 KTAS) S4-S5 symmetrical S3-S4 manouvre 300120 symmetrical manoeuvre S2-S3 300117symmetrical manoeuvre (485,9 KTAS) (519,6 KTAS) S1-S2 (538,8 KTAS) RS-S1 300110 symmetrical manoeuvre (488 KTAS)

Stringer Position

8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

19-20

S5-S6

Stringer Position

17-18

S6

Rib Position

17-18

Height [mm]

Fig. 8: Skin thickness increase of outer upper wing to satisfy aileron reversal

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The first stage of implementing and applying MDO techniques at FD has been successfully completed. The achieved sizing results of the wing box proved, that it is very efficient to apply MDO in a real life aircraft design cycle. Once all the tools for pre- and post-processing were in place, it became clear that the sizing process could be completed in a much shorter time than that of traditional means. At the same time all relevant load cases and all design conditions including aeroelastic requirements were taken into account. Furthermore, the MDO sizing process produced the much desired minimum weight design with its economic and performance benefits. The main factors that contributed to the successful implementation of the MDO process at FD were: The setting up of a special team dedicated for MDO process implementation and application. The application of a common finite element model for all disciplines involved (statics and aeroelastics) which allowed a smooth data transfer between all groups and enabled rapid performance of entire flutter and aileron reversal checks. The development of various pre- and postprocessing tools which automated most of the input data preparation and the post analysis process. The new capability of Nastran SOL 200 which enabled the application of the in-house buckling criteria by means of the External Server. A detailed design model accommodating all design and manufacturing requirements. The close coordination and cooperation of all design groups involved. The implementation of the MDO process for other aircraft structural components is under development.

5.00

3.00 2.00 S14-FS S11-S12 15-16 13-14 S8-S9 19-20 S5-S6 17-18 11-12 1.00 0.00

27-28

Flutter optimization results are presented in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. A critical flutter mode (No. 12, see Fig. 9) essentially determined by symmetric outer wing bending and pylon/engine pitch/yaw modes occurs particularly for low payload and fuel mass configurations at low flight altitudes. Although the instability in mode 12 is not severe, the instability onset was considered too early. The flutter speed was increased to the prescribed flutter speed limit by stiffening the inner wing at a minimal weight increase. Fig. 9: Flutter instabilities before optimization

29-30

Stringer Position

25-26

S2-S3

23-24

21-22

Rib Position

Thickness [mm]

4.00

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Fig. 10: Optimized flutter behavior (flutter speed of mode 12 increased) The authors acknowledge the valuable cooperation with Erwin Johnson and his Optimization Development group from MSC Software Corporation. The speed and efficiency with which most of the auxiliary tools were programmed by Rainer Illig, MSCs on site consultant, are greatly acknowledged. The close participation of the Stress, Fatigue and Aeroelastics groups were very valuable. The tireless efforts and dedication coupled with high enthusiasm by all members of the MDO team is acknowledged. Finally, without the support and encouragement of Fairchild Dornier Engineering management in introducing the new methods, the results reported in this paper would not have been achieved.

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

REFERENCES [1] Hnlinger. H.G. (DLR), Krammer, J. (DASA), Stettner, M. (DASA): MDO Technology Needs in Aeroelastic Structural Design. AIAA-984731, 1998. [2] Ribour, F.: Analysis of Aeronautical Components from MSC/NASTRAN Integrated Finite Element Models Management to Specific Stressing. Paper No. 2001-145 of the Worldwide Aerospace Conference & Technology Showcase, Toulouse , April 8-10, 2002. [3] Hrnlein, Herbert, Schittkowski, Klaus: Software Systems for Structural Optimization. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhuser Verlag 1993. [4] G. Schneider, F. van Dalen, Dr. J. Krammer, Dr. M. Stettner: Multidisciplinary Wing Design of a Regional Aircraft regarding Aeroelastic Constraints. Optimization In Industry Conference-II, Banff , June 6-11, 1999. [5] Schuhmacher, Gerd: Multidisziplinre, fertigungsgerechte Optimierung von FaserverbundFlchentragwerken. Dissertation Uni-GH Siegen Mrz 1995. FOMAAS Bericht Nr. T07-03.95 [6] Murra, Ibrahim: Sizing of a Regional Aircraft Wing an ASTROS Application. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, March 1998. [7] Chick, John B.: Structural Optimization of Helicopter Empennage using MSC/NASTRAN. Paper No. 2001-39 of the Worldwide Aerospace Conference & Technology Showcase, Toulouse, April 8-10, 2002. [8] Barker, D.K., Johnson, J.C., Johnson E.H., Lyafield D.P.: Integration of External Design Criteria with MSC/NASTRAN Structural Analysis and Optimization. Paper No. 2001-15 of the Worldwide Aerospace Conference & Technology Showcase, Toulouse, April 8-10, 2002 . [9] Zhang, Shenghua, Support External Response in SOL 200. MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA, Solution # 1-3772901, June 19, 2001. [10] Schuhmacher, G, Eschenauer, H.: Krammer, J.: Constructive Design Models for Multidisciplinary Optimization of Fiber Composite Structures. AIAA/USAF/NASA/OAI Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Cleveland/ Ohio, Sep. 21-23, 1992.

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics