Integrated CAE Solutions Multidisciplinary Structure Optimisation with CASSIDIAN LAGRANGE

Dr. Fernass Daoud, Head of Design Automation and Optimization

Integrated CAE Solutions

Multidisciplinary Structure Optimisation with

CASSIDIAN LAGRANGE

Cassidian Air Systems

2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference

© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 2

Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher

Contents

• Introduction: Cassidian Air Systems

• Motivation: Challenges & Opportunities of the Airframe Design Process

• Multidisciplinary Airframe Design Optimization at Cassidian Air Systems

Traditional Airframe Design vs. automated Multidisciplinary Design Optimization

Multidisciplinary Airframe Design Optimization Procedure LAGRANGE

• Applications

Overview on past applications

Application to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Talarion

• LAGRANGE profile in Hypermesh

• Benefits of the Automated Airframe Design Process

Co

nte

nts



Airbus

Tom Enders (CEO) Fabrice Brégier (COO)

Airbus Military Domingo Ureña-Raso

Eurocopter

Lutz Bertling (CEO)

Cassidian

Stefan Zoller (CEO)

EADS Astrium

François Auque (CEO)

EADS

Divsions

B. Gerwert

Cassidian Air Systems

Cassidian Systems

H. Guillou

Cassidian Electronics

B. Wenzler

MBDA

A. Bouvier

Cassidian

Business

Units

Introduction: EADS and Cassidian Structure

Intr

od

uc

tio

n



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts



Motivation

Challenges of the Multidisciplinary Airframe Design Process

• The aircraft design process requires the combination of a broad spectrum of

commercial as well as company specific analysis and sizing methods:

– a broad spectrum of A/C (company-) specific strength and stability analysis

methods

– company specific aerodynamic and aero-elastic / loads analysis methods

– company specific composite analysis, design and manufacturing methods.

• The aircraft design is driven by a huge number of multidisciplinary design

criteria (manoeuvre, gust and ground loads, aeroelastic efficiencies, flutter

speeds, strength and stability criteria, manufacturing requirements etc.)

resulting from different disciplines (loads, flight controls, dynamics, stress,

design, etc.)

• The design process needs to consider and meet all these design driving

criteria simultaneously, in order to determine an optimum compromise

solution, i.e. all disciplines and multidisciplinary design criteria driving the

airframe structural sizes and the composite lay-up need to be combined and

have to interact within an integrated airframe design process.

Mo

tiva

tio

n



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts



Load Loops

Structural Optimization (until 2006)

Aerodynamic Shape + Structural Sizes (2012+)

Structures + Loads (2007-11)

Automation of the Global Airframe Development Process

1. Aerodynamic Analysis

and Loft Optimization

2. Loads Analysis

and Aeroelastics

3. Structural Analysis

and Sizing

Aerodynamics Optimization

LAGRANGE:

Automation of Loads

and Sizing Loop

Tra

dit

ion

al A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

vs

. a

uto

ma

ted

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n



Traditional Sizing Process

Tra

dit

ion

al A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

vs

. a

uto

ma

ted

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n

Structural

Concept

Structural

Concept

Key-

Diagram

Key-

Diagram

GFEM*)GFEM*)

Material

Selection

Material

Selection

Property Selection 1. Loop: (guess / engineering judgement)

Property Selection 1. Loop: (guess / engineering judgement)

Manual Sizing (global / local

strength & stability checks)



Mass Mass Loads Loads

Aerodynamics,

Preliminary Design

Stress

Loads

Design

Dynamics

Mass

Aerodynamic Loft,

Inboard Profile

Aerodynamic Loft,

Inboard ProfilePanel ModelPanel Model

SDC Requirements,

Parameter envelope

SDC Requirements,

Parameter envelope

Property Update

for follow up Loops

Property Update

for follow up Loops

not

fulfilled

Check StressCheck Stress

modified for Dyn.

*) No mass application => no correlation between stiffness & masses

Sizing Loop

Loads Loop

**)

**) Dynamic landing and dynamic gust loads.

NOT SYNCHRONISED with static loads

Dynamic

Model

Dynamic

Model

Dynamic

Loads

Dynamic

Loads

FlutterFlutter

FCSFCS



Multidisciplinary Airframe Design Optimization Process

Tra

dit

ion

al A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

vs

. a

uto

ma

ted

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n

Structural

Concept

Structural

Concept

Key-

Diagram

Key-

Diagram

GFEM**)GFEM**)

Material

Selection

Material

Selection

Property Selection 1. Loop : (acc. to mass breakdown)

Property Selection 1. Loop : (acc. to mass breakdown)





Mass Mass

Loads select design

driving manoeuvres

Loads select design

driving manoeuvres Dynamic

Check

Dynamic

Check

Aerodynamics

Stress

Loads

Design

Dynamics

Mass

Aerodynamic Loft,

Inboard Profile

Aerodynamic Loft,

Inboard Profile

Panel ModelPanel Model

Flight PhysicsFlight Physics

Property Update for prob. follow up Loops

Property Update for prob. follow up Loops

Check StressCheck Stress

**) stiffness & masses in correlation

MDO

(Loads,

Stress,

Dynamics)

Balanced

GFEM

***)

***) 1st Global Sizing Loop performed

Loads

Check

Loads

Check

Dynamic

Nodal loads

Dynamic

Nodal loads

*) Within Block 0 dynamic nodal loads will be

provided externally. Integration into process ongoing

Checks with tools

from traditional

Sizing Process

Prelim. Dynamic

Checks

Prelim. Dynamic

Checks



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts



Large Spectrum of applications in Military and Civil Aircraft Design

A380 Leading Edge Rib Eurofighter

Composite Wing & Fin

A350 Wing

A350 Fuselage

Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Software Tool

Aerodynamics

Doublet

Lattice

Higher

Order

Skill Tools

Strength

Buckling

Postbuckling

Design for

Manufacturing

Composite Design

Models & Manu-

fact. Constraints

Statics

Dynamics

Aeroelasticity

FEM

Stability

Steady Flutter Gust

• Developed by CASSIDIAN Air Systems since 1984

• More then 140 man-years of development

Talarion

X31 CFC Wing


A400M Rear Fuse-

lage & Cargo Door

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE



Loads

Multidisciplinary Analyses within the Optimization Process

• Simultaneous consideration of aiframe design driving disciplines during

analysis and optimisation:

Stressing criteria

(strength & stability)

On basis of GFEM

(with mass data)

Stress

Selected design

driving manoeuvres

including flight

conditions for each

manoeuvre

Aerodynamic

HISSS model

Coupling model

(Beaming)

Dynamics

Frequency

requirements

Flutter speed

DLM model

for unsteady

aeroelasticity

Optimisation

Optimisation model

Criteria model

Optimisation runs

Manufacturing

Minimum & maximum

thickness / dimensions

Composite manuf. rules

Thickness jumps, etc.

Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic

efficiencies

Flutter speed

Gust

Aeroelastic

requirements

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE



Structural Components to be optimized

Composite & Metallic Skin: • Ply thicknesses / fibre orientation

e.g. composite skin (wing, fuselage,

taileron)

Metallic frames: • Cross-sectional dimensions

Stringer-stiffened panels: • Cross-sectional dimensions

• Skin thicknesses

Shear walls & longerons • Cross-sectional dimensions

• Skin thicknesses

c

b

eDe

bh

b

1

c

b

eDe

bh

b

1

Composite & Metallic Stringer • Cross-sectional dimensions

• Ply thicknesses

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE



Multidisciplinary Analysis Types

• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)

Analysis Model

Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics

Unsteady Aeroelastics

Optimisation Model

…

Criteria Model

…

FEM HISSS

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE



Design Variables and Design Criteria


Analysis Model

Optimisation Model

Parametric model defining the design

variables:

• Cross-sectional area of bars (sizing)

• Thickness of shell or membrane

elements (sizing)

• Ply thickness of composites (sizing)

• Fibre orientation in composite stacks

(angles)

• Coordinates of FE nodes (shape)

• Coordinates of control points (CAD,

NURBS)

• Trimming variables (angles of attack)

Criteria Model

…

c

b

eDe

bh

b

1

c

b

eDe

bh

b

1

Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics


FEM HISSS

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE

• Omega profile

• T profile

• Box profile

• C profile

• LZ profile

Geometric Sizes +

Composite-Lay-up





Analysis Model

Optimisation Model


variables:



elements (sizing)



(angles)



NURBS)


Criteria Model

…

Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics


FEM HISSS

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE





Analysis Model

Optimisation Model


variables:



elements (sizing)



(angles)



NURBS)


Criteria Model

…

Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics


FEM HISSS

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE





Analysis Model

Optimisation Model

…

Criteria Model

Strength (diverse models

depending on failure criteria)

Analytical buckling analysis (also

theory 2nd order)

Local stability analysis (for critical

parts of cross-section), crippling

Displacements (stiffness

requirements)

Constraints for natural frequencies

aeroelastic requirements (steady,

unsteady): efficiencies, flutter, etc.

Manufacturing constraints

Constraints for trimmed flight and

landing manoeuvres

sxxxxcomp

allow

syyyytens

allow


variables:



elements (sizing)



(angles)



NURBS)


Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics


FEM HISSS

Damage Tolerance & Repairability

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE

• Yamada-Sun

• Puck

• Tsai-Hill

• ….





Analysis Model

Optimisation Model

…

Criteria Model




theory 2nd order)




requirements)






landing manoeuvres

weff

• Skin & Column Buckling

for isotropic, orthotropic

and anisotropic skins

• Post-Buckling for isotropic

and composite structures


variables:



elements (sizing)



(angles)



NURBS)


Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics


FEM HISSS

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE





Analysis Model

Optimisation Model

…

Criteria Model




theory 2nd order)




requirements)






landing manoeuvres


variables:



elements (sizing)



(angles)



NURBS)


Linear Statics

Linear Dynamics

Steady Aeroelastics


FEM HISSS

Mu

ltid

isc

ipli

na

ry A

irfr

am

e D

es

ign

Op

tim

iza

tio

n P

roc

ed

ure

LA

GR

AN

GE



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts



X-31A Wing (1990)

Composite Wing

Stealth Demonstrator (1995)

Full A/C Design

Trainer Wing (2000)

Composite Wing& Fin A400M (2004-2006) Rear Fuselage Skin+Frames

Eurofighter (1985)

Composite Wing & Fin

Advanced UAV (2006 + ) Composite Wing


Ove

rvie

w o

n p

as

t a

pp

lic

ati

on

s


Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher Page 27

A350 XWB Wing Optimisation A350 XWB VTP Optimisation

A380 Leading Edge Rib Optimization Topology & Sizing Optimization

of Sec. 19, A350

A30X Wing Optimisation

A350 XWB Fuselage Optimisation Sec. 13-14

Overview on selected Applications

Optimum Composite

Sizing Layout within 2

Month (MAS-

Acquisition phase)

• Optimum Composite

Sizing of 40 Variants with

3 FTE * 6 Month for AI

Toulouse

• ca. 20 % weight saving !

• > 40 % weight reduction !

• Optimum Composite Sizing

with 2 FTE * 5 Month

• Feasible Design without

weight increase ! (PAG)

• > 20 % weight reduction !

• Optimum Composite Sizing

of several variants with 2

FTE * 12 Month (AI UK)

• > 35 % weight saving

(compared to AL-design)! ca. 15000 DV

1000 000 Constraints

ca. 3000 DV

250 000 Constraints

Aeroelastics

Ap

plic

ati

on

of

MD

O a

t C

as

sid

ian

(2)



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts




Unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft

Appr. Dimensions: Length: 14 m; Height: 4,5 m ; Span 26 m

Take-off weight : 8000 kg class

Performance

Loiter Speed: >200 ktas

Ceiling: > 43 kft

Endurance: > 20 h class

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on



Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study

• Objective:

– Mass estimation

• In consideration of

– Flight-Physical constraints

– Strength

– Stability

– Manufacturing Aerodynamic Model

FE Model

Analysis Model:

Fully coupled

structure-aerodynamic

(Aeroelastic)

Automation of both loops:

Loads & Sizing Loop

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on



Steady manoeuvre loads analysis within LAGRANGE

Phase 1: Manoeuvre load simulation

• Requirements:

– (full aircraft) finite element model

– (full aircraft) aerodynamic model HISSS (Higher Order Sub- and

Supersonic Singularity Method) or DLM (Doublet Lattice) panel model

– Coupling model: Beaming & Splining Methods used in order to

transfer aerodynamic loads to the FE-Model and structural deflections to the Aero-Model i.e. fully coupled analysis models, without condensation

aerodynamic

model

FE model

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on




Manoeuvre Load Simulation

• Based on the Mission and Structural Design Criteria the flight envelope is

established and scanned (103 - 105 manoeuvres) in order to determine the

design driving, steady manoeuvres with maximum loads

Down selection of design driving steady manoeuvres (~102 manoeuvres).

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on




Manoeuvre Load Simulation

• Each design driving, steady manoeuvre can be described by the

– Mass configuration and CoG position

– Altitude

– Mach number

– Accelerations and rotational speeds (up to 9 values)

• Global Equilibrium of Forces and Moments has to be achieved for these

pre-scribed manoeuvres of the elastic aircraft:

Fy(inertia) + Fy(aerodynamic) = 0

Fz(inertia) + Fz(aerodynamic) = 0

Mx(inertia) + Mx(aerodynamic) = 0

My(inertia) + My(aerodynamic) = 0

Mz(inertia) + Mz(aerodynamic) = 0

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on

Flight Parameter




Trimming Process

• For each steady manoeuvre (Mass, CoG, Altitude, Mach, Accelerations)

the angles of attack (pitch angle, yaw angle and the AoA of the control

surfaces are determined by minimizing the residual forces.

alfa = - xx °

beta = - yy °

delta aileron = zz °

delta elevator = hh °

delta rudder = kk °

αβ α:

mainly trim lift

β:

mainly trim sideslip

antimetric ailerons:

mainly trim roll axis

sym. elevators:

mainly trim pitch axis

rudder:

mainly trim yaw axis



sym. elevators:


Fy(inertia) + Fy(aerodynamic) = 0

Fz(inertia) + Fz(aerodynamic) = 0

Mx(inertia) + Mx(aerodynamic) = 0

My(inertia) + My(aerodynamic) = 0

Mz(inertia) + Mz(aerodynamic) = 0

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on

Flight Parameter



Integration of Transient Gust into Optimisation

A “gust case” is defined as a combination of:

a) steady manoeuvre: flight condition and mass configuration (c.o.g. position !)

(altitude & aircraft speed; usually 1g cruise)

b) gust condition: wave-length and up- or down wind gust velocity and

incidence angle (usually sinusoidal shaped)

leading to huge amount of different gust cases

(up to ~10000), which have to be considered !

example: ~

flight condition

(incl. mass configuration)

gust up-

wind profile

gust wave

length

evaluated

time steps

(approx. 1000)

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on

Under Development



Gust Process

Many gust blocks gust block for selected mass configuration

Many gust cases

gust case =

+ basic flight attitude • trimmed aeroelastic steady manoeuvre

• for specific mass configuration,

• specific altitude,

• specific speed

• to be superimposed to an incremental gust

incremental gust analysis

• specific mass configuration,

• specific incidence angle,

• specific wave length,

• specific speed,

• specific altitude

Database

(HDF5) evaluation of all

gust cases for

selected mass

configuration

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on

• Implementation of the Incremental Gust Response and the Sensitivities is completed.

• Implementation process for the fully automated determination of the design driving

time steps and the superposition to manoeuvre load cases is ongoing.

Under Development




Summary for Phase 1: Manoeuvre, Gust and Landing Loads Analysis

• The manoeuvre load simulation of elastic aircraft (fully coupled aerodynamic-structure model) is combined with a trimming process (optimisation task) in order to provide the distributed, elastic aircraft manoeuvre loads.

• The distributed aerodynamic and inertia loads are directly applied to the global, non-condensed FE model, providing the stresses and displacements for the subsequent strength and stability analysis.

• Gust loads are determined as incremental dynamic response. The time steps resulting in maximum local stresses are determined and the resulting deflections are superimposed to the corresponding steady manoeuvres.

• Landing Gear Loads are determined by an external Multi-Body-Analysis and then applied to the global full aircraft model in order consider them in the sizing process.

• By incorporating the loads analysis into the optimisation platform LAGRANGE both very time consuming loops (loads & sizing) are automated.

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on

Curr

ently u

nder

develo

pm

ent




Phase 2: Multidisciplinary Sizing optimisation

Analysis Model

Aeroelastic analysis

Manoeuvre Simulation

trimming Process Optimisation Model Criteria Model

• Strength analysis:

• Damage tolerance

• Von Mises

• Skin buckling (for composite skin and

metallic shear walls)

• Column buckling

• Flight-Physics:

• Force equilibrium in Y, Z

• Moment equilibrium around X, Y, Z

• Ply thickness of composite skin

• Thickness of metallic shear walls

• Cross-sectional areas of stringers

• Trimming variables

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on




• Optimisation Model:

Stacking sequence:

16 layers

linked to 3 design variables

129 design variables

(3 * 43 patches)

2312 elements linked to 43 patches

Metallic Shear Walls

45°

-45°

90°

0°

45°

-45°

90°

0°

0°

90°

-45°

45°

0°

90°

-45°

45°

45°

-45°

90°

0°

45°

-45°

90°

0°

0°

90°

-45°

45°

0°

90°

-45°

45°

Composite skin Composite/Metallic Stringer


(1 * 712 patches)

8087 elements linked to 712

patches


(1 * 174 patches)

4212 elements linked to 174 patches

Total: 1015 design variables

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on




An

aly

sis

Mo

de

l: S

tea

dy A

ero

ela

sti

cit

y

• Optimisation Model:

αβ α:

mainly trim lift

β:

mainly trim sideslip



sym. elevators:


rudder:

mainly trim yaw axis



sym. elevators:


5 design variables for each load case

~ 50 Load cases

________________________________

~250 Design variables




• Criteria Model:

1.675.894 strength constraints

Composites:

Maximum strain (Damage Tolerance)

36992 constraints * 34 load cases

Strength Stability

Metallic:

Von Mises stress

12299 constraints * 34 load cases

Skin & shear wall buckling:

1080 constr. * 34 load cases

50966 buckling constraints

Total: 1.726.860 constraints

Stringer Column Buckling:

419 constr. * 34 load cases Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on




• Criteria Model:

Flutter Manufacturing

Op

tim

isa

tio

n a

t C

as

sid

ian

Air

Sys

tem

s

Displacement

_________________

1 flutter constraint /

mass configuration

~ 5 Displacement

constraints / load case

50 load cases

________________

~ 250 constraints

Layer thickness fitting:

8layer * 47 steps = 376

Minimum relative group

thickness: 147

Minimum absolute stack

thickness: 49

______________

572 constraints

Flight-Physics

5 constraints / load case

~ 50 load cases

_________________

~ 250 constraints

0

0

Z

Y

0

0

0

z

y

x

M

M

M

max

max

U

ttot1ttot2

ttot

ttot1ttot2

ttot

c

b

eDe

bh

b

1

c

b

eDe

bh

b

1




• Skin Thickness & overall Reserve Factor:

Composite Skin

Total Thickness

Overall Rf

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on




• Thickness of Metallic Shear Walls, Frames, Floors & overall Reserve

Factor:

Metallic Shear Walls, Frames, Floor

Total Thickness

Overall Rf

All Results are available in different formats (colour

plots, Excel Tables, Database etc.)

Ap

plic

atio

n to

th

e U

nm

an

ne

d A

eri

al V

eh

icle

Ta

lari

on



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts



Four distinct decks of the Lagrange input file to be considered

LAGRANGE Profile I/O

loads reduced NASTRAN template

uses standard NASTRAN I/O- procedures (CCD & BDD)

provides extended I/O- features (DCD and ODD)

LAGRANGE Profile in HyperMesh

...

...

...

ENDCONTROL

...

...

...

BEGIN BULK

...

...

...

ENDDATA

...

...

...

ENDE

Design Control Deck(control commands)

Optimization Data Deck(optimization data)

NASTRAN-Deck

Case ControlDeck

Bulk Data Deck

Chap. 3

Chap. 4

Chap. 5 toChap. 8

LA

GR

AN

GE

In

pu

t d

eck

HM user-page

Under Development



Automatic Generation of DVs and BFs (defopt)

External defopt- usage fully supported

defopt writes files to disk

data to be imported

generic process extendible for further external executables

manage config-files

execution of external binary

Under Development



Manual Generation / Editing of DVs and BFs

=> Analysis => ODD

=> Model browser => OutputBlocks

Under Development



Contents






• Applications





Co

nte

nts



Benefits of the Automated Airframe Design Process

• The optimization assisted airframe design process has been established and

applied within all design phases of a broad range of A/C projects (civil and military

applications; components, large assemblies & full A/C).

• The multidisciplinary design optimisation with LAGRANGE leads to a feasible

airframe design which satisfies the requirements of all relevant disciplines with

minimum weight.

• The automation of both loops: structural sizing and loads loop results in an

drastic reduction of development time and effort.

• The strategic decision for an continued development the in-house MDO tool

LAGRANGE is due to the specific aerospace design criteria on one hand (no

Commercial Of The Shelf tool available) and the tremendous benefits and

competitive advantages on the other hand.

• The in-house software availability allows the fast adaption to advanced analysis

methods as well as to new technological product and customer requirements.

• Further Applications and Co-Operations are welcome !

Su

mm

ary



The reproduction, distribution and utilization of this document as well as

the communication of its contents to others without express authorization

is prohibited. Offenders will be held liable for the payment of damages.

All rights reserved in the event of the grant of a patent, utility model or design.

Thank you for your attention!



Benefits of Design Automation

• Multidisciplinary optimisation with LAGRANGE provides a structural

design which satisfies the requirements of all relevant disciplines with

minimum weight

• Automation of both loops: structural sizing and load analysis (through full

coupling to aerodynamic analysis tools)

• Huge multidisciplinary criteria model covering requirements of all structure

design driving disciplines

• Drastic reduction of development time and effort (>50%)

• Reduced cost due to automation of the design process

– Estimated Saving for Talarion Development Process:

• Traditional Manual Process:

e.g. 6 Load Loops (LL) * 1 J / LL * 40 FTE (Stress, Loads, Dynamics, Mass, Design,

etc.) = 240 Man-Years

• With MDO Process: 2 Load Loops * 0,65 J / LL * 40 FTE = 52 Man-Years

• Estimated Saving: 188 Man-Years (37,6 Mill. €) !!!

• Product/project specific requirements can be integrated (if required) in the

platform easily (Property of CASSIDIAN Air Systems)

– Over 3 Million lines of code, 140 Man-Yeas development

Op

tim

isa

tio

n a

t C

as

sid

ian

Air

Sys

tem

s