Integrated CAE Solutions Multidisciplinary Structure Optimisation with CASSIDIAN LAGRANGE
-
Upload
altair-engineering -
Category
Technology
-
view
757 -
download
6
description
Transcript of 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 3
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 5
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 6
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 8
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 9
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 10
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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)
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 11
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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)
Manual Sizing (global / local
strength & stability checks)
Manual Sizing (global / local
strength & stability checks)
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 12
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 13
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
Multidisciplinary Airframe Design Optimization Procedure LAGRANGE
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 14
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 15
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 16
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 17
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Design Variables and Design Criteria
• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)
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
Unsteady 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 18
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Design Variables and Design Criteria
• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)
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
…
Linear Statics
Linear Dynamics
Steady Aeroelastics
Unsteady 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 19
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Design Variables and Design Criteria
• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)
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
…
Linear Statics
Linear Dynamics
Steady Aeroelastics
Unsteady 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 20
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Design Variables and Design Criteria
• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)
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
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)
Linear Statics
Linear Dynamics
Steady Aeroelastics
Unsteady 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
• ….
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 21
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Design Variables and Design Criteria
• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)
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
weff
• Skin & Column Buckling
for isotropic, orthotropic
and anisotropic skins
• Post-Buckling for isotropic
and composite structures
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)
Linear Statics
Linear Dynamics
Steady Aeroelastics
Unsteady 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 22
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Design Variables and Design Criteria
• Multidisciplinary structure optimisation (variable structure & variable loads)
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
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)
Linear Statics
Linear Dynamics
Steady Aeroelastics
Unsteady 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 25
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 26
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
Overview on past applications
Ove
rvie
w o
n p
as
t a
pp
lic
ati
on
s
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 27
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)
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 34
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 35
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Application to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Talarion
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 36
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 37
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 38
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Steady manoeuvre loads analysis within LAGRANGE
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 39
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Steady manoeuvre loads analysis within LAGRANGE
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 40
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Steady manoeuvre loads analysis within LAGRANGE
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
antimetric ailerons:
mainly trim roll axis
sym. elevators:
mainly trim pitch axis
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 43
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 44
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 45
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Application to the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Talarion
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 46
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 47
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
• 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
712 design variables
(1 * 712 patches)
8087 elements linked to 712
patches
174 design variables
(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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 48
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
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
antimetric ailerons:
mainly trim roll axis
sym. elevators:
mainly trim pitch axis
rudder:
mainly trim yaw axis
antimetric ailerons:
mainly trim roll axis
sym. elevators:
mainly trim pitch axis
5 design variables for each load case
~ 50 Load cases
________________________________
~250 Design variables
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 49
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
• 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 50
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
• 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 51
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
• 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 52
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Talarion Rapid Fuselage Design Study
• 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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 53
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 54
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 55
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 56
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
Manual Generation / Editing of DVs and BFs
=> Analysis => ODD
=> Model browser => OutputBlocks
Under Development
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 57
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 59
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 60
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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!
© 2010 CASSIDIAN - All rights reserved Page 61
Dr. Gerd Schuhmacher
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