See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319903399

Structural wing sizing and planform shape

optimization using multidisciplinary CAD-CAE
integration process

Conference Paper · September 2017

DOI: 10.1109/ICMAE.2017.8038692

CITATIONS READS

0 69

2 authors:

Abdelkader Benaouali Stanisław Kachel

Military University of Technology Military University of Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of an automated framework for aircraft wing design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdelkader Benaouali on 23 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural Wing Sizing and Planform Shape Optimization Using Multidisciplinary
CAD-CAE Integration Process

Abdelkader Benaouali, Stanisław Kachel

Faculty of mechatronics and aviation
Military university of technology
Warsaw, Poland
e-mail: abdelkader.benaouali@wat.edu.pl, stanislaw.kachel@wat.edu.pl

Abstract—This paper describes a wing mass estimation
approach based on a bi-level optimization process and an
automated CAD-CAE integration framework. The design
framework goes through parametric CAD model generation,
aerodynamic load calculation, finite element modeling,
structural analysis and sizing. In the lower-level task, the wing
box is sized to optimize the structural element thicknesses
under a maximum stress constraint for a fixed planform
configuration. The upper-level optimization determines the
optimal planform shape to minimize the wing mass while
maintaining a good lift-to-drag ratio. The process chain
involves SIEMENS NX for geometric modeling, VORLAX
VLM for aerodynamic calculations and MSC.NASTRAN for
FE analysis and sizing. The outer optimization is performed by
the multi-objective genetic algorithm on a radial basis function
surrogate model.
Keywords-wing sizing; CAD/CAE integration; Surrogate
optimization; Design automation
I. INTRODUCTION
Aircraft design is a complex process which requires the
consideration of different engineering disciplines, mainly
aerodynamics and structure [1]. Traditionally, the design
process needs the cooperation of several mono-disciplinary
experts, who are often dispersed geographically, and an
extensive communication between them. Therefore, design
modifications take place in an iterative environment which
results in a very long and inefficient process. [2].
The rapid development in computer technology, namely
computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided
engineering (CAE) software, as well as the improvement in
numerical algorithms served as a major part in the
improvement of the design process quality [3]. Design
performance evaluation is achieved using numerical
modeling and simulation codes which have the capacity to
solve complex problems in a relatively reduced time.
Computer aided tools have been widely adopted in aerospace
industry to accelerate the product development [4].
Generally, designers tend to use separate packages during
the design process: a CAD software for geometric modeling
and other CAE software for analysis, and therefore an
interest has been raised for the CAD/CAE seamless
integration [5, 6]. Moreover, the aim to reach a design with
the best performance led to the use of optimization
techniques and algorithms in the design process [7].
Engineering optimization is an iterative process where the
objective function, and/or constraints, are evaluated for
different configurations in the design space. Therefore, the
design process does not require only to integrate CAD and
CAE tools but to automate the integration procedure [8].
Automation allows the designer to avoid the monotonous
effort of repeating modeling tasks while updating the design
model.
The integration is made possible through the data
exchange translators by using neutral files to exchange
model data between codes. On the other hand, the capacity to
run software in batch mode via scripting allows to access
modeling and analysis functionalities automatically. The
creation of a new configuration through parametric modeling
is simply performed by changing parameter values in the
program.
Solvers with different level of fidelity can be used for
aircraft multidisciplinary design optimization problems [9].
Structural analysis can be performed by a variety of methods
from beam theory to finite element method. Similarly, a
simple lifting line theory or a vortex lattice method (VLM)
up to complex Euler and Reynolds-Average Navier-Stokes
methods can be used for aerodynamic analysis. Generally,
there is a trade-off between computational cost and fidelity
which presents a challenge for the designer to select the
proper ones [9].
The primary focus when designing a new aircraft is to
reduce its structural weight. Because of its role as the
primary lifting surface, aircraft wing is subjected to most
important aerodynamic forces and a special attention must be
taken to its optimal design [10]. The reduction of the wing
structural weight causes the aircraft empty weight to
decrease which allows either more payload or fuel to be
carried within the aircraft. In the latter case, the aircraft can
fly at greater ranges [11]. The wing structure is mainly
composed of skin, spars, ribs and stringers and thus its
weight is mostly determined by the element thickness
distribution and stringer cross section dimensions. Structural
sizing is a local optimization method aimed at minimizing
weight by adjusting element thicknesses according to a
predefined sizing criteria.
This paper is aimed at presenting a procedure for the
planform shape optimization and structural sizing of wing
structures based on an automated CAD/CAE integration
framework. The developed framework involves geometric
modeling, aerodynamic load calculation and finite element
(FE) structural analysis. It integrates several computer aided
tools: SIEMENS NX as a CAD software, VORLAX VLM as
a fast low fidelity CFD code and MSC
PATRAN/NASTRAN as a CAE package. The optimization
is performed in two levels: the inner level optimizes the wing
element thicknesses for a fixed planform shape and the outer
level optimizes the planform shape for a minimum wing
weight and a maximum lift-to-drag ratio. The inner level
uses the NASTRAN gradient-based optimization tool,
whereas the multi-objective genetic algorithm is employed
for the outer level. The entire process chain, including data
exchange between codes, is automated via software‟s
automation capabilities as well as a developed C#
application. The use of the presented procedure is
demonstrated through its application to a simple wing design
example.
II. DESIGN FRAMEWORK
For the purpose of attaining the optimal design, the
system in subject must be redesigned repeatedly with
different design configurations. Therefore, an automatic
modeling and analysis process is indispensable for design
optimization processes. A framework is developed in order
to conduct wing design activities in a fully parametric and
automated manner where the configuration can be modified
simply through design parameters. The design process goes
through geometric modeling, aerodynamic load calculations,
FE modeling and analysis. These activities are executed by
means of different computer codes that work in a
collaborative way offering the ability to automate tasks
through built-in programming languages as well as to be run
in batch mode (without graphic interface). Fig. 1 presents the
architecture of the proposed design framework. In addition to
design and analysis tools, the framework must be managed
by a main program, acting as the core of the framework.
 The geometry modeling module invokes the creation
of the CAD model and exports it to an IGES file.
 The aerodynamic load calculation module determines
the wing load distribution as well as the aerodynamic
coefficients.
 The structural modeling module imports the CAD
model, creates the FE mesh and element properties,
apply loads and boundary conditions and translate the
model to a „.bdf‟ file.
 The structural analysis module executes numerical
calculations to optimize element thicknesses for the
minimum weight under a maximum stress constraint.
This optimization represents the inner sizing loop.
 The aerodynamic coefficients calculated by the
aerodynamic module as well as the wing mass
resulted from sizing are taken to be objective
functions of the outer optimization loop.
The four modules of the framework are discussed with
more details in the next subsections.
A. Geometry Module
The geometry module is responsible for the automatic
generation of the CAD model which will be necessary to
create the FE model. The wing model is created
automatically according to geometry and layout parameters
and then exported to a neutral format file. The commercial
CAD software used for the framework, SIEMENS NX,
offers various tools for automation: Knowledge Fusion,
graphic programming interactive language (GRIP), Macros,
NX Open, journals, User Defined Objects etc. Due to its
flexibility and convenience, GRIP language was selected.
Thanks to the batch mode running ability, the execution of
the GRIP program (.grs file) can be done by a Windows
command that operates on a batch file. This command can be
executed from the main c# program.
Figure 1. Design framework flowchart
The aircraft wing configuration is mainly described by its
sectional profile (airfoil), planform shape and structural
layout (ribs, spars). The planform shape parameters are (Fig.
2):
 Root chord length Cr ;
 Wing semi-span b 2;
 Leading edge sweep angle E ;
 Taper ratio ;
 Twist angle ;
 Dihedral angle .
After the skin, spar and rib surfaces are created, the CAD
model is exported to an IGES format file.
B. Aerodynamic Module
The aerodynamic loads acting on the wing are calculated
by means of the inviscid potential flow code VORLAX
developed by Miranda et al. [12]. VORLAX is based on the
vortex lattice method to model three-dimensional lifting
surfaces. It solves the flow field using potential flow theory
after interpolating a vortex lattice onto the lifting given an
input geometry and flow conditions.
Next, forces acting on each vortex segment are
determined and then integrated to yield a composite force in
3 dimensions, which in turn may be used to compute
aerodynamic coefficients. The authors chose VORLAX for
this study because of its computational efficiency and the
ability it offers to be run from a Windows command after
creating the input text file.
Figure 2. Wing geometry parameterization.
The vortex lattice method models the lifting surface as
infinitely thin sheet and can only compute lift and inviscid
drag due to lift but cannot predict viscous or wave drag [13].
In order to determine the total drag, the viscous drag
component can be estimated then added to the induced drag
obtained by VORLAX. The viscous drag estimation used in
this study is based on the flat-plate skin friction with a form
factor correction as given by [14]:

where , , , , represent the viscous drag
component, the wetted surface area, the reference area, the
form factor and the skin friction coefficient respectively.
The C# driver program creates the VORLAX input text
file according to the geometry parameters as well as the flow
conditions. When the calculations are completed, the driver
program reads the output file and extracts the load
distribution and the aerodynamic coefficients.
C. Structural Modeling Module
The commercial FE modeling software MSC.PATRAN
is used as the structural analysis preprocessing tool. To meet
the automation requirements, scripting is performed using
the Patran Command Language PCL, a high level block
structured language. PATRAN scripts are in the form of a
text file called session file (ses) formed by a succession of
PCL functions. The session file is written and then executed
in PATRAN‟s batch mode by the driver program. Writing
the session file presents the most complex task in the
development of the present work as it must be compatible
with geometry changes and take into account different wing
configurations.
The FE preprocessing, automated by the written script,
involves the following steps:
 Import the geometry surfaces (IGES file) and
identify the surface groups (skin, spars, ribs).
 Create materials and properties based on analysis
parameters.
 Create mesh and verify node equivalence (merge c
oincident nodes).
 Apply loads and boundary conditions.
 Prepare data for the analysis by creating a (.bdf)
file.
The skin, spars and ribs are modeled as CQUAD4 shell
elements. In addition, the structural model (Fig. 3) consists
of spar caps and stringers, distributed on the upper and lower
skin, modeled as beam elements. The beam cross sections
are created parametrically by the PCL script using an output
file from the geometry module so that their shape and
orientation follow the skin section profile as shown in Fig.4.
The spanwise aerodynamic loads, computed by VORLAX,
are discretely distributed along the wing by computing the
equivalent loads at the rib/spar intersection points.
In the current study, the structural analysis is a process
where the wing element thickness are optimized. The sizing
process is limited to the spars and the wing box skin. The
outer skin (leading and trailing edge) and the rib thicknesses
are held constant. The wing box skin and spars are
subdivided into multiple design zones. A design zone is
limited by two neighboring ribs. Each design zone consists
of a number of finite elements that all have the same
thickness.
D. Structural Sizing Module
The finite element analysis solver MSC.NASTRAN is
utilized for the wing structural sizing process through its
gradient based SOL 200 optimization module. The objective
function of the optimization problem is the wing structural
mass. One design variable, the element thickness, by design
zone is defined, as described in the previous section. For the
optimization constraints, the maximum von Mises stress is
checked against the material allowable stress as defined in
the following equation:
yield
von ises allowable where allowable 
Fs
where yield is the material yield stress and Fs is the safety
factor.
Figure 3. Wing finite element model.
 reference area. The design variables and their ranges are
given in Table I. The optimization was conducted using
AT AB‟s multi-objective genetic algorithm on a radial
basis function built from a design database of 70 design
points. The construction of the database costs around 7 hours
in total using an eight-core Intel i7 (3.4 GHz) processor PC.
The lift-to-drag ratio is calculated by dividing the obtained
Figure 4. Disposition of spar caps and skin stringers.
drag coefficient by the constant lift coefficient (CL=0.45).
Fig. 6 shows the Pareto optimal frontier sets which represent
III. PLANFORM SHAPE OPTIMIZATION all possible and optimal solutions in decision space. From the
70 different solutions obtained in multi-objective
The outputs of the design framework serve as the optimization, we have selected randomly one design
objective functions for the outer optimization process. A configuration from the Pareto optimal solutions (Fig. 6). The
design cycle executed for a fixed planform shape gives as performance of the selected optimal design ( and D) is
result the wing structural mass and the aerodynamic evaluated by the design framework and compared to the
coefficients. One run of the design framework takes several predicted values. The comparison results (Table II)
minutes due to the computational time required for the sizing demonstrate that the constructed RBF surrogate models
process. Thus, running a direct optimization in such case is represent accurately the objective functions.
highly impractical. The solution is to perform the
optimization on a less expensive and reliable replacement
referred to as a surrogate model. Its construction is
performed by carrying out a limited number of computer
simulations based on a design of experiment (DOE) strategy.
Next, an interpolation function is built to rapidly predict the
response in any other design point. The optimization
algorithm is then lunched on the metamodel (Fig. 5).
In this paper, the optimization is performed on a radial
basis function (RBF) [15] surrogate model created by
sampling the design space using the improved Latin hyper-
cube algorithm (IHS) [16]. RBF parameter estimation is
performed by minimizing the Leave-One-Out cross
validation error [17]. The optimization objectives are the
wing mass and lift to drag ratio ⁄D. The design variables
are the wing planform shape parameters. The optimization
problem is formulated mathematically as follows: Figure 5. Surrogate based optimization.

min { , - D} (3) The selected design planform shape as well as its optimal
In order to illustrate the use of the presented optimization element thickness distribution are shown in Fig. 7. One can
approach, a simple design case study was conducted. For this observe the increasing element thickness in inboard direction
example, the aircraft maximum take-off weight is taken to be due to the high bending moments and stresses within the
50.000 kg with a wing total area of 120 m2 and a cruise flight wing root caused by the boundary conditions. By ensuring
altitude of 10 km at Mach = 0.7. Assuming the lift is that all element stresses are below the stress limit, the sizing
generated by the two wings only, the cruise lift coefficient process leads to a mostly uniform stress distribution with a
must be equal to 0.45. The corresponding angle of attack of stress level near the maximum.
each wing configuration is calculated within the design
TABLE I. DESIGN VARIABLES AND THEIR RANGES
framework. The wing sizing process is performed using the
load factor of n=2.5, with a 1.5 safety factor, by scaling the Design variable Lower bound Upper bound
aerodynamic cruise loads. The wing box consists of two Taper ratio 0.2 0.5
spars (situated at 0.15 and 0.70 chord length), 16 ribs
(including tip and root ribs) parallel to the flight path. For all Aspect ratio 7 10
the wing box, the material properties of aluminum 2024-
T351 is used. TABLE II. PREDICTED AND EVALUATED PERFORMANCE
COMPARISON
For simplicity reasons and illustrative purposes, only two
design variables were selected, the wing aspect ratio and the Objective Predicted Evaluated Error (%)
taper ratio. The NACA 2415 airfoil is used for the wing
profile. The leading edge sweep back angle is taken to be D 24.998 24.978 0.08
25°, whereas dihedral and twist angle are equal to zero. The (kg) 1771.7 1778.7 0.39
chord length and the wing span can be determined for each
configuration using design variable values and the constant
 Figure 6. Optimal Parerto frontier.
Figure 7. Wing box thickness distribution.
IV. CONCLUSION
The present paper describes a bi-level design
optimization approach for estimating aircraft wing structural
weight via an automated multidisciplinary CAD/CAE
integration framework. The approach comprises both
structural sizing and planform shape optimization. The
developed framework takes advantage of the computational
efficiency of the vortex lattice method as a rapid
aerodynamic modeling tool coupled with structural finite-
element models. The key feature of this approach is the
automation capability through parametric modeling and
software scripting. Geometric modeling, aerodynamic
calculations, structural modeling and analysis are
implemented automatically according to design changes.
The feasibility of the proposed optimization procedure
has been investigated through its application to a simple
wing design example through a mutli-objective optimization
problem. The high computational cost associated with
structural sizing is alleviated by adopting a surrogate-based
optimization using a radial basis function meta-model. The
results obtained proved the reliability and the efficiency of
the proposed approach.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Grossman, Z. Gurdal, R. T. Haftka, G. J. Strauch and W. M.
Eppard, “Integrated aerodynamic/structural design of a sailplane
wing,” J. Aircr., vol. 25, 1988, pp. 855–860.
[2] J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski and R. T. Haftka, “Multidisciplinary
aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments,”
Struct. Optim., vol. 14, 1997, pp. 1–23.
[3] Y. M. Deng, G. A. Britton, Y. C. Lam, S. B. Tor and Y. S. Ma,
“Feature-based CAD-CAE integration model for injection-moulded
product design,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 40, 2002, pp. 3737–3750.
[4] F. Hürlimann, R. Kelm, M. Dugas, K. Oltmann and G. Kress, “Mass
estimation of transport aircraft wingbox structures with a
CAD/CAE-based multidisciplinary process,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 15, 2011, pp. 323–333.
[5] M. S. Smit and W. F.Bronsvoort, “Integration of design and analysis
models, ” Comput. Aided. Des. Appl., vol. 6, pp. 795–808, doi:
10.3722/cadaps.2009.795-808.
[6] G.P. Gujarathi and Y. S. Ma, “Generative CAD and CAE integration
using common data model, ” 2010 IEEE International Conference on
Automation Science and Engineering, Toronto, ON, 2010, pp. 586-
591.
[7] K. Saitou, K. Izui, S. Nishiwaki and P.Papalambros, “A survey of
structural optimization in mechanical product development,” J.
Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., vol. 5, 2005, pp. 214-226.
 [8] W. Yang, Z. Yue, L. Li and P. Wang, “Aircraft wing structural
design optimization based on automated finite element modelling
and ground structure approach,” Eng. Optimiz., vol. 48, 2016, pp.
94–114.
[9] A. Elham, , M. J. van Tooren and J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,
“Bilevel Optimization Strategy for Aircraft Wing Design Using
Parallel Computing,” AIAA J., vol. 52, 2014, pp. 1770–1783.
[10] R. T. Haftka, “Optimization of flexible wing structures subject to
strength and induced drag constraints.,” AIAA J. vol. 15, 1977,
pp.1101-1106.
[11] O. Dababneh, “Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation for Aircraft
Wing Mass Estimation,” Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield Univ., Cranfield,
UK, 2016.
[12] L. R. Miranda, R. D. Elliott and W. M. Baker, “A Generalized
Vortex Lattice Method for Subsonic and Supersonic Flow
Applications,” NASA CR-2865, Dec. 1977.
View publication stats
[13] E. Ting, K. Reynolds, N. Nguyen, J. Totah,, “Aerodynamic Analysis
of the Truss-Braced Wing Aircraft Using Vortex-Lattice
Superposition Approach,” In 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, 2014, no. AIAA 2014-2597.
[14] D. P. Raymer. ”Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach,” 4th ed.,
AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Inc., Reston, Virginia, 2006.
[15] M. J. D. Powell, “Radial basis functions for multivariable
interpolation: a review, ” In: JC Mason (ed.) Algorithms for
approximation, 1987, pp.143–167.
[16] B. K. Beachkofski and R. V. Grandhi, “Improved distributed
hypercube sampling,” In: 43 rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ AHS/ASC
structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Apr. 2002,
no. AIAA 2002-1274.
[17] L. Laurent, “Stratégie multiparamétrique et métamodèles pour
l‟optimisation multiniveaux de structures,” Ph.D. dissertation, ENS
Cachan, Cachan, France, 2013.