comprehensive aircraft preliminary design … · comprehensive aircraft preliminary design...

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1

47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting 5-8 Jan 2009, Orlando, FL

Comprehensive Aircraft Preliminary Design Methodology Applied to the Design of MALE UAV

Liaquat U. Iqbal1 and John P. Sullivan2

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906

The Structured Design Methods such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Pugh’s concept generation and selection methods have been shown in the industry to improve the problem definition and design synthesis for the new products hence resulting in the better product design. The application is however limited in the aerospace industry, because the decisions are mostly based on the intuition, simplified back-of-the-envelope calculations and few hand-drawn sketches instead of any higher-fidelity design data using Computer Aided Design and Engineering (CAD/CAE) tools. This leads to the skepticism about the findings of such design methods and reduces their wider acceptance and application in the aerospace design. The examples showing significant improvements in the product definition solely based on the computationally supported design methods are almost negligible. This paper describes work undertaken to add quantitative analysis to these methods in order to reduce such deficiencies. A comprehensive approach has been applied to integrate the mission analysis with high fidelity CAD, CFD and FEA tools that in return provide high fidelity data to enter in the QFD matrix or Pugh’s Concept generation and selection matrix. MS Excel spreadsheet coupled to high level CAD and CAE tools has integrated several aircraft design disciplines for the preliminary design phase. The objective is to demonstrate that the application of Design Methods results in better problem specification and solution synthesis when the scores and rankings are based on the CAD and the high fidelity multidisciplinary design data from aerodynamics and structures. The integration methodology is also used to illustrate the unification of two distinct design phases in the traditional design process i.e. the conceptual and preliminary design into one Preliminary design phase. It is suggested that with the integration of CAD and CAE tools, one can perform all the activities and tasks in one unified phase with reduced design cycle time as compared with two separate design phases comprising of two separate teams. The Pugh’s Method is applied to generate, analyze and select the design concepts for a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAV utilizing high fidelity information.

Nomenclature BWB = Blended Wing Body CAD = Computer Aided Design CAE = Computer Aided Engineering CAM = Computer Aided Manufacturing CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics Cp = Coefficient of Pressure DBF = Design, Build, Fly FEM = Finite Element Methods FEA = Finite Element Analysis GSA = Generative Structural Analysis MALE = Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

1 Graduate Student, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Student Member AIAA. 2 Professor, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Member AIAA.

47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition5 - 8 January 2009, Orlando, Florida

AIAA 2009-431

Copyright © 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.


2

I. Introduction

ircraft design usually comprises of three distinct phases namely the Conceptual, Preliminary and Detail design. The conceptual design is characterized by understanding customer requirements, brainstorming for new ideas,

generation of design concepts, and selection of one or several design candidates. These design concepts are further refined and one concept is selected with configuration freeze at the end of the Preliminary Design phase. The major difficulty with the current approach is the fidelity or quality of the information that enters during these two phases in making some of the most critical decisions at configuration level. The lower fidelity information cannot help a lot in making the most crucial design choices and leads to poor product definition in these two phases.

Figure 1: The aircraft design phases and the level of decisions to be made. Phases picture from Ref. [1] CAD drawings are shown to illustrate the kinds of decisions being made during the Conceptual and Preliminary design phases;

1. What would be the overall configuration of the plane? A mono-plane or bi-plane? A conventional tube and wing, joined wing, flying wing, tailless or blended wing body configuration?

2. What type of empennage would be used? A conventional tail or canard design? If conventional tail, would it be T-tail, cruciform, V-Tail and so on. If canard, whether to use control-canard or lifting canard.

3. Whether or not to use wingtip devices? If yes, use winglets, raked tip, or end plates? 4. Wing placement would be middle, high or low? 5. What kind of propulsion system to use? Turbofan, turbojet or turboprop? How many engines to use and the

placement of these engines; underneath the wings, over the wings, aft fuselage mounted and so on? Whether to select an off the shelf engine or design for a new engine that would be developed along with the aircraft? With the latest environmental and energy crisis, use of alternate fuels, electrical propulsion, and hybrid systems have to be given a due consideration during this phase as well. In case any of these later choices are made, this alone could considerably change the designs and the design methodologies.

Question then arises; What is the Reason for the designers’ inability to correctly address the deficiencies in the problem definition the way it is being done at present? The answer lies in the very nature of the problem at hand;

Figure 2: The nature of the aircraft design: Weight and Balance, Aerodynamics, Structures and so on…..

A

The aircraft is a highly complex product comprising of disciplines such as weight and balance, aerodynamics, structures, dynamics and control, propulsion, and avionics. Problem is further aggravated due to the conflicting nature of these disciplines e.g. an aerodynamically efficient thinner wing would be structurally heavier. Difficulties may even exist within the same discipline such as aerodynamics. Flow regimes i.e. subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic, pose unique challenges. Wave drag rise and difficulties in modeling transonic flow behavior are some of the major challenges for the modern day aerodynamists. The examples of these disciplines and the fact that the aircraft design is truly a multidisciplinary iterative process appears in Figure 2.

The activities during each of these three phases along with the problems encountered appear in Figure 11. Ullman2 asserts that 80 % of the market delays are caused by the poor definition of the product. This product definition begins in the preliminary design phase and the huge disparity between importance and level of the decisions and the quality and fidelity of the supporting information is a major


3

II. Overview and the Impact of the Comprehensive Design Methodology

In order to address the multidisciplinary nature of the aircraft design and its challenges, an integrated approach is required that is capable of providing high fidelity information for the application of the Design Methods. Such an approach would result in comprehensive design synthesis that effectively meets the mission requirements. This approach requires the following steps;

Figure 3: Schematic of the integrated approach to the aircraft preliminary design utilizing High Fidel ity CAD, CFD, FEA Tools and Design Methods Unifying the Two Distinct Aircraft Design Phases into One Preliminary Design Phase This approach is targeted not only at improving the design, but the design process as well. The integrated approach that can simultaneously enable all the activities of the conceptual as well as preliminary design phases with higher fidelity can in effect remove the boundaries and merge the two phases into one preliminary design phase. This unification of phases is illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4: Merging the traditional conceptual and preliminary design phases of aircraft design

1. Given a set of mission requirements, perform mission analysis.

2. Integrate the aircraft design process using multi-fidelity, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) CAD, CFD and FEA Tools. Generate the design concepts utilizing the capabilities of this design integration.

3. Extract the design information suitable for the application of the design methods such as QFD3 and Pugh’s Method4.

4. Populate the scoring matrices in the design methods such as QFD or Pugh’s Method for the problem definition as well as the design synthesis.

This approach appears in Figure 3.


Figure 5: Integrated approach can remove the boundaries and imp

III.

To alleviate the problems with the current approach, the ability to incorporate high level designmodeling, CFD, and FEA is proposed for the application A. Overview of Pugh’s Method 4 Pugh’s Method is used to generate and select design concepts. The application of the Pugh’s method begins with a complete list of design concepts by comparing them with one of the conceptare compared with this Datum using the following ratin

Figure 6: Pugh’s Method of Controlled Convergence. Fig B. Overview of the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Quality Function Deployment (QFD)3 is a widely used design method in understanding the customer requirements? “The power of QFD is in its founding philosophy: the voice of the customer (organization does throughout the process of developing and delivering products and services”referred to as the House of Quality (HOQ) due to the way QFD components are organized as shown in following sections briefly describe the inputs in these components. Customer Requirements or WHATS (A)Customer Requirements or WHATs represent the VOC along with a ranking of how important each requirement is to the customer. This ranking is determined by communicating with the customer and ranked accordingly.

Conceptual Design

(Isolated phsae characterized

by least fidelity design tools)

1. If the concept being compared is betDatum, it gets a plus (+).

2. If the concept being compared is worse than the Datum, it gets a minus (-).

3. If the concept being compared is same as the Datum, it gets a same (S). Pugh recommends putting an ambiguous situations where no clear

Pugh’s Method is also called the Method of Controlled Convergence because it can “diverge” after the convergence in first round of concept selection as new concepts are generated based on first round of concept evaluation. A representation of this appears in Figure is that an exhaustive effort should go into laying out all of the possible candidates so that the method continues to converge to better and better design concepts as evaluation progresses.


4

Integrated approach can remove the boundaries and improve the overall design practices.

III. Theoretical Background

To alleviate the problems with the current approach, the ability to incorporate high level designis proposed for the application of the Pugh’s Method of concept generation and selection.

Pugh’s Method is used to generate and select design concepts. The application of the Pugh’s method begins with a complete list of design concepts by comparing them with one of the concepts as a Datum. The rest of the concepts are compared with this Datum using the following rating for each of a set of criteria;

: Pugh’s Method of Controlled Convergence. Figure reconstructed after Ref.[4]

Function Deployment (QFD) is a widely used design method in understanding the customer requirements?

“The power of QFD is in its founding philosophy: the voice of the customer (VOC) will drive everything an organization does throughout the process of developing and delivering products and services”referred to as the House of Quality (HOQ) due to the way QFD components are organized as shown in following sections briefly describe the inputs in these components.

Customer Requirements or WHATS (A) Customer Requirements or WHATs represent the VOC along with a ranking of how important each requirement is

e customer. This ranking is determined by communicating with the customer and ranked accordingly.

(Isolated phsae characterized

by least fidelity design tools)

Prelimnary Design

(Isolated Second phase

characterized by low to

medium fidelity tools:

Configuration Freeze)

Prelimnary Design

(Integarated initial design

phase charectrized by high

fidelity CAD, CFD and FEA

Tools and Design Methods)

Initial design

Concepts Reduced

New Concepts Added

C

C

C

If the concept being compared is better than the

If the concept being compared is worse than the

If the concept being compared is same as the Datum, it gets a same (S). Pugh recommends putting an S in ambiguous situations where no clear winner emerges

Pugh’s Method is also called the Method of Controlled it can “diverge” after the convergence

in first round of concept selection as new concepts are generated based on first round of concept evaluation. A

Figure 6. The critical aspect is that an exhaustive effort should go into laying out all of the possible candidates so that the method continues to converge

ts as evaluation progresses.

rove the overall design practices.

To alleviate the problems with the current approach, the ability to incorporate high level design tools such as CAD oncept generation and selection.

Pugh’s Method is used to generate and select design concepts. The application of the Pugh’s method begins with a s as a Datum. The rest of the concepts

is a widely used design method in understanding the customer requirements? VOC) will drive everything an

organization does throughout the process of developing and delivering products and services” 3. It is commonly referred to as the House of Quality (HOQ) due to the way QFD components are organized as shown in Figure 7. The

Customer Requirements or WHATs represent the VOC along with a ranking of how important each requirement is e customer. This ranking is determined by communicating with the customer and ranked accordingly.

Prelimnary Design

(Integarated initial design

phase charectrized by high

fidelity CAD, CFD and FEA

Tools and Design Methods)

“Controlled Convergence (CC) and Generation (CG)” of

Ideas

Initial design

C

C


5

Engineering Attributes or HOWS (B) The engineering attributes (called HOWs) are selected based on the customer requirements. The EAs are the measurable set of parameters that help meet the customer requirements satisfactorily. Customer Requirements and Engineering Attributes Relationship (C) With these WHATs and HOWs occupying the left and top floor of the house, first floor on the right side is used to see their relationship to ascertain the design drivers. To make this analysis meaningful, a numbered scale of 0 1 3 and 9 is used. 0 means no correlation (usually the box is left empty), 1 means weak positive relationship, 3 being somewhat related and 9 for the strongest positive relationship. Correlation Matrix (D) The roof of the QFD Matrix shows correlation of the Engineering Attributes (EAs) with each other. The aim of establishing such a correlation is to identify all the conflicts and agreements among various EAs that would become part of the product. There are different levels or percentages that are recommended in the literature suggesting certain correlation factor before proceeding with the design. This part is quite tedious but helps in seeing correlations that support each other and those competing against each other. Competition Benchmarking (E) The competition benchmarking is carried out to ascertain how new product competes against the existing ones in meeting each of the customer requirements. This helps in ensuring that the new design would exceed those benchmarks in meeting the customer requirements, an aspect that is very crucial to the success of the new product. Relative and Absolute Importance (F) Finally, the bottom section of the QFD chart is used to enter a computed total of all the scores given to EAs based on how well they would fulfill the customer requirements. This is ascertained on the absolute as well as the relative scale. Absolute scale is just the sum of the products of the relationship score with the customer rating. The relative importance is measured by summing all of these absolute scores and dividing each individual entry with this sum.

Figure 7: Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Figure reconstructed after Ref. [3]

IV. Examples from the Literature

Taylor and Weisshaar Ref.[5-7], have done an extensive work in the application of the design method called QFD to the wing design using an array of structural design tools ranging from low to high fidelity. The design candidates are evaluated based on various fidelity level structural analysis tools ranging from ASTROS to NASTRAN. The authors have demonstrated that the higher level structural design tools can be used during the conceptual design phase where critical, and configuration level decisions have to be made. Furthermore, these calculations have

E. Competition Benchmarking

C. Relationship between Customer Requirements and Engineering Attributes

A. Customer Requirements or WHATS

F. Relative and Absolute Importance

D. Correlation Matrix B. Engineering

Attributes or HOWS


6

formed the basis for making much more informed and rational choices during the concept selection process. The “funneling approach” towards higher fidelity structural analysis appears in Figure 8. This approach proceeds through a refinement of structural modeling as well as application of the analysis tools. The FEM1 model is generated by filling the entire wing with elastic medium and representative loads are applied to generate load paths. A refined model is then generated for the second stage of the structural design using ASTROS and NASTRAN. Nickol et al Ref. [8] have applied the DoD defined concept generation methodology called the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to generate and evaluate design concepts for the HALE UAV design. Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) is required by the Department of Defense (DoD) to be used at major milestone decision points (A, B, C etc.) for making selection among several design concepts. Ref.[9] defines it as, “an analytical comparison of the operational effectiveness, suitability, and Life-Cycle cost of alternatives that satisfy established capability needs”. The design concepts are generated using a proprietary tool developed by AeroVironment, Inc. and delivered to NASA Dryden Flight Research in 2004. The details of what the design tool actually does are not provided. However, the consideration of 16 design concepts as shown in Figure 8, including solar regenerative as well as consumable fuels, is more relevant from the industrial point of view.

Figure 8: QFD Application to the Wing Structural Design and AoA application to the HALE UAV Design Concepts, Figures from Ref.[7,9]

V. Illustration of the CAD and CAE Integration

Excel Spreadsheet as an Integration Tool The outline and implementation of the approach was given in detail in Ref. [10,11]. Schematic of the way Excel Spreadsheets21 are used in integrating these tools appears in Figure 9. Links have been created for CAE Tools that eliminate need for any kind of middleware;

Figure 9: Schematic of the Excel Spreadsheet as an Integration Tool

The idea is to layout the components of the methodology shown in Figure 3 in Excel spreadsheets where data entry and visualization is simple and convenient. Sizing methodologies from Raymer19 and Brandt20 are implemented to

1. Excel to Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive Application (CATIA) 12

2. Excel to CMARC13, Low Order Panel Code 3. Excel to Digital Wind Tunnel (DWT)14, Low

Order Panel Code 4. Excel to GAMBIT15, Grid Generator and

Preprocessor for FLUENT 5. Excel to FLUENT16, High End Full Navier-

Stokes CFD Solver 6. Excel to ANSYS17, High End FEM Solver

for Structural Analysis 7. Excel to CATIA Generative Structural

Analysis18, High End FEM Solver for Structural Analysis.


7

calculate the wing reference area. After the initial sizing, design information from various fidelity level CAD and CAE tools is utilized instead of continuing with the sizing and lofting methods described in Raymer. The first spreadsheet is called the GlobPar (Global Parameters) where the user enters geometry parameters such as wing aspect ratio, wing area, chord length, taper ratio, sweep, dihedral and twist angles. The SectionGlobalCoord (Sections Global Coordiantes) Spreadsheet is used for converting these geometry parameters into different sections’ coordinates in the aircraft global coordinate system. The airfoil, elliptic and circular sections are entered and updated in various spreadsheets that can be selected by the user to design a particular part of the aircraft.

Figure 10: The Geometry definition for the wing, body and winglet sections

A. Concept Generation in CAD

Figure 11: Rectangular wing transformed into various wing planforms and BWB

The ability to define the geometry in terms of sections allows transformation of a single rectangular wing comprising of several sections into any planform shape such as swept forward and backward, tapered, twisted and so on. The same rectangular wing can also be converted into BWB and flying wing concepts as shown in Figure 11. The same BWB or any other wing planform can be combined with the fuselage, and tail sections to create innumerable number of design concepts. The evolution of the two basic wing and tube concepts from BWB is shown in Figure 12. Finally, the joined wing concepts and other few examples are given in Figure 13.


Figure 12: CAD Evolution: A rectangular w

Figure

Figure 14: Illustration of the internal volum

B. The Structural Design MethodologyFigure 16 shows the methodology of the structural design in CATIA as well as ANSYS. The approach has been developed to suit the need of the preliminary designer considering various structural layouts including ribs and spar, all spar or hollow wing structures etc. This methodology allows lots of flexibility and efficiency to the structural designer who can design, analyze and optimlaborious and time consuming bottom up structural designs.


8

rectangular wing transformed into the BWB and wing and tube design

Figure 13: Variety of CAD Concepts

: Illustration of the internal volum e, Weight and CG Location measurements in CATIA

Design Methodology shows the methodology of the structural design in CATIA as well as ANSYS. The approach has been

eed of the preliminary designer considering various structural layouts including ribs and spar, all spar or hollow wing structures etc. This methodology allows lots of flexibility and efficiency to the structural designer who can design, analyze and optimize variety of concepts in fraction of the traditional time requiring laborious and time consuming bottom up structural designs.

wing and tube designs

e, Weight and CG Location measurements in CATIA

shows the methodology of the structural design in CATIA as well as ANSYS. The approach has been eed of the preliminary designer considering various structural layouts including ribs and spar,

all spar or hollow wing structures etc. This methodology allows lots of flexibility and efficiency to the structural ize variety of concepts in fraction of the traditional time requiring


Figure 15: Generation of the structural members

Figure 16: Complete Structural Layout along with the Structural Design Optimization

Figure 17: Summary of the Optimization data in both the tabular and graphical form in ANSYS

ANSYS17 offers built in design optimization tools that include basic design sweeps andDOE type optimization, gradient based optimization, topology optimization and probabilistic methods such as Monte Carlo simulations. Some of the methods included in ANSYS are;

1. Design sweeps using random iterations through certain iterations.

2. Sub-problem approximation method

3. First order optimization method4. Gradient based design sensitivity

at a given point in design space5. Global sweeps through global

design space starting from a single design set.

6. User-supplied external optimization

The Design Sweep and Sub-problem approximation methods were used in the current examples illustrated in the Applications Section. Figure 17 shows a summary of various design variables and the resulting objective function i.e. the volume of the design under consideration.


9

: Generation of the structural members in CATIA and ANSYS

Complete Structural Layout along with the Finite Element Model

.

Summary of the Optimization data in both the tabular and graphical form in ANSYS

offers built in design optimization s and

optimization, gradient based imization and

probabilistic methods such as Monte Carlo simulations. Some of the methods included

Design sweeps using random

First order optimization method ased design sensitivity

at a given point in design space Global sweeps through global design space starting from a single

approximation methods were used in the

shows a summary of various design variables and the resulting objective function i.e. the volume of the design under consideration.

Summary of the Optimization data in both the tabular and graphical form in ANSYS


10

VI. Application of the Design Methodology to the MALE UAV Design MALE UAV Design Requirements The wing design concepts were generated for meeting the typical Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAV mission requirements22;

Cruise Speed: 70 knots (35 m/s) Range = 400 nm (740km) Endurance =24 Hours Operating Altitude = 30,000 Feet (~10000 m) Payload = 750 lbs (340 kg)

High Fidelity CAD and CAE Data Generation The goal of the current approach is to perform the design integration and optimization suitable for the preliminary aircraft designers at a fraction of the time usually needed. This section illustrates the extraction of design information resulting from the high fidelity analysis and design explained in the foregoing. Table 1 graphically summarizes this information for subsequently applying the Pugh’s Method. Table 2 summarizes the quantitative results from the aerodynamic and structural design as well as the measurements from FEA as well as CAD. Table 1: Summary of CAD Drawings, Pressure Distributions and Stress Distribution for the Design Concepts CAD Geometry Cp Distribution

Computed in CMARC Structural Results: Von Mises Stress Distribution Calculated in ANSYS

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-4


11

Table 2: Summary of the Data from CAD and CAE

Concept Label

Concept Description

Geometric Characteristics

Aerodynamics (L/D Ratio)

Structural Characteristics

Internal Volume

(m3)

Structural Weight (kg)

Max Von Mises Stress (MPa)

C-1 Untapered-

Wing-Body 23.26 51.99 1056.77

85.82

C-2 Untapered-Wing-Body w/ Dihedral

23.26 51.35 1058.97 85.80

C-3 Tapered Wing-Body

23.26 52.88 790.59

220.32

C-4 Tapered Wing-Body w/ Dihedral

23.26 52.39 829.85

165.71

VII. Application of the Pugh’s Method Given the graphical depiction of various design concepts as well as the quantitative results summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, the Pugh’s Method can be applied to make some choices as to which of the design concepts best suits the MALE UAV’s mission.

Table 3: Application of the Pugh’s Method: First Iteration

C-1 Untapered-Wing-Body

C-2 Untapered Wing-Body w/ Dihedral


C-4 Tapered Wing-Body w/ Dihedral

MTOGW

Untapered- Wing Body

- + + Fuel / Payload Volume S S S Manufacturability - - - Range / Endurance - + + Sum (+) 0 2 2 Sum (-) 3 1 2 Sum (S) 1 1 1

Based on the scoring of various concepts, two tapered wing concepts i.e. C-3 and C-4 outperform the datum as well as the untapered wing-body dihedral concept. Major advantage comes from the structural weight and the aerodynamics in terms of the L/D ratio. At this point, there are two remaining concepts that fulfill mission and finally compete against each other to be down selected to one. A second iteration of the Pugh’s Method is applied to discern which of the two concepts is the best given the design information at hand. Table 3 summarizes the results where the Tapered wing-body is taken as the datum to compare against the tapered dihedral concept. Since the tapered wing-body has advantage in all the categories with the exception of same internal volume, C-3 Tapered Wing-Body concept emerges as the lightest and more aerodynamically efficient concept. This illustrates the viability of the proposed methodology as well as the Pugh’s Method in leading to a design concept that would best fulfill the mission while competing with some close contenders that have the ability to fulfill the same mission but not so well.


12

Table 3: Application of the Pugh’s Method: Second Iteration

C-3 Tapered Wing-Body C-4 Tapered Wing-Body w/ Dihedral

MTOGW


- Fuel / Payload Volume S Manufacturability - Range / Endurance - Sum (+) 0 Sum (-) 3 Sum (S) 1

VIII. Conclusion The high fidelity CAD and CAE tools have been integrated using Excel Spreadsheet to provide geometric,

aerodynamic, and structural design results at a fraction of the time traditionally needed for such design and analysis. Various concepts were generated for the MALE UAV mission in CAD using CATIA V5 ranging from wing- body configurations with and without taper. The computational as well as graphical results from the aerodynamics design in CMARC and structural design and optimization in ANSYS were extracted and organized in the form of tables for guiding the choices in applying the Pugh’s Method of concept generation and selection. The Pugh’s Method is shown to be applied with more certainty and clarity within the scope of the defined mission. It is shown that the method primarily relies on the computations and not on the experience and feelings of the designer. The example application leads to the selection of the lightest concept when an overall scoring factor is used. This helps in removing some of the major concerns aircraft designers have about the use of the structured design methods including their qualitative nature of traditional application to some of the most intricate decisions from aerodynamics and structures disciplines. It is envisioned that as the proposed design integration and optimization matures and a larger number of design candidates computed through parallel and other advanced computing techniques, much improvement in the overall design would be realizable with higher fidelity, right during the preliminary design phase.

IX. Acknowledgements

Mr. Usman’s help with the MATLAB programming is greatly appreciated.

References 1Raymer, D. P., “Enhancing Aircraft Conceptual Design Using Multidisciplinary Optimization”, Doctoral

Thesis, May 2002, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Sweden. 2Ullman D. G., “Understanding the Problem and the Development of Engineering Specifications,” Chapter 6,

The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 111- 135. 3Hunter, M. R., and Van Landingham, R. D., "Listening to the Customer Using QFD," Quality Progress, Vol.

27, No. 4, Apr. 1994, pp. 55-59. 4Pugh, S., "Conceptual Design," Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison-

Wesley, 1991, pp. 67-100.


13

5Taylor R. M., and Weisshaar T., “A. Merging computational structural tools into multidisciplinary team-based design” AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 8th, Long Beach, CA, Sept. 6-8, 2000 AIAA-2000-4820.

6Taylor R. M., Weisshaar T., and Sarukhanov V., “Structural design progress improvement using evolutionary finite element models” AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, 42nd, Seattle, WA, Apr. 16-19, 2001 AIAA-2001-1630.

7Taylor R. M., Weisshaar T., and Sarukhanov V., “Structural Design Process Improvement Using Evolutionary Finite Element Models” Journal of Aircraft, Vol.43 No.1, 2006 pp.172-181.

8 Nickol C. Guynn M. D., Kohout, L. L., and Ozoroski T.A., “High Altitude Long Endurance Air Vehicle Analysis of Alternatives and Technology Requirements Development”, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 8 - 11 January 2007, Reno, Nevada.

9https://akss.dau.mil/dag/GuideBook/IG_c3.3.asp 10Iqbal, L. U., Sullivan, J. P., "Integrated Suite for the Aircraft Design Integration, Optimization and

Manufacturing", Proceedings of the International Conference on Comprehensive Product Realization (ICCPR), June 18-20, 2007, Beihang, China.

11Iqbal, L. U., Sullivan, J. P., "Application of an Integrated Approach to the UAV Conceptual Design", Proceedings of the 46th AIAA Aero Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 7-10, 2008.

12CATIA V5, CAD Package, Ver. 5, IBM Corporation,1 New Orchard Road Armonk, New York 10504-1722. 13CMARC / POSTMARC, Panel Code, Software Package, Ver. 6.4.1, Aerologic Inc. 1613 Altivo Way Los

Angeles, CA 90026-2025. 14DWT Panel Code, Software Package, Ver. 6.4.1, Aerologic Inc. 1613 Altivo Way Los Angeles, CA 90026-

2025. 15FLUENT, CFD Package, Software Package, Ver. 6.3, Fluent Inc. 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766. 16GAMBIT, FLUENT CFD Package, Software Package, Ver. 6.3, Fluent Inc. 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon,

NH 03766. 17ANSYS Academic Teaching Advanced, Software Package, Ver. 11., ANSYS Inc. 02855 Telegraph Avenue,

Suite 501, Berkeley, CA 94705. 18CATIA, SIMULIA, The Dassault Systèmes Rising Sun Mills, 166 Valley Street, Providence, RI 02909-2499. 19Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Fourth Edition, AIAA Education Series, 2004. 20Brandt, et al, “Constraint Analysis: Designing to a Requirement,” Introduction to Aeronautics, AIAA, Reston,

VA, 1997, pp. 197-203. 21MS Excel, Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-6399. 22 U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet MQ-1 PREDATOR, http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=122&page=1

comprehensive aircraft preliminary design … · comprehensive aircraft preliminary design...

Documents