Integration of External Design Criteria with MSC.

Nastran Structural Analysis and Optimization*

Paper No. 2001-15 D.K. Barker and J.C. Johnson Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas Daniel.K.Barker@lmco.com E.H. Johnson and D.P. Layfield MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, California ABSTRACT Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LM Aero) has partnered with MSC.Software Corporation to implement enhancements in the core MSC.Nastran 2001 software product. New features include enhancements to the existing laminate modeling capability, improved software integration methods (including the emerging MSC.Nastran Toolkit), and the development of a new capability, external responses for SOL 200. This paper describes the new functional features of the core MSC.Nastran product, demonstrates existing integration with LM Aero structural analysis processes, and describes ongoing integration with the new external response features. Further, two example problems demonstrate the benefit of new MSC.Nastran features, as well as, compare and contrast the fully stressed design (FSD) and math programming (MP) design methodologies. INTRODUCTION The aerospace industry has traditionally relied on regimented hand-stress analysis processes to perform detail air-vehicle analysis and sizing. Automated structural optimization methods have been successfully used in the preliminary design arena to develop fundamental laminate tailoring concepts to satisfy certain system-level requirements, such as aeroelastic effectiveness and roll performance (Refs 1-4). However, production drawing release demands a rigorous assessment of detail strength analysis criteria, which are not effectively accommodated during the preliminary design cycle. Therefore, production air-vehicle programs devote significant manpower to analyzing freebody loads developed through finite element analysis (FEA), performing detail structural analysis criteria checks, and providing necessary increments to structural gages where necessary. LM Aero relies on a highly customized and proprietary suite of analysis methods to assess structural strength criteria including panel buckling (Ref 5), local effects due to panel pressure (Ref 6), and fastener criteria (Ref 7). However, stress analysts often spend a disproportionate amount of time recovering and interpreting data from FEA to provide input to the detail structural analysis utilities, rather than actually performing and interpreting the analysis criteria results. As diagramed in Figure 1 , the traditional detail structural analysis and sizing cycle consists of development of the FEA internal loads data, assessment of detail structural analysis criteria, and applying increments to structural gages as required. It is well understood that changes to structural gage (i.e., structural stiffness) result in changes to the internal load distribution, which may render the current structural criteria analysis invalid. Therefore, additional detail structural analysis and sizing cycles may be performed in an attempt to account for redistribution of internal load. In some cases, when changes to structural stiffness are significant, external loads are recomputed to consider changes in aeroelastic behavior. Finally, the man-in-the-loop represents the physical task of engineering data handoff between processes and represents opportunities for data integration. Therefore, LM Aero has developed seamless
Internal Loads Database Detail Structural Analyses Structural Sizing

Updated External Loads

Figure 1. Hand Stress Analysis Consumes Time

* Copyright 2001 Lockheed Martin Corporation. All rights reserved. Published by the MSC.Software Corporation with permission.

interfaces (using the MSC.Nastran Toolkit) between its structural analysis criteria software and FEA result data to automate the detail sizing tasks. Similarly, LM Aero recognizes the benefit of incorporating detail structural analysis criteria early in preliminary design and has long been a player in the development and validation of FEA -based, multidis ciplinary design optimization methods (Refs 8 -10). The ability to consider detail structural analysis criteria up front in the design process allows the stress analysis community to have a voice in the determination of basic design concepts. For instance, FEA-based, multidisciplinary design optimization methods (such as MSC.Nastran SOL 200) provide the means to acquire sensitivity of structural weight to configuration-level criteria such as roll effectiveness and structural weight to detailed structural member criteria such as strength allowables. Therefore, improved integration with SOL 200 was additionally sought by LM Aero and further led to the specification and development of external response criteria using the new DRESP3 capability. MSC.NASTRAN ENHANCEMENTS LM Aero has recognized the need for improved integration between its in-house detail structural analysis criteria and FEA result data. In late 1999, LM Aero partnered with MSC.Software Corporation to implement enhancements to the core MSC.Nastran software product to accomplish this end. Specifically, enhancements were implemented in three separate areas simplified laminate modeling techniques for evolving structure, enhancements for improved integration with LM Aero in-house methods, and development of external response criteria for SOL 200. The following paragraphs describe these enhancements, which are available in MSC.Nastran 2001. Laminate Modeling Enhancements The primary motivation for the new PCOMP capability (Ref 11) is to support the use of composite materials in a preliminary design stage where stacking sequence effects are considered secondary and would impede the development of high-quality candidate design. This is particularly useful when the composite description is used with an automated design procedure such as SOL 200 in MSC.Nastran or a client in-house procedure. Prior to version 2001, stacking sequence does impact the stiffness of the laminate and, therefore, the results. In an automated design context, it is often reasonable to assume the effects on the results are small, especially for aircraft

structures since membrane effects typically dominate the response in wing skins. New laminate options have been provided on the PCOMP entry (via the LAM field) to enable simplified laminate specification. The MEM option neglects the stacking sequence effects since these effects are only present in the bending terms. The SMEAR option is a compromise solution that includes the bending effects by assuming the plies are uniformly distributed through the laminate and membrane/bending coupling effects are ignored. The SMCORE option is a further refinement allowing a simple modeling of a frequently encountered sandwich panel design. The stacking sequence of the plies in the face sheet are again ignored and a uniform distribution is assumed across two equivalent face sheets, but now the offset due to the known core thickness can be included. The BEND option is provided for completeness and can be thought to provide a simple interface to situations where bending effects dominate. MSC.Nastran develops mass and stiffness data from PCOMP input in a two-step process. First, PCOMP input data are considered together with material data referenced by MIDi attributes to produce PSHELL/MAT2 combinations leading to the required stiffness results and then the spawned data are used in the actual stiffness and mass calculations. Currently, the spawned PSHELL has four, nonblank MIDi attributes, identifying the MAT2 entries to be used for membrane, bending, transverse shear and membrane bending coupling. The MEM, BEND, SMEAR and SMCORE options are readily implemented in the following manner. MEM The spawned PSHELL has MID1 (membrane) only with the MID2, MID3, MID4, 12I/T**3 and TS/T fields set as blanks. BEND In this case, the spawned PSHELL has MID2 (bending) only with MID1, MID3, MID4, 12I/T**3 and TS/T fields set as blanks. SMEAR In this case, the spawned PSHELL has MID1=MID2 with MID3 and MID4 plus the 12I/T**3 and TS/T fields set as blanks. This results in a bending term given as: (1) [ B] = T 3 [ A] / 12 I

SMCORE The SMCORE laminate is analogous to a sandwich core laminate consisting of equivalent upper and lower SMEARd face sheets separated by a core thickness offset (Figure 2 ). Computation of the membrane and bending stiffness matrices is performed using the following derivation. Note that membrane-bending coupling is ignored. Definitions Tface = T1 + T2 + + TN-1 (total thickness of both SMEARd face sheets) (2) (3)

G xy =
Moment of Inertia

A 33 t face
2

(9)

I xx

t t face t core + face 2 t3 = I yy = + face (10) 4 48

t3 face 12
if t core is zero. (11)

This collapses to

Bending Stiffness Matrix

Tcore = TN

(core thickness offset)

D 11 =
SMEARd laminate Thickness Offset SMEARd laminate

E x I xx
E y I yy

(1.
(1.

xy

yx )
yx )

(12)

D 22 =

(13)

xy

D 12 = D 21 =
Figure 2. Sandwich Core Laminate Defined Using PCOMP LAM=SMCORE Option

D11 xy E y Ex

(14)

D 33 = G xy I xx

(15) (16)

Membrane Stiffness Matrix The membrane stiffness matrix, [A], is computed using method utilized by LAM=BLANK assuming core stiffness (layer N) is zero. Face Sheet Properties

D13 = D31 = D 23 = D 32 = 0
Improved Integration Methods

[AI ] = [A]1
xy = AI12 AI yx = AI 12 AI
11

(4)

(5)

(6)
22

Ex = Ey =

A11(1.0 xy yx ) t face A22 (1.0 xy yx ) t face

(7)

(8)

During the course of the development partnership, LM Aero was given access to an emerging product, MSC.Nastran Toolkit (Ref 12), to explore advanced software integration techniques and provide feedback to MSC.Software to improve the planned commercial product. The MSC.Nastran Toolkit provides the necessary tools (application programming interfaces) to write customized, standalone applications that communicate with the MSC.Nastran program using client-server technology. The Toolkit provides the mechanism to create standalone applications that can access all of MSC.Nastran's functionality and components (i.e., matrix operations, utilities, engineering (FE) functions, and database management system) and incorporate these into a modern software framework as shown in Figure 3 . This framework facilitates multitier architectures, Web-enabled applications, and the distribution of MSC.Nastran's functionality across different host computers.

External Responses for MSC.Nastran

DATABASE User Written Client Program API MSC-Supplied Client Object Lib. API MSC.Nastran Executable MSC.Nastran DMAP Library

Figure 3. Framework of the MSC.Nastran Toolkit

LM Aero use of the MSC.Nastran Toolkit focused primarily on access to data on the MSC.Nastran database and interactive control and data transfer within a DMAP sequence (i.e., DMAP breakpoint control). As a result of LM Aero evaluation, many enhancements were made to the Toolkit to improve speed and efficiency. In particular, datablock indexing was implemented to enable partial recovery of a datablock record (e.g., element results for a user-specified list of element IDs, as an alternative to default recovery of the entire record of all element result data). Additionally, enhancements were made to enable server reconnect by a child process, rather than requiring server restart. In addition, evaluation of the MSC.Nastran Toolkit highlighted the desire to recover element results (stress, strain, and force) in the material coordinate system. MSC.Nastran has traditionally stored element results in the element coordinate system and placed the burden on downstream post-processing utilities to perform the transformation from the element coordinate system to the material coordinate system. To support useful and straightforward data recovery, a new option has been provided that allows users to specify element response quantities be produced in the material coordinate system. The new capability is limited to CQUAD4, CTRIA3, CQUAD8 and CTRIA6 for element force, stress and strain responses, and provides output in the coordinate system defined using the THETA/MCID field on their associated bulk data entries. Both element center and element corner results are output in the material system. The user specifies the desire to store results in the material coordinate system by setting the PARAM OMID equal to YES in the input bulkdata stream. When the OMID parameter is activated, element result data in material coordinate system are reported in the standard output file, .f06, and are available for direct recovery from the MSC.Nastran database.

The design optimization capability (SOL 200) in MSC.Nastran has a preexisting feature allowing the user to create a synthetic response (implemented using the DRESP2 bulkdata entry). However, the types of variables a synthetic response can use are limited to the data available from MSC.Nastran. A new external response feature (Ref 13) further extends the synthetic response by allowing the user to define a custom response using either in-house programs or any application programs written in Fortran, C, or other computer languages. Therefore, general and proprietary responses can be used either as an objective or a constraint in a design. The external response feature is implemented in SOL 200 with client server technology. The design optimization module in SOL 200 is the client and user-supplied routines form the server. Whenever the optimization module requires the value of an external response, it sends the request to the server. On request, the server invokes the user-supplied routines to calculate the response and returns the value to the client. The communication between the client and server programs is established through the application programming interface (API) routines. Figure 4 shows the implementation scheme for the external response capability.
Server1 External Criteria

MSC.Nastran

API

Server2

Server i

i = 1..10

Figure 4. Scheme of the External Response Capability The implementation scheme for the external response capability can be accomplished in two parts. First, the end-user must develop a functional criteria server, which computes the intended response value based on MSC.Nastran-supplied input. Second, the enduser must define the external response functions within the input bulkdata stream using the new DRESP3 bulkdata entry. The DRESP3 bulkdata entry identifies underlying model properties and response quantities (either intrinsic or synthetic), which are required by the external criteria server. Additionally, the DRESP3 bulkdata entry provides a

mechanism to specify user-defined parameters (e.g., nonmodeled parameters like panel dimensions, fastener layout, etc.). Therefore, the implementation scheme is general and supports integration of any external criteria available to the user. AUTOMATION OF DETAILED ANALYSIS AND SIZING LM Aero has developed an automated detail sizing process called AS3 (Automated Sequential Sizing System), which is essentially an extended fully stressed design (FSD) sizing methodology ( Figure 5 ). FSD is a shorthand term that is used to refer to the automated design technique that performs a resizing based on the current design and the structural response of that design. In its most basic manifestation, a structural member that exceeds a prescribed allowable, such as stress, is increased in size while a member that is below its allowable stress is decreased in size. The assumption is that a limited number of design cycles that use this technique will arrive at a design wherein the response in each element is at its allowable value. The AS3 sizing utility provides seamless interfaces to in-house structural strength criteria procedures and has influenced implementation of basic FSD methodology in the core MSC.Nastran product (Ref 14).

Therefore, to generate a more practical design, additional options have been implemented; such as, minimum gage, property linking, ply percentage criteria, and property drop-off criteria. Integration of external strength criteria with the MSC.Nastran database and implementation of practicality criteria are discussed in the following paragraphs. External Strength Criteria The XSTREAM software module was developed to enable seamless finite-element (FE) data Xtraction for STRuctural Engineering Analysis Methods. Using this capability, analysis methods driven by ASCII input stream(s) can be directed to run with data automatically recovered from one or more FE result databases, as depicted in Figure 6 . This approach is different than traditional approaches since the analysis method or application does not require any modification. The analysis application remains a stand-alone tool and the XSTREAM utility provides interfaces to the input and output files. A significant benefit of this approach is that the analysis application requires no knowledge of the FE model (element connectivity, property definition, results, etc.). The XSTREAM utility recovers both required FE result data and user-defined reference data and provides the required information to the analysis application through the ASCII input stream. The BATCH packet concept is used to define a template input file with imbedded data recovery commands. Data recovery commands are replaced with the requested data items to generate the desired input file. Using the XSTREAM-generated input file, the analysis application generates its standard output file, which is then interpreted by the XSTREAM utility.
Elem. Set Ref. Variables FE Result DB Template File

Parse Input File

Execute NASTRAN Solution Evaluate Element Criteria Evaluate Practicality Criteria Update FE Bulkdata Generate VIEW Results

Batch File Generator

Converged ? yes

no
Input File

Figure 5. AS3 Process Flow Many strength criteria options have been implemented in AS3, including stress, strain, panel buckling, panel pressure, and fastener criteria. However, it would not be wise or practical to build a structure where each of thousands of elements has been individually sized to just meet an allowable.

Detail Analysis Tool

Title: Subtitle: Material: Panel Width: Panel Length: Panel Thick: Load Case 1: Load Case 2:

Buckling Analysis Conceptual Input >>DBGET REFVAR >>DBGET REFVAR >>DBGET REFVAR >>DBGET PROP >>DBGET RESULT >>DBGET RESULT

Output File

Figure 6. Seamless Integration of External Strength Criteria

Integration with the MSC.Nastran database is accomplished through the Batch File Generator (depicted in Figure 6 ) and relies on the MSC.Nastran Toolkit API to accomplish FEA data recovery. Using the XSTREAM method, LM Aero has developed standard interfaces for three in-house developed and maintained structural strength criteria procedures: panel buckling and strain optimization (TM1), local effects due to panel pressure (PRESS), and fastener criteria (IBOLT). The TM1 procedure optimizes flat or curved panels subject to any combination of membrane loads. The procedure computes panel thickness as well as the proper proportions of 0-deg, 90-deg, and 45-deg plies to provide minimum panel weight without violating strength or buckling constraints. Strength constraints are based on the allowable lamina fiber strains defined by the user or recovered from the material database. Buckling constraints are calculated using equations for buckling of a simply-supported rectangular, orthotropic plate. The PRESS executable process calculates bending moments, in-plane loads, strains, and the maximum deflection of a flat laminated, rectangular panel loaded with a uniform pressure distribution. The element criteria function/interface recovers the PRESS computed results, which capture the local strain effects at the panel edges (boundary conditions) and panel center (maximum deflection). The interface computes strain margins based on userspecified or material database allowables and additionally computes the required panel thickness (and ply percentages for orthotropic panel construction). IBOLTs capabilities include the analysis of a rectangular plate of known thickness and geometry with a hole in its center. This configuration is subjected to biaxial tension, off-axis bearing, and shear loads. IBOLT also incorporates material type, operating temperature, and moisture content into its analysis of stiffness, strength and strain. This interface computes fastener criteria margins and predicts required element thickness increment for the combined effect of in-plane load due to the statics FE solution and the lateral pressure load. The previously described procedure, PRESS, is used to compute the internal load increment due to lateral pressure load.

Practicality Criteria Practicality criteria are applied to the intermediate properties defined by the previously evaluated strength criteria, if specified by the user. Many practicality criteria options are available, such as minimum gage, property linking, ply-percentage upper and lower bounds, and maximum property drop-off rate. Of these criteria, the property drop-off rate criterion deserves further explanation. The property drop-off rate between neighboring elements is evaluated according to the following equation: rate = (prop0 - prop1) / distance (17)

where, propi is element property value of the parent (0) or adjacent (1) element and distance is computed along element surfaces between adjacent centroids. Figure 7 shows how this control is applied to ensure that thickness changes occur at an acceptable rate. Three contiguous 2-D elements are shown with initial thicknesses and intermediate strength criteria increments. The edge view of the elements shows their relative thicknesses along with an allowable property drop-off rate indicated by a solid line. The actual property drop-off rate moving from element 2 to element 1 is less than the allowable drop-off rate, an acceptable situation. The actual ply drop-off rate moving from element 2 to element 3 is greater than the allowable drop-off rate, an unacceptable situation. In this case, AS3 would revise the thickness of element 3 to meet the drop-off rate criterion as shown. The property drop-off rate criterion can be applied to any number of elements in a user-specified set. For any given element, AS3 checks all adjacent elements (those sharing nodes with the given element) for compliance with the ply drop-off rate criterion. As AS3 continues to apply the criterion to all elements in the element set, thickness changes that were made to adjacent elements may then affect other elements that are neighbors of the adjacent elements. Thus, property drop-off criteria increments may propagate over many elements to reduce a steep intermediate property gradient.

Element Centroid
1 2 3

Plan View of 2-D Element Strip

Actual DropOff Rate Allowable Drop-Off Rate

Allowable Drop-Off Rate Actual DropOff Rate

Initial Thickness Intermediate Thickness Revised Thickness

Applied static loads for SOL 101 are summarized in Table 1 . The load envelope is predominantly positive wing bending with slightly different torsion for each condition. A structural analyst would intuitively suspect the upper skin to be subject to compression and stability effects and the lower skin to be subject to tension effects. Therefore, one would expect the sized upper skin laminate to be dominated by a combination of 0 -deg plies, in order to satisfy compression strain criteria, and 45-deg plies, to satisfy panel stability. Meanwhile, the upper 90-deg plies should remain largely insignificant. However, one would expect the sized lower skin to be dominated by 0-deg plies to satisfy the tension strain criteria, while the 45-deg and 90-deg plies should remain largely insignificant. Table 1. Applied Static Load Conditions FZ MX* MY* Condition (103 lb) (106 in-lb) (106 in-lb) 1 43.316 2.231 -1.027 2 42.533 2.211 - .447 * Moments summed about wing root at mid-chord. Design criteria are shown in Table 2 . Strength criteria include strain and buckling criteria on the wing skins, and stress criteria on the understructure (spar/rib caps and webs). Additionally, practicality criteria are applied to enforce minimum gage, ply percentage, and property drop-off rate boundaries. Table 2. Design Criteria (FSD Methodology)

Edge View of 2-D Element Strip

Figure 7. Control of Property Taper Rate Once all the strength criteria and practicality criteria increments have been evaluated, an updated FE bulkdata file is generated and a post-processing file is developed, as depicted previously in Figure 5 . If property increments are small and satisfy the convergence criteria, the automated detail sizing process concludes. Otherwise, additional sizing iterations are performed until convergence is reached or the maximum iterations have been performed. FSD Demonstration Problem The intermediate complexity wing (ICW) of Figure 8 has been used by several automated design procedures to demonstrate their utility. This demonstration applies the LM Aero automated detail sizing utility, AS3, to size both composite wing skins and metallic understructure simultaneously. The composite skins are modeled using the PCOMP LAM=SMEAR option, include 0 -deg, 45-deg and 90-deg plies, and the 0-deg reference is oriented parallel to the box leading edge.
Skins 64 elements (4 layers/element) Caps 110 elements Webs 55 elements

Part Skins

Strength Criteria fiber strain 2200 tension 2000 comp. panel stability axial stress 27 ksi tension 28 ksi compression max shear stress 24 ksi

Practicality Criteria min. layer = 0.025 in. min. ply % > 8% max. ply % < 60% drop-off rate < 0.02* min. gage = 0.05 in. drop-off rate < 0.015* min. gage = 0.025 in. drop-off rate < 0.02*

Caps

Webs

* Drop-off rate defined by Equation 17. Each element in the FE model (including each laminate ply) is sized uniquely, resulting in 421 design variables. However, laminate torsion stiffness is balanced by linking the +45-deg and 45-deg plies, thereby reducing the total to 357 independent design variables.

Figure 8. Intermediate Complexity Wing Model

To improve the design convergence, a design variable move restriction is implemented using the following equation. Tenforced = (Trequired / Tinit ) T init where, is the relaxation factor Tinit is the initial property value Trequired is property required by strength criteria Tenforced is the enforced property value. By enforcing only a fraction of the computed sizing increment at completion of the design iteration, the possibility of overshooting the actual required increment is minimized. To demonstrate this effect, three separate designs were achieved using relaxation factors of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.00. Each design solution was allowed to perform 10 design iterations. As shown in Figure 9 , the total design weight converges at different rates for each design (as quickly as one iteration for =1.0 and up to 4 iterations for =0.5). Thus, in each case, the FSD methodology has demonstrated a total design weight (representative of criteria applied) can be predicted rapidly and confidently in a minimal number of iterations. (18)
Min Margin of Safety

Critical Criteria Convergence

0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 -0.35 -0.4 -0.45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Alpha=0.50 Alpha=0.75 Alpha=1.00 8 9 10

Iteration Number

Figure 10. Criteria Convergence Characteristics (FSD Methodology) Further, negative margins of safety are still present in the model even after 10 FSD sizing cycles. After the tenth iteration, the most critical element has a margin of safety of approximately 0.1 and is attributed primarily to a single element. Element 261 (a ROD element, which is the most inboard element on the lower aft-spar cap) is the most critical element for analyses 2 thru 10. The wing box root boundary is simplistically modeled using a clamped boundary condition and results in a load chasing effect, which highlights a limitation of the FSD methodology. A fundamental assumption of FSD is that the internal load distribution remains constant as structural properties (and, therefore, structural stiffness) are redistributed. Therefore, the sizing process is unable to detect that increasing the stiffness of element 261 results in a nearly equivalent increase in structural load. As shown in Figure 11 , the significance of the localized effect is illustrated by excluding all ROD elements in the lower aft spar cap from the criteria convergence assessment.

Objective Convergence
190 180 Total Weight (lb) 170 160 150 140 130 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Iteration Number Alpha=0.50 Alpha=0.75 Alpha=1.00

Critical Criteria Convergence

0 Min Margin of Safety -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Iteration Number 9 10 All Elements Lower Aft Spar Cap Excluded

Figure 9. Objective Convergence Characteristics (FSD Methodology) However, as demonstrated in Figure 10 , the design criteria converges at a much slower rate, indicating that the structural weight continues to be redistributed for many iterations. For this demonstration problem, criteria convergence requires 8 iterations if =0.5.

Figure 11. Criteria Conve rgence History (FSD Methodology, =0.5)

Having recognized this phenomenon, engineering logic would certainly prevail in an actual application and thickness would be artificially added to other skin elements to reduce the localized stress concentration. The computed laminate increment from iteration 8 to 9 is displayed in Figure 12 and provides further insight into the load chasing effect. A similar trend can be observed at each sizing iteration thickness is added to the laminate aft of the center spar, while thickness is removed from forward of the center spar. The net result is that internal load is slowly redistributed toward the aft portion of the wing and the sized structure has to continually adjust to increasing internal load incurred at the aft portion of the structure. Therefore, the analyst would likely elect to artificially add a small increment to the laminate forward of the center spar to counteract the load chasing effect. Application of the artificial laminate increment is merely identified as a likely design strategy and is not demonstrated in this paper.
Increment (in.) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R -0.0055 -0.0050 -0.0045 -0.0040 -0.0035 -0.0030 -0.0025 -0.0020 -0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0005 -0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030

Figure 13. Upper Skin Critical Criteria and Margins of Safety (FSD Methodology) The laminate total thickness contour for the upper skin at iteration 8 is displayed in Figure 14 . As anticipated, the general characteristic is that the thickness decreases as a function of span. Also, total thickness tends to increase with chord (from fore to aft). This result is consistent with the aft swept wing, which tends to maximize wing-root bending moment at the aft portion of the root boundary condition. Also, the maximum laminate thickness does not occur at the location of maximum wing bending moment, but instead occurs at the third element outboard of the aft-most wing-root element. Since rib spacing is reduced at the wing-root trailing edge, less thickness is required to satisfy panel stability.

Figure 12. Upper Skin Laminate Increment (iteration 8, =0.5) Once the load chasing phenomenon is understood, it is apparent that the best solution is certainly not the last iteration. Since the critical design criteria achieve convergence at iteration 8 (for =0.5), subsequent iterations are merely an opportunity to absorb internal load in the aft structure (although the relaxa tion factor limits this effect). Evaluation of the sized property contours for iterations 7 thru 10 confirm that the model has essentially converged and, therefore, iteration 8 is selected as the best design. The quality of design iteration 8 is further illustrated in Figure 13 , which displays a plot of critical criteria types and margins of safety for each element in the upper skin. All margins are close to zero and vary from a maximum margin of 0.181 to a minimum critical margin of -.040.

Figure 14. Upper Skin Laminate Thickness (FSD Methodology)

Laminate ply percentage contours for the upper skin at iteration 8 are provided in Figure 15 . Again, sized physical properties are consistent with anticipated results. The 0-deg plies and 45-deg plies are dominate throughout the laminate, while the 90-deg plies remain at or near the minimum ply percentage boundary of 8 percent. The concentration of 0-deg plies is greatest at the aft portion of the wing root, where wing-bending moment (and consequently 0 deg fiber strain) is the greatest. In general, the concentration of 0-deg plies tends to decrease as a function of span and associated decrease in wing-bending moment. Similarly, a significant concentration of 45-deg plies is required throughout the laminate in order to provide panel stability. However, the reverse trend is observed for the 45-deg plies. In general, the concentration of 45-deg plies tends to increase as a function of increased span, which is consistent with the transition from a 0-deg compression-dominate buckling mode (i.e., wing bending) at the wing-root to a shear-dominate buckling mode (i.e., wing torsion) at mid-span.

adjacent aft-spar cap element required a property increment to satisfy the property drop-off criterion. However, the overall effect is two-fold. First, as initially intended, the spar cap is enforced to maintain a more gradual reduction in cross-sectional area and, thereby, result in a more practical and manufacturable structural component. Second, by adding structural property increments around the local build-up, the internal load concentration is likewise redistributed across a larger area and the peak internal load is reduced. Therefore, for this demonstration problem, the rate of the load chasing phenomenon is further reduced. INTEGRATION WITH MSC.NASTRAN OPTIMIZATION SEQUENCE LM Aero is providing extended integration of its inhouse developed procedures to support multidisciplinary, structural optimization using MSC.Nastran SOL 200. Whereas the previously described integration efforts rely on the more rapid FSD sizing methodology to satisfy detail structural criteria (supports engineering drawing release), integration with SOL 200 math programming (MP) methodology provides an opportunity to consider detail structural criteria early in preliminary design. Specifically, systemlevel trades such as aeroelastic performance as a function of required structural weight can now be more easily considered. The new DRESP3 external response capability provides the mechanism to include specialized in-house developed and maintained criteria (e.g., TM1, PRESS, and IBOLT) within the optimization sequence. Additionally, the new simplified laminate modeling techniques provide an opportunity to define practicality criteria, such as ply percentage constraints, which have previously been difficult to define. The MSC.Nastran Toolkit again plays a significant role, as LM Aero intends to leverage the design model definition already available through the inhouse developed AS3 input stream. Rather than force the user to redefine design variables and structural design constraints through the MSC.Nastran bulkdata file, LM Aero intends to define the design model on the MSC.Nastran database during the course of the SOL 200 optimization sequence. Specifically, the MSC.Nastran Toolkit is being used to define a breakpoint directly after the DMAP IFP module, translate and append the AS3 design model to any preexisting design data on the MSC.Nastran database, then resume the SOL 200 optimization sequence. In this fashion, detail structural strength criteria and ply percentage criteria defined on the AS3 input stream can be appended to aeroelastic

0-deg plies

90-deg plies

45-deg plies

Ply Percentage A 5.0 B 10.0 C 15.0 D 20.0 E 25.0 F 30.0 G 35.0 H 40.0 I 45.0 J 50.0 K 55.0 L 60.0

Figure 15. Upper Skin Laminate Ply Percentages (FSD Methodology) Lastly, the property drop-off criterion played only a localized role in this demonstration problem. However, it did serve to smooth the local property buildup as a result of the load chasing phenomenon described previously. Recall that element 261 is the most inboard element on the lower aft-spar cap. Because of the local build-up in element 261, the

10

criteria originally defined on the MSC.Nastran bulkdata input file. Integration of ext ernal strength criteria and implementation of ply percentage constraints are discussed in the following paragraphs. Although intended integration is not complete prior to publishing this paper, a prototype demonstration of these capabilities further demonstrates the significance of the MSC.Nastran 2001 enhancements. External Response Servers and Strength Criteria Integration with TM1, PRESS and IBOLT is straightforward and is accomplished in two parts. First, a criteria server is required to interpret information supplied by a DRESP3 entry, including model properties, response quantities, and user-specified parameters (representing nonmodeled parameters such as number of fastener rows and spacing). The external criteria server must also call the main criteria function subroutine to generate the target response and return the response value to the parent SOL 200 optimization sequence. Second, the design criteria, which are defined on the AS3 input stream, must be translated to DRESP3 entries on the MSC.Nastran database. This approach is taken to allow a common input stream format for both structural sizing approaches described in this paper. A prototype criteria server has already been developed and demonstrated for the TM1 panel stability and strain analysis procedure. The simplified implementation launches the TM1 procedure as a separate system command and recovers the response quantity from an intermediate output file, relies on hardwired parameters specific to the demonstration model, and requires user specification of the driving DRESP3 entries directly in the MSC.Nastran input stream. However, the prototype criteria server enables demonstration of the DRESP3 entry described in the following paragraphs. In addition to integration of external criteria servers, specialized synthetic strain criteria must be developed for SMEAR and SMCORE PCOMP entries. The underlying assumption of the smeared laminate is that all plies are uniformly distributed throughout the thickness of the laminate, therefore, the MSC.Nastran standard fiber strain criteria is not correct. The standard fiber strain criteria uses strains computed at the location of the ply, as defined by the PCOMP laminate stack, whereas the preferred conservative approach is to use upper and lower element surface strains that are reoriented to the fiber coordinate system to evaluate the fiber strain criteria. As

illustrated in Figure 16 , a DEQATN entry can be readily developed in the input bulkdata stream and referenced by a DRESP2 entry to evaluate the synthetic response. However, only the upper surface synthetic fiber responses are shown. Therefore, additional bulkdata entries are required to enforce criteria on the lower laminate surface. Similar to the external strength criteria, synthetic fiber strain criteria will be automatically appended to design criteria on the MSC.Nastran database as defined by entries on the AS3 input stream.
$ SYNTHETIC FIBER STRAIN CONSTRAINTS $ design DCONSTR, DCONSTR, DCONSTR, DCONSTR, constraints for 3, 201, -2000., 3, 202, -2000., 3, 203, -2000., 3, 204, -2000., fiber strain. 2200. 2200. 2200. 2200.

$ synthetic fiber strain responses (Z2) $ (0, -45, +45, and 90 deg plies) DRESP2, 201, E1, 401 , DTABLE, A1 , DRESP1, 301, 302, 303 DRESP2, 202, E2, 401 , DTABLE, A2 , DRESP1, 301, 302, 303 DRESP2, 203, E3, 401 , DTABLE, A3 , DRESP1, 301, 302, 303 DRESP2, 204, E4, 401 , DTABLE, A4 , DRESP1, 301, 302, 303 $ intrinsic laminate strain $ (Ex, Ey, and Exy) for top surface (Z2) DRESP1, 301, EX, STRAIN, PCOMP, , 11, , 100 DRESP1, 302, EY, STRAIN, PCOMP, , 12, , 100 DRESP1, 303, EXY, STRAIN, PCOMP, , 13, , 100 $ strain transformation equation. DEQATN 401 thetar(theta,ex,ey,exy) = theta * PI(1) / 180. ; exfiber = 1.0e+6 * (ex*cos(thetar)**2 + ey*sin(thetar)**2 + exy*sin(thetar)*cos(thetar)) $ table of constant parameters (ply angles). DTABLE, a1, 0., a2, -45., a3, 45., a4, 90.

Figure 16. Synthetic Fiber Strain Criteria for Simplified PCOMP Laminates Completion of this component of the integration effort provides an equivalent set of strength criteria to those presently available in the previously described FSD-based sizing procedure.

11

Practicality Criteria The simplified PCOMP laminate options MEM, SMEAR and SMCORE require a minimum number of layers to define the desired laminate. For instance, a smeared representation of a laminate comprised solely of 0-deg, 45-deg, and 90-deg plies requires only four PCOMP layers. Therefore, synthetic ply percentage criteria boundaries are readily defined using DRESP2 and DEQATN entries as shown in Figure 17 . Additionally, these criteria will be automatically translated to the MSC.Nastran database as directed by criteria defined on the AS3 input stream.
$ SYNTHETIC PLY PERCENTAGE CONSTRAINTS $ design variable definition $ (0, -45, +45, 90 deg plies) DESVAR, 1, T1, 0.05, 0.025 DESVAR, 2, T2, 0.05, 0.025 DESVAR, 3, T3, 0.05, 0.025 DESVAR, 4, T4, 0.05, 0.025 DVPREL1, , DVPREL1, , DVPREL1, , DVPREL1, , $ design DCONSTR, DCONSTR, DCONSTR, DCONSTR, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, PCOMP, 1. PCOMP, 1. PCOMP, 1. PCOMP, 1. 100, T1 100, T2 100, T3 100, T4

MP Demonstration Problem The previous demonstration problem is repeated here, but structural sizing is accomplished using the MP optimization methodology. Applied design criteria are the same as those identified previously in Table 2 , with the exception that the property drop-off criterion is not considered. Additionally, applying the lessons learned from the FSD Demonstration Problem, the wing skins are initially defined using a [30%/60%/10%]0/ 45/90 constant laminate distribution at 0.25 in. total laminate thickness. The torsionefficient initial laminate is intended to reduce the load concentration at the lower aft-spar cap, as was seen in the previous demonstration problem. We anticipate MP methodology will achieve a heavier design solution than that obtained by the FSD methodology. Whereas the FSD methodology has been shown to amplify inherent load-chasing effects, the MP methodology determines the most effective design strategy by computing design variable gradients and sensitivities to the applied criteria. Therefore, it is expected the MP methodology will use thicker wing skins to reduce the internal load through the substructure. As shown in Figure 18 , the MP methodology achieves an objective weight of 141 lb, which is approximately 20 lb heavier than the 121 lb previously achieved by the FSD methodology.

Total Weight (lbs)

constraints for ply % boundaries 2, 501, 8.0, 60.0 2, 502, 8.0, 60.0 2, 503, 8.0, 60.0 2, 504, 8.0, 60.0

Objective Convergence
160.00 150.00 140.00 130.00 120.00 110.00 100.00 1 2 3 4 5 Iteration Number 6

$ synthetic ply percentage response $ (0, -45, +45, 90 deg plies) DRESP2, 501, PRCNT1, 402 , DVPREL1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 DRESP2, 502, PRCNT2, 402 , DVPREL1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2 DRESP2, 503, PRCNT3, 402 , DVPREL1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 DRESP2, 504, PRCNT4, 402 , DVPREL1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 $ ply percentage formulation. DEQATN 402 total(t1,t2,t3,t4,ti) = (t1 +t2 +t3 +t4); plyprcnt = 1.e2 * (ti / total)

Figure 18. Objective Convergence History (MP Methodology) Figure 19 confirms that a feasible design has been achieved at the fifth iteration. All design constraint values are less than or equal to zero, including the critical lower aft-spar cap.

Figure 17. Synthetic Ply Percentage Criteria for Simplified PCOMP Laminates

12

Critical Criteria Convergence

6.00 Max Constraint Value 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 Iteration Number 6

The laminate total thickness contour for the upper skin is displayed in Figure 21 . The general characteristic is similar to the FSD solution since the thickness decreases as a function of span. Also, similar to the FSD solution, total thickness tends to increase as a function of chord (from fore to aft). However, as expected, the MP solution is generally thicker than the FSD solution (up to 0.075 in. thicker at the wing root), which is consistent with the margin plot shown previously in Figure 20 .

Figure 19 Design Constraint Convergence History (MP Methodology) To assess the distributed quality of the converged solution, the LM Aero utility, AS3, was used to perform single iteration analysis to generate margins of safety for the converged solution. The quality of the converged solution is further illustrated in Figure 20 , which displays a plot of critical criteria types and margins of safety for each of the elements in the upper skin. As expected, most margins are close to zero and none are less than -.005. However, some regions have been oversized as indicated by the large positive margins of safety (ranging from 0.149 to 0.586). In particular, the inboard portion of the wing skin has generally been oversized, probably in an effort to reduce internal load through the substructure and, thereby, satisfy stress criteria for critical components such as the lower aft-spar cap.

Thickness (in.) A B C D E F G H I J K L M 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.275 0.300 0.325 0.350 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475 0.500

Figure 21. Upper Skin Laminate Thickness (MP Methodology)

Laminate ply percentage contours for the upper skin are provided in Figure 22 , which illustrates another significant difference between the FSD and MP solutions. Whereas the FSD solution exhibits significant transition from a bending-efficient design (up to 55 percent 0 -deg plies) at the wing root to a torsionefficient design (up to 70 percent 45-deg plies) outboard of mid-span, the MP solution exhibits little transition throughout the laminate, remains fairly constant at [35%/50%/15%]0/ 45/90 and provides wellbalanced wing-bending and wing-torsion efficiency. While the 0-deg plies effectively reduce large wing bending strains at the wing root, the 45-deg plies effectively redistribute the internal load concentration at the aft carry-thru boundary to other nodes along the wing root boundary. Figure 20. Upper Skin Critical Criteria and Margins of Safety (MP Methodology)

13

0-deg plies

90-deg plies

45-deg plies

Ply Percentage A 5.0 B 10.0 C 15.0 D 20.0 E 25.0 F 30.0 G 35.0 H 40.0 I 45.0 J 50.0 K 55.0 L 60.0

Finally, each element (and composite layer) was sized uniquely in this demonstration problem. However, this is often impractical for a productionquality, full-vehicle FEM, which can contain greater than 100,000 elements. Since the MP methodology becomes computationally impractical for optimization problems containing more than approximately 1,000 design variables, elements must be effectively grouped into coarse design regions. Therefore, the MP methodology has been typically reserved for conceptual/preliminary-quality FEM and the preliminary design characteristics are established as minimum structural requirements for the productionquality FEM. Then additional property increments are applied, as required, to satisfy the detail structural analysis and practicality criteria (using procedures such as AS3). SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS New functional features to the core MSC.Nastran 2001 software product were directed by LM Aero and are now available to the MSC.Nastran user community. New features include enhancements to the existing laminate modeling capability, improved integration methods, and the development of a new capability, external responses for SOL 200. The new functional capabilities have already enabled LM Aero to provide improved integration with its in-house structural analysis processes, while the new DRESP3 external response capability promises to provide a mechanism to incorporate in-house criteria within the SOL 200 MP optimization sequence. Further, two example problems serve to demonstrate the benefit of the new functional features available in MSC.Nastran 2001, as well as, compare and contrast the FSD and MP design methodologies. The first demonstration problem uses the LM Aero utility, AS3, to illustrate the rapid analysis/sizing characteristics of the FSD methodology to perform structural verification in support of production engineering drawing release. Whereas the second demonstration problem uses the MSC.Nastran SOL 200 optimization sequence and provides insight toward the appropriate usage of the FSD and MP methodologies. For instance, although the FSD methodology can rapidly achieve a nearly feasible design solution, it has been demonstrated to amplify inherent load concentration effects and, therefore, may require human intervention and logic to achieve a truly feasible solution. However, although the MP methodology has been demonstrated to achieve the optimum and feasible design solution, it is computationally prohibitive for large, production-quality FEM.

Figure 22. Upper Skin Laminate Ply Percentages (MP Methodology) The improved laminate efficiency of the MP design is further illustrated in Figure 23 , which reports reacted carry-thru bending moment for each of the wing root upper/lower node pairs. As illustrated, the MP design is able to reduce the reacted bending moment at the aft most carry-thru locations (fuselage stations (FS) 54.0 and 66.0) by increasing the bending moment in forward carry-thru locations (FS 18.0, 30.0, and 42.0). The c ombined effects of improved wing-torsion efficiency (to reduce reacted bending moment at the aft carry-thru location) and increased overall laminate thickness (to reduce internal load through the substructure) satisfy stress criteria for the lower aft-spar cap.
Carry-Thru Bending Moment Distribution
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 18 30 42 54 66 Fuselage Station (in.) *Moments summed about wing root. Bending Moment, MX (1000 in-lbs) FSD MP

Figure 23. Comparison of Carry-Thru Bending Moment Distributions

14

Therefore, appropriate usage scenarios must be used to effectively leverage the strengths of each design methodology. Since the MP methodology is computationally prohibitive for large models, it has been typically reserved for conceptual/preliminary-quality FEM to establish the general physical characteristics necessary to satisfy structural criteria (e.g., strength, aeroelastic effectiveness, flutter). The general physical characteristics established by the MP methodology can be translated from the preliminary FEM to the production-quality FEM and established as minimum structural requirements. The FSD methodology is readily suited to apply additional property increments, as required, to satisfy detail structural analysis and practicality criteria (using procedures such as the LM Aero utility, AS3). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work presented in this paper would not have been possible without the dedication of those who implemented the MSC.Nastran enhancements. Therefore, the authors would like to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of the following individuals: Xiaoming Yu PCOMP enhancements Shenghua Zhang DRESP3 development Vinh Lam and Steve Wilder MSC.Toolkit enhancements. REFERENCES (1) D.K. Barker and M.H. Love, An ASTROS Application With Path Dependent Results, Proceedings of the AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, September 4-6, 1996. (2) Striz, A.G. and W.T. Lee, Multidisciplinary Optimization of a Transport Aircraft Wing, Paper No. 94-4410-CP, Proceedings of the AIAA/ USAF/NASA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, September 7-9, 1994. (3) Yurkovich, R., Optimum Wing Shape for an Active Aeroelastic Wing, Proceedings of the 36th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, April 1013, 1995. (4) Lynch, R.W. and Rogers, W.A., Aeroelastic Tailoring of Composite Materials to Improve Performance, AIAA/ASME/SAE 17th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference Proceedings, May 1976.

(5) Eisenmann, J.R., Advanced Composite Panel Optimization, General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Division for Wright-Patterson Air Force Materials Laboratory, FZM-6118, April 2, 1973. (6) Timoshenko, S., Theory of Plates and Shells, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, reissued 1987. (7) Eisenmann, J.R., Bolted Joint Static Strength Model for Composite Materials, Third Conference on Fibrous Composites in Flight Vehicle Design, Part II, NASA TM X-3377, April, 1976. (8) Love, M.H., D.K. Barker, D.D. Egle, D.J. Neill, R.M. Kolonay, Enhanced Maneuver Airloads Simulation for the Automated Structural Optimization System ASTROS, Proceedings of the AIAA/ USAF/NASA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, September 1997. (9) Love, M.H., Barker, D.K., and Bohlmann, J.D, An Aircraft Design Application Using ASTROS, WL-TR-93-3037, June 1993. (10) Bohlmann, J.D, Love, M.H., Barker, D.K., Rogers, W.A., and Paul, B.K., Application of Analytical and Design Tools for Fighter Wing Aeroelastic Tailoring, AGARD Printed Report 784, Integrated Design Analysis and Optimisation of Aircraft Structures, February 1992. (11) Johnson, E.H., New Options for the LAM Field on the PCOMP Bulk Data Entry, MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA, Siebel Solution #16031801, February 2002. (12) MSC.Nastran Toolkit Users Guide, Version 2001 , MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA, April 3, 2001 (preliminary). (13) Shenghua Zhang, "Support External Response in Sol 200," MSC.Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA, Solution #1-3772901, June 19, 2001. (14) Johnson, E.H., Fully Stressed Design in MSC.Nastran, MSC 3rd Worldwide Aerospace Users Conference and Technology Showcase, April 2002.

15