Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Julian Scherer Dieter Kohlgrber

Article information:
To cite this document:
Julian Scherer Dieter Kohlgrber , (2016),"Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format", Aircraft Engineering and
Aerospace Technology: An International Journal, Vol. 88 Iss 2 pp. 294 - 302
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-02-2015-0056
Downloaded on: 26 April 2016, At: 00:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 14 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 39 times since 2016*

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2016),"Automated sizing of a composite wing for the usage within a multidisciplinary design process", Aircraft Engineering and
Aerospace Technology, Vol. 88 Iss 2 pp. 303-310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-02-2015-0057
(2016),"4th EASN Workshop on Flight Physics and Aircraft Design Special Issue", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology, Vol. 88 Iss 2 pp. - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-01-2016-0002
(2016),"Automated model generation and sizing of aircraft structures", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 88
Iss 2 pp. 268-276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-02-2015-0054

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:402646 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Fuselage structures within the CPACS

data format
Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Institute of Structures and Design (BT), German Aerospace Center (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to summarize the main features of the fuselage structure description within the Common Parametric Aircraft
Configuration Schema (CPACS) data format.
Design/methodology/approach The CPACS fuselage structure description includes the definition of arbitrary sheets and structural profiles which
can be combined with a variety of material definitions to so-called structural elements. Besides the definition of these structural elements, the
definitions of structural members, such as stringers, frames, floor structures and pressure bulkheads, as well as the definitions of the complex load
introduction regions that transfer loads from the wings and the empennage into the fuselage shell are introduced. Finally, exemplary models
generated with different mesh generation tools developed at the DLR Institute of Structures and Design are presented. These models are suitable
for subsequent static or dynamic structural analyses.
Findings The CPACS fuselage structure description is suitable for defining standard fuselage configurations including complex load introduction
regions suitable for different types of structural analysis.
Practical implications The work shows exemplary fuselage models generated from the introduced CPACS fuselage description suitable for
subsequent static and dynamic structural analyses. As the CPACS standard is available for download, the described definitions may be used by
universities, research organizations or the industry.
Originality/value The work presents the definitions of the fuselage structure within the CPACS schema that were mainly developed by the authors
employed at the DLR Institute of Structures and Design. The exemplary applications show models generated completely on the basis of the definitions
described in this paper.
Keywords CPACS, Fuselage models, Fuselage structure description
Paper type Research paper

Nomenclature

Introduction

Definitions, acronyms and abbreviations

The design of a new aircraft is a multidisciplinary task that

involves a vast number of disciplines to work closely together
to reach an optimum design. Such an environment calls for a
common data standard.
Since 2005, the DLR aircraft parameterization format
CPACS is under continuous development. It is based on
Extensible Markup Language (XML) technologies and aims
to provide a standardized schema to describe aircraft and air
traffic in general. By this standard, the data exchange between
different numerical tools and disciplines can be simplified to
allow multidisciplinary analysis and optimizations. An
overview of the basic data concept and an assessment of
alternative modeling languages that can be used in preliminary
aircraft design is discussed in more detail by Bhnke et al.
(2010). Meanwhile, CPACS is used as a common language
for several disciplinary aircraft design tools at DLR and
beyond (Nagel et al., 2012). The work on this standard was
started in the DLR project technology integration for the
virtual aircraft (TIVA; Liersch and Hepperle, 2011) and is
continued in a variety of other DLR projects.
The key advantage of using such a common standard in a
multidisciplinary tool environment is that only two interfaces
are needed for each tool instead of individual interfaces
between all considered software tools (Bhnke et al., 2011).

Common Parametric Aircraft

Configuration Scheme
DLR
Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und
Raumfahrt (German Aerospace Center)
MDO
Multidisciplinary design optimization
TIVA
Technology integration for the virtual
aircraft
TIGL
TIva Geometry Library
TIXI
TIva XML Interface
uID
Unique Identifier
HTP
Horizontal tail plane
VTP
Vertical tail plane
TRAFUMO TRansport Aircraft FUselage MOdel
AC-CRASH AirCraft-CRASH
APDL
ANSYS Parametric Design Language
F-DESIGN Fuselage DESIGN
XML
Extensible Markup Language
CPACS

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

88/2 (2016) 294 302
Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842]
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-02-2015-0056]

Received 27 February 2015

Revised 11 June 2015
Accepted 17 September 2015

294

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

CPACS is designed to offer high flexibility and to provide all

parameters needed for aircraft analysis, e.g. outer geometry,
structural design, load scenarios, engine performance maps,
missions, etc. Combined with its hierarchical data structure, it
enables data exchange on arbitrary levels of detail between
different project partners. Further support tools such as the
TIva Geometry Library (TIGL) and TIva XML Interface
(TIXI) libraries (TIGL Homepage, 2014; TIXI Homepage,
2014) have been developed in addition to the CPACS
standard to process the CPACS data. Since 2012, the CPACS
standard is available for download under an Apache
open-source license (CPACS Homepage, 2014).
At the DLR Institute of Structures and Design, several tools
are developed for static and dynamic analysis of fuselage
structures (Scherer et al., 2013; Schwinn, 2014). These tools
are used in different multidisciplinary design optimization
(MDO) chain applications at DLR and use CPACS as in- and
output format. Both tools generate fuselage models according
to a given CPACS structure definition using the TIXI and
TIGL libraries.
In this paper, an overview of the versatile features to define
fuselage structures within CPACS is given. This data structure
was mainly developed by the authors and has not been
described in the presented depth so far. In addition, exemplary
applications to generate fuselage models are presented.
The work presented in this paper is compatible to the
current CPACS standard of version V2.2.

within this paragraph are generated with the modeling tool

introduced in paragraph Static analysis.
Structural elements
Structural elements are located under node cpacs/
vehicles/structuralElements on a rather high level in the
CPACS tree. Due to the hierarchical architecture of CPACS,
any structural element defined on this level can be used as a
reference in all structural member definitions on a lower level
by creating a link via a distinct uID.
The current CPACS version V2.2 comprises seven different
types of structural elements, namely:

profileBasedStructuralElements;

sheetBasedStructuralElements;

pressureBulkheads;

doors;

windows;

seatModules; and

rivets.
In this paper, the first three structural element types are
described in detail in the following sub-paragraphs. In general,
a structural element can be seen as a semi-finished part in real
world, e.g. a profileBasedStructuralElement can be compared to
an extruded profile with a distinct cross section. However,
there is no information of the final purpose, as the same
extruded profile could be used as a stringer, a frame or an
arbitrary strut, each of different length and curvature.
profileBasedStructuralElements
In CPACS, a profileBasedStructuralElement symbolizes a
unique cross section that is a combination of a 2D path and
sheet properties that determine the material and thickness of
each path section.
The path definitions for the cross sections of the
profileBasedStructuralElements are located under cpacs/
vehicles/profiles/structuralProfiles/structuralProfile2D. Each
structuralProfile2D represents a path definition. A point list
defines points of a 2D grid in a local xy-plane, and a sheet list
defines the connections between the points, thus creating the
different
path
sections.
When
linked
to
a
profileBasedStructuralElement, these path sections are given
their independent material types, thicknesses and optional
orthotropic directions if the material is a layered composite.
This approach provides high flexibility, as one
structuralProfile2D definition could be used for several
profileBasedStructuralElements based on the same path but with
different properties, e.g. a standard z-stringer with different
sheet thicknesses and/or materials as shown in Figure 1.
In addition, the sub-node transformation can be used to
scale, rotate and translate the structural profile in the 2D
space. Finally, precalculated cross-section properties can
optionally be deposed for each structural profile within the
sub-node globalBeamProperties, which may be used for a
simplified representation of the structural element in beam
elements with global stiffness definitions.
In Figure 2, an exemplary section of a CPACS file with a
profileBasedStructuralElement definition is presented. While a
more symbolic representation from a specific XML editor is
shown on the left-hand side, the text on the right-hand side
shows the real XML-syntax with few folded node definitions

Fuselage structures within CPACS

The CPACS standard can be regarded as a building set that
offers a vast number of combination possibilities to create a
precise aircraft definition within an XML file. By allowing
only one unique definition of an arbitrary CPACS element
marked by a unique Identifier (uID), risk of error is minimized
and file size is kept small. Rather than creating copies of
similar elements used in different CPACS trees, the uIDs
work as a link to refer to common definitions across the
different CPACS trees.
This paragraph gives an overview of the versatile options for
aircraft fuselage structure definitions provided under the
CPACS tree cpacs/vehicles/aircraft/model/fuselages/fuselage/
structure. This part of the CPACS definition is used to define
the so-called structural members that form the inner structure
for a given outer fuselage geometry. All options available are
presented including the complex load introduction regions
and emphasis is placed on the vast flexibility of the structure
definition. In addition, this paragraph introduces the
structural elements and structural profiles definition located
under the CPACS trees cpacs/vehicles/structuralElements and
cpacs/vehicles/profiles/structuralProfiles, respectively. The
CPACS material definition is not explained in detail.
Additional information can be gathered from the official
CPACS
documentation
(CPACS_22_Documentation,
2014).
This paragraph uses the combination of structural element
definitions and the fuselage structure definition through
various structural members to illustrate the flexible,
parametrical, hierarchical CPACS approach. All exemplary
models for the illustration of CPACS definition parameters
295

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

Figure 1 Structural profile and derived structural elements

structuralElement variant A
sheet 3
P3

P4

sheet 2

P1

P2
sheet 1

structuralElement variant B

structuralProfile2D

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Figure 2 Exemplary CPACS definition of a profileBasedStructuralElement

Skin reinforcements
This paragraph discusses the CPACS definition of the
standard fuselage reinforcement structure. Typically,
monolithic fuselage structures consist of skin panels that are
reinforced with stringers in longitudinal and frames in
circumferential direction. Frames and stringers can be
modeled as extrusions of structural elements along paths on
the outer geometry or fuselage loft. These paths represent
cutting lines that result from an intersection of cutting planes
with the fuselage loft. Therefore, each frame and stringer
definition includes a cutting plane and will be explained in the
following sub-paragraphs.

to reduce the length of the example (number of folded extra

line given in brackets).
sheetBasedStructuralElements
sheetBasedStructuralElements represent arbitrary sheets of
materials, which may be used in fuselage skin, bulkheads, etc.
Their definition comprises a thickness value, a material uID
and an optional orthotropy direction for composite lay-ups.
pressureBulkheads
The structural element type pressureBulkhead defines the
general layout of a pressure bulkhead represented as a
reinforced membrane structure. The general membrane
properties are defined within a sheetBasedStructuralElement
definition and linked to via the uID defined in parameter
sheetElementUID. In the current CPACS version V2.2, two
different types of bulkhead layouts are featured. For flat
bulkheads, the reinforcements are split into horizontal and
vertical reinforcements, each defined by number and a link to
a cross section defined within a profileBasedStructuralElement.
Dome-shaped bulkheads feature radial reinforcements that
are defined in the same way. In addition, the calotte is defined
by an outer radius and a maximum flection depth. The outer
radius should be equal or less than the smallest radius of the
frame to which the bulkhead is connected to.
Again, this kind of definition provides high flexibility, as the
same pressure bulkhead layout may be used for different
applications within the fuselage structure. An example will be
given in paragraph Pressure bulkheads.

Stringers
In CPACS, an arbitrary number of stringer definitions can be
combined for a complete fuselage definition. Each stringer
definition is located under cpacs/vehicles/aircraft/model/
fuselages/fuselage/structure/stringers/stringer and identified by
a mandatory uID. A stringer definition requires at least two
so-called pointer definitions under [. . .] /stringers/stringer/
stringerPosition to generate a cutting plane with the fuselage
loft. In general, an arbitrary number of these pointer
definitions may be used to create any imaginable cutting plane
with its corresponding intersection line on the fuselage. For
each stringerPosition, the stringer cross section is defined via a
link to a structural element uID. Furthermore, each
stringerPosition is defined by the parameters positionX,
referenceY, referenceZ and referenceAngle, as illustrated in
Figure 3. Besides the definition of complex cutting planes, this
296

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

Figure 3 Visualization of stringer cutting plane definitions (left), alignment of extruded profile and related CPACS parameters (right)

rotationLocX

z
y
referenceY

referenceZ
referenceAngle
translationLocZ
Profile CS
z
x (extrusion path)

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

translationLocY

Skin segments
The skin segment definitions are located under cpacs/vehicles/
aircraft/model/fuselages/fuselage/structure/skinSegments and
represent the fuselage skin panels. A skin segment definition
consists of a link to a sheetBasedStructuralElement that defines
the sheets thickness and material as well as the declaration of
the panel size that is defined by uIDs of stringers and frames
that surround the panel. An arbitrary number of skin segment
definitions can be defined. By definition, the smallest panel
size is one skin bay which is the region in between two adjacent
frames and stringers.
In addition to individually defined panels, the parameter
standardSheetElementUID specifies a thickness and material for
all fuselage surface regions that are not included in any of the
individual skin segment definitions. This ensures that there are
no fuselage surface regions with undefined properties after the
model generation process.

definition allows the transition of individual profile definitions,

e.g. a change in the height of the profile along the extrusion
path.
The continuity of the profile extrusion path may be
influenced by the optional parameter continuity. With the
default value zero, the segments of the extrusion line do only
share the same position at the pointer locations (C0
continuity), whereas a value two requests a continuous
curvature at each pointer location of the extrusion path (C2
continuity).
The optional parameters under the node alignment offer
special alignment options of the extruded profile relative to the
extrusion path. rotationLocX defines the rotation of the profile
around the extrusion axis. translationLocY and translationLocZ
are used to generate an offset between the profiles coordinate
system origin and the extrusion axis, e.g. to prevent a stringer
profile from penetrating the fuselage skin, see Figure 3.
Finally, the optional parameter interpolation defines whether
linear interpolation is done between two adjacent stringer
pointer definitions.

Floor structures
Typically, large passenger aircrafts feature at least one
passenger and one cargo deck. The CPACS fuselage
structural description theoretically allows for a definition of an
arbitrary number of decks, but for better readability, there is a
distinction between pax and cargo crossbeams and struts;
however, their definitions are identical. Therefore, only the
pax definition will be discussed here. The floor structure
definition features a high degree of parameterization in the
form of relative links to structural member uIDs and a
minimum number of absolute values.
A deck typically consists of horizontal crossbeams and
optional vertical struts. A crossbeam can be defined under
[. . .]/fuselages/fuselage/structure/paxCrossbeams/pax
Crossbeam. The cross section is defined by a link to a
profile-based structural element. For structural reasons, a
crossbeam is always attached to a frame. The corresponding
frame is defined via parameter frameUID. The parameter
positionZ indicates the height of the deck in the absolute
aircraft coordinate system. For a horizontal deck, all
crossbeams would have the same values. Arbitrary slopes in
the deck can be realized by assigning different positionZ values
to individual crossbeams.

Frames
In CPACS, an arbitrary number of frame definitions can be
integrated into a complete fuselage definition. Each frame
definition is located under cpacs/vehicles/aircraft/model/
fuselages/fuselage/structure/frames/frame with a mandatory
uID. The frame cross section is defined via a link to a
structural element uID. Moreover, the cutting plane has to be
defined by pointers which are already explained in the
paragraph Stringers. A standard vertical frame may be
defined with only one pointer definition (framePosition). This
requires an absolute value for the global x-position within the
total fuselage x-range for the parameter positionX and a
standard absolute value of 180 for the parameter
referenceAngle. The referenceY and referenceZ parameters can be
set to zero. However, the general description also allows the
definition of frames with changing frame profiles around the
circumference when pointer definitions with individual
referenceAngle definitions are used.
The optional parameters continuity, alignment and
interpolation may be considered in the same way as described
in paragraph Stringers.
297

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

In a lightweight fuselage structure, the crossbeams are

typically supported by vertical struts that can be defined under
[. . .]/fuselages/fuselage/structure/paxCrossbeamStruts/pax
CrossbeamStrut. Each strut connects a crossbeam and a frame
that are both linked to via the parameters frameUID and
crossBeamUID. Finally, the y-position of the strut at the
crossbeam intersection and the angle of the strut in the global
yz-plane are defined by the parameters positionYAtCrossBeam
and angleX. For both crossbeams and struts, optional
parameters under the node alignment may be used to align the
cross section as described in paragraph Stringers. In
addition, the parameters offset1LocX and offset2LocX may be
used to define an offset for both ends of the structural member
in the direction of the extrusion as shown in Figure 4, e.g. to
prevent a crossbeam from piercing the fuselage skin.
Usually, crossbeams are connected by longitudinal rails. In
CPACS, these structural members are located under [. . .]/
fuselages/fuselage/structure/longFloorBeams/longFloorBeam.
Their definition is comparable to the stringer definition
described in paragraph Stringers. Each longFloorBeam is
defined by at least two longFloorBeamPosition definitions that
represent pointers that form a vertical cutting plane for the
floor that is defined by the crossbeams. Between two
longFloorBeamPositions, the longFloorBeams cross section is
defined by the structural element uID that is linked to in the
first longFloorBeamPosition. Furthermore, the parameter
crossBeamUID identifies the crossbeam to which the
longFloorBeam is attached to. Finally, the parameter positionY
identifies the y-position of the longFloorBeam on the
crossbeam. As for the stringers and frames, the parameters
alignment, continuity and interpolation are also available for
longFloorBeamPosition. That way, arbitrary rail systems can be
defined on each deck/floor.
Figure 4 shows an example for a typical floor structure and
illustrates crossbeam, strut and longFloorBeam definition
parameters.

Pressure bulkheads
The main definition of the bulkhead layout is done in the
structural element section of the CPACS file as described in
paragraph Structural elements. For load introduction
reasons, bulkheads are always located at a previously defined
frame position. Under [. . .]/fuselages/fuselage/structure/
pressurebulkheads/pressurebulkhead, the cross reference
between the structural element and the frame to which the
bulkhead is connected to is established. This is why the final
definition simply consists of two uIDs defined in parameters
frameUID and pressureBulkheadElementUID. Figure 5 shows an
example for the two bulkhead types available in the current
CPACS version.
Load introduction regions
This paragraph discusses the CPACS definitions of the
complex load introduction regions that transfer the loads from
the wings and the empennage into the fuselage structure. In
Figure 5 Different bulkhead types: flat bulkhead (left),
dome-shaped bulkhead (right)

Figure 4 Typical floor structure including passenger and cargo deck (left), definition of crossbeam and strut parameters (right)

z
positionYAtCrossBeam y
positionZ

offset1LocX

offset2LocX

angleX

298

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

Scherer et al. (2013), a more detailed description of the

structural aspects of these regions is presented. In this paper,
only a brief description of the CPACS definition with the
focus on the high degree of parameterization as its key aspect
is given. Therefore, relative definitions using links to uIDs of
structural members are preferred compared to absolute
definitions wherever possible.

The pressure floor forms the upper pressure boundary of the

main landing gear bay. At its sides, the pressure floor ends at
massive longitudinal reinforcements of the fuselage cut-out, the
so-called sideboxes. In addition, this cut-out is reinforced by the
so-called lateral panels. Two locally stiffened triangular panels
are located on each side. The forward lateral panel is flat and
connects the sideboxes lower edge to the rear wing spar. The
rear lateral panels are following the fuselage curvature.
On the bottom of the fuselage, the so-called keel beam is
dedicated to transfer loads, e.g. from fuselage bending, across the
fuselage cut-out for the wing box and landing gear bay. At its ends,
the box-shaped keel beam features triangular areas to achieve a
smooth load introduction into the fuselage skin structure.
Along with the longitudinal floor beams introduced in paragraph
Floor structures, the longitudinal floor beam connections are used
as a simplified representation of the so-called portal frames, very
complex integral components, used in real aircraft structures.
The CPACS definition introduced here is sufficient to
create the finite element (FE) model of the center fuselage
area as shown in Figure 6, using the modeling tool described
below in paragraph Static analysis.

centerFuselageArea
The center fuselage area is the region where the center wing
box and the landing gear bay intersect the fuselage structure.
The CPACS definition is located under [. . .] /fuselages/
fuselage/structure/centerFuselageArea and developed based
on a typical standard layout that can be found in most of the
large low-wing aircraft.
In the current CPACS version, two general options are
available. While a simple definition just represents a cut-out in
the fuselage barrel with rigid edges, a much more detailed
center fuselage definition is preferable for structural analysis
and therefore discussed here. The main structural
components as shown in Figure 6 and their corresponding
CPACS parameters/trees in brackets are listed below:

main frames (centerFuselageMainFrames);

pressure floor (centerFuselagePressureFloor);

sideboxes (centerFuselageSidebox);

lateral panels (centerFuselageLateralPanels);

keel beam (centerFuselageKeelbeam); and

longitudinal floor beam connections (centerFuselage

LongFloorBeamsConnection).

tailplaneAttachmentArea
The tailplane attachment area is the region where the
horizontal tail plane (HTP) and the vertical tail plane (VTP)
intersect the fuselage. The CPACS definition is located under
[. . .]/fuselages/fuselage/structure/tailplaneAttachmentArea
and developed based on two typical standard layouts that can
be found in medium- and long-range aircrafts with a standard
tailplane configuration. The main structural components as
described in the following and their corresponding CPACS
parameters/trees in brackets are listed below:

layout type (tailplaneAttachmentType);

VTP attachment (vtpInterfaceDefinitions); and

HTP attachment (htpInterfaceDefinitions).

The longitudinal extent of the center fuselage area is defined

by three so-called main frames. The main wing box is located
between the first two main frames, whereas the main landing
gear bay is located between main frame 2 and 3. The main
frames 1 and 3 feature flat vertical pressure bulkheads, which
separate the pressurized cabin from the non-pressurized wing
box and the main landing gear bay.

Figure 6 Detailed center fuselage area with main structural components for medium-range aircraft

Portal frames
(Beams)

Main frames
(Beams)

Pressure floor
(Shells)

Sidebox
(Shells)
Floor beam struts
(Beams)

Lateral panels
(Shells + beams)

Vertical bulkhead
(Shells + beams)

Keel beam
(Shells + beams)

299

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

Figure 7 illustrates a typical medium-range layout. The VTP

is attached to a number of reinforced frames by vertical struts.
The HTP stabilizer is attached to two reinforced fuselage
frames, mounted at two bolts in the back (hinge line) and at a
jackscrew used for trimming in the front.
As the HTP intersects the fuselage, a sufficiently sized cut-out
is necessary to allow the full range of HTP trimming. This
cut-out is reinforced by a framework of beams and rods. At the
rear frame, the upper and lower corners of the cut-out are
connected by symmetrical crossbeams. Several rods connect the
rear HTP mounting and the forward upper and lower corners of
the fuselage cut-out to the rear diagonal crossbeams junction.
A typical medium-range layout of the forward HTP trim
actuator mounting structure consists of vertical and horizontal
plates and a beam reinforcement that connects the HTP
jackscrew to the plate structure.
The CPACS definition introduced here is sufficient to
create the FE model of the tailplane attachment area as shown
in Figure 7, using the modeling tool described below in
paragraph Static analysis.

the ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) format.

This file is used in the ANSYS Pre-Processor PREP7 for the
FE model generation together with an in-house developed
toolbox called PROSHAPE, that extends the capabilities of
the standard APDL commands.
For the computation of the so-called geometry lofts of the
fuselage hull and the floors in 3D-space, TIGL library functions
(TIGL Homepage, 2014) are used extensively. Subsequently,
frames, stringers and floor structures are positioned on the
fuselage geometry via cutting planes and their extrusion paths on
the lofts are calculated. According to their CPACS definition, the
cross-section properties of all structural elements are calculated
and linked to lines and areas for later meshing. For the static
analysis and sizing purpose in the pre-design phase, TRAFUMO
generates meshes in so-called GFEM quality, where each bay on
the fuselage hull between two adjacent frames and stringers
forms one 4-node shell element. Likewise, frames, stringers and
floor structures form one beam element between two geometrical
crossing points, as shown in Figure 8, where the geometrical
cross sections of the beam elements are visualized using the
ANSYS/ESHAPE option.
Bulkheads, center fuselage area and tailplane attachment
area are created in a subsequent step, as they require the basic
FE models geometry. Finally, external loads and secondary
masses are added to the fuselage model via constraint
equations as defined in the CPACS data set.
At that point, the generated fuselage model is suited for
subsequent static analyses and sizing processes as described by
Scherer et al. (2013).

Applications
At the DLR Institute of Structures and Design, the CPACS
fuselage definition as introduced in this paper is the basis for
two major application tools. The tool TRansport Aircraft
FUselage MOdel (TRAFUMO; Scherer et al., 2013)
generates fuselage models for static analyses and sizing,
whereas the tool AirCraft-CRASH (AC-CRASH; Schwinn
et al., 2013; Schwinn, 2014) generates more detailed fuselage
or section models for dynamic crash analyses. Both tools will
be briefly introduced in the following sub-paragraphs.

Dynamic analysis
The tool AC-CRASH is used to generate and analyze fuselage
FE models under survivable crash load scenarios. The model
generation is comparable to the process introduced for the tool
TRAFUMO in paragraph Static analysis. However, due to the
expected large deformations, the explicit dynamic analysis
requires much finer meshes with element sizes of about 10 mm
or even smaller. Therefore, AC-CRASH offers an option to
refine model regions of special interest, e.g. impact zones, where

Static analysis
Based on the CPACS definition, the tool TRAFUMO
generates a complete FE model of the fuselage including
external loads and masses in a fully automated process.
First, TRAFUMO reads in the CPACS file using a
PYTHON-based wrapper module, computes a geometry
model of the fuselage and finally writes an ANSYS input file in

Figure 7 Typical medium-range tailplane attachment area with main structural components
VTP attachment struts

Trim actuator mounting structure

Diagonal rods (top/bottom)
Diagonal rods (rear)

VTP main frame

reinforcements
HTP mounting plates

Diagonal crossbeams
(top/bottom)
Reinforced frames
Reinforced stringer

300

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Figure 8 Exemplary fuselage model generated using TRAFUMO with detail of the skin structure

Conclusion

the general mesh size is reduced and all reinforcement structures,

which are generally modeled using beam elements with
representative cross sections (cf. TRAFUMO), are modeled
using shell elements on extruded cross sections along the
previously defined extrusion paths. At the edges of a so-called
detailed region, the constraint equations to couple the extruded
shell cross sections to the adjacent beam nodes are generated
automatically. That way, full-scale models can be analyzed with
reasonable computation time.
After the model generation in ANSYS is completed, the
model is converted to an explicit solver format. The current
solver for AC-CRASH is VPS-PAM-CRASH (v2011) that
uses an explicit time integration scheme. In Figure 9, a
full-fuselage crash model generated with AC-CRASH is
presented. This model includes a detailed region in the side
shell (see detail view) and is based on exactly the same
CPACS data set that was used for the static model shown in
Figure 8. Further information regarding process integration
and crash analysis results can be found in the work by
Schwinn et al. (2013) and Schwinn (2014).

This paper summarizes the main features of the CPACS

definitions for the fuselage structure. The essential definition of
the structural elements that are the basis for the outer skin and all
reinforcement structures in the fuselage is explained.
Furthermore, the definitions of structural members, such as
stringers and frames as well as floor structures, pressure
bulkheads and the complex load introduction regions that
transfer loads from the wings and the empennage into the
fuselage shell are introduced. The presented approach offers a
wide range of capabilities to define parameterized aircraft
fuselage structures. The CPACS fuselage structure definition is
an essential prerequisite for the automated structural modeling,
analysis and sizing of aircraft FE models within MDO
applications, as presented exemplarily by Kroll et al. (2014).
Besides the application within DLR, the CPACS fuselage
structure definition is also going to be used for MDO frameworks
by further research institutions (Travaglini et al., 2014; Maierl
et al., 2013).

Figure 9 Exemplary fuselage model generated using AC-CRASH with detail of the finely meshed skin structure

301

Fuselage structures within the CPACS data format

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Julian Scherer and Dieter Kohlgrber

Volume 88 Number 2 2016 294 302

Exemplary applications of the CPACS fuselage structure

description using tools developed at the DLR Institute of
Structures and Design are presented, including models
generated with the mesh generation tools TRAFUMO and
AC-CRASH that are feasible for subsequent static or dynamic
structural analyses.

Kroll, N., Abu-Zurayk, M., Dimitrov, D., Franz, T, Fhrer, T.,

Gerhold, T., Grtz, S., Heinrich, R., Ilic, C., Jepsen, J.,
Jgerskpper, J., Kruse, M., Krumbein, A., Langer, S.,
Liu, D., Liepelt, R., Reimer, L., Ritter, M., Schwppe, A.,
Scherer, J., Spiering, F., Thormann, R., Togiti, V.,
Vollmer, D. and Wendisch, J.-H. (2014), DLR-Projekt
Digital-X - Auf dem Weg zur virtuellen Flugzeugentwicklung
und Flugerprobung auf Basis hherwertiger Verfahren, paper
presented at the 63. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress,
16-18 September, Augsburg, available at: www.dglr.de/
publikationen/2014/340099.pdf (accessed 25 February 2015).
Liersch, C. and Hepperle, M. (2011), A distributed toolbox
for multidisciplinary preliminary aircraft design, CEAS
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2/3/4, pp. 57-68.
Maierl, R., Petersson, . and Daoud, F. (2013), Automated
creation of aeroelastic optimization models from a
parameterized geometry, paper presented at International
Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics IFASD,
24-26 June, Bristol.
Nagel, B., Bhnke, D., Gollnick, V., Schmollgruber, P.,
Rizzi, A., La Rocca, G. and Alonso, J.J. (2012),
Communication in aircraft design: can we establish a
common language?, paper presented at the 28th
Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical
Sciences (ICAS), 23-28 September, Brisbane, available
at: www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2012/PAPERS/
201.PDF (accessed 25 February 2015).
Scherer, J., Kohlgrber, D., Dorbath, F. and Sorour, M.
(2013), A finite element based tool chain for structural
sizing of transport aircraft in preliminary aircraft design,
paper presented at the 62. Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress, 10-12 September, Stuttgart, available
at: www.dglr.de/publikationen/2013/301327.pdf (accessed
25 February 2015).
Schwinn, D. (2014), Integration of crashworthiness aspects
into preliminary aircraft design, Journal of Applied
Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 598, pp. 146-150.
Schwinn, D., Scherer, J., Kohlgrber, D. and Harbig, K. (2013),
Development of a multidisciplinary process chain for the
preliminary design of aircraft structures, paper presented at
the NAFEMS World Congress, 9-12 June, Salzburg.
TIGL Homepage (2014), available at: http://code.google.
com/p/tigl/ (accessed 20 August 2014).
TIXI Homepage (2014), available at: http://code.google.com/
p/tixi/ (accessed 20 August 2014).
Travaglini, L., Ricci, S. and Bindolino, G. (2014), PyPAD: a
multidisciplinary framework for preliminary airframe design,
4th EASN Association International Workshop On Flight Physics
and Aircraft Design Proceedings of The EASN Association
International Workshop, Aachen, European Aeronautics Science
Network (EASN) ISBL, Brussels, pp. 286-305.

Downloaded by Tulane University At 00:46 26 April 2016 (PT)

Further work
The next steps in the development of the CPACS fuselage
structure description are in first place the enhancement of the
load introduction regions definition to comply with other aircraft
configuration types, e.g. high-wing and T-tail configurations.
Next, suitable definitions for a forward-landing gear bay,
windows and passenger and cargo doors will be developed.
As the manual definition of a detailed fuselage description in
CPACS is a time-consuming task, a further tool called Fuselage
DESIGN (F-DESIGN) that is able to automatically generate
CPACS fuselage description based on global design rules and
restrictions is currently under development at the DLR Institute
of Structures and Design. For F-DESIGN, two different fields of
application can be identified in a multidisciplinary tool
environment. When a new aircraft configuration is designed from
scratch, there is no reference for the fuselage structure, and
F-DESIGN would define a fuselage structure suited for a given
geometrical fuselage and cabin layout that could be provided by
a preliminary design tool like VAMPzero (Bhnke et al., 2011).
In this case, the fuselage structural design would rely on
knowledge-based global design rules and restrictions defined in
global design sets, e.g. frame pitch, floor location, etc. In a
second application mode, when used in an optimization process
as presented by Kroll et al. (2014), the tool F-DESIGN has to
transcribe optimization results to the CPACS fuselage definition,
e.g. the movement of main frames as a result of an optimized
wing position or the rearrangement of stringers as a result of an
optimized structural layout of the fuselage shell. To date,
F-DESIGN comprises the automated movement of main frames
according to a given CPACS wing definition to guarantee a
fuselage definition that allows for structural coupling to the wing.

References
Bhnke, D., Litz, M., Nagel, B. and Rudolph, S. (2010),
Evaluation of modeling languages for preliminary aircraft
design in multidisciplinary design environments, paper
presented at the Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress
2010, 31 August-2 September, Hamburg.
Bhnke, D., Nagel, B. and Gollnick, V. (2011), An approach
to multi-fidelity in conceptual aircraft design in distributed
design environments, paper presented at the IEEE
Aerospace Conference, 5-12 March, Big Sky, MT, available
at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp&arnumb
er5747542 (accessed 25 February 2015).
CPACS Homepage (2014), available at: http://code.google.
com/p/cpacs/ (accessed 20 August 2014).
CPACS_22_Documentation (2014), available at: http://code.
google.com/p/cpacs/ (accessed 20 August 2014).

Corresponding author
Julian Scherer can be contacted at: julian.scherer@dlr.de

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

302