Formulation and Implementation of a Methodology for Aircraft - Pace

Formulation and Implementation of a
Methodology for Aircraft
Subsystem Architecture Selection
External Advisory Board Presentation
April 29, 2009
Neal Patel
Turab Zaidi
José Bernardo
Peng Chen
David Jackson
Sehwan Oh
Edward Tsai
Aerospace System Design Laboratory
Georgia Institute of Technology

“Engineering has has taken taken us us to to a a stage stage where where we we are are beginning to to rationalize and and
reintegrate things things that that we we have have spent spent many many decades separating and and ‘optimizing.’
Now, Now, the the potential of of science can can enable enable us us to to take take the the next next step step in in this this journey.”
2
Lester Faleiro
Project Manager, Power Optimized Aircraft

The EOASys
Initiative
The Installation
Problem
Outline
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
3
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

Dr. Dr. Dimitri DimitriMavris Mavris
Faculty
Faculty
Sponsor
Sponsor
José JoséBernardo Bernardo
Program Organization
Neal Neal Patel Patel
Project
Project
Manager
Manager
Dr. Dr. Elena Elena Garcia Garcia
Project
Project
Advisor
Advisor
Turab TurabZaidi Zaidi
Chief
Chief
Engineer
Engineer
4
Dr. Dr. Neil Neil Weston Weston
Project
Project
Advisor
Advisor
Mathias Mathias Emeneth Emeneth
PACE
PACE
Consultant
Consultant
Peng Chen David Jackson Sehwan Oh Oh Edward Tsai Tsai

The EOASys
Initiative
The EOASys Initiative
The Installation
Problem
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
5
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

• What is an energy optimized aircraft?
Energy Optimized Aircraft Initiative
– One that manages energy flows to achieve the most reduction in peak
nonpropulsive power usage, while obtaining the best compromise in
fuel consumption and equipment weight
• Major Obstacles
– Aircraft of the future must adapt to changing power requirements 1
– Rising power demands have led to greater system complexity
– Increasing fuel costs and environmental concern
• AIAA EOASys Program Committee
– Seeks comprehension of technical issues facing Aircraft Equipment Systems (AES) 1
– AES are the systems “hidden under the floor, inside wings, and behind panels” 1
– This includes avionics, hydraulic actuators, electric cables, etc.
6
Boeing 787 will
require 1 MW of
electric power

• Current efforts emphasize developing more
electric technologies
– Components optimized individually by vendors
• Majority of issues arise during system integration
– New technologies often physically swapped in
– Organization of AES affects overall subsystem efficiency
• Interactions and constraints between
components must be captured
– Information should be leveraged to develop strategic
AES installation
– No environment exists to evaluate these types of
tradeoffs during conceptual design
Motivation
7
Old Components More Electric Components

The EOASys
Initiative
The Installation Problem
The Installation
Problem
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
8
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

The Focused Problem: Installation
• Full potential of new components may not be achieved
in future aircraft
• Current configurations may benefit from holistic re-
integration/evaluation
• Potential gains:
– Minimizing system weight - Adding/removing cabling or
hydraulic lines
– Minimizing exergy loss - Maximum amount of available work
– Managing energy flows - Efficiency fluctuation due to
thermal effects
9
Minimizing Weight
Minimizing Exergy Loss
Investigation of new installation architectures is necessary
Managing Energy Flow

What is an Installation Architecture?
B
Architecture 1 Architecture 2
A
C
D
Same components
Different placement
10
B
C
A
D

Program Objectives
1. Formulate a generic methodology that allows designers to optimally install Aircraft Equipment Systems into an aircraft
– Methodology facilitates installation of any subsystem or component
2. Demonstrate methodology through a Proof Of Concept (POC)
– POC makes enabling assumptions to facilitate project scope
– POC shows how the methodology can be used to improve component placement and realize aircraft level gains
Methodology Proof of Concept Program Results
Enabling
Assumptions
11
Architecture
Selection

Architecture Selection Methodology
The EOASys
Initiative
The Installation
Problem
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
12
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

Step 1
The Architecture Selection Methodology
Component Component Component Library
Library
Library
Creation
Creation
Creation
Step 2
Sizing/Synthesis Sizing/Synthesis Sizing/Synthesis Sizing/Synthesis &
&
&
&
Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Zoning
Zoning
Zoning
Zoning
Step 3
Step 4
Component Component Placement
Placement
Placement
Requirements
Requirements
Flow-down
Flow-down
Flow-down
Flow-down
Flow down down down
Initial Initial Architecture
Architecture
Generation
Generation
13
Step 5
Step 6
Investigate Investigate Investigate Competing
Competing
Competing
Architectures
Architectures
Architectures
Measures Measures Measures Measures of of of of Merit
Merit
Merit
Merit
Identification
Identification
Identification
Identification

Step 1 – Component Library Creation
• Method of library creation leveraged from previous
Grand Challenge Teams
1.1 Select a primary function
1.2 Identify induced functions
1.3 Create matrix of alternatives of components
1.4 Define basic connections between components
1.5 Verify specific functions are met
Output of Step 1
A fixed list of components and basic
connections to be installed
14
Primary Function
Generate light
Component List
Induced Functions
Provide electricity or ignite light source
Component List

2.1 Select an aircraft geometry
Step 2 – Sizing/Synthesis & Aircraft Zoning
2.2 Acquire sizing and synthesis information
2.3 Zone the aircraft
– Assists with capturing component placement constraints
2.4 Specify possible connection routes
Output of Step 2
A fully defined and zoned aircraft geometry
15

Step 3 – Placement Requirements Flow-down
3.1 Find applicable system level constraints
– FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
– Stability Limits
– Volume Limits
– Ease of maintenance
3.2 Define applicable component level requirements
– Temperature ranges, Electrical power and ratings,
EMI control, System grounding, etc. 2
3.3 Formulate zonal placement requirements
Output of Step 3
Constraints and requirements on component placement
16
Component
Constraints Functional
Requirements
Component
Placement
Requirements

Step 4 – Initial Architecture Generation
4.1 Select location of components
within feasible zones
– Use historical data when available
4.2 Verify all requirements are met
– Change component location when
needed
Output of Step 4
Step 1
Hydraulic
Mechanic
Electric
Components
Baseline aircraft with components
placed to meet requirements
17
Sized Aircraft
Initial Configuration
Step 2
FAR
Step 3
Volume
Power
Zone
Requirements

Step 5 – Measures of Merit Identification
5.1 Identify relevant system level metrics
– Metrics should be related to costs and
benefits
5.2 Relate system level metrics to
applicable installation metrics
– Metrics have to be quantifiable
5.3 Benchmark the initial architecture
Output of Step 5
Potential
Architectures
Metrics for comparison of different architectures
18
Installation
Metrics
Architecture C
`
Architecture B
Architecture A
System Level
Metric Target

Step 6 – Investigating Competing Architectures
6.1 Choose method to explore design space
6.2 Implement exploration method
– Requires development of modeling and simulation environment
6.3 Perform architecture trades
– Based on weighting preferences on measures of merit
Output of Step 6
An optimized architecture based on
customer preferences
19

The EOASys
Initiative
The Proof of Concept
The Installation
Problem
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
20
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

• Need a platform to implement a methodology
• No existing environment which captures
component interactions
• Several software platforms were considered to create
the design environment for the proof of concept
• Platform requirements:
1. Provide a 3-D visual representation of component placement for
each architecture
2. Easily populate components and connections into model
3. Quickly generate multiple installation architectures
4. Dynamically evaluate component characteristics and interactions
5. Interact with other software to incorporate existing codes
6. Facilitate analysis and trades between architectures
7. Provide direct links to software support personnel
• Pacelab APD was selected as best compromise
Platform Selection
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ADEN CATIA Dymola Easy5 Excel JMP Pacelab APD Simulink
Meets requirement
Potentially meets requirement
Did not meet requirement

Modeling & Simulation Environment
• M&S environment was created in Pacelab
Aircraft Preliminary Design (Pacelab APD)
• Displays a 3D representation of the model
• Unique software platform focused on
Knowledge Based Engineering
• Allows mathematical definition of an aircraft
and its internal structure
• Acquisition of Pacelab APD was a key
breakthrough for our design environment
22

Step 1 – Component Library Creation
• Only one primary function was demonstrated to limit the scope
– Deliver electrical power to loads in the avionics bay
• Function further limits the scope by reducing the number of
components modeled
• The component list was created from the Maintenance Facility
Planning (MFP) document and information from Airbus component
suppliers
• Schematics in the MFP were used to define basic connections
23
IDG
IDG
AC AC Bus Bus 1
1
AC AC Essential Essential Bus
Bus
Avionics
Avionics
Loads
Loads
Other
Other
Electric
Electric
Components
Components

Step 2 – Sizing/Synthesis & Aircraft Zoning
• A320 chosen as the aircraft geometry for POC
• Flight deck, passenger cabin, & cargo holds modeled in
simulation environment
• Feasible aircraft areas divided into five zones
– Zones based on possible locations for components in library
– Includes knowledge gained from Delta 737 overhaul
• Feasible wiring route pathways generated for potential
component connections
24

Step 3 – Placement Requirements Flow-down
• Requirements come from aircraft
documentation and FAR
– Operating Temperature
– Required Power
– Center of Gravity
Operating
Temperature
Aircraft Documents Requirements
B
A
C
25
Required
Power
B
Center of
Gravity
A
C

Step 3 – Placement Requirements Flow-down
• Requirements come from aircraft
documentation and FAR
– Operating Temperature
– Required Power
– Center of Gravity
– Volume
– Zones
– Wire Routes
Volume Zones
Wire Routes
26
Fire Zone
Cabin/Cargo Compartment
A320 Cross Section
General
Wire Paths

Step 4 – Initial Architecture Generation
• Comparing architectures and performing
trades fundamentally requires a baseline
– Initial configuration used for comparison to
all other architectures
• Initial placements and connections
determined from Airbus documentation
• Initial architecture input into
Pacelab APD using Excel file
27
Initial Configuration

• Payload Capacity
Step 5 – Measures of Merit Identification
– Wire weight reduction allows a payload increase
– Results in an increase in revenue
• Fuel Weight
– Varies depending on decrease in power drop
due to temperature, wire length, efficiency
– Results in decrease in operating fuel cost
• Center of Gravity
– Locations of components affect stability
Method of
Calculation
B
B
Locations of Components
28
A
C
A
Wire Weight
Power Extraction from engines
B
C
POC
Evaluator
Payload Capacity
Related
System
Level Metric
$/RPM
Fuel Weight Fuel Cost
C.G.
Stability

Step 6 – Investigating Competing Architectures
• Many methods to identify competing architectures
– Optimization methods
– Design Space Exploration methods
• Selected a Monte Carlo simulation combined with data
post-processing
• Investigation consists of three phases:
– Pre-processing: Generating architectures
– Processing: Running the modeling and simulation environment
– Post-Processing: Analysis of the saved measures of merits
29
Run 1: Component 1: X1, Y1, Z1
Component 2: X2, Y2, Z2
Component 3: X3, Y3, Z3
...
Run 2: Component 1: X1, Y1, Z1
Component 2: X2, Y2, Z2
Component 3: X3, Y3, Z3
...
…
Pre-processing:
Pre-processing:
Processing:
Processing:
Post-processing:
Post-processing:
Run 1: Results 1
Results 2
...
Run 2: Results 1
Results 2
...
…

The EOASys
Initiative
Proof of Concept Demo
The Installation
Problem
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
30
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

The EOASys
Initiative
Concluding Remarks
The Installation
Problem
Architecture
Selection
Methodology
31
The Proof
of Concept
Proof of
Concept Demo
Concluding
Remarks

Conclusions
• POC tool applies generic methodology to focused problem
– Provides capability to dynamically and visually trade architectures
– ‘Best’ design demonstrates fuel savings and increase in payload capacity for
small fraction of the AES
• POC enables not only study of fixed aircraft and components:
– Ability to create architectures with entirely new and varying component lists
– New technologies can be input and explored early in design
– With appropriate information and knowledge base, entire AES can be studied
This study serves as a stepping stone for future
integration of energy optimized aircraft
32
New
Technologies
New Installation
Architectures
Holistic
Integration
of AES

Future Work
• Modeling of more components and systems to realize a more complete perspective of the installation design space
– Replacing hydraulic and pneumatic systems
• Incorporate Pacelab APD’s sizing and synthesis
– If aircraft could be scaled geometrically as in sizing and synthesis, benefits would be magnified
• Requirements added to include different flight modes and failure modes
• Expand knowledge base with more accurate industry information
– Requirements and experience utilized for installation must be captured as rules and input
– More comprehensive set of evaluators can be considered
33

– Dr. Dimitri Mavris
– Dr. Elena Garcia
– Dr. Neil Weston
– Michael Armstrong
– Latessa Bortner
– Bjorn Cole
ASDL
Acknowledgements
– Cyril de Tenorio
– Andrew Dunbeck
– Kelly Griendling
– Eric Hendricks
– Hernando Jimenez
– Leon Phan
34
Delta
– Livia Carneiro
– Brian Duff
– Charles Harkey
PACE
– Mathias Emeneth
– Glenn Reis
– Alexander
Schneegans