Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11

Risk analysis:
sample application to a totally new aircraft design
Daniele Camatti*, Sergio Chiesa, Paolo Maggiore
Polytechnic of Turin, Aerospace Engineering Department, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24 — 10129 Torino, Italy

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to introduce a risk analysis procedure to be applied when a completely new project
is to be started. The object of the analysis is a new aircraft project carried out in the Aerospace Department of
the Polytechnic of Turin. This project is quite unusual not because of the involved technology but for the very
big dimensions (take-off weight"1350 t). This procedure can indicate the industrial risk level whether the
project will be developed further. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It is very well known that the 80s and 90s show us a large reduction in the number of new
aeronautical projects, especially compared to the number of new projects in the 50s and 60s. The
increased manufacturing risk is the main cause for this trend, especially if we consider the very high
technology level required to achieve a competitive aircraft project and the critical economic and
financial aspect.
It is clear how close the danger is of a loop like ‘‘less new productsNreduction in development
capabilityNincreased development criticality’’. A reliable methodology for risk analysis could
give a contribution that cannot be neglected. It would allow us to carry out a quantitative
evaluation of the development-related risks and be ancillary to management decisions.
This work illustrates an elementary application of a project which would carry an awfully high
risk to the company that would eventually decide to go on from the development phase to the
design phase. This is mainly due to the physical dimensions of the aircraft, totally outside present
standards.

* Corresponding author.

S1369-8869/98/$—see front matter ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 9 - 8 8 6 9 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 0 2 - 0
2 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11

Fig. 1. Concurrent project development through graduation theses.

2. C 1350 ‘‘Gulliver’’

The project C 1350 Gulliver is a very large cargo aircraft, having a take-off weight of 1350 t; the
project has been developed at the Polytechnic of Turin, Aerospace Dept., in a research project
aimed at verifying the ‘‘opportunities for growth of cargo vehicles’’. Such activity has been carried
out with predesign studies [1] based on an interest in very large cargo aircraft with load capacity
greater than the usual commercial aircraft. Among the several developed designs, one has attracted
the most interest: cargo aircraft take-off weight about 1200 t, classical architecture, and, if possible,
using present state-of-the-art technology as regarding engines, components, and manufacturing
technologies.
Several graduation theses have acted as a concurrent engineering process (Fig. 1) and the results
[2] as shown in Fig. 2, seems to be credible and could possibly be developed, at least theoretically.
In order to give a clear vision of the project, we refer to Table 1, where different development
aspects are summarised and, where applicable, estimated values of weight, components and
contributions to overall fly away costs are given.
Further details of the systems (including the flight controls actuators) are supplied by the
analysis methods FTA,1 FMEA2 and RCM,3 as shown in Fig. 3. We must keep in mind that these
analyses have been limited to pre-design level (macro functions black boxes).

1 Fault Tree Analysis: safety — critical failures.

2 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis: find out defective items.
3 Reliability Centered Maintenance: defines best maintenance program.
D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11 3

Fig. 2. C 1350.
4 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11

Table 1. Different aspects of design procedure.

 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11 5

Table 1. (Continued)
6 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11

Fig. 3. Maintenance program planning.

3. Risk analysis

The set of information so collected has been used as a starting point for the application of risk
analysis methodology, which has gone through different steps: first the different elements making
up the aircraft have been placed in the complexity/technological level matrix.
The matrix table in Fig. 4 shows how to allocate a score given by the sum of the complexity rank
plus the technological level. The complexity rank can be evaluated on the basis of the number of
 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11 7

Fig. 4. Scores assignment.

activities or components (as a matter of fact, in this case, the highest rank on complexity has been
granted to large subsystems). Whereas the technological level can only be evaluated in a qualitative
manner. For this purpose the engine example shown in Fig. 4 can be helpful.
Note that a first step in risk analysis could be made by using the scores as they are in the table in
Fig. 4: in the Gulliver project, the highest development phase risk would be allocated to the landing
gear which has a high complexity level and also has several completely new features (all wheels are
steerable, unusual landing dynamics, complex retraction and engine-driven wheels [3]).
The second step can anyway correct the scores with data-like weight, cost, FMEA results, and
maintenance plan features obtained from RCM. Weight and cost, if out of the expected range,
8 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11

Fig. 5. Modified scores evaluation.

Fig. 6. Modified scores.

 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11 9

Fig. 7. Modified scores assignment for different development phases.

Fig. 8. Graphical rendering.

10 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11

Fig. 9. Risk analysis by program phase.

could compromise the complete project, whereas the FMEA and RCM results can highlight the
risk of a very low reliability level and too many maintenance actions, impairing the commercial
success of the aircraft [4].
Fig. 5 shows how the scores can be obtained, after being modified as just illustrated.
Note that the four aforesaid influences (obtained as a ratio between the value of the ‘‘i’’
subsystem and the sum of values of all subsystems) are added to the scores in order to obtain
‘‘modified scores’’. This strategy was chosen because weights, costs, number of FMEA criticalities
and number of non-preventive maintenance actions may be relevant also in subsystems having
non-particularly high scores; for example, the wing structure, with a score of 8, has weight and cost
much greater than landing gear, with a score of 10.
However, at a very early stage of the project, our confidence in weights, costs, reliability
and maintenance estimations is, of course, not high as we would like. Reliability and mainten-
ance analyses for many subsystems are not possible at this stage of development; this is why
we have not amplified with coefficients the addenda to the scores in order to obtain modified
scores: modified scores are very similar to scores: in fact, we do not agree that the addenda
can modify the scale of importance of scores (because of the approximation of weights, costs,
reliability and maintenance estimations); by the way note in Fig. 5 that the addenda give us the
possibility to differentiate, in the risk scale, subsystem, characteristics and/or activities with the
same score (for example, engines and wing structure or architecture and assembly). Fig. 6 shows the
results graphically.
 D. Camatti et al. / Aircraft Design 1 (1998) 1—11 11

A further step, the last one, consists of spreading the scores (i.e. the criticality levels) over the
development phases. Fig. 7 shows how this has been done by using engineering judgement; the
scores are assigned to
(a) conceptual design,
(b) project,
(c) manufacturing,
(d) life cycle.
Fig. 8 is a graphical rendering of the scores.
If the added scores for every subsystem is allocated to the different phases, a global view centred
on the phases is obtained. This is illustrated in Fig. 9.
The complete view, as obtained, could be helpful while planning development activities, once the
decision to proceed is taken.
Before the ‘‘go-ahead’’ decision the methodology can also help in choosing between different
configurations, at the level presented in this work, by pointing out the more innovative or complex
areas. Due to a better confidence level in weights, costs, reliability and maintenance estimations, the
methodology also allows a trade-off comparison with innovation risk (scores) and indicates the
advantages that could be reached in aircraft characteristics.

References

[1] Chiesa S, Maggiore P, Torresan G. Velivoli di grandissime dimensioni: studi e tendenze from a memorial prof. Attilio
Lausetti day study, Torino, 7 May 1993.
[2] Chiesa S et al. Velivolo cargo di grandissime dimensioni: sviluppo del progetto e sperimentazione didattica. XIII
AIDAA National Congress, Roma, September 1995.
[3] Chiesa S, Maggiore P. Carrello di atterraggio e cargo handling per velivolo di grandissime dimensioni. XIII AIDAA
National Congress, Roma, September 1995.
[4] Chiesa S, Affidabilità, sicurezza e manutenzione nel progetto dei sistemi. Torino, CLUT, 1990.