TOPOLOGICAL, SIZE AND SHAPE

OPTIMIZATION OF AN UNDERWING
PYLON SPIGOT

Prepared by: M. Basaglia (Alenia Aermacchi), S. Boni

Cerri (Alenia Aermacchi), G. Turinetti (Altair)
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Topological, Size and Shape Optimization of an Underwing Pylon Spigot

•Aircraft pylons have the function of supporting external payloads and are
installed under the wing and / or the fuselage. Pylons that are being developed
in Alenia Aermacchi will be installed on M-346 new advanced training aircraft.

•Inside the pylon, the structure called spigot or, in some cases, pivot is a highly
stressed structure made of high resistant steel and is the component that
transfers the concentrated loads coming from the carried mass to the wing or
fuselage structure.

•The design activity started from the available space envelope, from the
interfaces that were defined as non-design zones and the sizing loads (a set of
26 load cases). The application has been performed using OptiStruct.

•Two subsequent optimizations have been conducted: the first one followed a
topological approach, the second one was set as a shape optimization.
2
SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

3
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

RBE3 area for the

WING/SPIGOT interface
force application.
Applied force - upper node

RBE3 area for the

WING/SPIGOT interface
force application.

Applied force - lower node

CELAS - X, Y, Z direction

4
Spigot constrained to the ground (conservative approach) through celas elements
SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Stress - max principal 5

SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Present spigot configuration

Weight = 4.352 kg

6
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Starting volume

26 load cases
Non design area

Non design area

7
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Main advantage of topological optimization is to easily check how the

structure is designed by the optimization tool in relation to some
different design and manufacturing strategies (objective, responses and
constraints).
First optimization iterations are developed with the objective of
minimum weight compliance referred to all load conditions (with the
same weight equal to 1).
Constraints: mass fraction, minimum dimension, stress level, planes of
symmetry, direction of machining.

8
SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Responses: Weight compliance, mass fraction

Constraint: mass fraction ≤ 0.25
Objective: MIN weight compliance

9
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Responses: Weight compliance, mass fraction

Constraint: mass fraction ≤ 0.25
Manufacturing constraints: XZ plane of symmetry, mindim in the whole design space
Objective: MIN weight compliance
10
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Responses: Weight compliance, mass fraction

Constraint: mass fraction ≤ 0.25
Manufacturing constraints: YZ and XZ planes of symmetry, mindim in the whole design
space
11
Objective: MIN weight compliance
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Responses: Weight compliance, mass fraction, stress

Constraint: mass fraction ≤ 0.25, maximum principal stress<1000MPa in the ‘non design’
area
Manufacturing constraints: XZ plane of symmetry, mindim in the whole design space
1 draw direction (Z)
12
Objective: MIN weight compliance
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Responses: Weight compliance, mass fraction, stress

Constraint: mass fraction ≤ 0.25, maximum principal stress<1000MPa in the ‘non design’
area
Manufacturing constraints: XZ plane of symmetry, mindim in the whole design space, 2
design spaces in order to define draw directions (X, Z)
13
Objective: Min weight compliance
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Responses: Weight compliance, mass fraction, maximum stress

Constraint: mass fraction ≤ 0.25
Constraint: stress in the critical area (highlighted in the above figure) ≤ 1000 MPa
Manufacturing constraints: XZ plane of symmetry, mindim in the whole design space, 1
draw direction (Z) 14
Objective: MIN weight compliance
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Response: Mass, displacement

Constraint: Displacement constraint on the top of the Spigot extracted from the starting
configuration.
Manufacturing constraints: XZ plane of symmetry, mindim in the whole design space, 1
draw direction (Z)
15
Objective: MIN mass
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION
Shape optimization phase

Side flange thickness Spigot base radius (dense Mesh) Side cutout size

Lower hole diameter

Spigot conicity Lower transverse stiffener thickness
16
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Optimization problem definition:

Objective = Minimize Mass
Constraints =
• Stress ≤ Sigma max
• Bolt forces ≤ F max

In the above figure, the highlighted areas

represent a dense mesh zone, where the
stress response is checked.
The mass growth is due to the
approximation coming from the topological
optimization and the redesigning of new
CAD with some violation of stress
constraint.
17
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

The above figure shows the

contours of shape changes,
where the red area represents
the biggest parameter
reduction.
Spigot final configuration 18
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Configuration and mass evolution

Present weight
FEM weight = 4.360 kg
CAD weight = 4.352 Kg
Weight at the beginning of Weight at the end of the shape
the shape optimization optimization
FEM weight = 4.028 kg FEM weight = 4.138 kg
CAD weight = 4.015 Kg CAD extimated weight = 4.125 Kg

The weight reduction between the starting configuration and the configuration at the last optimization is of 5%
19
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Conclusions

•The topological optimization phase gave the evidence of the

possibility of saving weight removing material in some areas,
compared to the traditional design, in a way that with a standard
sizing approach is difficult to imagine.

•The shape optimization permitted to refine the previously

identified design.

•An interesting weight reduction (for this kind of structure) of 5%

has been obtained.

20
 SPIGOT OPTIMIZATION

Q&A

Thank you for your attention

21