A More Efficient Conceptual Design Process Using the RAGE Geometry Modeler

Field: Engineering (Physical Sciences)

A case is made that introducing CAD-based geometry prematurely in the aircraft design process actually hinders multidisciplinary design. Consequently, a design process which allows a designer to quickly build and analyze aerospace configurations without CAD or computational meshing specialists is proposed. This allows higher fidelity analyses to be applied at conceptual design and decreases the turnaround time for trade studies and optimizations. The basic premise of conceptual geometry modeling is presented and discussed. Key features and capabilities which are essential for a successful geometry modeler are identified. Desktop Aeronautics' conceptual geometry modeler, RAGE, is described, with emphasis on recent progress and advances in the tool. A preliminary graphical-user-interface is presented along with an application programming interface. Extensibility of the RAGE modeler is discussed along with the importance of this feature. The applicability of RAGE to simple trade studies is demonstrated in an example problem. The precision of the RAGE modeler is also demonstrated on a complex aircraft design. Future plans for the geometry modeler are also discussed. I. Background In the conceptual phase of aircraft design, there is often a wide range of geometric configurations that the designer wishes to consider, analyze, and assess. A designer’s intuition and creativity are crucial to a successful conceptual design, yet are easily inhibited by the modeling and analysis process itself, particularly if high-fidelity analysis is warranted. If the time between inception and assessment of a candidate design is relatively long, a designer may be forced to limit the number of concepts considered. New data revealed in a design iteration may suggest or require significant changes to the geometry configuration. Since the majority of considered design configurations will eventually be discarded, an ideal conceptual design process should involve a highly efficient and easy to use geometry modeler. Significant changes should be allowed without tedious re-work of the geometry model. Exporting the model for analysis should require little effort and have the capability to be automated. Therefore, any modeling application used in this process should be flexible and not restrict the designer’s choice of user interface, analysis method, and design optimization environment. Most current design processes in the aerospace industry rely heavily on computer-aided-design (CAD) applications. As a general design tool, CAD is a powerful geometry modeler capable of precisely representing practically any shape. Unfortunately, this generality is realized at the cost of requiring specialized training to efficiently and effectively use the software. Also, a CAD model is often not easily modified, especially if significant re-work of the geometry is necessary. This can lead to the premature freeze of an aircraft design due to employing excessively high-fidelity geometry modeling too early in the design process. Parametric CAD modeling could address this issue, but creating a well-designed parametric CAD model is difficult. Not only does it require an extremely skilled operator, but also the designer must have some insight into what parameterization may ultimately be desired. Modifying a parametric CAD model is often more difficult than modifying a conventional CAD model. Significant changes, such as adding or removing cross-sections, may invalidate the parameterization in some cases. In most organizations, CAD modeling (whether it be parametric or conventional) is often assigned to a dedicated CAD specialist. Since the conceptual designer is usually not a CAD specialist, the latter must communicate his design intent to the former, often using sketches, dimensions, and word of mouth. When the CAD specialist interprets the sketches, any part or detail not precisely defined usually requires judgment and artistic license. This interpretation may result in loss of design intent and indeterminate iteration between the CAD specialist and designer to obtain a satisfactory result. Because this process is iterative, CAD operators often must recreate similar geometry