Res Eng Des (1992) 4:115-130
Theory, Applications,and
Cooperation in Aircraft Design
A l a n H . B o n d 1'* a n d R i c h a r d J. Ricci
~Manufacturing Engineering Program, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; and 2Automation
Systems, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company, Burbank, California, USA
Abstract. We describe how aircraft are designed in a large
organization. We discuss the different phases of design
and interaction with the customer. We then describe the
models used by each specialist department and the interac-
tions among departments during the design process. We
observe that the main design choices are refinement opera-
tions on the design. We then briefly describe how the
negotiation process is controlled by an organizationally
agreed sequence of commitment steps. We then describe
negotiation at higher levels in the organization. What deci-
sions are made, the compromises worked out, and the
effect of these higher-level commitments on the design
process.
We conclude that: (I) aircraft design proceeds by the
cooperation of specialists (specialist teams or depart-
ments); (2) each specialist has its own model of the design,
and may use several different models or partial models for
different purposes; (3) specialists have limited ability to
understand each other's models. They communicate using
a shared vocabulary, but not necessarily.shared technical
knowledge; (4) design proceeds by successive refinement
of the models, which are coordinated and updated to-
gether; (5) the design decisions, which are acts of commit-
ment and model refinement, are negotiated by the special-
ists among themselves; (6) one way this negotiation
process is organized and controlled is by the use of com-
mitment steps; (7) negotiations occur at higher levels in
the organization, resulting in commitments which greatly
influence and constrain the design process and its organi-
zation, and which have the greatest effect on the cost of
the product.
1 Introduction
t.i The Problem o f Collaborative Design
Whereas there is some existing published research
on concurrent design requirements and on computer
systems for the support of concurrent design (see,
Offprint requests: 4173C Engineering 1, Department of Com-
puter Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024-
1596, USA
Research in Engineering Design
Concurrent Engineering
1992Springer-VerlagNew York Inc.
e.g., [I] and [2]), we know of very little previous
work that has reported on existing collaborative de-
sign in manufacturing organizations.
We perceive the problem as to first describe col-
laborative design, then to manage it (i.e., to control
action and allocate resources so as to optimize re-
source use, subject to real-time requirements). As
part of this, we can then determine how to support
this activity, by changes in procedure, culture, and
computer support.
1.2 Separate Models
An illustrative example arises in our work on collab-
oration in wing section design. H e r e a stress engi-
neer and a producibility designer interact using a
diagram on a CAD system. The stress engineer
needs a solution which transmits loads well through
the structure, and the designer needs a structure that
is easy to fabricate, using, for example, an automatic
riveting machine. The criteria used b y each special-
ist are private to them in that they are complex and
concerned with their particular technologies.
In the case of the collaboration of a producibility
designer and a stress engineer, the producibility de-
signer is concerned with arranging forms and fasten-
ers so that the design realizes (or " s i z e s " ) a given
layout and function, and is producible (i.e., manu-
facturable on the machines currently available using
techniques and tooling currently in use in the organi-
zation). His description concerns the use o f the part,
and its production. The producibility engineer tries
to make joints which are straight, and accessible
with known riveting gun types. He also needs to
keep rivet spacing constant, or at least to a small
number or different rivet spacings, in order to limit
tooling set-up cost.
The stress engineer is c o n c e r n e d with arrange-
ments such that the loads carried in the elements
are well formed, in that internal load is transmitted
throughout the structure, which satisfies a given ex-
ternal load specification. His description concerns
116 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

loads, stresses, transmission, and techniques for PHASE MAIN DECISIONS MAIN TECHNOLOGIES

finding them. The stress engineer works privately I~equh'eluent s

Spex:itic~t&~ns
with a finite element model which calculates load
~ONCEPT DESIGN
patterns satisfying differential equations derived Fuel/Stores/Engine Design
()ug~l,o,rd Sy~telnx Str~c~,,r~'~ (Stre~/L~ad,s ~,
from physical principles. These must match the load hdm~rd Profile VCeights
Aeronlechanic~
transmission properties of the sized geometry. Mission AnMysis
The common language of their collaboration is PRELIMINARY DESIGN
simply a drawing, that is, geometric elements and Fuel/Stllres/Engines
Flight Station/Envirmunent
Design
Al~rodyl~ulics
their relations; in addition, indications of what is Ctm~rots/Hydraulics
Primary Stnu:turM Joints
Structures (Stress/Loads]
Weighg~
right or wrong with a given geometry, and possibly ElectricM/B[ack Boxes Al~romechal~ics
Detailed Inboard Profile Tllermodyn~mii:s
suggested changes in the geometry. RMar Imagiug
I Propulsion
In aircraft design, there are many other special- R, M aud S

ists, each with their own technology and language.
For example, there are aerodynamicists who use
surface models and flow-field equations; there are
maintainability engineers concerned with access,
disassembly, and replacement; there are hydraulic
engineers; and thermodynamic experts. They do not
understand each other's specializations, but they
have to collaborate to produce a single design ac-
ceptable to all.
The aim of collaboration is to produce a design
which is agreed to by each agent. This means that
each agent has a justification of the design that he is
satisfied with. In organizational practice, it is very
important to validate designs. Manufacturing is very
much concerned with validation, specification, and
standardization, as organizational mechanisms. The
design must satisfy' contractual requirements and
must also meet safety and other legal and govern-
ment-dictated requirements.
1.3 Conflict
We shall ignore any problems of conflict and decep-
tion in collaboration, and assume benign, nonantag-
onistic collaboration. This is, in any case, what hap-
pens in organizations. At a given organizational
level, one department can assume that the informa-
tion given by other departments is "correct." It is
not held responsible for inaccuracies or errors of
judgment of other departments. Problems of compe-
tence and conflict of interest among departments are
usually assumed to be dealt with at higher organiza-
tional levels.
1.4 Outline of This Paper
In Section 2, we discuss how the collaborative prod-
uct design process is initiated by specification with
the customer. Sections 3 and 4 describe the different
specialists involved in aircraft design, the models
they use, and their interactions. Section 4.3 draws
conclusions on the overall structure of the collabora-
tive design process. Section 4.4 discusses model re-
PRODUCTION DESIGN
Same as gbow~ except
De~ailed parts released
for pr(ld u(C.ion
Dimenslmts with all parts
Fig. 1. Design phases, main decisions, and main technologies
involved.
finement. Section 5 lays out a typical complete
scheme of design goals and steps in the design of
aircraft to prototype stage. Section 6 briefly raises
the issue of higher level negotiation. By higher level,
we mean (1) at a higher level of abstraction, such as
policies for choice of materials, and also (2) con-
cerned with organization and support of the design
process. Section 7 summarizes and concludes.
2 Specifying the Product
2.I Phases of Design
The design of an aircraft usually has three main
distinguishable phases, Concept Design, Prelimi-
nary Design, and Production Design. The main deci-
sions made in each phase and the main departments
involved in each phase are listed in Fig. 1. The
general idea of these phases is in relation to the
customer, the determination of feasibility, and tim-
ing and cost estimates. Originally, a concept design
was sufficient to allow a commitment of resources
by the customer. A proof of concept is that a viable
product can be produced to perform the mission.
"Based on this specification, we are convinced that
we can achieve this design at this cost." As airplanes
became more expensive and their introduction also
involved major technological and production pro-
cess investment, the negotiation with the customer
became more protracted. Preliminary design in-
volves a major detailed design, perhaps taking 50
people and six months to complete, and costing sev-
eral million dollars. Another approach is to design
to the point of producing a prototype plane. This is
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design
sometimes called a "demonstrator" or "valuation"
project by the Department of Defense (DOD).
The specification of the mission may be generated
by a military customer and given in a request for
proposal. For commercial customers, an unsolicited
proposal may be made, based on a survey of industry
needs made by the airplane company. A commit-
ment (e.g., to buy 50 planes if they meet this specifi-
cation) can sometimes be obtained.
From the specification, a concept design is done
and submitted to the customer, from which an award
may be made for the next step. The next step is
usually not a full preliminary design, but a design to
the level of a paper prototype. This is again submit-
ted to the customer, who makes a further award,
usually to more than one contractor in competition,
to produce an actual prototype. This is a preliminary
design of the production version. It results in a physi-
cal "demonstrator" (i.e., an actual plane that per-
forms to the specification, but which is "hand
made"), as well as many other aspects of the design,
including:
1. Demonstration that the company has sufficient
"know how" to produce the planes.
2. Demonstration that key types of people are
available.
3. Demonstration that the plane can be made within
schedule.
4. Demonstration that the plane is maintainable.
If a production contract is then awarded, since
this is often 2--3 years later, a redesign is done to
take into account new technological advances, to
give a production design, and to manufacture a given
number of planes.
2.2 Customer Specification
The customer specification contains the following
types of information:
1. Stores (i.e., cargo) weight, size. There may be 20
or 30 different types of stores to be carried at any
one time.
2. At this stage, a description of a set of missions,
which includes speed regime, distance, time in
air, and payloads.
3. Extreme performance conditions, speeds, accel-
erations, etc.
4. Volume.
5. Performance characteristics, maneuvrability,
fuel efficiency.
6. Target cost, profit, cost/effective design.
117
2.3 High-Level Analysis and Synthesis
A small team of concept designers does the first-cut
analysis of the possibilities. Early key decisions are:
I. Major manufacturability choices.
Material policy
Fastening policy--types of fastener, whether to
use automatic fastening machines, whether to use
sealant
Sizes of parts
Fly by wire or not
2. Structural design policy.
3. Major items of supportability.
Built-in test equipment
Major spares versus repairable--rudders, eleva-
tors, landing gear, doors, etc.
These decisions are more important than exact ad-
herence to schedules. An attempt is made to make
a "level playing field" for the design by estimating
the three main aspects of the design all into dollar
figures:
DESIGN--weight, strength;
MANUFACTURING--man-hours, fixed assets;
SUPPORT--man-hours, spares.
The team determines:
1. Overall size, weight, and power.
2. Basic spatial style and shape or approach.
3. Basic materials and processes.
4. Basic structural philosophy.
5. From the set of missions, a set of scenarios is
developed. These determine the number of times
a stress is applied and allow fatigue measures to
be developed.
2.4 The Initial Cartoon
The designer takes the output from the team, and
the customer specification, and produces an initial
cartoon. The cartoon contains the following types
of information:
1. Location of major systems/components.
2. Location of major structural members (structural
arrangement drawing).
3. Planform.
4. Cross-section of various critical sections;
more specifically:
1. Basic geometry.
2. Size information.
3. Basic location of main systems such as fuel,
stores, landing gear, flight station, and engine(s).
118 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

ACES 11 FWD WING

EJECTIONSEAT AVIONICS FUEL
BAY TANK

FUSELAGE P~W CCD,II78

FUEL TANKS

APU

AFT
-- 1.]2 Ai ~,BZ >,-.-' = I
,. ~i'

~_,//q-~J \ ,

20MM GUN

ENGINE
FEED
FWD
WEAPONS ADVANCED TANKS

AFT
FWO AVIONICS
AVIONICSBAY
~ F ~ F BAY
B ~ r "D

AAM

L.A

RADAR AMAD VECTORED

ANTENNA FWD AIR THRUST
WEAPONS BAY REFUELING NOZZLE
RECEPTACLE

Fig. 2. Surfacedefinitionof initial cartoon given as three-viewdrawing.

4. Basic location of electronics.
5. Wing cross-sections.
6. Number and location of engines.
7. Basic radar configuration.
The designer gives the cartoon its first main geomet-
ric representation as a three-view drawing, where
the cross-sections at critical sections are developed,
as given in Fig. 2.
3 Different Models for Different Specialists
The set of specialists departments involved in each
design phase was shown in Fig. 1. In this section,
we discuss the models used by each department in
each phase.
Each specialist department constructs, from the
cartoon, its own specialized model. A model will
usually have a geometric representation, but in gen-
eral will be abstraction, and will contain a lot of
nongeometric information.
3.1 Designer
The main taks of the design department is the devel-
opment of three-view drawings, with preliminary
inboard profile. This contains:
Location of major systems/components.
Location of major structural members (structural
arrangement drawing).
Planform.
Cross-sections at various critical sections.
The main task is to develop, update, and maintain
spatial arrangements and geometry.
3.2 Aerodynamics
The main question being answered by aerodynamics
is "Will it fly?" More specifically, estimates of the
flight characteristics of the design so far.
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design
In the concept design phase, this model
is a 2D plan (planform)
with minor allowances for airfoil (e.g., angle of
attack of wings)
and rough approximations of cross-section area
progression.
The main outputs are lift/drag profiles and effi-
ciency assessments. This gives more exact fuel esti-
mates, wing area, and wing sweep angle.
In the preliminary design phase, more detailed
models are used. Aerodynamic models consist of a
considerable amount of vehicle description, up to
and including some inlet detail and wind-tunnel
models:
3D surface models.
Some 3D flow models (simplified).
Sophisticated cross-sectional area progression (for
wave drag).
A quadpan model uses a mesh of 3D surface ele-
ments, and a full 3D finite element model is eventu-
ally used.
3.3 Structures
The structures department is concerned with the
strength and structural integrity of the aircraft under
all required conditions of use. The structures model
is a 3D finite element model
is a lumped model (e.g., 2-3 lumped stringers rep-
resent 20 actual stringers, 200 degrees of freedom
represent 5000 degrees of actual freedom, parame-
ters are lumped)
has abstract structural members
and abstract plates.
In the concept design phase, it is a fairly sparse
model, used primarily for rough sizing of main load-
carrying members. Main critical joints are defined,
and main load paths are found. The main outputs
generated are required cross-sectional areas of
structural members, and their moments of inertia.
The values of loads in each member are found. From
these, stresses in each member can be easily deter-
mined. The loads transmitted through each joint are
also found.
In preliminary design phase, a model is eventu-
ally developed (called a full " b o n e s " drawing),
which represents each actual structural member by
a modeled structural member:
Much more sophisticated external loading models,
including a significant set of flight conditions.
Much more detailed structural "bones" model,
119
including all primary load-carrying members and
many of the secondary load carying members.
Significant study done on both critical and second-
ary joint areas (not to rivet level).
Significant amount of detailed structural analysis
done on critical members, includes crippling,
buckling, bending analysis (very local analysis).
In the production phase, detailed individual stress
analyses are performed for all important substruc-
tures throughout the aircraft.
3.4 Weights
The weights department is concerned with the static
weight distribution. Their model contains the follow-
ing types of information:
A lumped model with point masses and moments
of inertia.
A representation of the 1 g loading configuration
(i.e., just to lift off the ground).
The center of gravity (cg).
The center of lift (provided by aerodynamics).
In the concept design phase, the lumped masses
and moments of inertia represent the main compo-
nents of the vehicle. The model is used to generate
rough 1 g loading for structural applied loads. Many
of these numbers are based upon phenomenological
formulae obtained empirically. The main outputs are
the balance (cg), and the total weight.
In the preliminary design phase:
Significant detailed weight calculations for 1 g
loading. Major vendor part information is used.
Exact x,y,z cg locations are used where possible.
Total weight calculations become more realistic
and critical, as to meet performance requirements.
3.5 Aeromechanics
Aeromechanics are concerned with the dynamic re-
sponse of the system under given excitation regimes.
The model:
is an inertia model
is generally simpler than a structures model
is a stick diagram with lumped masses and stiff-
nesses.
It is used to generate nodal vibration relationships
and vehicle stability characteristics. The outputs
contain vibration amplitudes throughout the vehicle
for given flight conditions which are used as multipli-
ers for inertial effects on applied structural loads.
In the concept design phase, a simplified mass-
stiffness stick model representing the vehicle is used
120 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design
to generate nodal vibration relationships and vehicle
stability characteristics.
In the preliminary design phase:
A significantly enhanced mass-stiffness stick
model is used to determine stability.
More detailed analysis of vibration/stability prob-
lems relating to major components (i.e., engine
and wings) is carried out.
3.6 Mission Analysis
Mission analysis is used mainly in the concept design
phase. It uses parametric characteristics of vehicle
layout to perform sizing iterations to determine opti-
mal geometric shape.
3.7 Radar lmaging
This technology determines detectability by radar.
The model consists of panelized data used to repre-
sent the vehicle shape. The model must be extremely
accurate and dense (number of elements) in order to
accurately find true reflectance values.
3.8 Thermodynamic Analysis
This model is concerned with heat absorption, con-
ductance, and emittance throughout the vehicle, and
how these affect the structural, environmental, and
reliability characteristics of the aircraft. In the con-
cept design phase, it consists of a space model con-
sisting of major components represented as lumped
masses as conductors and resistors. In the prelimi-
nary design phase, a much more detailed model is
used:
it contains many components
the vehicle is broken into regions and
localized systems, such as fuel systems and electri-
cal systems, are studied individually.
3.9 Mechanism Analysis
The mechanisms of the aircraft consist of the opera-
tion of all moving mechanical systems in the vehicle.
In the concept design phase, the model:
defines moving surfaces
models landing gear
includes control systems and
specifies the motion of the large main members.
In the preliminary design phase, the model is the
same as above except:
motion ranges are defined in much greater detail
minor components, such as hydraulic pumps, are
included
large attention is paid to fitting working mecha-
nisms within volume constraints and
structural aspects are studied and determined (siz-
ing, life cycle, etc.).
3.10 Manufacturability
Manufacturing specialists are involved already at
the concept level, as described in Section 2.3. Manu-
facturing specialists do not have a separate model,
but criticize the main design model. In the prelimi-
nary design phase, the main criticisms concern
whether the design could be built in the given fabri-
cation shops. Considerations include material
choices and whether special fabrication processes
or techniques would be involved.
During the last phase of prototype design, they
are involved in all the detailed specifications of parts
and assemblies.
1. Correct specifications for manufacturing have to
be generated.
2. Assignments of manufacturing processes have to
be determined. These have to satisfy manufactur-
ability criteria.
3. Detailed assembly processes have to be deter-
mined to ensure that assemblies can actually be
assembled.
4. Detailed cost factors are determined at the part
level.
Thus, in this last phase, there is a manufacturing
model which is the set of process plans for fabricat-
ing parts, and the set of assembly plans for assem-
bling them. These plans do not contain detailed tool-
ing designs, but contain an outline tooling design or
tooling concept.
3.1t Quality Assurance
Checking is done by QA specialists to criticize de-
signs.
3.12 Reliability, Maintainability,
and Supportability
Checking is done by RM&S specialists. They use
"lessons learned" feedback from the field in the
form of case reports, to criticize designs.
3.13 Cost Estimation and Control
Cost specialists are involved in all phases. They
use analytical models to derive estimated costs from
designs so far.
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design
4 Interactions Among Specialists
In this section, we describe the interactions and in-
terfaces among the different specialists and their
models.
4.1 Informal Overview of Interactions
Among Specialists
We can give an overall illustration by briefly describ-
ing a typical scenario in a preliminary design envi-
ronment. At this point in the design, the designer
has developed a shape concept with significant detail
as far as the location of the vehicle primary systems
and vehicle surface components/control surfaces
are concerned.
A " b o n e s " diagram determining rib stations, fu-
selage ring stations, major pressure bulkheads, ma-
jor joints, and major load carrying members has been
developed.
A typical course of action might be as follows.
The aero-engineer, who has already made previous
preliminary runs, now creates a more detailed model
and runs the more expensive flow codes to get a
better feel of the vehicle performance. He comes
back with data which indicate the improvements can
be made by modifying certain areas of the vehicle
shape.
The designer examines these suggested changes
relative to their effect on the packaging of the vehicle
systems and the support structure used to hold these
systems in place.
The stress engineer examines the designer's
changes to the structure needed to fulfill aerody-
namic recommendations and runs an upgraded
stress finite element model reflecting these changes.
The feedback from the FEM analysis is reported to
the designer, denoting any trouble areas which may
arise.
The three organizations will now sit down to-
gether, usually in a meeting to discuss variations of
the proposed changes which could alleviate problem
areas. Compromises will be suggested. All these or-
ganizations will then return to their respective disci-
plines to make further studies on the recommended
compromises. These new studies will necessitate
further meetings to reconcile continuing problem
areas. This iteration process will continue until all
parties are satisfied that they can live with the de-
scribed changes.
Throughout this process, time and cost of analysis
play an important role as to the depth of analysis
actually undertaken and the number of iterations
allowed. In the end, these two factors are what
closes off further development and the development
121
community settles into a "make this work" situ-
ation.
4.2 Descriptions of Input and Output to
Each Specialist
4.2.1 Designer. The designer bases his design
primarily on the information obtained from the
proposal specifications. From this information and
previous experience, concepts, etc., the designer
generates a three-view cartoon concept which forms
the basis of the first analysis. Thereafter, he/she
updates and refines the spatial layouts in interaction
with the technology specialists. Input is received
from all other departments and the designer's task
is to constantly resynthesize a good design. The
model used is a set of drawings, on a CAD system,
which represent the actual geometry of the aircraft,
as it is estimated so far.
4.2.2 Aerodynamics.
Input: The aerodynamics specialist will query ge-
ometry (2D and/or 3D) for specific geometry
points (x,y,z), which will be used to represent
the surface shape of the vehicle, and can be
used to demonstrate airflow over the surface.
Model elements: From input data, a 3D quadrilat-
eral grid of points will be developed to repre-
sent the airflow system about the vehicle.
Output: Life, drag, and pressure distribution of
the vehicle for a given set of flight conditions.
From the output, the viability of the vehicle to
fulfill the flying requirements will be deter-
mined and required changes recommended.
4.2.3 Structures. The philosophy behind the
structures model is that it is created for two basic
reasons:
1. To prove, through analysis, the viability of the
design (i.e., will the structure fail to fulfill its
strength requirements).
2. To help in the optimization of the design (i.e.,
reduce weight, reduce cost, reduce complexity,
etc.).
The level of detail varies as the design proceeds
toward greater definition and completion. The rea-
sons for the variation in detail include:
1. Lack of completeness of design.
2. Cost of running analysis.
3. Time required to create and run model.
Input: The structures specialist will query geome-
try (2D and/or 3D) for specific geometric points
122 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design
(x,y,z), which can be used to represent the
strength components of the structure. These
include load paths, physical locations, type of
loads transferred, and strength of load path.
Structures will also receive external pressure
distribution data from the aerodynamics and
loads departments.
Model elements: From input data, a "bulk data
deck" representing the model is created. This
includes:
1. Grid points representing physical locations.
2. Connectivity elements representing the
physical structure through which the loads
pass.
3. Material properties representing the
strength and stiffness characteristics of the
material of each component.
4. Structural properties representing the physi-
cal shape and size of each component.
5. Applied external loads from aerodynamic/
loads pressure curves.
Output: Internal loads and configuration deflec-
tions. From this output, the viability of the con-
figuration is determined, and required changes
are recommended.
4.2.4 Weights and loads. The inputs, model and
outputs for weights analysis are as follows:
Input: The weights model is generated from sev-
eral sources including the central design layout,
empirical data based on existing aircraft and
vendor data on included parts/segments of the
airplane, such as engines, radar systems, etc.
Model elements: The model assigns weights in a
lumped model.
Output: A gravitational loading distribution
which is lumped and/or provides an envelope.
In addition, there is a loads group which elabo-
rates the dynamic loading cases.
Input: The loads data is a direct result of combin-
ing aerodynamically derived pressure distribu-
tion data with different speed regimes and flight
conditions which impose certain g forces and
air forces on the vehicle.
Model elements: A lumped model.
Output: A set of load cases.
4.2.5 Aeromechanics. The inputs, model, and
outputs for aeromechanics analysis are as follows:
1. The aeromechanics model is derived from the
components of the three-view created by the de-
signer (determines stiffnesses) and the I g weights
developed by the weights group.
2. The model is a simpler lumped model represent-
ing the basic structure only. It typically ignores
major systems and has fewer structural members
than other structural models. It uses lumped
weights and inertia.
3. Mathematical stimuli are applied to the resulting
model to determine system vibration and stability
characteristics for each flight condition. This is
used to make recommendations on altering the
parameters of structures in the wing and fuselage.
4.2.6 Manufacturability. During design, manu-
facturing specialists relate to the cooperative design
process more as checkers with vetoing ability than
design drivers. They act to stabilize cost and time.
Checking is done by manufacturing specialists to
criticize designs.
Input: The main design model.
Output: Criticisms of the form of vetoing or sug-
gested modifications of given aspects of the
design.
During the last phase of prototype design, they
are involved more interactively in all the detailed
specifications of parts and assemblies.
A lot of manufacturability criticism and constraint
is actually achieved from the training of central de-
signers in the principles of manufacturability; in ad-
dition, there are design handbooks, used for the
guidance of designers, which contain manufactura-
bility criteria. Thus, the interaction is via the transfer
of knowledge through education.
4.2.7 Quality assurance. Checking is done by
QA specialists to criticize designs.
Input: The main design model.
Output: Criticisms of the form of vetoing or sug-
gested modifications of given aspects of the
design.
4.2.8 Reliability, maintainability, and supportabil-
ity. Checking is done by RM&S specialists to criti-
cize designs.
Input: The main design model.
Output: Criticisms of the form of vetoing or sug-
gested modifications of given aspects of the
design.
4.2.9 Cost estimation and control. Cost special-
ists are involved in all phases.
Input: The main design model.
Model elements: Cost estimates for assemblies.
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design 123

i speedregime
volume,weight mission i specification
distance,performance changes
Ica~oon j specialistmodel specialistmodel
Structures Aerodynamics
modelchanges
biggerwingbox "~ moreexact
moreribs g f~el estimate evaluations
I, moment wingarea
A...... s:ctioo~ / sweepangle suggestions
/ geometl]
1\ 1\ /\
-o4
e net refinement refinement refinement
Fig. 4. T h e process o f coordinated refinement of models.

baiance inertia
totalweight
distribution 4.4.1 Envelope to more detailed geometry. The
Weights
initial model specifies an approximate volume,
[ Aeromechanics which can be an envelope or a bounding cuboid for
the refined model.

Final 4.4.2 More exact numerical estimates. As an ex-

Conceptual ample, fuel capacity 15,000 gal is a representation of
Design
an interval such as 14,000-16,000. A more exact
estimate might be 15,500 gal, which might at this
Fig. 3. Conceptual design. level of refinement corresponds to the interval
15,250-15,750.

4.4.3 Single to multiple elements. The mapping

Output: Cost estimates for given aspects of the
design.
4.3 Overall Structure of the Design Process
4.3.1 Interacting specialists. During conceptual
design, the initial cartoon is refined up to the point
of a fairly detailed layout. During this process, the
specialized models are constructed in their initial
forms, and then also refined so as to reflect and
to incorporate the changes and progression of the
central design. This is diagrammed in Fig. 3.
Further, the sets of experts involved gradually
change as the design proceeds. Some leave and some
join the dance.
4.3.2 Coordinated refinement of models. The
process of refinement, where each specialist refines
his model, and works to keep his model up to date
with the central model, is depicted in Fig. 4. This
also shows the input of specification changes, and
their distribution to the relevant specialists.
4.4 Model Refinement
A model may be changed to correct it, but most of
the changes are in the refinement of the model. We
give some examples of refinement:
from the initial model, which lumps elements into
abstract elements, may not be a direct expansion of
each element into several more detailed elements.
We have depicted a lumped model with four ele-
ments being expanded into a more detailed model
with 14 elements. We also show that single element
expansions have to be merged to produce a refine-
ment, and that additional elements may be added
during this process.
4.4.4 Putting in explicit fuel, power, and hydraulic
lines. These may have a nonnegligible diameter
and other requirements and may need to be consid-
ered at a nondetailed level.
4.4.5 SuJface geometry specification. Surfaces
are at first approximated by a series of defining
curves comprising planar cross-sections and pri-
mary longitudinal lines. Finally, these are converted
into surface patches in which the areas between the
defining curves are mathematically defined. The
analysis models represent these surfaces using pla-
nar facets connected to x,y,z coordinate data.
4.4.6 Articulation and fastening. A 3D form will
at first exist in a simplified shape, and will then be
refined, and optimized for manufacture, by articulat-
ing it into an assembly of component parts. This may
124 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

Customer Generate requirements. Customer Give approval at design review.

Project management Prom customer requirements Project managemettt Change configuration collcept,
and advanced technology assessment, revise design par~lueters,
coordinate configuration concept, do design review.
D~ign ~nd sys%ems Generate ba~e|inedrawings, Design al~d systems Update general arrangement,
general arrangement, update inhoard profile,
inboard profile find wetted areas and
(support tool - CADAM} area distribution,
Loft functional systenl8 considerations
I Aerodynamics Wing proportions + (~) W i g chord lengtb/sutface area. (1} flight controls (2) fuel
(b) thickness/chord tength~ (c) Aspec~ Ratio. (3} hydraulic (4) electrical
Empennage size, (5) avionics (6) environmental control
Thrust to weight r~tio T/W. (6) weapons.
Propulsion Engine selection~ ta,nge of cycle parameters. (Use0 CADAM support tool).
Engine installation criteria. (May use Asset support tool).
Weights Approx gross weight. Approx empty weight. Produce updated baseline drawings,
Strtlct ure~ Evaluate configuratiou for genera/ arrangements, inboard profile,
{I) toad paths for low cost Loft
light weight structures, and ~-dyx~aanics Determine
(2) reasonable and consistent design parameters, (1) eppennage scaling data (2) drag data
Ae~omechanics Provide criteria guidelines. (3) low speed lift data
Participate in design: (4} control surface sizes.
{U~es aerodynamic programst
11) evaluation for loads
Propulsion Determine
(2) aeroelastic and flutter effects
(support tool - loads programs), (1) parametric installed engine,
performance data versus
Materials and producibility
(a) overall pressure ratio
Model specifications (b) bypass ratio
Laboratories (el turbine entry temperature
Engineering shop (2) Loom flow field col~ditions
Plight test (3) inlet and exhaust nozzle performance data
Other disciphnes (4) Scaling data
(5) Installed engine weigh data
(6) Performance and weight scaling
Fig. 5. Step 1: Initial design parameters. 7} Initial structural temperatures.
(Uses propulsion programs}.
Weights Determine
(11 component weight relationship~
(21 payload and operating equipnmnt weights
require specification of fasteners for stress calcula- (3) effects of configuration peculiar items
(4) C.G. location and limits
tions at a nondetailed level. (5) F~el volume relationships.
(use mass distrihutio~ tool}
-S~t.:t u r ~ Define structural design criteria.
Perform trade-off studies to define
4.4.7 Sizing of parts for structural models.
Sizing (1) basic structural concepts
(21 material usage,
replaces a center line specification by a volume ge- Provide effects on asset weight equation~
due to ( ~ structurM technology
ometry. This may at first exist as a width and height (b) structural arrangements
specification only, and then an exact cross-sectional (c) structural design requirements,
Aeromechanics Provide parametric basic loads.
geometry. After this, modifications such as light- Participate in design evaluation
Preliminary aeroielastic assessment.
ening holes may be added. (use loads programs, detailed load~ programs
and aeroelastic program)
~aTerials and producibility
Model specifications
4.4.8 Addition of elements. Some elements may Laboratories
have a simplified representation at the initial level, -E'~l~ginear i ug shop
Flight test
and thus the model is refined by enhancing them. An Other disciplines

example, in the design area, is of adding the cockpit

Fig. 6. Step 2: Generate data/preliminary point design.
elements such as seats and console. There may be
intermediate refinements, such as specifying the
angle of inclination of the back of the seat, and the
pilot's viewing window. 4. Detail point design studies.
5. Refine selected configuration.
6. Design and build prototype.
5 Organization of Design Using Committed Steps Within each step, and for each goal, we indicate
which of the many available computer support tools
The way the grouping of design departments is usu- are used.
ally organized is related to the schedule steps in
design. A step is defined as a set of design choices
that must be committed to by a given time. 5.2 Commitment Steps
We summarize the above six steps in Fig. 14.
5.1 Steps in Advanced Aircraft Design
5.2.1 The concept of commitment step. As dia-
We show, in Figs. 5-13, an organization into six
grammed in Fig. 15, the notion of commitment step
steps sometimes used in aircraft design. These steps
is that a set of joint commitments is made by all the
are: design agents at the end of each step. These are
1. Initial design parameters. public commitments to best estimates for decision
2. Generate data/preliminary point design. choices. These estimates are then used by all agents
3. Parametric and trade-off analysis. during the next step.
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design 125

Customer Customer Give approval at end of st(~p.

Pro~ect management Determine trAde-off m~trlx, Project management Select detail point designs.
Do d~ign evMnation, desigtl review, and
Design and systems Study powei plant si/ee, wing ~nd eppeltage size, revise design parametel's,
fllselAgc size, basic alrfrKtlle geometry. Design and systems From configuration design,
controls ~ld avionics, genera,re preliminary coueepts.
(m~y use CADAM). i.e.. general arrangements and inhoard prldiles,
M~y do Asset stndy (Asset tool}. Update genera/ arrangements and inboard profiles.
Loft consider configuration pe~:uliar items
erod--~y
A namics Study ms,ueuvr ability, (e.g., r~dar, weapons, p~yload).
acceleration, ~ate of climb. dl~t~Illlilte wetted areas, and area,R di.~tributi(m.
ceiling, off-design mission c~pahility, Make layouts for
range/fuel consumption, (1) flight controls sy~tent
optimum thrust to weight (T/W} raticx (2) powerldant instMlation
(use aerodynamic programs). (3) ~tructural arr~,ngenlent
Proptflsiou Study engine cycle and size. (4) t~l~ding Rear
lift engine size. (5) crew station
(use propnlsion programs ), (6) fuel system
Weights Study gross weight, (71 hydraulic system
(8) electrical system
empty weight, structural weight,
system~ and subsystems weight. (91 avionics system
propulsiotl weight, fuel volume avail~ble, (t0) r111viroltlnent~l (xmtrd system
filel reqairt.~d, eff~mts of advanced technology. (111 weapons system
effects of configuration changes, (12) miscellaneous equipment
maximum take-off weight, (13) nlec]
(use mass distribution program). (uses CADAM).
Structures Determine strlt(:tura], conlponent/nlatt~ri~l nlatrix. Produce ilpdated concept drawings.
Pxovide parametric basic loads. inehldiItg general arraltgenmnts.
Aeromechanies P~rtieipeAe in desig*~ evaluation, inlmard profiles, ~nd layouts,
Parametric ~erolastic assessment. Loft Develop loft surface.
(use detailed loads programs and aer(mlasticity l)rograul) (uses CADAM).
MatetiMs end producibility Study eltghteering cost~ Aerodyll~mic~ Determine
Study acquisition of (1) drag lnfiht up
(I) production m~terial ~ut labor. (2) matmuvcr envelope V-N die,gram
(2) tooling, (3) spares (3l control surfa,:c size
Study operatioual e~ts: (4) primary mission performance ~nalysis
( i ) maintenance, (2) replenish spares. {5) airport performance
(3) fl~el and oil. and (41 pay and allowances, (6) flight envelope
Produce estilll~.h~ of total system cost. {7)
Model specifications (8) C,G. range, loadahility
L~bor atories 19) preliminary failure amdysis.
Engineering shop (us~s aerodyumnic progrexms Kiid transmdc ~nalysi~},
Flight test Propnl~km II~,fine
(1) engine selection
Other disciplines Acoustics - side lim~ noise. (2) insttdled perfi~rnt~nce data
flyover noise, ~lt(t footprint noise. (3) inh~t and nozzle size and
iustMl~tioll configur~th)I~.
Determim~:
Fig. 7. Step 3: Parametric and trade-off analysis. (l) Fm~l system sizing requirements
(2) Initial auxiliary system requlrenltmts
alld defiaition.
l~(dhle structural telnl)eraturcs.
Duternlhle transient telllper~turtr ~ud
histories (ff structurM COlll])ont!lltS.
(Uses propulsion progi}uns and
detailed propulsion progr~uns}.
5.2.2 Estimates and decisions must form an ade- Weights Determine
(1) group weight statel,t~nt
quate sequence. Each step produces estimated re- (2) prclimlnary ma~ss distribution
~tltd lllolllellt of iaertia data
sults within intervals that are sufficient to allow ev- I3) C.G, travel analysis.
Do tr~tde-off studies, effects ~f advanced techtvdr~gy on
ery agent in the following step to achieve its goals, (1) materials
(2) type of constructioll
viz., estimated results within the accuracy or inter- ( 3 ) active cont rols
(4} propulsion,
val required for the end of the next step. Thus, for tUse~ ma-4s distribution progr~nl).
agents a, b, c, and d, if after step i they have pro-
duced results in intervals I a, lib, IF, and I~, and if they ]Fig. 8. Step 4: Detail point design studies, part 1.
have private results U/, P~, PT, and P/~, then P~, and
{I~, 17, and I f} as input for agent a should be sufficient
to allow the computation of PT+~ and P~d~, and P~ Example:
and {I i,b I~, and I d} as input for agent b should be
sufficient to allow the computation of P~+~ and approx layout}
I)+ ~, and so on.
control surface size}
5.2.3 The public estimated results are the context engine weight and size}
for design action. The public estimated results, at
the end of step i, are the context for design action in payload and c.g. limits}
step i + 1. basic structural concepts} --~
structural component/material matrix
I a}
parametric basic loads}
I/} and P?} --->P~+ i and I~+1

IF}
5.2.4 There is a main overall pattern o f depen-
1/} dency. As shown in Fig. 16, there is an overall
126 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

Structures
Aerollmcll&llics
MMeri;ds ~,nd pmdtlcibility
Model spel;ificat ilnls
Lal)oratories
I Engim!eri~g shop
Flight test
Othm" discilllilms
Fig. 9. Step 4: Detail point design studies, part 2.
Expand and refine trade-off studies Giwt Approval at eud of step,
to define Pl'oject 111gll~g(:ll1811t Maintain solected configuration,
( 1 ) detail struct ur~l design concepts do design Ieviews, revist~ desigll p~ttallmters.
(2) materiM usage ~ systems
(3) design/m~uuf~cturi~g p~rameters.
(1 ) general arrangements
Generate basic struetllral arraugements.
(2) in I~ard profile
Perform analysis to size basic strm;tural eleme~lts:
(3) cmtfig~ratiomd peculi~sr itenl~.
(1) internal loads distribntkm altalysi,~
Make detailed layouts for
(2) Stress analysis for strellgth altd stiffness
(1) wimt tunnel modeL~
(31 fatigue and fracture anMy~is for durability
(2) mock-ups ~nd colllpollellt testing.
and damage tolerance
Detailed layouts:
(4) thermal stress ~malysis
(I) flight control system
(5) sonic fatigue analysis.
(2) power plant installation
Provide imdhuinary hea~ic loads (3) structural arr~ngenlex~t
Determine stiffness data for a~troeleastic anMyses.
(4) Ianding gear
Colldllct structural concept tests,
(5) crew station
(Uses NASTRAN and FAMAS},
16) fuel system
Provide (7) hydraulic system
(1) aerodastic stability derivatives (8) electrical system
(2} flutter analysis (9) avionics systems
(31 aeroela.stic evMuatiml o{ perfotnt~uce requiremeuts {10} ellvironmelltal colltrol systell~
(4} acoustic ellvirOlllllent (II I weapons system
(51 loeala ~u~d criteri~ report (I21 miscella~mous equipmtmt
(6) eugim~ k~4ds analysis (131 umehal~isms.
(7) landing g~ar toaxls {it design {it} fatigue. ( ~)se~ CADAM).
I~xpaml and refine trade-off studies Produce updated drawings.
(1l effects o{ C,G travel Loft Provide loft contours for mock-ups,
(2) detail structurM design load.~ trite!fla. wimbtuunel lnodds and
(Uses detailed loads p~ogralllS, aero,,Iastic p~ogl~lll COlllpOllell~ testing.
and detailed aerolttechanics prograuts), (nses CADAM and CALAC()}.
Select Aerodytt~tmit s Define and direct willd-tllnuld test program.
(1) materiMs and processes
Flight COlttrol systellt - priamtry and ~XlltOltl&tlc.
(2) parts alld equipnmnt.
Upd~tte dr~g build-up per Willd-ttlUlie[ results.
Refine lIlallllf~ctllrillg breakd,,wn, Prepare stability aml COlttrol reports,
Provide producibility design support,
Control surface sizillg, update pet wimt-tunnel results.
Perforlll cost trade-off studies.
Prepare perfornlau,:e rel,o~.t,~.
Deterlnim~ lift: cycle costs.
Airport perfurnlance. UlldMe per wlnd-tunnel results.
hlelztify test requiremeuts,
Rx~fin,' flight envet~pe t~llff~!t bonndark~s.
M~ke smoothness drawings.
Fdm,ct of .qtorl~s, IIpd~t~, p0r wiltd-tllllllel rt~llltS.
Deterlnim~ Flight simulations, ~xm~p~tter~nd piloted.
(1) configuratiou parameters D,~v,,l,p gn~r~nte,,s.
(2) Lockheed design requirements l~efi~e fitih~re analysis.
(3) Perfor malice p~rameters. {U~es aerodynamic programs.
trensonk: a~mIysis program and ADAIS}.
Pmpul~ion D~tine ~nd l:o~ld~tctwilld-ttlltm:I, te~t,
Prepare, ~llgil/c perftlrmcmce reports.
Techifical discipline evMluttiml FiltMize iulet, llO~Z1callt[ lteu:elle locatiou.
(I) military systems - inission pt?rfl)rlttance Update ixtst~dlatiou Iossos per wind-tnnuel resMts.
(2) human f~ctors Engine coutrol-systeln lllodld8~
(3) reliability Thrust lllallagelnelit ,qystl~iii.
(4) vnlnerMfility. FinMize auxiliary systems rt~qllitelltellts
aml definitiolt:
(1) envi~mlnlentM (2) antidcing
(3) auxiliary power 14) engilm st4~rtlug
(5) w~uts and draius (6) tlmlst reverse.
D,,tail structnral tellllmr&ttlteS ~.lld temperature gradients.
(Uses propulsion progr~mls l, 2 and 3}.

Fig. 10. Step 5: Refine selected configuration, part 1.

dependency pattern, which is more or tess repeated
in each step.

In the context of a long-standing cooperative rela-

6 Higher-Level Negotiation tionship, the aim of negotiation is to find a win-win
compromise with which all partners are comfort-
The elaboration of the design by negotiation of spe- able. This is particularly true within the same organi-
cialists is preceded by and constrained by negotia- zation, or among suborganizations within one orga-
tions that occur at a higher level of abstraction, and nization.
of organizational management. These decisions de-
termine choices which control the overall decisions
on the aircraft and also the means by which the rest 6.1 High-Level Engineering Decisions
of the design is carried out.
An example of this is the choice of materials to be
Negotiations are carried out not only within one
used in each part of the aircraft. In the case of the
organization, but also among teaming partners. De-
major redesign of the P3 to produce the P7, each
cisions have to be made concerning:
part of the aircraft was examined to determine the
1. Who will do what. material to be used. There were a large number of
2. What is required. parts analyzed and decisions were usually among
3. Systems. composites, aluminum and high strength aluminum.
4. Communication. These choices were made by examining state-of-
5. What kinds of data and its format. the-art manufacturing costs and also the available
6. Security in data movement. possibilities for composites. High strength alumi-
7. Set up procedures. num allows one to reduce the skin gauge, giving less
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design
Weights Detail estimated weight aad balance report.
Define specification weight with customer/marketing.
Evaluate c~st/weight trade-off studies.
Mass distribution per final I:oufigut~tion
including variations ill:
(1) fncl (2) 1,ayh~ad
(3) distribution for critical loading.
Fuel ~e~SllS~ttitude.
(Uses mass distrihution program slit] fuel inertia i)rogram).
St r tt(;tures Colltillll(} trade~offs to define:
(1) detail structural design concepts
(2) triateriMs usage (3} producibility methods.
Oellerate. detail structural arrangeluen{s.
Expand and refine stHictural element sizhlg anMysis
( 1} internal loads
{2) streagtI~ and stiffne~
(3) durability and d~mage tolerance
(4) thermM stress (5) sonic fatigue.
Refine stiffness data {(>r aeroelastic analysis.
Colltilltle structurM tests.
Plan fo* prototype devetopme~t analysis t~lld tests.
(Uses FAMAS and NASTRAN).
Aerolnechatdcs Refine
( t ) aer(~dastic stM)ility derivatives
(2) basic loads (3) flutter analysis
(4) aemelastic pe.r~ormante analysis
(5) aconstic el~vironlllent
{6) loads and criteria report
(7) aertmlastic optimization
(8) engine loads analysis
(9) wind-tuunel test program for loads.
EstaMish structurM design lo~uls criteria.
Define alld Collduct low-speed
wind-tullnel flutter model progranl.
(Uses detailed loads programs,
detailed aerolllechanics programs ~nd
airframe/ground interaction i)rogr~lu).
Refine
( i ) materials and process selection
{2) parts and eqlliplllellt selection.
Continue (l) produeibility design support
{2) cost trade:off studies.
Model specifications Prepare
( i ) customer desigu requiremen ts
(2) Lockheed design requirements
f3) ellstolller peculiar COllfigllr&tioll requirel/tel/ts
(4) performance guarantees (5) weight guarantees.
Lahoratories Build COl.ponellt test rigs
per eltgineering requirenmnts.
Conduct Ct)ltlpOltent tests.
Design and huiM flutter models.
Do flutter model tests,
Design a.lld build wind-tunnel nlodels.
Do willd-tullne] tests,
Engineering shop Build mock-upsper engineeriag requirelnents.
Flight test
Other disciplines Tech nicM"discip lin e s analysis
(i) military systems- mission per[ornlance
(2) human factors (3) ~eliahility
(4) wflnerability (5) survivability
Fig. 11. Step 5: Refine selected configuration,part 2.
aluminum in the wing; I0% stronger material may
save 8% weight.
These higher-level engineering decisions are to
some extent negotiable later; however, renegotia-
tion is costly and difficult, and is thus discouraged.
The material decision thus can be regarded as a goal
to be attained. In the elaboration of the design, some
goals will be attained, and some will fail to be exactly
achieved. The project is then managed so that parts
of the design which overachieve compensate for
those that underachieve. The attainability of these
design constraints produces vertical conflicts and
renegotiation among levels of the organization, and
it can produce contractual conflicts among different
organizations.
127
Cnstolner Give approval and acceptance,
Project lll~lti~elltent Prep&re proposal,
do (:llStOnl(~r review ~iid Lontl'~ct @WP*I(I.
Finalize design requircnmnts.
Determine lllodifi{:atiolls required.
EvahllitiOll of r~qllirelnoltts.
Dcsigu ~utd syst(~lns PinMize:
t l ) gellt:/~ glrsugellletlt~
(2) inboard profile
(3) coufiguration imcnliar items.
Colttplete and rdease prototype drawings:
(I) flight control system
(2) power plant iltstMlation
(3 } strui:turM arra41gements
(41 I~nding gear (5) crew station
(6) tirol system (7) hyd~mlic system
(8) electrical system (9) avionics system
(10) euvirollnmllta| col~trol system
(II) weapons system
{12) iniscellaneous equipment
f 13) ~mmfianisms.
Produce prototype drawings.
(Uses CADAM),
Loft Provide loft COllt0Rrs to desigll and nlanllfacturing,
(Uses CADAM and CALACO),
Aerodynamics In-depth fi~udti~ig qualities report.
Assist in planning flight-test program:
(1) evaluate results
(2) correlate wittl predictions.
Finalize (aft design capMfilities.
Finalize failure ana|ysis.
In-depth perforlnance rel)Oi-t,
Integrate siUllllat(}r witfi prototypi!.
{Us(~ aerodynantic programs, tr~l~soI~ic anMysis progI~n~
~tnd ADAIS).
Propulsi<m R.efilm per~orlna~lce estinlat*~s
based on flight test results.
Parti(:ipate in and monitor flight-test progr~nl.
Prepare: tepor*s for customer data requircnleats.
Monitor and coordinate changes with ellgiltt~Ilt&nllf~Ctllr~l,
Monitor ~uxili~ry systmn p(~rfi~rllla.llce.
(Uses propu|si<m progr~nls 1.2. 3 and 4}.
Weights Cab ulated weigi'lt~--]7~uli ' ; ~ e report
Weigh first aircraft
Actual weight alld halaJice report - first aareraft
Int(11"llal and (:llStOltler status reports
VCeight and bManee hamlbor~k R>r fl{ght test
C~lcnbtt~ static llalalice and lnomc~llt ()f inertia
of control surfa~a.~s
Meas~li(, static IiManec and nlonlellt )f inertia
of control ~urt'aces
Mmlitor designs to t~rget weights
[Uses Ma*ter weight aml fuel inertia)
Strll(:ttl~es Fimdize structnrM design concepts
FinMiz. materials usage criteria
Fiualize detail amdysis fi~r sttllctural sizing
( I ) interuai Io~ds
{2} strength and stiffness
(3) durahillty and damage tolerance
(4) thermal stress
(5) sonic {~tigue
Fi}~alize stiffness data for
aerolastic analysis
ColltillllO structural tests
Prepare data h~r g~)vernment aald
(:nstomer specs:
(1) stress ~naiysis
(2) test eva,luatio~s
(3) final reports
Provide manufactaring liaisml
Provide flight test liaison
(Uses FAMAS aitd NASTRAN)
Fig. 12. Step 6: Design and build prototype, part 1.
6.2 High-Level Information Handling Decisions
In addition to engineering decisions, decisions are
made on how the project will be organized. A major
class of decisions concern information handling.
This includes the following:
Choice of CAD system. Who will use what sys-
tems, usually trying to minimize the number of dif-
ferent CAD systems. Within one choice (e.g.,
CADAM), there is the choice of version or versions
to use. There is a need to transfer data, and to ensure
that this can be done. Where necessary, bridges may
have to be built, and which bridges are built and who
will code them has to be negotiated.
128 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

Aetomechalti(;s
Material~ ~utd Im~ducibility
Model specifications
LMmratories
El~ghtecring shop
Flight test
Other disdptilms
Fig. 13. Step 6: Design and build prototype, part 2.
Finalize:
(1) aerolastic stability derivatives tremely complex. Whereas for sheet metal, a wing
(2) aerolastic pm'formance
(3) Imsic loaxls
section would require about 10-15 details in a
{41 Flutter analysis
(5) Acoustic tzeatment
drawing, for composites it requires perhaps as
(6) Eltgine loads analysis
(7) Landing gear analysis
many as a hundred details per drawing. There is
Define:
(1) Flight test pt'ogram for
the basic plan view of the wing, but then many
loads validation
(2) Ground and flight test programs
sections showing the ply structure to be used. This
for flutter substantiation
In-depth lomls aild criteria report
information has to be used by manufacturing in
Aerolo.stic optin~ization
Define and condtlct high speed
making the wing but also by engineering in doing
Willd-tllllltd flllttet ntodel program stress analyses. The plys in each section fall into
Flight test lialsol~
(Uses detailed loads programs plysets, which are in a certain spatial order. The
detailed aeromechauics programs
and alrframe/ground interatction prograln) drawing specification was first negotiated between
Fiualiae materials
and pro(:e~s selection the designers and manufacturing and a set of ply
Finalize parts amt
eqtliplnellt selection tables was added to the drawing. These gave the
Specitications amt
standards ply/ID, the material code and the angle of the ply
Colllll/on a]it y studies:
(1) forgings and extrusions to a reference axis. These ply tables were used by
{21 parts, equipln(mt. (:olltpone~tts
Identify long lead items
manufacturing to layout and cut ptys. However,
Desigl~ to cost
l)rogtam inl plemellt ation
this data form did not allow engineering to create
Finalize:
(I } cllstomer design requirements
a model for stress analysis without a lot of extra
{2) Lockheed design requirenlents work. What was negotiated was a drawing specifi-
(3) custonmr ptmuliar requirements
{41 perf)r~l~ll(x? gu~r~iltees cation change in which the plysets were added to
{5} weight g~ta~'~ttees
Contiltue wind-tllnnel teats all cross-sections of drawings and details, together
of prototype configuration
COlltilltl(! conlpollent tests with the plyset order. From this data form, the
of prototype ~:oufiguratimi
phul ~lld exe(tltte manufacturing ply tables could be then created.
static: tests of prototype
Vchlclc systems simulator Since creating both types of data was extremely
Plight simM~to:s
C(Jll~lllu(~ lq,utter inodel tests time consuming, a software tool was specified to
R evi~e mock-ups
to protntype configuratiolt build the manufacturing ply tables automatically.
Plan flight test program
Nxt]cit~t~tiight te~t program
This tool was budgeted and scheduled to take 3
per ellginec~riltga.n(t
(:llg~Olll(ir reqll Jrt~lllt~ntN
months to implement and test. During the transition
TechuicM dis:iplines
finalize reconllnelId~tions all~t reports
period, the designers would generate both types of
(1) lllilitary systellls - inissioll I)er[orln&Itce tables. The payoffs were that engineering saved
(2) human factors
{3) reliability a lot of work and minimized the possibility for
14) vuhmrabilit y
t5) survivabi(ity transcription and transformation error, manufactur-
(6) nlaint ainability
Mallufacturiug buihts prototype ing still got what they needed, and designers even-
(Usi~ig CADAM}
tually saved some time in generating section ply
tables which were more natural for them to de-
termine.

Computer links. For transferring data, tapes or

TP lines, and, if so, how big? Who will control the
movement of data, which computer managers?
Security. Accountability in moving data, docu-
mentation to be generated, who will sign, where
records will be kept, the security organization re-
sponsibility.
The design is optimized to the limits of the tools
that are chosen.
6.2.1 Example. A recent example of information
handling negotiation, which occurred between
Lockheed Burbank (where the product was being
designed and engineered) and Lockheed Georgia
(where the product was being manufactured), con-
cerned what specification was to be used for draw-
ings of composite wings. These drawings are ex-
7 Summary and Conclusion
7.1 Summary
We described how aircraft are designed in a large
organization. We discussed the different phases of
design and interaction with the customer. We then
described the models used by each specialist depart-
ment and the interactions among departments during
the design process. We observed that the main de-
sign choices are refinement operations on the design,
and we discussed refinement.
We then described how the negotiation process
is controlled by an organizationally agreed sequence
of commitment steps.
We then described negotiation at higher levels
in the organization. What decisions are made, the
 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design 129

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6

INITIAL DESIGN PRELIMINARY P O I N T PARAMETER ESTIMATI()N DETAIL POINT REFINE SELECTED BUILD
PARA METERS ANALYSIS TRADE-OFFS STUDIES CONFIGURATION PROTOTYPE
DESIGN baseline drawings general arraugenlents updated layouts updated layouts detailed layouts finalize
AND inboard profile update i l t b ~ r d profile flmctional prototype
SYSTEMS ftlnctiOllal system systems layouts drawings
considerations
LOFT develop loft eolltours loft cnntours
loft surface for testing for manufacturing
AERODYNAMICS wing p~.r~mett;rs I drag data maaoeuveral~ility control surface sizes define and indepth handling
thrust/weight control surface range/fuel drag build-up and direct qualities report
ratio sizes optimum thn~st/weight ratio c,g, remge, loadability wind tunnel test
PROPULSION rmage of perforlnallce data study engine cycle refine engine selection define mid col~duct refine estimates
cycle paranlcters weight altd size inlet m~d nozzle size wind tmmd tests based on
insta/lation tenlper~tures fuel system sizing finalize inlet, nozzle flight test
criteria structural temperatures and nacell location results
temperature gradients
WEIGHTS approxilnat e payload and structural weight preliminary in~ss distribution detail estimated calculated weight
weight, e.g. olmratillg equipnmut subsystems weight moment of inertia data weight end balance repot~
e.g, limits propulsion weight c,g. travel analysis specification ot' weigh first
fuel~volmne fiml-volmue weight with aircraft,
r(~ati(mships customer
STRUCTURES load l)adts define structural define structural refine trade-off aa,mIysis detailed arrangements finalize detail
desigu parmm:tcrs design exiteria COml)Oneat/ h~sic structural gr~,llgelllel~ts internal loads structural
basic stru(:tllral nlateri~l lllatrix size llasie strtl<tural elenleilts refine structural sizing
e(nH~}ts d~tetllilg~ stlffll(~ss data element sizing
refine stiffness data
AEROMECHANICS provide provide parametric pa4rglnet ric basic aerolastic stability refine aerol~.stie finalize catalysis
criteria 1)a~sicloads loads engine loads analysis per for mi'aiee analysis engine loads
guidelines prelitninary l)aranletrh: effects of c.g.travel define aa~d Colldm:t lauding gear
aerolastic itSSt?SfiItI('11t aerol~stic assesmltent wind tunnd acoustics
flutter model program
MATERIALS AND study ax:quisition of select materials mid ret~lle illateri~,18 finalize
PRODUCIBILITY l)r~duction labor mid 1 gild
and tools cost trade-off studies process selection ~lity
(~Stilllat(! t/)t~4[ pr,)ducibility shldies
sygtelll cost report
MODELS de,termitt e par~ltleters prepare design finalize
requirelllents
LABORATORIES design eatd build eoltthltle
wind tullnel lllodels tests
do wind tmmei tests
SHOP b~li|d mock-ups revise mock-ups
FLIGHT plan mid execute
flight test
OTHER acoustics - military mission t military mission E finalize
flyover noise humaz~ fact~rs human factors dations
reliability reliability

Fig. 14. Summary of six steps.

compromises worked out, and the effect of these

higher-level commitments on the design pro-
cess.

7.2 Conclusions

step 1 1. Aircraft design proceeds by the cooperation of

specialists (specialist teams or departments).
2. Each specialist has its own model of the design,
i joint commitments
and may use several different models or partial
models for different purposes.
agent 1
3. Specialists have limited ability to understand
step 2
each other's models. They communicate using a
shared vocabulary, but not necessarily shared
technical knowledge.
I joint c o m m i t m e n t s
4. Design proceeds by successive refinement of the
agent 1 models, which are coordinated and updated to-
step 3 gether.
5. The design decisions, which are acts of commit-
ment and model refinement, are negotiated by
joint c o m m i t m e n t s the specialists among themselves.
6. One way this negotiation process is organized
Fig. 15. The concept of commitment step. and controlled is by the use of commitment steps.
130 Bond & Ricci: Cooperation in Aircraft Design

DesignCriteria DESIGN
i
(proposal) AERO " ~ DESIGN~ f'a~ DESIGN ~--|--i-
m--

J
+

Propulsion WEIGHTS ~ LOADS q~

+

Aerodynamics STRESS ................................................ ~"" STRESS

characteristics !

Fig. 16, The main overall pattern of dependency.

7. Negotiation occurs at higher levels in the organi-
zation, resulting in commitments which greatly
influence and constrain the design process and its
organization, and which have the greatest effect
on the cost of the product.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Dave Cannon, Bill
Thompson, and Dave Richardson of Lockheed Aircraft Com-
pany, Bm'bank, California, for discussions on wing-section de-
sign, and on collaboration in manufacturing organizations in gen-
eral. The UCLA Manufacturing Engineering Program is
supported by gifts and grants from many corporations, and by the
Institute for Manufacturing and Automation Research.
References
l, Duvvuru Sriram, Robert D. Logcher, and Shuichi Fukuda.
Proceedings of the MIT-JSME Workshop on Cooperative
Product Development, 1989. Held at MIT, November 20--21,
1989.
2. Alan H. Bond. The cooperation of experts in engineering de-
sign. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume H, pages
463-484, 1989.