MSC Software | CASE STUDY

Case Study: Airbus

Adams Simulation Saves €3 Million by

Replacing Physical Testing in Aircraft
Certification
Based on an interview with:
Ulli Landwehr, Analyst for Multi-Body Simulation, Airbus
Michael Vetter, Project Leader Multi-Body Simulation, Airbus

Overview
Airframes are designed to deflect in response to aerodynamic
and gravitational loads during flight. These deflections in turn load
the mechanisms riding on the airframe that move the primary
flight control surfaces to maneuver the aircraft. The airframe Hinge 7 is located on the horizontal tail plane of the A400M
manufacturer must ensure that deflections of these mechanisms
at any point in the flight envelope do not affect their operation.
For example, the Airbus A400M elevator is connected to the
horizontal tail plane (HTP) with eight hinges that form a straight
line when the wing is undeformed. Seven of these hinges are
floating hinges which can float in the hinge line direction. When
the HTP structure is loaded, it deforms, deforming the hinge line.
The multi body simulation (MBS) model here shows the location
of hinge 7 which is used to move the elevator, and the drawing
below the model shows a cross-section of the hinge. The gap
g2 in the drawing allows the red lug to slide on the green pin. Hinge 7 mechanism detail
“The replacement of the physical A350-1000 wing bending test with simulation of
the effects of deflection on the flight controls saved Airbus about €3 million and
4 months on the certification process for the A350. Most of these savings were
achieved by eliminating the need to build test fixtures.”
Michael Vetter, Project Leader Multi-Body Simulation with Airbus

Challenge Solution/Validation
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airbus management decided to try to change Key Highlights:
regulation CS-25 section 683(b) requires that the means of compliance with this regulation
airframe manufacturers certify that the primary from physical testing to simulation. Adams
flight control surfaces used to maneuver the multibody simulation (MBS) software was
selected because of its ability to model Product: Adams
aircraft remain free from jamming, excessive
friction, disconnection, and any form of complex mechanisms and to incorporate Industry: Aerospace
damage due to deflections of the aircraft finite element models that are used to predict
structure. In the past, Airbus validated this deformations of the airframe. The Airbus Multi- Benefits:
requirement by building test rigs for each new Body Simulation team decided to simulate the
• Saving significant time and costs
aircraft to deflect the structural assemblies hinge of an A400M horizontal tail plane and
predict the gap g2 in hinge 7 under the loads
by replacing expensive physical
based on forces acting on the airframe. The testing with Adams simulation
largest of the test rigs was large enough used in physical testing as proof of concept.
to enclose the wing of a wide body aircraft • Removing the limitation on the
An Adams multi-body simulation was created
and was extremely complex because of the with the same boundary conditions as the real number of different load cases
need to apply forces to the structure at many test. MSC Nastran FE models were created and configurations that could be
different locations in order to approximate of the HTP and left and right elevators. A tested by physical test rig
the forces experienced during flight. The test modal neutral file (MNF) was exported for • The simulation results
rigs cost millions of dollars and took months each flexible body and coupled to the Adams
to build and considerable additional time and successfully correlated with all of
model. The MNF consists of all boundary
money was required to perform the testing. the tests
modes expressed in physical coordinates and
One of the limitations of this approach was a truncated set of elastic modes expressed in • These results convinced
that testing could not begin until detailed modal coordinates. The FE model of the HTP European Aviation Safety
design had been completed and a prototype has about 35,000 degrees of freedom (DOF) Agency(EASA) that functional
of the aircraft was built. Problems identified while the flexible body defined by the MNF testing could be replaced with
by testing were often quite expensive to has only about 100 DOF, providing dramatic
correct at this late stage in the design process. Adams simulation so simulation
time savings during the solution process.
Another limitation was that the time involved in is used to certify the A350-1000
physical testing put strict limits on the number An in-house Airbus CFD code was used XWB wing
of different load cases and configurations that to determine the pressure on the wings
could be tested. during various flight conditions. These loads

Rig used to test hinges on horizontal tail plane Simulation results shown in grey match up well with test results shown in red
 the tests. These results convinced EASA
that functional testing could be replaced
with multibody simulation so simulation is
used to certify the A350-1000 XWB wing.”

The finite element model of the A350-1000

XWB left wing has about 5,000,000 DOF
which was reduced to about 1,000 DOF in the
MBS flexible body. The MBS model includes
all the primary and secondary control
surfaces as well as the landing gear. All
movables and the wing are aerodynamically
loaded and all movables can be actuated.
This model can be used to show compliance
with regulation CS-25 section 683 (b) and also
for rigging, pre-shaping and predicting wing
Finite element model of A350-1000 XWB left wing excluding control surfaces cruise shapes. The cruise shape predicted by
the model was successfully correlated with
wing deformation measurement data from
the A350-900 XWB flight test campaign.

Results
”The replacement of the physical A350-
1000 wing bending test with simulation
of the effects of deflection on the flight
controls saved Airbus about €3 million
and 4 months on the certification process
for the A350,” said Michael Vetter, Project
Leader Multi-Body Simulation with Airbus.
Most of these savings were achieved by
Multibody simulation model of A350-900 XWB left wing including all control surfaces
eliminating the need to build test fixtures.
Similar savings will be achieved for each
future aircraft model. Airbus engineers are
were converted to forces on the Adams are shown on the graph in red and they also working to apply this same method
model. The Adams model simulated the fit well within the predicted range. Further to other mechanical systems of the aircraft
deformation of control surfaces under flight validation of this approach was obtained such as landing gear and passenger doors.
conditions and the impact on the hinges. by performing different simulations on
Uncertain parameters such as friction the A400M rudder, A380 elevator, A380 About Airbus
coefficients for the translation of the lug ailerons and A350-900 1g wing bending
and the pin and the manufacturing variation Airbus’ comprehensive product line com-
tests. “Simulation of the functional test
for several key dimensions were varied prises highly-successful families of aircraft
was used to demonstrate compliance with
between defined limits and combined with ranging from 100 to more than 500 seats:
all the requirements including jamming,
the Latin hypercube method, yielding 500 the single-aisle A320 family; the widebody,
excessive friction, disconnection, and any
different combinations of parameter values. long-range A330 family; the new-generation
form of damage for the complete control
A350 XWB Family; and the flagship A380.
surface assemblies including primary and
The MBS model was solved for these 500
secondary structures and also to check
different combinations and resulting gap was
systems-level compatibility of the assemblies,”
evaluated over the deflection angle of the
said Ulli Landwehr, Analyst for Multi-Body
elevator for each run. The pre-test simulation
Simulation for Airbus. “The simulation
results bandwidth due to parameter variation
results successfully correlated with all of
is shown in the graph in grey. The test results

For more information on Adams and for additional Case Studies, please visit www.mscsoftware.com/adams

Corporate Europe, Middle East, Asia-Pacific Asia-Pacific

MSC Software Corporation Africa MSC Software Japan LTD. MSC Software (S) Pte. Ltd.
4675 MacArthur Court MSC Software GmbH Shinjuku First West 8F 100 Beach Road The MSC Software corporate logo, MSC, and the names of the
Suite 900 Am Moosfeld 13 23-7 Nishi Shinjuku #16-05 Shaw Tower MSC ‌Software products and services referenced herein are trademarks
Newport Beach, CA 92660 81829 Munich, Germany 1-Chome, Shinjuku-Ku Singapore 189702 or registered trademarks of the MSC Software Corporation in the United
Telephone 714.540.8900 Telephone 49.89.21093224 Tokyo, Japan 160-0023 Telephone 65.6272.0082 States and/or other countries. All other trademarks belong to their
www.mscsoftware.com Ext. 4950 Telephone 81.3.6911.1200 respective owners. © 2015 MSC Software Corporation. All rights reserved.

AIRBUS*2016FEB*CS