From Fri May 06, 2016 to Thu Oct 06, 2016 at Crete, Greece Read More
Strategic Business Objectives
TOICA directly addresses the ACARE SRA2 target “High Efficient Air Transport System”.
High-level Technical Objectives
The TOICA Consortium defined four high-level objectives to improve the methodologies and processes for aircraft design:
HLO1: Develop customised collaborative and simulation capabilities improving the generation, management, and maturity of the Behavioural Digital Aircraft (BDA) dataset.
HLO2: Develop new concepts for improved thermal load management for aircraft components, systems or equipment, which will integrate innovative cooling technologies and products.
HLO3: Assess and validate the developed capabilities and technology concepts against different common reference aircraft targeting both Entry Into Service (EIS) 2020 and EIS 2030+ Thermal Concept Aircraft.
HLO4: Optimise aircraft design by enabling highly dynamic allocation and association between requirements, functions and product elements (Super integration) for product innovations.
First of all, TOICA contributes to:
- Improve the overall multidisciplinary conception of aircraft during the architecture phases
- Optimise the overall energy management of the aircraft through a reduction of the aircraft energy consumption
- Reduce thermal constraints on systems and structure, and thermal integrated risks
- Reduce weight and complexity through a fully integrated structure and thermal design of systems
The project impacts:
- Aircraft development costs
- Through the implementation of formalised collaborative trade-off processes, faster exchanges, interface contracts and the intensive use of methodologies aiming at automating end-to-end modelling and simulation activities, the project demonstrated opportunities for lead-time reduction of end-to-end processes, as well as risk and rework mitigations.
- Supply chain efficiency
- The supply chain is involved earlier and is involved more deeply in the early phase of the design as shown through the architecture trade-offs. The interactions are more and more model-based compared to the previous document-based or data-based exchanges done in the pre-TOICA period. Both architecture and design phases can now be faster with wider exploitation of the means TOICA delivered, since they lead to:
- Faster design convergence with fewer iterations on the specification phase. This induces lead-time reduction.
- Better definitions of the design margins, resulting in better installations, cheaper designs or de-risked integration.
The improvement of collaborations between key design actors was one of the main drivers of the project and addressed through various workstreams in order to provide:
- A deeper exploitation of the MBSE approach resulting in model-based collaborations and specifications
- Capabilities offering a more agile exploitation of system models for pyramid of model assembly
- The enrichment of the BDA approach for delivering a MoSSEC standard to ISO instances
- The use of different collaborative platforms compliant with this MoSSEC standard (3DX, SimManager, TeamCenter)
- Designing under uncertainties, allowing some engineering processes to overcome issues coming from asynchronous interactions
- Capabilities enabling architects to steer reviews, federate the discussions between experts, contributors, process owners, and suppliers, and to trace decisions.
Overall, the efforts TOICA spent on the definition of collaborative processes and associated capabilities highlighted a strong capacity to accelerate the product development plan, either by reducing iterations or by rapidly identifying the best alternatives in regards to trade-off targets and value drivers.
TOICA extended the collaborative multi-partner European aircraft design capacity to the architecture phase and enhanced the simultaneous handling of different levels and the multidisciplinary design and optimisation capacity, in particular for thermal modelling.
- Aircraft operational costs
TOICA contributed to reducing the operational cost by introducing methods and capabilities changing the way trade-offs are performed by architects. New processes reveal promising results on increasing performance while tracing design values for airframers and airlines. Examples were given by plateaus with:
- The reduction of direct operating costs associated to engine bleed off-takes through evaluation of alternative thermal and systems architectures
- The multi-disciplinary optimisation of the pylon under thermal constraints enabling integration of systems without additional shields or insulation blankets (penalty for maintenance) while keeping an optimum on drag
- Reduction of engine ‘stop and start’ cycles on the ground coming from a better control of temperature levels in the engine, of stage material dilatations near tip clearances, and of the casing deformation
- More efficient integration of systems, associated to weight and development risk management
- Opportunities to better monitor and control the effects of aircraft operations on local thermal behaviours and on failure cases. This way, further optimisations of the aircraft operations will be enabled (aircraft-system transient co-simulation)
- Reduction of the thermal ambiances and/or better management of design margins resulting in higher MTBF, and lower maintainability costs