Aerospace Design Engineering Services

Simulation-Driven Design

Use analysis to guide the design—not merely evaluate it afterward.

Fidelis Aerospace integrates CAD, structural mechanics, preliminary sizing, and finite element analysis into the design process. We help aerospace and defense teams understand load paths, compare concepts, identify governing risks, and make better design decisions before geometry, tooling, or test plans become costly to change.

The objective is not simply to produce a model. It is to create a design with a clearer technical basis.

Schedule a Technical Discussion

When Design Decisions Outpace Structural Understanding

Aerospace programs often need to move forward before every requirement, load, interface, or operating condition is fully mature. Concepts evolve quickly, packaging becomes constrained, and design decisions begin to accumulate.

Without timely structural input, a team can commit to geometry that is difficult to size, inefficient to manufacture, sensitive to uncertain loads, or dependent on assumptions that have not been examined.

Simulation-Driven Design is useful when:

A new concept needs an early structural-feasibility assessment.
Several layouts, materials, or interface configurations are being considered.
CAD development is progressing faster than the supporting analysis.
Weight, stiffness, strength, stability, or durability may influence the architecture.
A design is repeatedly changing because analysis occurs too late.
An existing concept has poor margins or an unclear load path.
A startup or supplier needs integrated design and analysis capability without building a large internal team.
A program is approaching PDR, CDR, qualification, or customer review without a sufficiently mature structural basis.

Simulation creates the most value when it changes a design decision—not when it merely produces another set of contour plots.

A Simulation-Driven Design engagement can help your team answer questions such as:

How are loads expected to enter, travel through, and leave the structure?
Does the proposed architecture provide a credible structural load path?
Which concepts deserve further development?
What failure modes are most likely to govern?
Where could stiffness, deformation, buckling, joint behavior, or local stress concentration affect the design?
Which dimensions, materials, interfaces, or configuration choices have the greatest influence?
What can be simplified, lightened, strengthened, or made more robust?
Which assumptions are controlling the apparent result?
What information should be developed before a higher-fidelity analysis is justified?
What design changes should be made before committing to drawings, tooling, procurement, or testing?
Is the current structural basis mature enough to support an upcoming review?

The right answer may come from a free-body diagram, a preliminary sizing calculation, a finite element model, a sensitivity study, or a combination of methods. The method should follow the decision.

The purpose of Simulation-Driven Design is to improve the quality and timing of engineering decisions.

Concept selection

Compare candidate arrangements using defined structural, packaging, mass, manufacturability, and program criteria.

Preliminary structural sizing

Establish credible first-pass dimensions, sections, thicknesses, materials, and joint concepts before detailed definition.

Load-path and architecture development

Clarify how the structure carries load and identify unnecessary complexity, weak interfaces, discontinuities, or competing load paths.

Design iteration

Use analysis results and sensitivity information to make focused geometry changes rather than relying on repeated trial and error.

Risk retirement

Identify the most consequential uncertainties and determine whether they should be addressed through additional analysis, design change, material data, testing, or requirement clarification.

Review readiness

Build a clearer connection among requirements, assumptions, loads, design features, structural behavior, margins, unresolved risks, and recommended next actions.

A successful engagement leaves the team with more than a revised model. It provides a clearer understanding of why the design should move forward, what should change, and what evidence is still needed.

Scope is tailored to the maturity of the product and the decision the team needs to make.

Requirements and decision framing

Define the decision the analysis must support.
Identify applicable structural requirements and constraints.
Establish the current design maturity and available evidence.
Separate known information from assumptions and unresolved inputs.
Determine an appropriate level of model fidelity.

Concept development and screening

Develop or review structural concepts.
Compare alternate layouts and configurations.
Evaluate packaging and interface implications.
Identify likely governing conditions.
Rank concepts using technically meaningful criteria.

Load-path development

Establish free-body diagrams and load-transfer logic.
Evaluate primary and secondary load paths.
Identify joints, fittings, attachments, and interfaces requiring focused attention.
Examine local features that may disrupt the intended structural behavior.
Improve continuity, redundancy, inspectability, or structural efficiency where appropriate.

Preliminary sizing

Classical structural calculations.
Section and member sizing.
Joint and fastener concept evaluation.
Stiffness and deformation estimates.
Initial strength, stability, and margin assessments.
Material and configuration comparisons.

CAD-integrated structural analysis

Design-space exploration using evolving geometry.
Linear static finite element analysis.
Local and global structural-response evaluation.
Contact, thermal-structural, nonlinear, or other specialized analyses when appropriate to the decision and available capability.
Identification of hotspots, sensitivities, and likely governing regions.
Comparison of analysis results with simplified calculations and expected mechanics.

Design iteration and optimization

Geometry refinement.
Material and thickness trades.
Load-path improvement.
Local feature redesign.
Stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight improvement.
Margin balancing.
Sensitivity studies focused on the variables the design team can realistically control.

Design and review support

Design-review preparation.
Structural-input development for PDR or CDR.
Analysis planning.
Technical trade documentation.
Review-comment resolution.
Coordination with client design, analysis, manufacturing, test, and program personnel.

Simulation-Driven Design is centered on using engineering analysis to improve design decisions. It is not a generic drafting or model-production service.

Detailed CAD models, assemblies, drawings, and configuration definition may be included when they support the engagement, but producing geometry is not the defining outcome. The defining outcome is a more structurally informed design.

Depending on the problem, additional or separate services may be appropriate:

Structural Analysis & Finite Element Analysis for detailed loads, stresses, failure modes, and margins.
Fatigue Life & Durability Assessment when repeated loading and service life may govern.
Fracture Mechanics & Damage Tolerance when existing or assumed flaws must be evaluated.
FEA Correlation & Test Support when predictions and physical evidence do not agree.
Independent Technical Review & Structural Advisory when an objective assessment or continuing senior guidance is needed.
Structural Integrity Assessment when strength, life, damage, test evidence, usage, and uncertainty must be integrated into one structural-risk picture.

Simulation-Driven Design does not imply regulatory approval, delegated certification authority, laboratory testing, inspection execution, or manufacturing-process qualification. Those responsibilities remain with the appropriately authorized organizations and personnel.

Fidelis uses a decision-centered, physics-first approach. Model complexity is increased only when the additional fidelity can improve the engineering decision.

Frame the design decision

We begin by defining what must be decided, when the decision is needed, and what level of confidence is appropriate for the current stage of development.

This prevents the engagement from becoming an open-ended effort to “analyze everything.”

Establish the technical basis

Available requirements, geometry, materials, loads, interfaces, environments, manufacturing constraints, and existing evidence are reviewed.

Assumptions and missing information are made visible so that preliminary results are not mistaken for final substantiation.

Analyze, verify, and iterate

The simplest credible methods are used first to establish expected behavior. Higher-fidelity simulation is added where geometry, interaction, loading, or failure behavior warrants it.

Results are challenged through:

Free-body diagrams and load-path reasoning.
Hand calculations and simplified models.
Mesh and boundary-condition review.
Equilibrium and reaction checks.
Sensitivity studies.
Comparison with expected physical behavior.
Review of assumptions and limitations.

The design is then revised using what the analysis reveals.

Convert findings into design action

Results are translated into practical recommendations:

Retain the concept.
Modify a feature or interface.
Change material, thickness, or configuration.
Develop additional loading or material information.
Perform a focused test.
Advance to detailed substantiation.
Reconsider the design architecture.

The final objective is a defensible design direction—not analysis for its own sake.

Design Feasibility and Structural Trade Study

A focused starting point for a new concept, major configuration decision, or competing design alternatives.

Typical activities

Review requirements and available concepts.
Establish preliminary load paths.
Screen likely failure modes.
Perform first-pass sizing or analysis.
Compare candidate configurations.
Identify major assumptions and technical risks.

Typical outcome

A ranked set of design observations and recommendations showing which concept should advance, what should change, and what evidence should be developed next.

Simulation-Driven Design Sprint

A bounded period of collaborative design and analysis used to resolve a defined structural challenge.

Typical applications

Improve a bracket, fitting, joint, panel, frame, support, or assembly.
Resolve a poor margin or excessive deformation.
Reduce weight while preserving structural performance.
Rework an inefficient or discontinuous load path.
Support an approaching design review.

Typical outcome

Revised design direction supported by calculations, simulation results, sensitivities, assumptions, and documented recommendations.

Integrated Design and Analysis Support

Continuing support for teams that need senior design and structural-analysis capability through a larger development phase.

Support may include:

Recurring concept and design reviews.
CAD and analysis iteration.
Structural trade studies.
Preliminary sizing and margin development.
Risk identification.
Analysis planning.
Review preparation.
Coordination with internal engineering disciplines.

This pathway provides focused senior capability without requiring the client to build every specialist function internally.

The exact inputs depend on the design stage. A complete engineering data package is not required to begin an initial discussion.

Useful inputs may include:

The decision or milestone the team must support.
Concept sketches, CAD geometry, or configuration descriptions.
Applicable requirements and design objectives.
Preliminary loads, environments, duty cycles, or operating conditions.
Material candidates and allowable information.
Interfaces, packaging envelopes, and attachment conditions.
Manufacturing, cost, schedule, or supply constraints.
Mass, stiffness, deflection, strength, stability, thermal, or durability targets.
Existing calculations, analyses, test results, or review findings.
Known uncertainties and assumptions.
The expected timing of PDR, CDR, testing, qualification, or customer review.

Uncertain or incomplete inputs are common during design development. They should be identified and managed explicitly rather than hidden within the model.

Deliverables are selected to support the defined decision and may include:

Structurally informed design concepts.
Revised CAD geometry or configuration recommendations.
Load-path diagrams and free-body diagrams.
Preliminary sizing calculations.
Finite element models and documented modeling basis.
Stress, deformation, stiffness, stability, or margin results.
Material, geometry, or configuration trade studies.
Sensitivity assessments.
Identification of governing locations and failure modes.
Ranked design recommendations.
Assumptions, limitations, and evidence gaps.
Technical risk and next-step recommendations.
Review-ready presentations, memoranda, or calculation packages.
Recommended follow-on analysis, test, or substantiation plans.

Deliverables are intended to explain both what the analysis indicates and what the design team should do with that information.

Fidelis Aerospace is led by an engineer with more than 20 years of aerospace product-development and structural-analysis experience, including more than 20 years of SolidWorks experience and Certified SolidWorks Professional capability.

That background supports an integrated view of design and analysis:

Design geometry is evaluated in the context of real load paths and failure modes.
Analysis is interpreted in the context of practical design changes.
Model fidelity is matched to the maturity and consequence of the decision.
Results are verified through mechanics rather than accepted solely because software produced them.
Structural concerns are communicated in language useful to designers, analysts, chief engineers, and program leaders.
Work is performed with direct senior involvement and technical accountability.

Fidelis is not built around a particular software package. Software supports the work; engineering judgment determines what the result means.

At what stage should Simulation-Driven Design begin?

It can begin with an early sketch, a partially developed CAD model, an existing design that needs improvement, or a specific review finding.

Earlier involvement generally creates more design freedom. Later involvement can still be valuable when the team needs to resolve a defined structural problem or redesign an underperforming feature.

Do we need complete loads and requirements before starting?

No. Early design work frequently begins with incomplete information.

The engagement can identify which assumptions are reasonable for concept development, which uncertainties control the answer, and which inputs must be matured before the design advances.

How is this different from conventional FEA?

Conventional FEA may evaluate a largely completed design. Simulation-Driven Design uses analysis iteratively to shape the design while meaningful alternatives still exist.

The distinction is not the software. It is when and how the analysis influences the decision.

Is the service limited to SolidWorks?

No. SolidWorks provides a strong platform for CAD-integrated design and simulation, but the engineering approach is not tied to one tool.

The appropriate combination of CAD, classical calculations, finite element analysis, engineering computation, and client tools depends on the problem, required fidelity, available data, and project environment.

Can Fidelis work with our existing design and analysis team?

Yes. Fidelis can complement internal personnel by providing focused senior capacity, an independent structural perspective, additional analysis capability, or support for a difficult design decision.

The objective is to strengthen the client’s team, not displace its product knowledge or decision authority.

Can the engagement include fatigue or fracture considerations?

Yes, when fatigue, durability, flaw sensitivity, or damage tolerance may affect the design architecture.

Detailed life or crack-growth substantiation may be performed as a related service when the problem requires a dedicated fatigue or fracture assessment.

Can this support PDR or CDR preparation?

Yes. Simulation-Driven Design can help strengthen the structural basis behind a review by clarifying requirements, loads, load paths, assumptions, model strategy, margins, risks, and unresolved evidence needs.

Independent review of the completed technical basis can also be provided separately.

Will the engagement produce certification approval?

No. Fidelis can support the engineering analysis, documentation, technical basis, and review preparation associated with substantiation. Certification approval and delegated findings remain with the appropriately authorized parties.

Related Services

Structural Analysis & Finite Element Analysis

Determine how the structure carries load, what failure modes govern, and what margins exist.

Fatigue Life & Durability Assessment

Evaluate how repeated loading, spectra, material behavior, and local stress conditions affect service life.

Fracture Mechanics & Damage Tolerance

Understand the significance, growth, and residual-strength implications of existing or assumed flaws.

FEA Correlation & Test Support

Investigate why analytical predictions and physical response disagree and determine what evidence is needed next.

Independent Technical Review & Structural Advisory

Obtain an objective assessment of the design basis, analysis approach, technical risks, and path forward.

Structural Integrity Assessment

Integrate design, analysis, life, damage, test evidence, usage, and uncertainty into a coherent structural-risk decision.

Bring structural understanding into the design before the design becomes expensive to change.

Whether you are screening an early concept, improving an existing design, resolving a poor margin, or preparing for a technical review, Fidelis Aerospace can help establish a clearer connection between the geometry, the mechanics, and the decision.

The initial discussion is used to understand:

The product and current design stage.
The decision your team needs to make.
The available geometry, requirements, loads, and evidence.
The primary technical uncertainty.
The required timing and program context.
Whether a focused trade study, design sprint, or broader engagement is the appropriate next step.

You do not need a completed analysis package to begin.