Corrigendum to “Recent progress, challenges and outlook for multidisciplinary structural optimization of aircraft and aerial vehicles” [Prog. Aero. Sci. 135 (2022) 100861] (Progress in Aerospace Sciences (2022) 135, (S0376042122000537), (10.1016/j.paerosci.2022.100861))

The authors consider that the manuscript could benefit from additional information regarding the seamless integration of software tools in Section 3.5. Hence, as the primary researcher working on this part of the study, Weijie Tan was invited to revise Section 3.5 as appropriate. The authors appreciate the opportunity to credit the appropriate contribution. Below is the corrected Section 3.5. As indicated in Sec. 2.5, there is a need to improve the integration of the software packages used in the design evaluation process by automating data generation and transfer between these packages. In the work carried out during the OptiMACS project, implementation of this automation has been focused on the structural interface between wings and fuselage. Several bottlenecks in the data transfer process have been identified and addressed in this work, such as i) definition of structural interfaces; ii) definition of wing cutout; iii) automated assignment of sizing variables and constraints; iv) automated processing for flight conditions and load cases; and v) automated generation of aero-structural coupling input. In order to overcome these bottlenecks, the CPACS format as well as Descartes' structural model generation have been extended such that various structural interfaces as shown in [120] can be generated automatically once they are defined in the input airframe design. Besides that, the extension to the CPACS format includes a new cutout element, defined in terms of ribs, spars, and/or relative coordinates. Moreover, a method for automated assignment of sizing variables based on predefined templates has been developed and implemented. Similarly, a tool for automated processing of the flight and load conditions to generate trim design variables and constraints has been implemented. Finally, to allow for coupling between the structural and aerodynamic model, a tool for automated generation of coupling input has also been developed.[Formula presented] The developed interfaces, highlighted in blue boxes in Fig. 13, have resulted in a streamlined process giving a significant reduction of the time taken from over a month down to a few hours (for an airframe design with over 10⁵ DOF, about 3 × 10³ sizing variables and 2 × 10³ constraints in the FEM structural model). With this automation, the overall efficiency of airframe design evaluation is significantly improved, opening up the possibility of MDO for the airframe design.