No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Adjoint-based aerodynamic drag minimisation with trim penalty
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2021
Abstract
The aerodynamic performance of conventional aircraft configurations are mainly affected by the wing and horizontal tail. Drag reduction by shape optimisation of the wing, while taking into account the aircraft trimmed constraint, has more benefit than focusing solely on the wing. So in order to evaluate this approach, the following study presents results of a single and multipoint aerodynamic shape optimisation of the wing-body-tail configuration, defined by the Aerodynamic Design Discussion Group (ADODG). Most of the aerodynamic shape optimisation problems published in the last years are focused mainly on the wing as the main driver for performance improvement, with no trim constraint and/or excess drag obtained from the fuselage, fins or other parts. This work partially fills this gap by an investigation of RANS-based aerodynamic optimisation for transonic trimmed flight. Mesh warping and geometry parametrisation is accomplished by fitting the multi-block structured grid to a B-spline volumes and performing the mesh movement by using surface control points embedded within the free-form deformation (FFD) volumes. A gradient-based optimisation algorithm is used with an adjoint method in order to compute the derivatives of the objective and constraint functions with respect to the design variables. In this work the aerodynamic shape optimisation of the CRM wing-body-tail configuration is investigated, including a trim constraint that is satisfied by rotating the horizontal tail. The shape optimisation is driven by 432 design variables that envelope the wing surface, and 120 shape variables for the tail, as well as the angle of attack and tail rotation angles. The constraints are the lift coefficient, wing’s thickness controlled by 1,000 control points, and the wing’s volume. For the untrimmed configuration the drag coefficient is reduced by 5.76%. Optimising the wing with a trim condition by tail rotation results in shock-free design with a considerably improved drag, even better than the untrimmed-optimised case. The second optimisation problem studied is a single and multi-point lift constraint drag minimisation of a gliding configuration wing in transonic viscous flow. The shock is eliminated, reducing the drag of the untrimmed configuration by more than 60%, using 192 design variables. Further robustness is achieved through a multi-point optimisation with more than 45% drag reduction.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Peter, J. and Dwight, R.P. Numerical sensitivity analysis for aerodynamic optimization: A survey of approaches. Computers and Fluids, 2010, pp 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, J.R.R.A. and Hwang, J.T. Review and unification of methods for computing derivatives of multidisciplinary computational models. AIAA, 2013, pp 2582–2599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, J.R.R.A., Sturdza, P. and Alonso, J.J. The complex-step derivative approximation. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 2003, pp 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pironneau, O. On optimum design in fluid mechanics. J Fluid Mechanics, 1974, 64, pp 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, A. Aerodynamic design via control theory. J Scientific Comput, 1988, 3, pp 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, A. Computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 1993, pp 383–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D.A., Tannehill, J.C. and Pletcher, R.H. Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984, New York.Google Scholar
Lawson, C.L. and Hanson, R.J. Solving Least Squares Problems. Classics in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, p. 15, 1987.Google Scholar
Nielsen, E.J. and Anderson, W.K. Aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured meshes using the Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA, 1999, pp 1411–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.Z., Lyu, G.K.W.K. and Martines, J.R.R.A. Aerodynamic shape optimization of the Common Research Model wing-body-tail configuration. J Aircra, 2016, 53, pp 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Y., Lyu, Z., Xu, Z. and Martins, J.R.R.A. On the influence of optimization algorithm and starting design on wing aerodynamic shape optimization. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2018, 75, pp 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, X., Li, J., Charles, A.M., Yildirim, A. and Joaquim, R.R.A.M. Robust aerodynamic shape optimization-from a circle to an airfoil. Aerospace Science and Technology, 2019, pp 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Lyuy, Z., Gaetan, K.W.K. and Matines, J.R.R.A., “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of the Common Research Model Wing-Body-Tail Configuration,” in AIAA SciTech Forum, Florida, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, J.R.R.A. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Aircraft Configurations, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, 2016, Belgium.Google Scholar
Lyu, Z., Gaetan, K.W. and Martins, J.R.R.A. “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Investigations of the Common Research Model Wing Benchmark,” AIAA J, 2014.Google Scholar
Shitrit, S. “Aerodynamic shape optimization of benchmark problems,” J Mathemtical Physics - Vixive.org, 2021, p 26.Google Scholar
Martins, J.R.R.A., Kenway, G.K.W. and Brooks, T. “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Aircraft Configurations - part2: High fidelity aerostructural optimization,” in Lecture series, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Sint Genesius Rode, Belgium, 2016.Google Scholar
Michigan, U.o., “https://github.com/mdolab/MACH-Aero,” University of Michigan, 2019. [Online].Google Scholar
van der Weide, E., Kalitzin, G., Schluter, J. and Alonso, J. “Unsteady Turbomachinery Computations Using Massively Parallel Platforms,” in 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Metting and Exhibit, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, A., Schmidt, W. and Turkel, E. “Numerical Solution of the Euler equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge Kutta Stepping Schemes,” in 14th AIAA, Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenway, G.K.W., Kennedy, G.J. and Martines, J.R.R.A. “A CAD-free Approach to High-Fidelity Aerostructural Optimization,” in 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, Fort Worth, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, N., Kenway, G.K.W., Mader, C.A., Jasa, J. and Martines, J.R.R.A. pyOptSparse: a Python framework for large-scale constrained nonlinear optimization of sparse systems. J Open Source Software, 2020, 5, pp 2564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, D. “A software package for sequential quadratic programming,” DLR German Aerospace Center, 1988.Google Scholar
Gaetan, K.W. and Joaquim, R.R.A.M. “CRM Wing-Body-Tail Optimization at Flight Reynolds Number,” University of Michigan, 2019.Google Scholar
Roache, P.J., Ghia, K. and While, F. Editorial Policy Statement on the Control of Numerical Accuracy. ASME J Fluids Engineering, 1986, p 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secco, N.R., Kenway, G.K.W., He, P., Mader, C. and Martins, J.R.R.A. “Efficient mesh generation and deformation for aerodynamic shape optimization,” AIAA, 2021, 54, pp 1151–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C., Koo, D., Telidetzki, K., Buckley, H., Gagnon, H. and Zingg, D.W. “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Benchmark Problems Using Jetstream,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018.Google Scholar
“http://gosculptor.com,” [Online].Google Scholar