Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:49:03.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerofoil profile and sweep optimisation for a blended wing-body aircraft using a discrete adjoint method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

A. Le Moigne  and
N. Qin
A. Le Moigne
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
N. Qin
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aerodynamic optimisations of a blended wing-body (BWB) aircraft are presented. A discrete adjoint solver is used to calculate efficiently the gradients, which makes it possible to optimise for a large number of design variables. The optimisations employ either a variable-fidelity method that combines low- and high-fidelity models or a direct sequential quadratic programming (SQP) method. Four Euler optimisations of a BWB aircraft are then presented. The optimisation is allowed to change a series of master sections defining the aircraft geometry as well as the sweep angle on the outer wing for two of the optimisations. Substantial improvements are obtained, not only in the Euler mode but also when the optimised geometries are evaluated using Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solutions. Some interesting features of the optimised wing profiles are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1111 , September 2006 , pp. 589 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Portsdam, M.A., Page, M.A. and Liebeck, R.H., Blended wing body analysis and design, June 1997, AIAA Paper 1997-2317.Google Scholar
2. Liebeck, R.H., Page, M.A. and Rawdon, B.K., Blended-wing-body subsonic commercial transport, January 1998, AIAA Paper 1998-438.Google Scholar
3. Liebeck, R., Design of the blended-wing-body subsonic transport, J Aircr, January-February 2004, 41, pp 10–25.Google Scholar
4. Smith, H., College of aeronautics blended wing body development programme, 2000, 22nd International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS-2000-1.1.4, Harrogate, UK, 27 August-1 September 2000.Google Scholar
5. Pambagjo, T., Nakahashi, K., Obayashi, S. and Matsushima, K., Aerodynamic design of a medium size blended-wing-body airplane, January 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-0129.Google Scholar
6. Bolsunovsky, A., Buzoverya, N., Gurevich, B., Denisov, V., Dunaevsky, A., Shkadov, L., Sonin, O., Udzhuhu, A. and Zhurihin, J. Flying wing — problems and decisions, Aircraft Design, Lopez-2001, 4, pp 193–219.Google Scholar
7. Morris, A., Mob a European distributed multi-disciplinary design and optimisation project, September 2002, AIAA Paper 2002-5444.Google Scholar
8. Mialon, B. and Hepperle, M., Flying wing aerodynamics studies at ONERA and DLR, 2005, CEAS/KATnet Conference on Key Aerodynamic Technologies, Bremen, Germany, 20-22 June 2005.Google Scholar
9. JiméNez-Varona, J., Design of blended-wing-body configurations using a constrained numerical optimisation method, 2005, CEAS/KATnet Conference on Key Aerodynamic Technologies, Bremen, Germany, 20-22 June 2005.Google Scholar
10. Jameson, A., Aerodynamic design via control theory, J Scientific Computing, 1988, 3, (3), pp 233–260.Google Scholar
11. Reuther, J., Jameson, A., Farmer, J., Martinelli, L. and Saunders, D., Aerodynamic shape optimization of complex aircraft configurations via an adjoint formulation, January 1996, AIAA Paper 96-0094.Google Scholar
12. Reuther, J., Jameson, A., Alonso, J.J., Rimlinger, M.J. and Saunders, D., Constrained multipoint aerodynamic shape optimization using an adjoint formulation and parallel computers, AIAA J, January-February 1999, 36, (1), pp 51–74.Google Scholar
13. Jameson, A., Pierce, N.A. and Martinelli, L., Optimum aerodynamic design using the Navier-Stokes equations, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, January 1998, 10, (1-4), pp 213–237.Google Scholar
14. Giles, M.B., Duta, M.C. and Muller, J.-D., Adjoint code developments using the exact discrete approach, June 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-2596.Google Scholar
15. Kim, C.S., Kim, C. and Rho, O.-H., Aerodynamic sensitivity analysis for turbulent flows on chimera overlaid grids, AIAA J, May 2001, 39, (5), pp 838–845.Google Scholar
16. Nielsen, E.J. and Anderson, W.K., Recent improvements in aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured meshes, AIAA J, June 2002, 40, (6), pp 1155–1163.Google Scholar
17. Cormery, M., Adjoint operator approach to aerodynamic shape optimisation for 3D transonic flows, 1998, Proceedings of the 4th European Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference ECCOMAS 98, pp 610–616, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
18. Burgreen, G.W., Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Shape Optimization using Discrete Sensitivity Analysis, May 1994, PhD dissertation, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Old Dominion Univ, Norfolk, VA, USA.Google Scholar
19. Burgreen, G.W. and Baysal, O., Three-dimensional aerodynamic shape optimization using discrete sensitivity analysis, AIAA J, September 1996, 34, (9), pp 1761–1770.Google Scholar
20. Le Moigne, A., A Discrete Navier-Stokes Adjoint Method for Aerodynamic Optimisation of Blended Wing-Body Configurations, 2002, PhD dissertation, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield Univ, Cranfield, UK, available at http://hdl.handle.net/1826/826.Google Scholar
21. Le Moigne, A. and Qin, N. Variable-fidelity aerodynamic optimization for turbulent flows using a discrete adjoint formulation, AIAA J, July 2004, 42, (7), pp 1281–1292.Google Scholar
22. Wakayama, S., Multidisciplinary design optimization of the blended-wing-body, 1998, Seventh AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, St Louis, MO, 2–4 September 1998, 3, pp 1771–1779, AIAA–98–4938.Google Scholar
23. Wakayama, S., Blended-wing-body optimization problem setup, September 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-4740.Google Scholar
24. Gilmore, R., Wakayama, S. and Roman, D., Optimization of highsubsonic blended-wing-body configurations, September 2002, AIAA Paper 2002-5666.Google Scholar
25. Mialon, B., Fol, T. and Bonnaud, C., Aerodynamic optimization of subsonic flying wing configurations, June 2002, AIAA Paper 2002-2931.Google Scholar
26. Hackett, K.C. and Gibson, T., Aerodynamic studies of novel high speed configurations in the NEXUS programme, 2005, CEAS/KATnet Conference on Key Aerodynamic Technologies, Bremen, Germany, 20-22 June 2005.Google Scholar
27. Alexandrov, N.M., Lewis, R.M., Gumbert, C.R., Green, L.L. and Newman, P.A., Optimization with variable-fidelity models applied to wing design, January 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-0841.Google Scholar
28. Alexandrov, N.M., Nielsen, E.J., Lewis, R.M. and Anderson, W.K., First-order model management with variable-fidelity physics applied to multi-element airfoil optimization, 2000, Eighth AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, September 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-4886.Google Scholar
29. Alexandrov, N.M., Lewis, R.M., Gumbert, C.R., Green, L.L. and Newman, P.A., Approximation and model management in aerodynamic optimization with variable-fidelity models, J Aircr, November-December 2001, 38, (6), pp 1093–1101.Google Scholar
30. Qin, N., Aerodynamic studies for blended wing body aircraft, September 2002, AIAA Paper 2002-5448.Google Scholar
31. Qin, N., Vavalle, A. and Le Moigne, A., Spanwise lift distribution for blended wing body aircraft, J Aircr, March-April 2005, 42, (2), pp 356–365.Google Scholar
32. Qin, N., Vavalle, A., Le Moigne, A., Laban, M., Hackett, K. and Weinerfelt, P., Aerodynamic considerations of blended wing body aircraft, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, August 2004, 40, (6), pp 321–343.Google Scholar
33. Smith, H. and Yarf-Abbasi, A., The MOB Blended Body Reference Aircraft, November 2000, MOB Project Technical Report MOB/4/CU/TReport/No4.Google Scholar
34. Osher, S. and Solomon, F., Upwind difference schemes for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws, Mathematics of Computation, April 1982, 38, (158), pp 339–374.Google Scholar
35. Chakravarthy, S.R. and Osher, S., Numerical experiments with the Osher upwind scheme for the Euler equations, AIAA J, September 1983, 21, (9), pp 1241–1248.Google Scholar
36. Van Leer, B., Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. III – upstream-centered finite-difference schemes for ideal compressible flow. IV – a new approach to numerical convection, J Computational Physics, March 1977, 23, pp 263–299.Google Scholar
37. Van Leer, B., Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V – a second-order sequel to Godunov’s method (for ideal compressible flow), J Computational Physics, July 1979, 32, pp 101–136.Google Scholar
38. Baldwin, B.S. and Lomax, H., Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows, January 1978, AIAA Paper 78-257.Google Scholar
39. Qin, N., Ludlow, D.K. and Shaw, S.T., A matrix-free preconditioned Newton/GMRES method for Navier-Stokes solutions, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, June 2000, 33, (3), pp 223–248.Google Scholar
40. Spekreijse, S.P., Multigrid Solution of the Steady Euler Equations, 1987, PhD dissertation, Centrum Voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
41. Shaw, S.T., Numerical Study of the Unsteady Aerodynamics of Helicopter Rotor Aerofoils, 1999, PhD dissertation, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield Univ, Cranfield, UK.Google Scholar
42. Korivi, V.M., Taylor, A.C., Newman, P.A., Hou, G.J.-W. and Jones, H.E., An approximately factored incremental strategy for calculating consistent discrete aerodynamic sensitivity derivatives, J Computational Physics, 1994, 113, pp 336–346.Google Scholar
43. Sherman, L.L., Taylor, A.C., Green, L.L., Newman, P.A., Hou, G.J.-W. and Korivi, V.M., First- and second-order aerodynamic sensitivity derivatives via automatic differentiation with incremental iterative methods, J Computational Physics, 1996, 129, (2), pp 307–331.Google Scholar
44. Newman, P.A., Hou, G.J.-W., Jones, H.E., Taylor, A.C. and Korivi, V.M., Observations on computational methodologies for uses in large-scale, gradient-based, multidisciplinary design, 1992, Fourth AIAA/USAF/NASA/OAI Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 1992, 1, pp 531–542.Google Scholar
45. Vanderplaats, G.N., Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design: with Applications, 1984, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
46. Gill, P.E., Murray, W. and Wright, M.H., Practical Optimization, 1981, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
47. Zhou, J.L., Tits, A.L. and Lawrence, C.T., User’s Guide for FFSQP Version 3.7: a FORTRAN Code for Solving Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax) Optimization Problems, Generating Iterates Satisfying all Inequality and Linear Constraints, 1997, Systems Research Center TR-92-107r2, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
48. Schmitt, V. and Charpin, F., Pressure distributions on the ONERA-M6-wing at transonic Mach numbers, 1979, Experimental Data Base for Computer Program Assessment, AGARD-AR-138, AGARD, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.Google Scholar
49. Sung, C. and Kwon, J.H., Aerodynamic design optimization using the Navier-Stokes and adjoint equations, January 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-0266.Google Scholar
50. Lee, B.J., Kim, C.S., Kim, C., Rho, O.-H. and Lee, K.D., Parallelized design optimization for transonic wings using aerodynamic sensitivity analysis, January 2002, AIAA Paper 2002-0264.Google Scholar
51. Kim, H.-J. and Nakahashi, K., Discrete adjoint method for unstructured Navier-Stokes solver, January 2005, AIAA Paper 2005-449.Google Scholar
52. Laban, M. Private communication.Google Scholar