Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T06:05:00.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improved aerostructural performance via aeroservoelastic tailoring of a composite wing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2018

Eduardo P. Krupa ,
Jonathan E. Cooper ,
Alberto Pirrera  and
Raj Nangia
Eduardo P. Krupa*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Jonathan E. Cooper
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Alberto Pirrera
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Raj Nangia
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
*
eduardo.krupa@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the synergies and trade-offs between passive aeroelastic tailoring and adaptive aeroelastic deformation of a transport composite wing for fuel burn minimisation. This goal is achieved by optimising thickness and stiffness distributions of constitutive laminates, jig-twist shape and distributed control surface deflections through different segments of a nominal “cruise-climb” mission. Enhanced aerostructural efficiency is sought both passively and adaptively as a means of aerodynamic load redistribution, which, in turn, is used for manoeuvre load relief and minimum drag dissipation. Passive shape adaptation is obtained by embedding shear-extension and bend-twist couplings in the laminated wing skins. Adaptive camber changes are provided via full-span trailing-edge flaps. Optimised design solutions are found using a bi-level approach that integrates gradient-based and particle swarm optimisations in order to tailor structural properties at rib-bay level and retrieve blended stacking sequences. Performance benefits from the combination of passive aeroelastic tailoring with adaptive control devices are benchmarked in terms of fuel burn and a payload-range efficiency. It is shown that the aeroservoelastically tailored composite design allows for significant weight and fuel burn improvements when compared to a similar all-metallic wing. Additionally, the trailing-edge flap augmentation can extend the aircraft performance envelope and improve the overall cruise span efficiency to nearly optimal lift distributions.

Keywords

Adaptive trailing-edge devicesfuel burn minimisationcomposite wingaeroservoelastic tailoring
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1255 , September 2018 , pp. 1442 - 1474
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2018 

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

REFERENCES

1. Boeing. Current market outlook 2016–2035, Available from: http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/about-our-market/assets/downloads/cmo_print_2016_final.pdf.Google Scholar
2. Airbus. Global market forecast 2017–2036 growing horizons, Available from: http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/Airbus_Global_Market_Forecast_2017-2036_Growing_Horizons_full_book.pdf.Google Scholar
3. Kharina, A. and Rutherford, D. Fuel efficiency trends for new commercial jet aircraft: 1960 to 2014, International Council on Clean Transportation, August 2015, Washington, DC, US. Available from: http://www.theicct.org/.Google Scholar
4. IATA. IATA Technology Roadmap Report, 4th ed, June 2013.Google Scholar
5. Shirk, M., Hertz, T. and Weisshaar, T. Aeroelastic tailoring – Theory, practice, and promise, J Aircr, 1986, 23, (1), pp 6-18.Google Scholar
6. Weisshaar, T. Aeroelastic tailoring of forward swept composite wings, J Aircr, 1981, 18, (8), pp 669-676.Google Scholar
7. Jutte, C. and Stanford, B. Aeroelastic tailoring of transport aircraft wings: State-of-the-art and potential enabling technologies, NASA/TM-2014-218252, April 2014.Google Scholar
8. Stanford, B., Jutte, C. and Wieseman, C. Trim and structural optimization of subsonic transport wings using nonconventional aeroelastic tailoring, AIAA J, 2016, 54, (1), pp 293-309.Google Scholar
9. Jutte, C., Stanford, B., Wieseman, C. and Moore, J. Aeroelastic tailoring of the NASA common research model via novel material and structural configurations, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, National Harbor, Maryland, US, AIAA 2014-0598.Google Scholar
10. Dillinger, J., Klimmek, T., Abdalla, M. and Gürdal, Z. Stiffness optimization of composite wings with aeroelastic constraints, J Aircr, 2013, 50, (4), pp 1159-1168.Google Scholar
11. Kennedy, G. and Martins, J. A comparison of metallic and composite aircraft wings using aerostructural design optimization, 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference and 14th AIAA/ISSM, 17–19 September 2012, Indianapolis, Indiana, US.Google Scholar
12. Kenway, G., Kennedy, G. and Martins, J. Aerostructural optimization of the common research model configuration, 15th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Atlanta, Georgia, US, AIAA 2014-3274.Google Scholar
13. Kenway, G. and Martins, J. Multipoint high-fidelity aerostructural optimization of a transport aircraft configuration, J Aircr, 2015, 51, (1), pp 144-160.Google Scholar
14. Martins, J., Kennedy, G. and Kenway, G. High aspect ratio wing design: Optimal aerostructural tradeoffs for the next generation of materials, 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, National Harbor, Maryland, US, AIAA 2014-0596.Google Scholar
15. Liem, R., Kenway, G. and Martins, J. Multimission aircraft fuel-burn minimization via multipoint aerostructural optimization, AIAA J, 2015, 53, (1), pp 104-122.Google Scholar
16. Stanford, B. and Jutte, C.V. Comparison of curvilinear stiffeners and tow steered composites for aeroelastic tailoring of aircraft wings, Computer & Structures, 2017, 183, pp 48-60.Google Scholar
17. Brooks, T., Kennedy, G. and Martins, J. High-fidelity multipoint aerostructural optimization of a high aspect ratio tow-steered composite wing, 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA SciTech Forum, Grapevine, Texas, US, AIAA 2017-1350.Google Scholar
18. Stodiek, O., Cooper, J., Weaver, P. and Kealy, P. Aeroelastic tailoring of a representative wing-box using tow-steered composites, AIAA J, 2017, 55, (4), pp 1425-1439.Google Scholar
19. Stanford, B. and Dunning, P. Optimal topology of aircraft rib and spar structures under aeroelastic loads, J Aircr, 2015, 52, (4), pp 1298-1311.Google Scholar
20. Stanford, B. Aeroelastic wingbox stringer topology optimization, 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Denver, Colorado, US, AIAA 2017-3655.Google Scholar
21. Dunning, P., Stanford, B. and Kim, A. Level-set topology optimization with aeroelastic constraints, AIAA SciTech Conference, 56th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 5–9 January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida, US, AIAA Paper 2015-1408.Google Scholar
22. Francois, G., Cooper, J. and Weaver, P. Aeroelastic tailoring using rib/spar orientations: Experimental investigation, AIAA SciTech Conference, 56th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 5–9 January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida, US, AIAA Paper 2015-1408.Google Scholar
23. Zeiler, T. and Weisshaar, T. Integrated aeroservoelastic tailoring of lifting surfaces, J Aircr, 1988, 25, (1), pp 76-83.Google Scholar
24. Regan, C.D. and Jutte, C.V. Survey of applications of active control technology for gust alleviation and new challenges for lighter-weight aircraft, Technical report, TM-2012-216008, NASA.Google Scholar
25. Nguyen, N., Lebofsky, S., Ting, E., Kaul, U., Chaparro, D. and Urnes, J. Development of variable camber continuous trailing edge flap for performance adaptive aeroelastic wing, 2015, SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-2565.Google Scholar
26. Stanford, B. Optimization of an aeroservoelastic wing with distributed multiple control surfaces, J Aircr, 2016, 53, (4), pp 1131-1144.Google Scholar
27. Stanford, B. Static and dynamic aeroelastic tailoring with variable-camber control, J Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2016, 39, (11), pp 2522-2534.Google Scholar
28. Stanford, B. Optimal control surface layout for an aeroservoelastic wingbox, AIAA J, 2017, 55, (12), pp 4347-4356.Google Scholar
29. Vassberg, J., DeHaan, M., Rivers, S. and Wahls, R. Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies, 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 10–13 August 2008, Honolulu, Hawaii, US.Google Scholar
30. Kolonay, R. and Eastep, F. Optimal scheduling of control surfaces on flexible wings to reduce induced drag, J Aircr, 2006, 43, (6), pp 1655-1661.Google Scholar
31. Duke, D. and Weisshaar, T. Induced drag reduction using aeroelastic tailoring with adaptive control surfaces, J Aircr, 2006, 43, (1), pp 157-164.Google Scholar
32. Lyu, Z. and Martins, J. Aerodynamic shape optimization of an adaptive morphing trailing-edge wing, J Aircr, 2015, 52, (6), pp 1951-1970.Google Scholar
33. Rodriguez, D., Aftosmis, M., Nemec, M. and Anderson, G. Optimization of flexible wings with distributed flaps at off-design conditions, AIAA SciTech Conference, 56th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 5–9 January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida, US, AIAA Paper 2015-1409.Google Scholar
34. Zhao, W. and Kapania, R. BLP optimization of composite flying-wings with sparibs and multiple control surfaces, 2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA SciTech Forum, Kissimmee, Florida, US, AIAA 2018-2150.Google Scholar
35. Burdette, D., Kenway, G. and Martins, J. Performance evaluation of a morphing trailing edge using multipoint aerostructural design optimization, AIAA SciTech Conference, 57th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 4–8 January 2016, San Diego, California, US, AIAA Paper 2016-0159.Google Scholar
36. Burdette, D., Kenway, G. and Martins, J. Aerostructural design optimization of a continuous morphing trailing edge aircraft for improved mission performance, 17th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimisation Conference, AIAA Aviation, 13–17 June 2016, Washington, DC, US.Google Scholar
37. Corke, T.C. Design of Aircraft, 2005, Pearson Education, Singapore.Google Scholar
38. Jones, R. Mechanics of Composite Materials, 1975, New McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, US.Google Scholar
39. Tsai, W., Halpin, C. and Pagano, J. Composite Materials Workshop, 1968, Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Stamford, Connecticut, US, 2018, pp 223-253.Google Scholar
40. Tsai, W. and Hahn, H. Introduction to Composite Materials, 1980, Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Stamford, Connecticut, US.Google Scholar
41. Bailie, J., Ley, R. and Pasricha, A. A summary and review of composite laminate design guidelines, Technical report NASA, NAS1-19347. Northrop Grumman-Military Aircraft Systems Division, 1997.Google Scholar
42. Bloomfield, M., Diaconu, C. and Weaver, P. On feasible regions of lamination parameters for lay-up optimisation of laminated composite structures, Proceedings of Royal Soc. A, 2009, 465, (2104), pp 1123-1143.Google Scholar
43. Liu, D., Toropov, V., Querin, M. and Barton, C. Bilevel optimisation of blended composite wing panels, J Aircr, 2011, 48, pp 107-118.Google Scholar
44. Abdalla, M., Kassapoglou, , , C. and Gurdal, Z. Formulation of composite laminate robustness constraint in lamination parameters space>, 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC/ Structures Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 4–7 May 2009, Palm Springs, California, US.,+50th+AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC/+Structures+Dynamics,+and+Materials+Conference,+4–7+May+2009,+Palm+Springs,+California,+US.>Google Scholar
45. Nocedal, J. and Wright, S.J.. Numerical Optimization, 2nd ed. Springer Series in Operations Research, 2006, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
46. Kreisselmeier, G. and Steinhauser, R. Systematic control design by optimizing a vector performance index, International Federation of Active Controls Symposium on Computer-Aided Design of Control Systems, 1979, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
47. Poon, N.M.K. and Martins, J.R.R.A. An adaptive approach to constraint aggregation using adjoint sensitivity analysis, Structures and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2007, 34, (1), pp 61-73.Google Scholar
48. Irisarri, F., Lasseigne, A., Leroy, F. and Le Riche, R. Optimal design of laminated composite structures with ply drops using stacking sequence tables, Composite Structures, 2014, 107, (1), pp 559-569.Google Scholar
49. Adams, D., Watson, L., Gürdal, Z. and Anderson-Cook, C. Genetic algorithm optimization and blending of composite laminates by locally reducing laminate thickness, Advances in Engineering Software, 2004, 35, (1), pp 35-43.Google Scholar
50. Macquart, T., Werter, N. and De Breuker, R. Aeroelastic tailoring of blended composite structures using lamination parameters, 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, San Diego, California, US, 2016, p 1966.Google Scholar
51. Bordogna, M.T., Macquart, T., Bettebghor, D. and De Breuker, R. Aeroelastic optimization of variable stiffness composite wing with blending constraints, 17th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Washington, DC, US, 2016, p. 4122.Google Scholar
52. Nangia, R. Efficiency parameters for modern commercial aircraft, The Aeronautical J, August 2006, 110, (1110), pp 495-510.Google Scholar