Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:03:03.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multi-fidelity and multi-objective aerodynamic short nacelle shape optimisation under different flight conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2023

G.C. Tao Open the ORCID record for G.C. Tao [Opens in a new window] ,
W. Wang ,
Z.T. Ye ,
Y.N. Wang ,
J.Q. Luo  and
J.H. Cui Open the ORCID record for J.H. Cui [Opens in a new window]
G.C. Tao
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China ZJUI Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, China
W. Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China ZJUI Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, China
Z.T. Ye
Affiliation:
ZJUI Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, China
Y.N. Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China ZJUI Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, China
J.Q. Luo
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
J.H. Cui*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China ZJUI Institute, Zhejiang University, Haining, China
*
Corresponding author: J.H. Cui; Email: jiahuan.cui@zju.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Throughout the course of a flight mission, a range of aerodynamic conditions, including design-point conditions and off-design conditions, are encountered. As the bypass ratio increases and the fan-pressure ratio decreases to reduce the engine’s specific fuel consumption, the engine diameters increase, which results in an increase in the nacelle weight and overall drag. To reduce its weight and drag, a shorter nacelle with a length-to-diameter ratio $L/D = 0.35$ is investigated. In this study, an adaptive cokriging-based multi-objective optimisation method is applied to the design of a short aero-engine nacelle. Two nacelle performance metrics were employed as the objective functions for the optimisation routine. The cruise drag coefficient is evaluated under cruise conditions, whereas the intake pressure recovery is evaluated under takeoff conditions. The cokriging metamodel are refined using an effective infilling strategy, where high-fidelity samples are infilled via the modified Pareto fitness, and low-fidelity samples are infilled via the Pareto front. By combining parameterised geometry generation, automated mesh generation, numerical simulations, surrogate model construction, Pareto front exploration based on the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II and sample infilling, an integrated multi-objective optimisation framework for short aero-engine nacelles is developed. Two-objective and three-objective test functions are used to validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework. After the optimisation process, a set of non-dominated nacelle designs is obtained with better aerodynamic performance than the original design, demonstrating the effectiveness of the optimisation framework. Compared with the kriging-based optimisation framework, the cokriging-based optimisation framework outperforms the single-fidelity method with a higher hypervolume value at the same number of iteration loops.

Keywords

short nacellemulti-objective optimisationmulti-fidelitypareto front
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 128 , Issue 1321 , March 2024 , pp. 517 - 546
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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

Raghunathan, S., Benard, E. and Watterson, J.K. Key aerodynamic technologies for aircraft engine nacelles, Aeronaut. J., 2006, 110, (1107), pp 265–288. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000013154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krein, A. and Williams, G. Flightpath 2050: Europe’s vision for aeronautics, Innovat. Sustain. Aviat. Global Environ.: Proc. Sixth Eur. Aeronaut. Days, 2012, 30, pp 63–71. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-063-5-63 Google Scholar
Birch, N.T. 2020 vision: the prospects for large civil aircraft propulsion, Aeronaut. J., 2000, 104, (1038), pp 347–352. doi: 10.1017/S0001924000063971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guha, A. Optimum fan pressure ratio for bypass engines with separate or mixed exhaust streams, J. Propul. Power, 2001, 17, (5), pp 1117–1122. doi: 10.2514/2.5852 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A., Spakovszky, Z.S., Lord, W.K. and Rose, B. Ultrashort nacelles for low fan pressure ratio propulsors, J. Turbomach., 2015, 137, (2), 21001. doi: 10.1115/1.4028235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, V.T., Lundbladh, A., Petit, O. and Xisto, C. Multipoint aerodynamic design of ultrashort nacelles for ultrahigh-bypass-ratio engines, J. Propul. Power, 2022, 38, (4), pp 541–558. doi: 10.2514/1.B38497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magrini, A., Buosi, D. and Benini, E. Maximisation of installed net resulting force through multi-level optimisation of an ultra-high bypass ratio engine nacelle, Aerosp. Sci. Technol, 2021, 119, 107169. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.107169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magrini, A., Buosi, D. and Benini, E. Analysis of installation aerodynamics and comparison of optimised configuration of an ultra-high bypass ratio turbofan nacelle, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2022, 128, 107756. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2022.107756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, W. and Keane, A.J. Surrogate-based aerodynamic shape optimization of a civil aircraft engine nacelle, AIAA J., 2007, 45, (10), pp 2565–2574. doi: 10.2514/1.30015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, S. and Chen, H. Transonic nacelle aerodynamic optimization based on hybrid genetic algorithm, In 17th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2016, p. 3833. doi: 10.2514/6.2016-3833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, Y. and Li, S. A 3D shape design and optimization method for natural laminar flow nacelle, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, 2017, 1, pp 1–10. doi: 10.1115/GT2017-64379 Google Scholar
Yao, Y., Ma, D. and Yang, M. Adaptive-surrogate-based robust optimization of transonic natural laminar flow nacelle, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2021, 34, (10), pp 36–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2021.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M., MacManus, D.G., Heidebrecht, A. and Grech, N. An optimization method for nacelle design, In AIAA SciTech Forum – 55th AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meeting, 2017, pp 1–17. doi: 10.2514/6.2017-0708 Google Scholar
Robinson, M., MacManus, D.G., Richards, K. and Sheaf, C. Short and slim nacelle design for ultra-high BPR engines, In AIAA SciTech Forum – 55th AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meeting, 2017, pp 1–13. doi: 10.2514/6.2017-0707 Google Scholar
Tejero, F., Robinson, M., MacManus, D.G. and Sheaf, C. Multi-objective optimisation of short nacelles for high bypass ratio engines, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 91, pp 410–421. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejero, F., MacManus, D.G. and Sheaf, C. Surrogate-based aerodynamic optimisation of compact nacelle aero-engines, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 93, 105207. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2019.05.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M., MacManus, D.G. and Christie, R. Nacelle design for ultra-high bypass ratio engines with CFD based optimisation, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 113, 106191. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2020.106191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejero, F., Christie, R., MacManus, D. and Sheaf, C. Non-axisymmetric aero-engine nacelle design by surrogate-based methods, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2021, 117, 106890. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.106890 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiner, B.D.J., Tejero, F., MacManus, D.G. and Sheaf, C. Robust aerodynamic design of nacelles for future civil aero-engines, ASME Turbo Expo 2020: Power Land, Sea, Air, 2020. doi: 10.1115/GT2020-14470 Google Scholar
Cipriani, F. Surrogate Modelling for Short Intake Design: University of Padua, 2017. https://thesis.unipd.it/handle/20.500.12608/25048 Google Scholar
Sanchez Moreno, F., MacManus, D. and Hueso Rebassa, J. Optimization of installed compact and robust nacelles using surrogate models, 33rd Congr. Int. Council Aeronaut. Sci., 2022. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/18444 Google Scholar
Kampolis, I.C. and Giannakoglou, K.C. A multilevel approach to single- and multiobjective aerodynamic optimization, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2008, 197, (33-40), pp 2963–2975. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2008.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, M.C. and O’Hagan, A. Predicting the output from a complex computer code when fast approximations are available, Biometrika, 2000, 87, (1), pp 1–13. doi: 10.1093/biomet/87.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toal, D.J.J. and Keane, A.J. Efficient multipoint aerodynamic design optimization via cokriging, J. Aircr., 2011, 48, (5), pp 1685–1695. doi: 10.2514/1.C031342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priyanka, R., Sivapragasam, M. and Narahari, H.K. Multi-fidelity aerodynamic optimization of an airfoil at a transitional low Reynolds number, Lecture Notes Mech. Eng., 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-9601-8_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejero, F., MacManus, D. and Hueso-Rebassa, J. Aerodynamic optimisation of civil aero-engine nacelles by dimensionality reduction and multi-fidelity techniques, Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow, 2022. doi: 10.1108/hff-06-2022-0368 Google Scholar
Shi, R., Long, T. and Baoyin, H. Multi-fidelity and multi-objective optimization of low-thrust transfers with control strategy for all-electric geostationary satellites, Acta Astronaut., 2020, 177, pp 577–587. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, P.Z.G. Nested Latin hypercube designs, Biometrika, 2009, 94, (4), pp 957–970. doi: 10.1093/biomet/asp045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2002, 6, (2), pp 182–197. doi: 10.1109/4235.996017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulfan, B. and Bussoletti, J. “Fundamental” parameteric geometry representations for aircraft component shapes, In 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2006, p. 6948. doi: 10.2514/6.2006-6948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulfan, B.M. Universal parametric geometry representation method, J. Aircr., 2008, 45, (1), pp 142–158. doi: 10.2514/1.29958 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, F. and Qin, N. Intuitive class/shape function parameterization for airfoils, AIAA J., 2014, 52, (1), pp 17–25. doi: 10.2514/1.J052610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, R., Heidebrecht, A. and MacManus, D. An automated approach to nacelle parameterization using intuitive class shape transformation curves, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 2017, 139, (6), pp 1–9. doi: 10.1115/1.4035283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulos, I., Stankowski, T. and Otter, J. Aerodynamic design of separate-jet exhausts for future civil aero-engines – Part I: parametric geometry definition and computational fluid dynamics approach, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 2016, 138, (8), pp 1–14. doi: 10.1115/1.4032649 Google Scholar
Diskin, B., Anderson, W.K. and Pandya, M.J. Grid convergence for three dimensional benchmark turbulent flows, In 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018, p. 1102. doi: 10.2514/6.2018-1102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Re, R.J. and Abeyounis, W.K. A wind tunnel investigation of three NACA 1-series inlets at mach numbers up to 0.92, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 1996. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19970010380 Google Scholar
Anderson, W.K. and Bonhaus, D.L. An implicit upwind algorithm for computing turbulent flows on unstructured grids, Comput. Fluids, 1994, 23, (1), pp 1–21. doi: 10.1016/0045-7930(94)90023-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, W.K., Rausch, R.D. and Bonhaus, D.L. Implicit/multigrid algorithms for incompressible turbulent flows on unstructured grids, J. Comput. Phys., 1996, 128, (2), pp 391–408. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, E.J. Aerodynamic Design Sensitivities on an Unstructured Mesh Using the Navier-Stokes Equations and a Discrete Adjoint Formulation: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/29459 Google Scholar
Magrini, A. and Benini, E. Study of geometric parameters for the design of short intakes with fan modelling, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2022, 35, (11), pp 18–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2022.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobester, A., Forrester, A. and Keane, A. Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. doi: 10.1002/9780470770801 Google Scholar
Bouhlel, M.A., Hwang, J.T. and Bartoli, N. A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives, Adv. Eng. Softw., 2019, 135, 102662. doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2019.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitayama, S., Srirat, J., Arakawa, M. and Yamazaki, K. Sequential approximate multi-objective optimization using radial basis function network, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 2013, 48, (3), pp 501–515. doi: 10.1007/s00158-013-0911-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 1999, 3, (4), pp 257–271. doi: 10.1109/4235.797969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czyz, P. and Jaszkiewicz, A. Pareto simulated annealing—a metaheuristic technique for multiple-objective combinatorial optimization, J. Multi-Criteria Decisi. Anal., 1998, pp 34–47.Google Scholar
Huband, S., Hingston, P., Barone, L. and While, L. A review of multiobjective test problems and a scalable test problem toolkit, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2006, 10, (5), pp 477–506. doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2005.861417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, R., Ramirez, S. and MacManus, D.G. Aero-engine installation modelling and the impact on overall flight performance, In Advanced Aero Concepts, Design and Operations Conference, Bristol, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341354251_Aero-engine_installation_modelling_and_the_impact_on_overall_flight_performance Google Scholar