Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:29:50.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent extensions and applications of the ‘CST’ universal parametric geometry representation method

Part of: Smart Aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

B. M. Kulfan
B. M. Kulfan*
Affiliation:
brenda.m.kulfan@boeing.com, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, Washington, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For aerodynamic design optimisation as well as for multidisciplinary design optimisation studies, it is very desirable to limit the number of the geometric design variables. In Ref. 1, a ‘fundamental’ parametric aerofoil geometry representation method was presented. The method included the introduction of a geometric ‘class function/shape function’ transformation technique, CST, such that round nose/sharp aft end geometries as well as other classes of geometries could be represented exactly by analytic well behaved and simple mathematical functions having easily observed physical features. The CST method was shown to describe an essentially limitless design space composed entirely of analytically smooth geometries. In Ref. 2, the CST methodology was extended to more general three dimensional applications such as wing, body, ducts and nacelles. It was shown that any general 3D geometry can be represented by a distribution of fundamental shapes, and that the ‘shape function/class function’ methodology can be used to describe the fundamental shapes as well as the distributions of the fundamental shapes. A number of applications of the ‘CST’ method to nacelles, ducts, wings and bodies were presented to illustrate the versatility of this new methodology. In this paper, the CST method is extended to include geometric warping such as variable camber, simple flap, aeroelastic and flutter deflections. The use of the CST method for geometric morphing of one geometric shape into another is also shown. The use of CST analytic wings in design optimisation will also be discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 114 , Issue 1153 , March 2010 , pp. 157 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2010 

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. Kulfan, B.M. and Bussoletti, J.E., Fundamental parametric geometry representations for aircraft component shapes, AIAA-2006-6948, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary analysis and optimisation conference: the modeling and simulation frontier for multidisciplinary design optimisation, 6-8 September, 2006.Google Scholar
2. Kulfan, B. M., Universal parametric geometry representation method – ‘CST’, AIAA-2007-0062, 45th AIAA Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, January, 2007.Google Scholar
3. Sobieczky, H., Aerodynamic design and optimisation tools accelerated by parametric geometry preprocessing, European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering, ECCOMAS, 2000.Google Scholar
4. Sobieczky, H., Parametric aerofoils and wings, notes on numerical fluid mechanics, Vieweg Verlag, 68, 1998, pp 71–88.Google Scholar
5. Samareh, J.A., Survey of shape parameterisation techniques for highfidelity multidisciplinary shape optimisation, AIAA J, May 2001, 39, (5).Google Scholar
6. Robinson, G.M. and Keane, A.J., Concise orthogonal representation of supercritical aerofoils, J Aircr, 38, (3).Google Scholar
7. Song, W. and Keane, A. J., A study of shape parameterisation aerofoil optimisation, AIAA-2004-4482 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary analysis and optimisation conference, Albany, New York, 30 August – 1 September, 2004.Google Scholar
8. Padula, S. and Li, W., Options for robust aerofoil optimisation under uncertainty, 9th AIAA multidisciplinary analysis and optimisation symposium, 4-6 September 2002.Google Scholar
9. Hicks, R.M. and Henne, P.A., Wing design by numerical optimisation, J Aircr, 1978, 15, pp 407–412.Google Scholar
10. Padula, S. and Li, W., Options for robust aerofoil optimisation under uncertainty, 9th AIAA multidisciplinary analysis and optimisation symposium, 4-6 September 2002.Google Scholar
11. Purcell, T.W. and Om, D., Tranair packaging for ease-of-use in wing design, AIAA-1998-5575, AIAA and SAE, 1998 world aviation conference, Anaheim, CA, 28-30 September, 1998.Google Scholar
12. Samant, S.S., Bussoletti, J.E., Johnson, F.T., Burkhart, R.H., Everson, B.L., Melvin, R.G., Young, D.P., Erickson, L.L. and Madson, M.D., Tranair – A computer code for transonic analyses of arbitrary configurations, AIAA-1987-34, 25th Aerospace sciences meeting, Reno, NV, 12-15 January, 1987.Google Scholar
13. Manro, M.E., Bobbitt, P.J. and Kulfan, R.M., The prediction of pressure distributions on an arrow wing configuration including the effects of camber twist and a wing fin, NASA CP-2108, November 1979, Paper No 3, pp 59 to 115.Google Scholar
14. Wery, A.C. and Kulfan, R.M., Aeroelastic loads prediction for an arrow wing – task II evaluation of semi-empirical methods, NASA CR-3641, March 1983.Google Scholar
15. Kulfan, B.M., A new supersonic wing far-field composite element wave drag optimisation method, FCE, AIAA-2008-0132, 46th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, January 2008.Google Scholar