Wing-shape optimization

Last updated March 07, 2020

Wing-shape optimization is a software implementation of shape optimization primarily used for aircraft design. This allows for engineers to produce more efficient and cheaper aircraft designs.

History

Shape optimization, as a software process and tool, first appeared as an algorithm in 1995 and as commercial software for the automotive industry by 1998, as noted by F. Muyl.^[1] Relative to the age of the automotive and aeronautical companies, this software is very new. The difficulty was not with the science behind the process, but rather the capabilities of computer hardware. In 1998, F. Muyl developed a compromise between exact accuracy and computational time to reduce drag of an automotive. GA phases are the standard genetic algorithm iterations and the BFGS phases are the approximated calculations designed to save time. However, he acknowledged that the computational time required on existing hardware, nearly two weeks for a moderate improvement on an oversimplified proof of concept model, made it unattractive for commercial purposes. He also recognized that improving the modeling implementation to use automatic partial derivatives might improve the computational time, particularly with specialized hardware. In 2000, after a couple years of computer hardware development, K. Maute ^[2] introduced a more accurate system that could optimize an aircraft wing quickly enough for commercial use.

Method

Wing-shape optimization is by nature an iterative process. First, a baseline wing design is chosen to begin the process with; this is usually the wing created by aerospace engineers. This wing is assumed to be reasonably close to a best-fit design from the engineers. The next step is to model the wing shape and structure. Once those are mapped out, the software flies the model in a simulated air tunnel using well-developed computational fluid dynamics (CFD) equations. The results of the test give the various performance characteristics of that design. Once that completes, the software makes incremental changes to the structure and shape details, recreates the model, and flies the new model through a wind tunnel. If the changes result in a better performing wing, then the software commits the changes. If not, the changes are thrown out and different changes are made. The changes are then saved as the new working model and the cycle will loop. This entire process is run until the changes observed appear to converge on a design – such as when the changes are under 1 mm.^[3]

Unfortunately, the resulting wing design can only be as good as the computational model.

Examples

Traditional

An example of an optimization proof of concept was done in 2003 by Leoviriyakit using the Boeing 747-200.^[4] Using the variable list above, he optimized for only a single point – a lift coefficient of 0.42 and a speed of Mach 0.87, just above cruising. With just those few variables, he was able to realize a 12% decrease in drag and a 0.1% decrease in wing weight. The code that was run produced a longer span but less sweep-back than the original wing planform. While the reduction in sweep-back actually increases drag it also increases lift allowing a lower AoA and the extended wing span decreases the induced drag (wing tip vortex) resulting in a net reduction of drag. Unfortunately, his optimized design uses too simple of a model; he realized that had more variables, such as viscous effects, been taken into consideration, the resulting model would have been far different. The other major limitation of the single point approach is that it only optimizes the wing for one speed and lift condition. While the drag may have been reduced at cruising speed, it might have been drastically increased for take-off and landing, resulting in a net fuel loss for the airline.

Wing-body

This process can also be extended to explore single wing-body aircraft designs. Wing-body styled aircraft can scale up their cargo much easier than the traditional ‘tube and plank’ design. Airbus utilized this approach to explore design choices in future large aircraft in 2002.^[5] Their objectives, however, were slightly more complex than the original design of the software: the aircraft needs a maximized lift to drag ratio, to be longitudinally neutral (not wanting to pitch up or down while without a tail), to have a maximum angle of attack, to have a minimum cabin volume and shape, and have a maximum thickness on the outboard wings. Using three different components, they expanded their computational model to incorporate as many constraints as possible, including viscous effects. This method involves significantly more computational power. Their initial findings saved a lot of money in building and testing – since it causes supersonic flow of air, a shock wave forms on the aft part of the wing, drastically increasing drag and reducing lift. After modifying their goals to only keep the lift to drag ratio high and even out the pressure, the simulation provided a better design – showing that this tool is very adaptable to the situation at hand. The end result of this study was that Airbus had a set of airfoil designs that are suited to a very large wing-body aircraft. This also proved that these methods are successful at adapting to any task that they would require.

Post-manufacturing changes

This method of optimization can also be used to develop a post-manufacture modification to an existing wing. In 2006, Antony Jameson modified the code to increase the speed of a race P-51 Mustang.^[6] This goal is different still – the Reno Air Race is a straight drag from one point to another at a relatively low altitude. The goal is to improve the top speed to reach a propeller-driven record. Since the change must be glued onto the wing, this severely limits the changes possible. The problem is similar to the previous example – shock wave buildup. To accomplish this, the software was restricted to find a solution that could only distort the wing planform outwards, away from the control surfaces. Using a lift coefficient of 0.1 and a speed of Mach 0.78, the software produced a bump near the front of the top of the wing. The interruptions of air flow at that particular speed travel back the right distance to break up the shock, reducing the drag. While the aircraft’s drag was increased below Mach 0.73, that was thrown out as being less important than a top speed. If these modifications perform as expected, then this validates the use of the software tool to improve on an existing production wing without remanufacture.

Multi-point optimization

Still, all of these methods have a weakness – they are tuned for one particular set of conditions and speed. In 2007, Jameson introduced both an additional step and a new method of calculations.^[3] To account for additional conditions, such as take-off, landing, climbing, and cruising, the modeler calculates all of these simultaneously, rather than only one at a time. Each gradient calculation g is assigned a weight β. Higher priority items, such as cruising drag, are given more weight. The gradient to determine an overall ‘loss’ or a ‘gain’ for the design is created by summing all the gradients times each respective weight. What this allows for is if a change drastically improves takeoff performance but results in a slight hit on cruising performance, the cruising hit can override the takeoff gain due to weighting. Setting the simulation up in this manner can significantly improve the designs produced by the software. This version of the modeler, however, adds yet another complexity to the initial conditions, and a slight error on the designer’s behalf can have a significantly larger effect on the resulting design. The calculation efficiency improvement takes advantage of the multiple variables. This time, two different points were used for the Boeing 747-200 – Mach 0.85 and 0.87. Unfortunately, optimizing for the two points resulted in less than a 3% improvement over drag and almost no weight improvement on the base design. To check his work, he used the same simulation on another aircraft wing and received similar results. The problem observed is that changes that boosted one point of interest directly conflicted with the other, and the resulting compromise severely hampers the improvement gained. His current research involves a better way to resolve the differences and achieve an improvement similar to the single-point optimizations.

Related Research Articles

An aircraft is a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air. It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil, or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines. Common examples of aircraft include airplanes, helicopters, airships, gliders, paramotors and hot air balloons.

Aerodynamics, from Greek ἀήρ aero (air) + δυναμική (dynamics), is the study of motion of air, particularly as interaction with a solid object, such as an airplane wing. It is a sub-field of fluid dynamics and gas dynamics, and many aspects of aerodynamics theory are common to these fields. The term aerodynamics is often used synonymously with gas dynamics, the difference being that "gas dynamics" applies to the study of the motion of all gases, and is not limited to air. The formal study of aerodynamics began in the modern sense in the eighteenth century, although observations of fundamental concepts such as aerodynamic drag were recorded much earlier. Most of the early efforts in aerodynamics were directed toward achieving heavier-than-air flight, which was first demonstrated by Otto Lilienthal in 1891. Since then, the use of aerodynamics through mathematical analysis, empirical approximations, wind tunnel experimentation, and computer simulations has formed a rational basis for the development of heavier-than-air flight and a number of other technologies. Recent work in aerodynamics has focused on issues related to compressible flow, turbulence, and boundary layers and has become increasingly computational in nature.

The Whitcomb area rule, also called the transonic area rule, is a design technique used to reduce an aircraft's drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, particularly between Mach 0.75 and 1.2.

Delta wing wing shaped in the form of a triangle

The delta wing is a wing shaped in the form of a triangle. It is named for its similarity in shape to the Greek uppercase letter delta (Δ).

Supersonic transport Type of commercial airliner

A supersonic transport (SST) is a civilian supersonic aircraft designed to transport passengers at speeds greater than the speed of sound. To date, the only SSTs to see regular service have been Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144. The last passenger flight of the Tu-144 was in June 1978 and it was last flown in 1999 by NASA. Concorde's last commercial flight was in October 2003, with a November 26, 2003 ferry flight being its last airborne operation. Following the permanent cessation of flying by Concorde, there are no remaining SSTs in commercial service. Several companies have each proposed a supersonic business jet, which may bring supersonic transport back again.

A waverider is a hypersonic aircraft design that improves its supersonic lift-to-drag ratio by using the shock waves being generated by its own flight as a lifting surface, a phenomenon known as compression lift. To date the only manned aircraft to use the technique was the Mach 3 supersonic XB-70 Valkyrie.

A swept wing is a wing that angles either backward or occasionally forward from its root rather than in a straight sideways direction.

In aerodynamics, the lift-to-drag ratio, or L/D ratio, is the amount of lift generated by a wing or vehicle, divided by the aerodynamic drag it creates by moving through the air. A higher or more favorable L/D ratio is typically one of the major goals in aircraft design; since a particular aircraft's required lift is set by its weight, delivering that lift with lower drag leads directly to better fuel economy in aircraft, climb performance, and glide ratio.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical analysis and data structures to analyze and solve problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the free-stream flow of the fluid, and the interaction of the fluid with surfaces defined by boundary conditions. With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved, and are often required to solve the largest and most complex problems. Ongoing research yields software that improves the accuracy and speed of complex simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. Initial validation of such software is typically performed using experimental apparatus such as wind tunnels. In addition, previously performed analytical or empirical analysis of a particular problem can be used for comparison. A final validation is often performed using full-scale testing, such as flight tests.

In aerodynamics, lift-induced drag, induced drag, vortex drag, or sometimes drag due to lift, is an aerodynamic drag force that occurs whenever a moving object redirects the airflow coming at it. This drag force occurs in airplanes due to wings or a lifting body redirecting air to cause lift and also in cars with airfoil wings that redirect air to cause a downforce.

The Gulfstream IV and derivatives are a family of twinjet aircraft, mainly for private or business use. They were designed and built by Gulfstream Aerospace, a General Dynamics company based in Savannah, Georgia, United States, from 1985 until 2018. Aircraft power is provided by two Rolls-Royce RB.183 Tay turbofans.

The United States Air Force Stability and Control Digital DATCOM is a computer program that implements the methods contained in the USAF Stability and Control DATCOM to calculate the static stability, control and dynamic derivative characteristics of fixed-wing aircraft. Digital DATCOM requires an input file containing a geometric description of an aircraft, and outputs its corresponding dimensionless stability derivatives according to the specified flight conditions. The values obtained can be used to calculate meaningful aspects of flight dynamics.

The X-53 Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) development program is a completed American research project that was undertaken jointly by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Boeing Phantom Works and NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, where the technology was flight tested on a modified McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Active Aeroelastic Wing Technology is a technology that integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This program was the first full-scale proof of AAW technology.

An anti-shock body is a pod positioned on the leading edge or trailing edge of an aircraft's aerodynamic surfaces to reduce wave drag at transonic speeds.

The Aeroprediction Code is a semi-empirical computer program that estimates the aerodynamics of weapons over the Mach number range 0 to 20, angle of attack range 0 to 90 degrees and for configurations that have various cross sectional body shapes. Weapons considered include projectiles, missiles, bombs, rockets and mortars. Both static and dynamic aerodynamics are predicted with good accuracy. The code also predicts the trajectory of the weapon using the aerodynamics predicted by the code.

A subsonic aircraft is an aircraft with a maximum speed less than the speed of sound. The term technically describes an aircraft that flies below its critical Mach number, typically around Mach 0.8. All current civil aircraft, including airliners, helicopters and airships, as well as many military types, are subsonic.

Wing configuration Describes the general shape and layout of an aircraft wing

The wing configuration of a fixed-wing aircraft is its arrangement of lifting and related surfaces.

A trapezoidal wing is a straight-edged and tapered wing planform. It may have any aspect ratio and may or may not be swept.

A supersonic airfoil is a cross-section geometry designed to generate lift efficiently at supersonic speeds. The need for such a design arises when an aircraft is required to operate consistently in the supersonic flight regime.

In aircraft design, a chine is a longitudinal line of sharp change in the cross-section profile of the fuselage or similar body. The term chine originates in boatbuilding, where it applies to a sharp profile change in the hull of a boat. In a flying boat hull or floatplane float, the longitudinal line of sharp change in cross-section where the bottom plane meets the sidewall, is an example of a chine.

References

↑ F. Muyl, L. Dumas, V. Herbert. “Hybrid Method for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization in Automotive Industry.” Archived October 18, 2005, at the Wayback Machine Universite Pierre et Marie Curie. 1998.
↑ Joaquim R. R. A. Martins and Juan J. Alonso. “AERO-STRUCTURAL WING DESIGN OPTIMIZATION USING HIGH-FIDELITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.” Confederation of European Aerospace Societies. 2001.
1 2 Jameson, A., Leoviriyakit, K., and Shankaran, S., "Multi-point Aero-Structural Optimization of Wings Including Planform Variations" ^{[ dead link ]}, 45th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-2007-764, Reno, NV, 8–11 Jan 2007
↑ K. Leoviriyakit and A. Jameson. “Aerodynamic shape optimization of wings including planform variations.” Archived 2003-08-04 at the Wayback Machine AIAA paper 2003-0210, 41 Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 2003.
↑ M. Mialon, T. Fol, and C. Bonnand. “AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION OF SUBSONIC FLYING WING CONFIGURATIONS.” Archived 2006-12-06 at the Wayback Machine AIAA paper 2002–2931.
↑ A. Jameson. “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for the World's Fastest P-51.” ^{[ permanent dead link ]} 44th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January 9–12, 2006, AIAA-0048, Reno, Nevada.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] F. Muyl, L. Dumas, V. Herbert. “Hybrid Method for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization in Automotive Industry.” Archived October 18, 2005, at the Wayback Machine Universite Pierre et Marie Curie. 1998.

[2] Joaquim R. R. A. Martins and Juan J. Alonso. “AERO-STRUCTURAL WING DESIGN OPTIMIZATION USING HIGH-FIDELITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.” Confederation of European Aerospace Societies. 2001.

[stanford.edu-3] 1 2 Jameson, A., Leoviriyakit, K., and Shankaran, S., "Multi-point Aero-Structural Optimization of Wings Including Planform Variations" ^{[ dead link ]}, 45th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-2007-764, Reno, NV, 8–11 Jan 2007

[4] K. Leoviriyakit and A. Jameson. “Aerodynamic shape optimization of wings including planform variations.” Archived 2003-08-04 at the Wayback Machine AIAA paper 2003-0210, 41 Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 2003.

[5] M. Mialon, T. Fol, and C. Bonnand. “AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION OF SUBSONIC FLYING WING CONFIGURATIONS.” Archived 2006-12-06 at the Wayback Machine AIAA paper 2002–2931.

[6] A. Jameson. “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for the World's Fastest P-51.” ^{[ permanent dead link ]} 44th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January 9–12, 2006, AIAA-0048, Reno, Nevada.