Advertisement

Shape Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis of a Morphing-Wing Aircraft

  • Cheng Gong
  • Bao-Feng MaEmail author
Original Paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Morphing-wing concepts have received growing interests in the recent years for enhancing the multi-mission performance of unmanned aerial vehicle. However, to obtain a feasible morphing strategy, the optimization design studies are required. In this paper, an aerodynamic optimization study for a morphing-wing aircraft with variable sweep, span, and chord length was conducted to obtain the optimum configurations at subsonic, transonic and supersonic conditions. The optimization objective is to obtain maximum lift-to-drag ratios subject to lift coefficients and static stability constraints at each flight condition. A genetic algorithm in conjunction with surrogate models was employed to search optimum solutions in the entire design space. The aerodynamic forces are calculated by an Euler-based solver and friction drag estimation code. The optimum configuration corresponding to any flight condition can be determined through the optimization. A global sensitivity analysis based on the surrogate model was also carried out, hence the contribution of each design variable to the optimization objective can be analyzed. The results indicated that the optimum wing at subsonic speeds have a lower sweep angle and high aspect ratio, and the wing sweep has a primary contribution to lift-to-drag ratios, and the span is secondary; at transonic conditions, the medium-sweep wing is the optimum, and the contribution of the span is far more than other variables; at supersonic conditions, the optimum configuration becomes a high-sweep cropped delta wing, and the span has a dominant contribution, and the sweep is secondary.

Keywords

Morphing aircraft Aerodynamic optimization Global sensitivity analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Weisshaar TA (2013) Morphing aircraft systems: historical perspectives and future challenges. J Aircr 50(2):337–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vasista S, Tong L, Wong KC (2012) Realization of morphing wings: a multidisciplinary challenge. J Aircr 49(1):11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajaj RM, Beaverstock CS, Friswell MI (2016) Morphing aircraft: the need for a new design philosophy. Aerosp Sci Technol 49(4):154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Youda Ye (2009) Study on aerodynamic characteristics and design optimization for high speed near space vehicles. Adv Mech 39(6):683–694Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xuzhao He, Zheng Zhou, Si Qin, Feng Wei, Jialing Le (2016) Design and experimental study of a practical Osculating Inward Cone Waverider Inlet. Chin J Aeronaut 29(6):1582–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hicken JE, Zingg DW (2010) Induced-drag minimization of nonplanar geometries based on the euler equations. AIAA J 48(11):2564–2575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gagnon H, Zingg DW (2016) Euler-equation-based drag minimization of unconventional aircraft configurations. J Aircr 53(5):1361–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kenway GKW, Martins JRRA (2016) Multipoint aerodynamic shape optimization investigations of the common research model wing. AIAA J 54(1):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyu Z, Kenway GKW, Martins JRRA (2015) Aerodynamic shape optimization investigations of the common research model wing benchmark. AIAA J 53(4):968–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fincham JHS, Friswell MI (2015) Aerodynamic optimisation of a camber morphing aerofoil. Aerosp Sci Technol 43:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Secanell M, Suleman A, Gamboa P (2006) Design of a morphing airfoil using aerodynamic shape optimization. AIAA J 44(7):1550–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Namgoong H, Crossley WA, Lyrintzis AS (2007) Aerodynamic optimization of a morphing airfoil using energy as an objective. AIAA J 45(9):2113–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gamboa P, Vale J, Lau FJP, Suleman A (2009) Optimization of a morphing wing based on coupled aerodynamic and structural constraints. AIAA J 47(9):2087–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spearman ML (2012) Aerodynamic research at NACA/NASA langley related to the use of variable-sweep wings. In: 50th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition 09–12 January 2012, Nashville, Tennessee, AIAA Paper 2012–0956Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bae J-S, Seigler TM, Inman DJ (2005) Aerodynamic and static aeroelastic characteristics of a variable-span morphing wing. J Aircr 42(2):528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mestrinho J, Gamboa P, Santos P (2011) Design optimization of a variable-span morphing wing for a small UAV. In: 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference 19th 4–7 April 2011, Denver, Colorado, AIAA Paper 2011–2025Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ajaj RM, Friswell MI, Saavedra Flores EI, Little O, Isikveren AT (2012) Span morphing: a conceptual design study. In: 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference 20th AI 23–26 April 2012, Honolulu, Hawaii, AIAA Paper 2012–1510Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woods BKS, Friswell MI (2016) The adaptive aspect ratio morphing wing: design concept and low fidelity skin optimization. Aerosp Sci Technol 42:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ismail NI, Zulkifli AH, Abdullah MZ, Hisyam Basri M, Norazharuddin Shah A (2014) Optimization of aerodynamic efficiency for twist morphing MAV wing. Chin J Aeronaut 27(3):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hunsaker DF, Phillips WF and Joo JJ (2017) Aerodynamic shape optimization of morphing wings at multiple flight conditions. In: AIAA scitech forum, 9–13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas, 55th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, AIAA Paper 2017–1420Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Su WH, Swei SS-M, Zhu GG (2016) Optimum wing shape of highly flexible morphing aircraft for improved flight performance. J Aircr 53(5):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 41:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45:50–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDonald R Open VSP. www.openvsp.org. Accessed 1 Mar 2017
  25. 25.
    McDonald RA (2015) Interactive reconstruction of 3D models in the openVSP parametric geometry tool. In: 53rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, AIAA 2015–1014, 2015Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aftosmis MJ Cart3D Resource Website. http://people.nas.nasa.gov/aftosmis/cart3d/cart3Dhome.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2017
  27. 27.
    Nemec M, Aftosmis MJ, Pulliam TH (2004) CAD-based aerodynamic design of complex configurations using a cartesian method. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, 2004, AIAA Paper 2004–0113Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ordaz I, Li W (2014) Integration of off-track sonic boom analysis in conceptual design of supersonic aircraft. J Aircr 51(1):23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ordaz I, Geiselhart KA, Fenbert JW (2015) Conceptual design of low-boom aircraft with flight trim requirement. J Aircr 52(3):932–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gur O, Mason WH, Schetz JA (2010) Full configuration drag estimation. J Aircr 47(4):110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saltelli A, Sobol IM (1995) Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models: numerical experience. Math Models Comput Exp 7(11):16–28zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cannavó Flavio (2012) Sensitivity analysis for volcanic source modeling quality assessment and model selection. Comput Geosci 44:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Changli Hu, Wang Guoyu, Chen Guanghao, Huang Biao (2015) Surrogate model-based optimization for the headform design of an axisymmetric body. Ocean Eng 107:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The 2nd AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop. https://aiaa-dpw.larc.nasa.gov/Workshop2/workshop2.html. [Retrieved March 2017]
  35. 35.
    Sahu J, Heavey KR (2009) Computations of supersonic flow over a complex elliptical missile configuration. In: AIAA Atmospheric flight mechanics conference 10–13 August 2009, Chicago, Illinois, AIAA Paper 2009–5714Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry-of-Education Key Laboratory of Fluid MechanicsBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations