Advertisement

Multi-Objective Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic Optimization

  • W. Haase
  • V. Maigret
  • M. Stettner
Conference paper
  • 264 Downloads
Part of the Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics (NNFM) book series (NNFM, volume 78)

Summary

The present work is aiming at aerodynamic multi-point, inverse, optimization of airfoils as well as at aeroelastic, multi-disciplinary, optimization of the exposed X31 delta wing. Results are achieved by means of a multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) utilizing a GUI-supported software being developed in the European-Union funded “FRONTIER” project.

Keywords

Pareto Front Pareto Frontier Aerodynamic Load Gradient Base Method Roll Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Spicer, D., Cook, J., C. Poloni, C., Sen, P: EP 20082 Frontier: Industrial multiobjective design optimization. In: D. Papailiou et al (Eds.), Computational Fluid Dynamics ‘88, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1998.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    JAVA language:www. j avasoft.com/doc/language_environmentGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Jameson, A., Schmidt, W and Turkel, E (1981): Numerical solutions of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge—Kutta time—stepping schemes. AIAA—Paper 81–1259.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Haase, W, Wagner, B., Jameson, A. (1983): Development of a Navier—Stokes Method Based on a Finite Volume Technique for the Unsteady Euler Equations. In: Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vieweg Verlag, 7, pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Johnson, D.A., King, L.S. (1985): A mathematical simple turbulence closure model for attached and separated turbulent boundary layers. AIAA Paper 84–0175.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Johnson, D.A., Coakley, T.J. (1990): Improvements to a non—equilibrium algebraic turbulence model. AIAA J., 28, No. 11, pp. 2000–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Stock, H. W., Haase, W(1989): Determination of Length Scales in Algebraic Turbulence Models forNavier—Stokes Methods. AIAA Journal, 27, No. 1, pp. 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Schweiger, J., Krammer, J., Hörnlein, H.R.E.M.:Development and Application of the Integrated Structural Design Tool LAGRANGE. 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, Washington, September 1996. AIAA-96–4169.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Aeroelastic Tailoring of Advanced Composi te Structures for Military Aircraft, Volume III—Modifications and User’s Guide for Procedure TS O. General Dynamics Corporation/ Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Analysis and Optimization Branch (FBR), Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Technical Report AFFDL—TR-76–100, Vol. I II, Feb. 1978.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Fornasier, L.: Optimization of the wing—pylon—nacelle test case TE5 by HISSS—D, a panel method—based design tool. In: Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, J.Periaux et al, Vol. 61, Vieweg, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Periaux et al.: Optimum Aerodynamic Design & Parallel Navier—Stokes Computations —ECARP, European Computational Aerodynamics Research Project. Notes of Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 61, Vie-weg, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    INGENET: European Commission project on the use of genetic algorithms in an industrial context. See Web address:http://www.inria.fr/sinus/ingenet.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Haase
    • 1
  • V. Maigret
    • 2
  • M. Stettner
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. MT63EADS-MMunichGermany
  2. 2.ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations