HE overall design objective for a civil transport aircraft is to minimize its direct operating cost and hence to maximize the profit potential for airlines. This can translate into a goal of minimization of the cruise drag in the aerodynamic process based on principles of the Breguet range equation. Aerodynamic design of the wing is crucial for achieving the goal, but as the fidelity of the computational fluid dynamics method increased significantly, the detaileddesignofanumberoffeaturesincludingenginepylons, flaptrackfairing,andwing-bodyfairinghasbeguntoplaymoreandmore important roles in pushing the efficiency boundaries further. The development of aerodynamic optimization has largely been driven by progresses made in the fields of computational fluid dynamics, parametric geometry and efficient optimization methods, as illustrated by increasing number of published papers in the field [1,2]. The engineering application of the methodology is also enabled by the rapid development and increasing affordability of high-performance computing facilities. With increasing demand to improve fuel efficiency for civil aircraft and more awareness on aviation’s environmental impact, the pursuit for higher fuel efficiency has promoted the technology development in the aerospace industry across awide range of topics, including new materials to reduce weight, new engines with larger bypass ratios, and improved aerodynamic design. Aerodynamic shape optimization using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become an indispensable tool in aircraft design process. Much of the previous effort has been focused on airfoil and wing design optimization in order to achieve the maximum possible benefits from using the state-of-the-art computational tools. Two approaches aregenerally exploredto improvethe lift-to-drag ratio of airfoil and wing design. The first approach is following the philosophy of inverse design procedure [3], in which a gradual manipulation of the geometry is attempted to match a pressure distribution given based on past experiences. In the second framework, a numerical optimization algorithm is coupled with parametric geometry definition and CFD codes to optimize the aerodynamic merits of interests, normally the maximization of lift-to-drag ratio subject to constraints on lift and other criteria such as structural weight. It is also possible to combine the two approaches in a complex design procedure in order to benefit from both past experiences and increasing capabilities of numerical optimization [4]. The primary role in designing the wing-body fairing is to provide aerodynamic streamlined flow while encapsulating the internal structures and equipment. The flow passing the fairing is controlled by varying the convexity of the surface in both streamwise and crossflow directions. The presence of local deformation of the concave shape and convex shape will lead to expansion and compression waves, respectively. By a careful combination of concave andconvexdeformations,the flowoverthesurfacecanbe controlled to generate the desired pressure distribution. Therefore, it is essential to allow flexible variation of surface curvatures in the geometry design of wing-body fairing. The choice ofshapeparametersofthegeometrydefinitioninanydesignwillalso play an important role in achieving the balance between geometry flexibility and optimization efficiency. It can be recalled that in addition to fairing geometry, two primary types of aerodynamic shape can be seen in aircraft design: lifting surfaces and fuselagetype geometry. The definition of the fuselage is normally stipulated by space and structural requirements such as pressurization of the passenger cabin. The lifting surface is generally defined by lofting through a series of airfoil shapes to generate desired aerodynamic characteristics. This paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces related work. Section III describes the main contributions of the paper: a two-level geometry modeling approach and corresponding optimizationframework.Detailsonhowthegeometryisdefinedarealso presented. Optimization procedures using a combination of response-surface-based approach and manual intervention are given in Sec. IV. This is followed by conclusions presented in Sec. V.
Read full abstract