A surrogate-based multi-disciplinary design optimization framework modeling wing–propeller interaction

Alba, Christian; Elham, Ali; German, Brian; Veldhuis, Leo L.L.M.

doi:10.1016/j.ast.2018.05.002

Cited by 51 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They provide a multidisciplinary view for the design process, whereas their methods are mainly empirical or simple analytical. In addition to the printed version of methods, there are many computerized options available range from single-disciplinary codes to multidisciplinary design environments [16][17][18][19][20][21]. With the computation power increasing, the Euler CFD method is showing great potential in supersonic aircraft designs [22][23][24][25].…”

Section: The Genus Aircraft Design Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-boom low-drag optimization in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment

Sun

Smith

2019

Aerospace Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces a multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization environment called GENUS. The GENUS aircraft design environment's key features are that it is modular, expandable, flexible, independent, and sustainable. This paper discusses the application of this environment to the design of supersonic business jets (SSBJs). SSBJs are regarded as the pioneers of the next generation of supersonic airliners. Methodologies appropriate to SSBJs are developed in the GENUS environment. The Mach plane cross-sectional area is calculated based on the parametric geometry model. PANAIR is integrated to perform automated aerodynamic analysis. The drag coefficient is corrected by the Harris wave drag calculation and form factor method. The sonic boom intensity is predicted by the wave form parameter method, which is validated by PCBoom. The Cranfield E-5 SSBJ is chosen as a baseline configuration. Low-boom and low-drag optimization are carried out based on this configuration. Through the optimization, the sonic boom intensity is mitigated by 71.36% and the drag decreases by 20.65%.

show abstract

Section: The Genus Aircraft Design Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-boom low-drag optimization in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment

Sun

Smith

2019

Aerospace Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The works starting from 1960s, see, for example, the works of Kerwin [10][11][12] about marine propeller numerical simulation and design, and those of [13][14][15] about turbofan of airplanes. In addition, some more recent researches of, e.g., Xiang et al and Alba et al [16,17], still optimized the propeller based on the results from vortex-theory-based methods. These methods, however, cannot provide reliable results when some important details about the flow through the propeller are missing, such as the viscous effect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamic Configuration Optimization of a Propeller Using Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes and Adjoint Method

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2022

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discrete adjoint method was used to optimize the aerodynamic configuration in order to increase the efficiency and precision of design. The fully unstable simulation of propeller rotation was avoided using the quasi approach. In the meantime, the gradient-based optimization approach was extended to the rotating coordinate in which the propeller blades were running, thereby increasing the dimension of the shape parameters as multi-coordinates were taken into account. However, the precision of the propeller optimization was improved by expanding the range of variation for design parameters. Using the current design framework, the propeller’s torsion angle, blade chord length, and blade profile were modified independently by an optimization solver, resulting in a notable acceleration.

show abstract

“…Considerable achievements have been attained over the last decade in determining the effects of the propeller slipstream on a wing, which have an important impact on the aerodynamic and structure design of turboprop aircraft. Most previous studies focused on the isolated propeller/wing interference in the case of a rigid wing [3][4][5]. When a propeller is placed in front of the wing, the slipstream it generates affects the lift-drag performance of the wing [6], increasing the lift-to-drag ratio [7] and stability control of the aircraft [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies investigated the benefits of the propeller/wing interactions, as well as the influence of the diameter of the propeller, its direction of rotation, and its position relative to the wing [10][11][12]. The wing influences the aerodynamic performance of the propeller by inducing velocity at its disk [9], developing a slipstream [5], and increasing the efficiency of the propulsion [9,13]. In addition to the rigid wing, there are also a few papers available that address the flexible wing in the propeller/wing system [14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Aerodynamic Interaction on Performance of Contrarotating Propeller/Wing System

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper gives a quantitative account of the influence of slipstream on the aerodynamic performance of a contrarotating propeller (CRP)/wing system, and compares it with the CRP and clean wing. To accurately evaluate the complex aerodynamic interaction, the unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes approach using the sliding mesh method is performed at a typical freestream velocity of 30 m/s. Four different critical parameters, including the freestream angle of attack (AoA), axial spacing between the front propeller (FP) and rear propeller (RP), number of blades, and rotational speed, are considered in the present work. The results show that the thrust coefficient, power coefficient, and propulsion efficiency of the CRP/wing system change sharply and the difference in amplitude between adjacent waves is large. In particular, the propeller slipstream has a significant impact on the lift–drag performance of the wing in the case of a nonzero AoA. The presence of a wing also increases the efficiency of propulsion due to the recovery of vortices. In the case of a small axial spacing, the thrust coefficient value of the FP is significantly smaller than that of the RP. However, when the axial spacing exceeds a certain value, the opposite relationship is obtained. When the rotational speed increases from 3695 RPM to 8867 RPM, the lift coefficient and drag coefficient of the wing gradually increase.

show abstract

A surrogate-based multi-disciplinary design optimization framework modeling wing–propeller interaction

Cited by 51 publications

References 24 publications

Low-boom low-drag optimization in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment

Low-boom low-drag optimization in a multidisciplinary design analysis optimization environment

Aerodynamic Configuration Optimization of a Propeller Using Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes and Adjoint Method

Influence of Aerodynamic Interaction on Performance of Contrarotating Propeller/Wing System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About