Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:49:21.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improved aerofoil parameterisation based on class/shape function transformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2019

W. He  and
X. Liu
W. He*
Affiliation:
School of Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing, China
X. Liu
Affiliation:
School of Astronautics, Beihang University, Beijing, China
*
*[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new aerofoil parameterisation method is put forward to represent an aerofoil by combining the leading edge modification class/shape function transformation (LEM CST) method and improved Hicks–Henne bump function’s method. The new class/shape function transformation (NEW CST) method has two additional basis functions comparing the original CST method. In order to confirm these two basis functions, the radial basis functions neural network (RBF) model is trained by some samples which are generated by the Latin hypercube design (LHD) method and Genetic Algorithm (GA) is proposed to achieve the basis functions of the NEW CST method. The NEW CST method has been evaluated in fitting precision of 1,545 aerofoils by comparison with the LEM CST method and the original CST method. And the improved ability of the NEW CST at the leading edge and trailing edge is verified by a series of complex aerofoil case studies within 1,545 aerofoils. The results indicate that the NEW CST method can represent the whole aerofoils and possesses the intuitive property as well as the original CST. Moreover, the number of control parameters (NCP) to parameterise aerofoils is the fewest among these three methods. Furthermore, when the NCP of the NEW CST and LEM CST is the same, the NEW CST method has the higher accuracy and smaller root mean square errors (RMSE) especially at the leading edge and trailing edge.

Keywords

Aerofoil parameterisationClass/shape function transformationRadial basis functions neural networkGenetic AlgorithmRoot mean square error
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1261 , March 2019 , pp. 310 - 339
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Castonguay, P. and Nadarajah, S. Effect of shape parameterization on aerodynamic shape optimization, AIAA Paper 2007-59, 2007.Google Scholar
2. Sripawadkul, V. and Padulo, M. A comparison of airfoil shape parameterization techniques for early design optimization, 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, AIAA Paper 2010-9050, 2010.Google Scholar
3. Masters, D.A., Taylor, N.J., Rendall, T.C.S., et al. Geometric comparison of aerofoil shape parameterization methods, AIAA J, 2017, 55, (5), pp 1575–1589. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J054943.Google Scholar
4. Kulfan, B.M. Universal parametric geometry representation method, J Aircr, 2008, 45, (1), pp 142–158. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.29958.Google Scholar
5. Kulfan, B.M. and Bussoletti, J.E. Fundamental parametric geometry representations for aircraft component shapes, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA Paper 2006-6948, September 2006.Google Scholar
6. Vu, N.A., Lee, J.W. and Shu, J.I. Aerodynamic design optimization of helicopter rotor blades including airfoil shape for hover performance, Chinese J Aeronautics, 2013, 26, (1), pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2012.12.008.Google Scholar
7. Zhang, Y., Fang, X., Chen, H., et al. Supercritical natural laminar flow airfoil optimization for regional aircraft wing design, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2015, 43, pp 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.02.024.Google Scholar
8. Vu, N.A. and Lee, J.W. Aerodynamic design optimization of helicopter rotor blades including airfoil shape for forward flight, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2015, 42, pp 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.10.020.Google Scholar
9. Kulfan, B.M. Modification of CST airfoil representation methodology, http://www.brendakulfan.com/docs/CST8.pdf [retrieved 25 June. 2017].Google Scholar
10. Hicks, R.M. and Henne, P.A. Wing design by numerical optimization, J Aircr, 1978, 15, (7), pp 407–412.Google Scholar
11. Chen, X.K., Guo, Z. and Yi, F. Aerodynamic shape optimization and design of airfoils with low reynolds number, Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2014, 32, (3), pp 300–307.Google Scholar
12. Liang, X., Meng, G.L., Tong, S.X., et al. Rapid design and optimization of airfoil based on improved genetic algorithm, Acta Aerodynamica Sinica, 2016, 31, (6), pp 803–812.Google Scholar
13. Goldberg, D.E. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, 1989, Addison Wesley, New York; pp 1–88.Google Scholar
14. Mackay, M.D., Beckman, R.J. and Conover, W.J. Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics, 1979, 21, (2), pp 239–245.Google Scholar
15. Kharal, A. and Saleem, A. Neural networks based airfoil generation for a given C p using Bezier–PARSEC parameterization, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2012, 23, pp 330–344.Google Scholar
16. Ceze, M., Hayashi, M. and Volpe, E. A study of the CST parameterization characteristics, AIAA Paper 2009-3767, 2009.Google Scholar
17. Masters, D.A., Poole, D.J., Taylor, N.J., et al. Influence of shape parameterization on a benchmark aerodynamic optimization problem, J Aircr, 2017, 54, (4), pp 2242–2256. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034006.Google Scholar
18. Padulo, M., Maginot, J. and Guenov, M. et al. Airfoil design under uncertainty with robust geometric parameterization, AIAA Paper, 2009-2270, 2009.Google Scholar
19. Willmott, C.J. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Soc, 1982, 63, (11), pp 1309–1313.Google Scholar
20. Li, X., Gao, W., Gu, L., et al. A cooperative radial basis function method for variable-fidelity surrogate modeling, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2017, 56, (5), pp 1077–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-017-1704-6.Google Scholar
21. Selig, M.S. and Guglielmo, J.J. High-lift low Reynolds number airfoil design, J aircr, 1997, 34, (1), pp 72–79. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2137.Google Scholar
22. Zhu, F. and Qin, N. Intuitive class/shape function parameterization for airfoils, AIAA J, 2014, 52, (1), pp 17–25. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J052610.Google Scholar
23. Weber, S., Jones, K.D., Ekaterinaris, J.A., et al. Transonic flutter computations for the NLR 7301 supercritical airfoil, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2001, 5, (4), pp 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1270-9638(01)01099-9.Google Scholar
24. Hodge, J.K., Stone, A.L. and Miller, T.E. Numerical solution for airfoils near stall in optimized boundary–fitted curvilinear coordinates, AIAA J, 1979, 17, (5), pp 458–464.Google Scholar
25. Hieu, N.K. and Loc, H.T. Airfoil Selection for Fixed Wing of Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, AETA 2015: Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering and Related Sciences. Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp 881–890.Google Scholar
26. Melin, T. Parametric airfoil catalog Part I, Archer A18 to Göttingen 655: an aerodynamic and geometric comparison between parameterized and point cloud airfoils, 2013.Google Scholar
27. Selig, M.S. Summary of Low Speed Airfoil Data, 1995. Vol. 1, SoarTech.Google Scholar
28. Foch, R.J. and Ailinger, K.G. Low Reynolds number, long endurance aircraft design, AIAA Paper 1992-1263, 1992.Google Scholar
29. Ma, R., Zhong, B.W. and Liu, P.Q. Optimization design study of low-Reynolds-number high-lift airfoils for the high-efficiency propeller of low-dynamic vehicles in stratosphere, Science China Technological Sciences, 2010, 53, (10), pp 2792–2807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-010-4087-0.Google Scholar
30. Beccasio, N., Tesconi, M. and Frediani, A. PrandtlPlane Propelled with Liquid Hydrogen: A Preliminary Study, Variational Analysis and Aerospace Engineering: Mathematical Challenges for Aerospace Design, 2012, Springer, Boston, MA; 66, 1–25.Google Scholar
31. Wu, M., Mourrain, B., Galligo, A., et al. H1-parametrizations of complex planar physical domains in isogeometric analysis, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2017, 318, pp 296–318.Google Scholar
32. Abbott, L.H., Von Doenhoff, A.E. and JrStiver, L. Summary of Airfoil Data, NACA Rept. 824, 1945(supersedes NACA WR L-560).Google Scholar
33. Fujino, M., Yoshizaki, Y. and Kawamura, Y. Natural-laminar-flow airfoil development for a lightweight business jet, J Aircr, 2003, 40, (4), pp 609–615. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.3145.Google Scholar