Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aiaa96 4058 PDF
Aiaa96 4058 PDF
An MDO Approach to
Control-Configured-Vehicle Design
6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary
Analysis and Optimization
September 4-6, 1996 / Bellevue, WA
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AN MDO APPROACH TO CONTROL-CONFIGURED-VEHICLE DESIGN
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
-6 -5.5 -5 -4.5 -4 -3.5 -3
Figure 5 APAS Model for the ASCAC Airplane log ()
We want to solve the MDO problem that Figure 6 Optimized Tail Area with Zero c.g. Shift
minimizes the composite cost function,
A much larger tail area results when the weighting
J = CD + R parameter is large. A large weighting means that the
value of risk R dominates the cost function during
where C D is the trimmed aircraft drag coefficient in optimization. This situation leads to large horizontal
cruising flight (Mach 2.2 and 60,000 ft) and R is the tail solutions that are "control dominated."
flight control system design risk in the powered Figure 7 shows the resulting drag coefficient and
approach configuration. The best design should emerge risk values for each of the optimal tail areas from Fig.
by considering both technologies together in the 6. Again, the trends follow the expected behavior.
conceptual design phase. The parameter is used to When the solution is "aero dominated", the tail area is
weight the powered-approach control system design risk small and the drag coefficient is also small. However,
relative to the trimmed drag coefficient in cruise. An Fig. 7 also shows that the control risk R is very large
example suggesting a process for selecting will be for the "aero dominated" solution. Recall that risk
presented below. values near 60 indicate "high" design risk.
6
Drag (CD)
Risk (R)
0.0214 0.026
45 1.5
0.0212 A
40 0.024 0.022 0.02
35 0.021 2
30 0.0208
Risk (R) 2.5
25 0.0206
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 E D C B
3
Normalized Tail Area (Optimal) -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.150.2
Normalized c.g. Shift
Figure 7 Risk and Drag for Optimized Tail Areas
Figure 8 Contours of Constant Trimmed Drag
The "control dominated" solution yields large tail
Coefficient
areas and large trimmed drag coefficients as illustrated in
Fig. 7. Note that the aerodynamic penalty associated
Figure 9 shows a contour plot of the control
with the "control dominated" solution is an increase in
system design risk metric for the ASCAC aircraft in a
drag coefficient of nearly 0.0010. This penalty comes
powered approach flight condition. This plot illustrates
from increasing the tail area by a factor of three.
the effect of the two design variables on control system
It is also very interesting to recognize that the
design risk and, again, the nominal reference point is
nominal horizontal tail area (S h /S ho = 1) provides a
indicated by an 'X'.
very reasonable tradeoff in control risk and aerodynamic
penalty. From Fig. 7, one can see that the control risk
0.5
increases significantly for normalized tail areas below
unity. On the other hand, the trimmed drag coefficient 65
Normalized Tail Area
This effort is sponsored by NASA Langley [8] Morris, S.J. and Kroo, I., "Aircraft Design
Research Center, Dynamics and Control Branch, under Optimization with Dynamic Performance
Grant NAG-1-1573. Mr. Martin R. Waszak is the Constraints," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No.
technical monitor. The views and conclusions 12, Dec. 1990, pp. 1060-1067.
contained herein are those of the authors and should not
be interpreted as necessarily representing the official [9] Livne, E., Friedmann, P.P., and Schmit, L.A.,
policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of "Integrated Aeroservoelastic Wing Synthesis by
NASA Langley Research Center or any other agency of Nonlinear Programming /Approximation
the U.S. Government. The authors would also like to Concepts," Journal of Guidance, Control, and
acknowledge the work done on this project by Mr. A. Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 4, July-Aug. 1992, pp.
Suchkov and Mr. V.L. Razgonyaev while they were 985-993.
graduate students at Virginia Tech.
[10] Niewhoener, R.J. and Kaminer, I., "Linear
References Matrix Inequalities in Integrated
Aircraft/Controller Design," American Control
[1] Holloway, R.B., "Introduction of CCV Conference, Seattle, WA, June 1995, pp. 177-
Technology Into Airplane Design," Aircraft 181.
Design Integration and Optimization, AGARD
CP-147, 43rd Flight Mechanics Panel Meeting, [11] Soban, D.S., Biezad, D.J., and Gelhausen, P.,
Oct. 1973. "Computer Optimization of Aircraft Handling
Qualities During Preliminary Design," IEEE
[2] Anderson, D.C., Berger, R.L, and Hess, J.R., International Conference on Systems, Man, and
"Maneuver Load Control and Relaxed Static Cybernetics, Vancouver BC, Canada, Oct. 1995,
Stability Applied to a Contemporary Fighter pp. 2670-2675.
Aircraft," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 10, No. 2,
Feb. 1973, pp. 112-120. [12] Dudley, J., Huang, X., MacMillin, P. E. ,
Grossman, B., Haftka, R. T., and Mason, W. H,
[3] O'Connell, R.F., "Design, Development and Multidisciplinary Optimization of the High-
Implementation of an Active Control System for Speed Civil Transport, Paper 95-0124, 33rd
Load Alleviation for a Commercial Transport AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Airplane," AGARD-R-683, 49th Structures and Reno, NV, Jan. 1995.
Materials Panel Meeting, Oct. 1979.
[13] MacMillin, P.E., Dudley, J., Mason, W. H.,
[4] Kehrer, W.T., "Design Evolution of the Boeing Grossman, B., and Haftka, R.T ., Trim, Control
2707-300 Supersonic Transport," AGARD CP- and Landing Gear Effects in Variable-Complexity
147, Aircraft Design Integration and HSCT Design, Paper 94-4381, 5th AIAA
Optimization, 43rd Flight Mechanics Panel /USAF /NASA Symposium on Multidsciplinary
Meeting, Oct. 1973. Analysis and Optimzation, Panama City, Fl.,
Sept. 1994.
[5] McRuer, D. and Graham, D., "Eighty Years of
Flight Control: Triumphs and Pitfalls of the
Systems Approach," Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 4, July-
Aug. 1981, pp. 353-362.
10