See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349063662

Conceptual Aero-Design Analysis

Technical Report · December 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36522.54720/4

CITATIONS READS
0 490

1 author:

Ideen Sadrehaghighi
CFD Open Series
53 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mesh Generation View project

Independent CFD Reasercher View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ideen Sadrehaghighi on 10 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CFD Open Series
Patch 2.40

Conceptual Aero-
Design Analysis

Edited by:
Ideen Sadrehaghighi, Ph.D.

Density Countours (Courtsy of SimScale)

Conceptunal Geometry in Boeing Fuselage Design

ANNAPOLIS, MD
 2

Contents
List of Figures: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Aerodynamic Design Shape & Optimization ............................................................................................... 8
1.1.1 Aircraft Wing Simulation with SimScale©........................................................................................ 8
1.2 Design Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 9
1.2.1 Design vs. Off-Design Modeling......................................................................................................... 10
1.2.2 Inverse vs. Direct Design Optimization ......................................................................................... 10
1.2.2.1 References ..................................................................................................................................... 12
1.3 CFD in the Design Process ............................................................................................................................... 13
1.3.1 Conceptual Design .................................................................................................................................. 13
1.3.2 Preliminary Design................................................................................................................................. 13
1.3.2.1 Case Study - Preliminary Design of an Axial-Flow Fan ............................................... 13
1.3.2.1.1 References ............................................................................................................................... 14
1.3.3 Detailed or Final Design ....................................................................................................................... 14
1.3.3.1 Case Study – Design Process for a Wing Spar ................................................................. 14
1.3.3.1.1 References ............................................................................................................................... 15
1.3.4 Design Variables ...................................................................................................................................... 15
1.3.5 Design Space ............................................................................................................................................. 16
1.3.6 Sample Data............................................................................................................................................... 16
1.3.7 Design of Experiments (DoE)............................................................................................................. 16
1.3.7.1 Factorial Designs......................................................................................................................... 16
1.3.8 Design Matrix............................................................................................................................................ 17
1.3.9 Response Surface Method (RSM) ..................................................................................................... 17
1.4 Relationship of Design Freedom, Knowledge, and Cost Committed .............................................. 18
1.5 Multidisciplinary Design Analysis at Conceptual Design Level ....................................................... 19
1.5.1 References.................................................................................................................................................. 20

2 Aerodynamic Shape Parameterization (ASP) ................................................................. 24

2.1 Overviews............................................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Geometric Parameterization .......................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.1 Types of Parametrization .................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.1.1 Discrete Approach ...................................................................................................................... 26
2.2.1.2 Analytical Approach .................................................................................................................. 27
2.2.1.3 Partial Differential Equation Approach ............................................................................. 27
2.2.1.4 B-Spline Based Parameterization ........................................................................................ 28
2.2.2 Functions Used as Parameter ............................................................................................................ 29
2.2.2.1 Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS) ...................................................................... 29
2.2.2.1.1 NURBS Surfaces..................................................................................................................... 31
2.2.2.1.2 Advantages of NURBS ......................................................................................................... 32
2.2.2.2 Mesh Projection........................................................................................................................... 33
2.2.2.3 Radial Basis Function................................................................................................................ 33
2.2.2.4 Class/Shape Function Transformation (CST) Method ................................................ 34
2.2.2.4.1 CST Airfoils & Wings Geometric Parameterization ................................................ 34
2.2.2.4.2 Case Study - Airfoil Optimization ................................................................................... 35
2.2.2.5 Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)................................................................................. 36
2.2.2.6 Hicks-Henne Bump Functions ............................................................................................... 37
 3

2.2.2.7 Free-Form Deformation (FFD).............................................................................................. 38

2.2.2.7.1 Case Study - Free-Form Deformation Approach to Wing Section .................... 40
2.2.2.8 Continuity Constraint ............................................................................................................... 41
2.2.3 Parameterized Curves and Surfaces as Envisioned by “Helmut Sobieczky” .................. 41
2.2.3.1 Function Catalog ......................................................................................................................... 42
2.2.3.2 Curves .............................................................................................................................................. 42
2.2.3.3 Surfaces........................................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.3.3.1 Case Study - Generic High Speed Civil Transport Configuration ...................... 44
2.3 Constraint Handling ........................................................................................................................................... 45

3 Airplane Conceptual Design (I) ............................................................................................ 47

3.1 Conceptual Aerodynamic Design Process as Applied to Airplanes ............................................... 47
3.1.1 Purpose and Scope of Conceptual Airplane Design .................................................................. 47
3.1.2 Cost Estimation ........................................................................................................................................ 48
3.1.3 Preliminary Weight Estimation ........................................................................................................ 48
3.1.4 Breguet Range Estimation................................................................................................................... 48
3.1.5 Aerodynamic Considerations............................................................................................................. 49
3.1.6 What is the Proper Design (Target) Pressure Distribution?................................................. 49
3.2 Airfoil Design and Parameter Selection ..................................................................................................... 50
3.2.1 Presentation of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils ....................................................... 50
3.2.2 Geometrical Characteristics of Airfoils .......................................................................................... 51
3.2.3 Airfoil Shape and Ordinates................................................................................................................ 52
3.2.4 Airfoil Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................. 52
3.2.5 NACA Four-Digit Series Airfoils ........................................................................................................ 52
3.2.6 NACA Five-Digit Series Airfoils ......................................................................................................... 53
3.2.7 Six Series Airfoils .................................................................................................................................... 53
3.2.8 NASA Airfoils ............................................................................................................................................ 54
3.2.9 Estimation of Wing Loading & Thrust Loading .......................................................................... 54
3.3 Aerodynamic Design of Wings ....................................................................................................................... 54
3.3.1 Estimation of Wing and Thrust Loading Based on Conception Design ............................ 55
3.3.1.1 Remarks on for Choosing Wing Loading and Thrust Loading or Power
Loading 55
3.3.1.2 Selection of Wing Loading based on Landing Distance .............................................. 56
3.3.1.3 Wing Loading from Landing Consideration based on Take-off Weight ............... 56
3.3.2 Aerodynamic Design and Analysis Coupling for Wing ............................................................ 56
3.3.2.1 Straight Wing Configuration .................................................................................................. 57
3.3.2.2 Swept Wing Configuration ...................................................................................................... 58
3.3.2.3 Rear Fuselage Mounted Engine Configuration ............................................................... 58
3.3.3 Pressure Distributions on Wings ..................................................................................................... 59
3.3.4 Control Surfaces ...................................................................................................................................... 60
3.3.4.1 Primary Control Surfaces ........................................................................................................ 61
3.3.4.1.1 Ailerons..................................................................................................................................... 61
3.3.4.1.2 Case Study 1 – Aileron Effects on a 2D Airfoil for Steady CFD ........................... 62
3.3.4.1.3 References ............................................................................................................................... 63
3.3.4.1.4 Elevator .................................................................................................................................... 63
3.3.4.1.5 Rudder ...................................................................................................................................... 63
3.3.4.2 Secondary Control Surfaces ................................................................................................... 64
3.3.4.2.1 Flaps ........................................................................................................................................... 64
3.3.4.2.2 Spoilers ..................................................................................................................................... 64
 4

3.3.4.2.3 Slats ............................................................................................................................................ 64

3.3.4.2.4 Control Trimming Surfaces .............................................................................................. 65
3.3.4.2.5 Trim Tabs................................................................................................................................. 65
3.3.4.3 Difference Between Ailerons, Flaps and Spoilers ......................................................... 66
3.3.5 Case Study 2 – Reducing Drag in Aeroelastic Wing via Active Wing Shaping
Control 67
3.3.5.1 References ..................................................................................................................................... 68
3.4 Pressure Distributions Over Aircraft Fuselage ....................................................................................... 69
3.5 Structural Considerations................................................................................................................................ 70
3.6 Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.1 Airplane Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 71
3.6.2 Emissions ................................................................................................................................................... 71
3.7 Performance Estimation .................................................................................................................................. 72
3.7.1 General Remarks on Performance Estimation ........................................................................... 72
3.8 Fuselage and Tail Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 73
3.8.1 Tail Cone/Rear Fuselage:..................................................................................................................... 74
3.9 Stability and Controllability ............................................................................................................................ 74
3.9.1 Static Longitudinal Stability and Control ...................................................................................... 74
3.10 Control Theory Approach to Transport Airplane Design ................................................................... 75
3.10.1 Design of Wing Planform ..................................................................................................................... 76
3.10.2 Wing Structural Weight vs. Cruse Mach Number ...................................................................... 77
3.11 Thought on Hierarchal Design Approach .................................................................................................. 77

4 Airplane Conceptual Design (II) .......................................................................................... 80

4.1 Components Not Required to Generate Aerodynamic Forces.......................................................... 80
4.2 Components of Generating Aerodynamic Forces .................................................................................. 81
4.3 Aircraft Components Conceptual Design as Proposed by H. Sobieczky ...................................... 82
4.3.1 Parameterized Curves and Surfaces ............................................................................................... 82
4.3.2 Analytical Sections and Input for Inverse Design...................................................................... 82
4.3.2.1 Variable Camber Sections ....................................................................................................... 83
4.3.2.2 Multicomponent Airfoils.......................................................................................................... 83
4.3.3 Spanwise Defined Components (Aircraft Wings) ...................................................................... 84
4.3.4 Other Components with Wing-Type Parameterization .......................................................... 85
4.3.5 Axially Defined Components (Fuselage Bodies, Nacelles, Propulsion and Tunnel
Geometries) ................................................................................................................................................................. 85
4.3.6 Component Intersections & Junctures ........................................................................................... 86
4.3.7 Extensions to the Fourth Dimension .............................................................................................. 87
4.3.8 Numerical Optimization ....................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.9 Adaptive Devices ..................................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.10 Unsteady Configurations ..................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.11 Applications .............................................................................................................................................. 88
4.4 Nacelle Design and Sizing ................................................................................................................................ 88
4.4.1 Nacelle vs. Cowling ................................................................................................................................. 90
4.4.2 Nacelle Design Framework ................................................................................................................. 90
4.4.3 Nacelle Parametrization and Geometry Definition ................................................................... 91
4.4.3.1 Non-Axisymmetric Nacelle with Droop & Scarf ............................................................. 91
4.4.4 References.................................................................................................................................................. 92
4.4.5 Ultra-High Bypass Engines.................................................................................................................. 92
4.4.6 Aerodynamic Effects of Nacelle Generated Vortices ............................................................... 93
 5

4.4.6.1 Nacelle Strakes ............................................................................................................................ 96

4.4.7 References.................................................................................................................................................. 96
4.5 Landing Gears ....................................................................................................................................................... 97
4.5.1 Landing Gear Retraction Design ....................................................................................................... 97

List of Tables:
Table 1.3.1 Design specifications for axial-flow fan ............................................................................................ 14
Table 2.2.1 Performance Comparison of Initial an Optimize Airfoils (Courtesy of 44) ......................... 35

List of Figures:
Figure 1.1.1 Coefficient of Drag (CD) for Some Commonly Shapes (Courtesy of NASA) ....................... 8
Figure 1.1.2 Aircraft Wing Simulation with SimScale© ........................................................................................ 8
Figure 1.2.1 Optimization with Two Parameters ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 1.2.2 Flowchart of Optimization System ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1.3.1 Sections of Blade Profiles from Hub to Tip ................................................................................... 13
Figure 1.3.2 Wing Spar as Defined in Conceptual, Preliminary, and Detail Design (Courtesy of
Raymer [1]) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 1.3.3 Basic Three-Factor Designs ................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 1.3.4 The relationship of design freedom, knowledge, and cost committed [17] .................... 19
Figure 1.5.1 Aircraft Conceptual Design Process [5] .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.1.1 The optimizer started with the initial shape of a circle (1 st frame) and converged to a
super-critical airfoil (3rd frame). In this process, the optimizer had to go through infeasible
intermediate shapes, ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 2.2.1 NURBS Surfaces Parametrizing Surface Blend on Fuselage (Courtesy of Vecchia &
Nicolosi)..................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2.2.2 B-Spline Approximation of NACA0012 (left) and RAE2822 (right) Airfoils ................... 30
Figure 2.2.3 The Effect of Control Point Weight on NURBS Curve................................................................ 32
Figure 2.2.4 Basis Function of Different Degree ................................................................................................... 32
Figure 2.2.5 Basis functions for six design variable configurations of the CST method ...................... 35
Figure 2.2.6 Contours of the Initial Airfoil (Left) an Optimize Airfoil (Right)44 ...................................... 36
Figure 2.2.7 Three sets of Hicks-Henne Bump functions with different settings of t (n = 5, ai = 1, hi ϵ
[0.1; 0.9]). .................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 2.2.8 Two distributions for Hicks-Henne bump functions (n = 10) on the NACA 0012 airfoil.
Red dashed lines indicate bump maximum positions. ........................................................................................... 38
Figure 2.2.9 View of FFD box enclosing the embedded object, including the control points shown in
spheres. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 2.2.10 The base functions on the range t in [0,1] for cubic Bézier curves: ................................. 39
Figure 2.2.11 Free-Form Deformation (FFD) Parametrizing Wing with 720 Control Points -
(Courtesy of Kenway and Martins) ................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 2.2.12 Continuity comparison between G1 and C1 ................................................................................. 41
Figure 2.2.13 Half-Cylinder Geometry and Corresponding Control Points .............................................. 41
Figure 2.2.14 Selection of 4 Basic Functions FG in Non-Dimensional Unit Interval............................... 42
Figure 2.2.15 Construction of arbitrary, dimensional curves in plane (xi, xj) by piecewise............... 43
Figure 2.2.16 Surface definition by cross sections c in plane (x 1, x3) determined by generatrices
(keyi), along x2 and defined in planes (x1, x2) and (x2, x3). .................................................................................... 43
Figure 2.2.17 Generic HSCT configuration derived from Boeing Mach 2.4 case study: shaded graphic
visualization of geometry modelling result ................................................................................................................ 44
 6

Figure 2.2.18 Grid Boundaries for Euler analysis of HSCT wing-body in supersonic flow M∞ = 2.4
....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 2.3.1 Concept of using Parallel Evaluation Strategy of Feasible and Infeasible Solutions to
Guide Optimization Direction in a GA ........................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.1.1 Conceptual Design Roadmap .............................................................................................................. 47
Figure 3.1.2 Fuselage Pressure Distribution Comparison, Boeing 747. Source: AIAA Paper No 72-
188 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3.2.1 Aerodynamic Shape of an Airfoil ....................................................................................................... 51
Figure 3.3.1 Pressure Distribution for wing-pylon-nacelle Configuration; (Initial left), (refined
right) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.3.2 Different Wing Mounted & Localities .............................................................................................. 57
Figure 3.3.3 Leading Edge Droop and Vortilons................................................................................................... 59
Figure 3.3.4 Flight control surfaces move the aircraft around the three axes of flight (Courtesy of
Aeronautics Guide Web Page) .......................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 3.3.5 Aileron Surface.......................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 3.3.6 In (a) is the OAT15A Airfoil geometry and in (b) the Pressure distribution with the
Aileron deflected at 6 degrees.......................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 3.3.7 Lift coefficient increment from -25 to +25 degrees Aileron deflections ........................... 62
Figure 3.3.8 Mach flow contours around the airfoil with AoA = 0 deg. The shock moves downstream
as the aileron is deflected down ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.3.9 Flight control surfaces of Boeing 727 (Wikipedia) .................................................................... 63
Figure 3.3.10 KLM Fokker 70, showing position of flap and lift dumpers flight controls................... 64
Figure 3.3.11 Spoilers reduce lift and increase drag during descent and landing ................................. 64
Figure 3.3.12 Flexible Slats (Wikipedia).................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 3.3.13 The movement of the elevator is opposite to the direction of movement of the elevator
trim tab ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 3.3.14 Ailerons vs. Flaps.................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 3.3.15 Generic Transport Model (GTM) with Flexible Wing ............................................................. 67
Figure 3.3.16 VCCTEF Configuration on a Notional Transport Wing .......................................................... 67
Figure 3.3.17 Illustration of the GTM Aircraft Equipped with the VCCTEF .............................................. 68
Figure 3.3.18 VCCTEF Section with 3 Camber Segments (Green) Compared to a Traditional Flap
System (Blue) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 3.4.1 Fuselage Pressure Distribution Comparison, Boeing 747. Source: AIAA Paper No 72-
188 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3.4.1 Comparisons of Crown Line Pressure Distributions For a Low Wing Transport
Configuration at M∞ = 0.84 and α = 2.8 o , Boeing 747. Source: AIAA Paper No 72-188 .......................... 70
Figure 3.6.1 Simulating Nose Landing Gear Components of Boeing 777 ................................................... 71
Figure 3.8.1 Rear Fuselage Shape ............................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 3.10.1 Simplified Wing Planform of a ......................................................................................................... 75
Figure 3.10.2 Redesigned Boeing 747 Wing at Mach 0.86 based on Cp Distributions ......................... 76
Figure 3.10.3 Wing Planform Calculated by CAD Software (Asa Turbo) .................................................... 77
Figure 3.11.1 Tightly Coupled Two Level Design Process................................................................................ 78
Figure 4.1.1 Mach number distribution ................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 4.1.2 Outer flow velocity vectors. M = 0.80, α = 2.5o. Source: AIAA 83-2060............................. 80
Figure 4.1.3 Boeing 747 cab extension, subsonic area ruling. Source: Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1973 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 81
Figure 4.3.1 Variable Camber Sealed Flap Example – Courtesy of Sobieczky .......................................... 83
Figure 4.3.2 Wing Sections for Multi-Component High Lift System, 3D Swept Wing with Slat ........ 84
Figure 4.3.3 Wing Parameters and Respective key numbers for Section Distribution, ....................... 85
 7

Figure 4.3.4 Fuselage Parameters and Respective Key Numbers for Cross Section Definition,....... 86
Figure 4.3.5 Combination of Two Components by a Blended Projection Technique ............................ 86
Figure 4.4.1 Nacelle Design Apparatus (Courtesy of Stanford University) ............................................... 88
Figure 4.4.2 Common Commercial Nacelle Design.............................................................................................. 89
Figure 4.4.3 Nacelle Diameter vs. Thrust ................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 4.4.4 Source: compositesworld.com ........................................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.4.5 2D Axisymmetric and 3D Non-axisymmetric Nacelle Definition ......................................... 90
Figure 4.4.6 Nacelle geometry parametrization of the nacelle and thrust and pre-entry and post-
....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.4.7 Definition of the droop and scarf angles ........................................................................................ 92
Figure 4.4.8 Bypassing flow. a. Schematic diagram. b. CFD computations. Image source 175 ............ 92
Figure 4.4.9 Flow topology around wing-pylon-nacelle ................................................................................... 93
Figure 4.4.10 Lift and drag polar for a Wing-Body (WB) and Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon
configuration. Image source Ref [3]............................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 4.4.11 Double chime strakes vortices. b. Lift and drag polar for WB (configuration 1), WBNP
(configuration 2) and WBNP with strakes (configuration 3). Image source Ref [3]. ................................ 95
Figure 4.4.12 Basic Landing Gear Design ................................................................................................................ 96
Figure 4.5.1 Mechanism of a Retractor Gear .......................................................................................................... 97
 8

1 Introduction
A design is a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the
implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a
prototype, product or process. The verb to design expresses the process of developing a design. In
some cases, the direct construction of an object without an explicit prior plan (such as in craftwork,
some engineering, coding, and graphic design) may also be considered to be a design activity. The
design usually has to satisfy certain goals and constraints, may take into account aesthetic, functional,
economic, or socio-political considerations, and is expected to interact with a certain environment1.

1.1 Aerodynamic Design Shape & Optimization

Aerodynamics is the
field that investigates
the interrelation
between moving solid
objects and fluid. The
physics behind
aerodynamics is
virtually associated
with the drag
coefficient CD, which
is the dimensionless
number that
demonstrates the
degree of conflict
between a moving
body and its
Figure 1.1.1 Coefficient of Drag (CD) for Some Commonly Shapes (Courtesy
surrounding fluid.
of NASA)
Generally, we can say
that the body is more aerodynamic if this conflict is as low as possible2. (see Figure 1.1.1).
1.1.1 Aircraft Wing Simulation with SimScale©
The shape and positioning of the wings are what determines the efficiency of an airplane in flight.
This, simulates two
designs of aircraft
wings and their
aerodynamic effects.
The task requires the
user to set up six
different
configurations with
three different models
and compare the
results. Its purpose
is to demonstrate how
the deformation and Figure 1.1.2 Aircraft Wing Simulation with SimScale©
stresses change with

1 Wikipedia.
2 Victória Ribeiro, Simulation Enthusiast, “ SimScaler”, 2019.
 9

each structural optimization of a wing. The figure shows the possible load configurations with the
initial model. A good source of information about the conceptual design of a fixed-wing aircraft is the
book by [A. Kundu]3. (Figure 1.1.2).

1.2 Design Methodology

Author : R A Van den Braembussche of Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Belgium.
Original Publication : 6th International Conference on Pumps and Fans with Compressors and Wind
Turbines IOP Publishing, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 52 (2013).
Source : doi:10.1088/1757-899X/52/1/012001
Citation : R A Van den Braembussche 2013 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 52 012001
Navier Stokes solvers and Finite Element Stress Analysis are now routinely used to predict the
performance and verify the mechanical integrity of new geometries [Van den Braembussche ]4.
However they do not specify what modifications are needed to improve the performance or to
minimize weight while keeping stress and vibrations below some limit values. Although they provide
very detailed information, the designer will often base his decisions on overall parameters such as
efficiency, pressure ratio and mass flow, leaving huge amounts of information unexploited.
Discussed presently, are some design features for turbomachinery applications that have been
developed over the years in order to assist the designer in finding the optimal geometry by making
better use of the available information.
Further progress in performance requires incorporating all 3D designs features, such as lean and
sweep, that may help to improve the performance or to reach other design targets. Limitations or
simplifications of the geometry are acceptable only if they are needed to satisfy other design
requirements such as manufacturing or in service cost. Design systems for advanced turbomachinery
should define the final geometry. Any post design geometry modification may result in a suboptimal
geometry.
The quality of a design depends on the accuracy of the analysis methods that have been used.
Approximate solvers or surrogate models can only use for a first approximation in order to speed up
the design procedures. The use of accurate solvers is mandatory to verify the final geometry because
any inaccuracy of the flow solver could drive the design system towards a suboptimal geometry. The
outcome of a design should not only be optimum in terms of aerodynamic/hydraulic performance
but should also respect all other objectives such as cost and manufacturing limitations while assuring
a safe operation over the preset lifetime. This requires a multi-disciplinary approach (fluids, stress
vibration, economics etc.) and a delicate balance between the different sometimes contradicting
targets.
Guaranteeing a stable operation over a sufficiently large operating range requires a multi-point
approach. Designing for maximum efficiency or large operating range may result in different
geometries or impact on the manufacturing cost. Multi-objective design systems should be able to
find a compromise between these sometimes conflicting objectives. Computerized designs have the
tendency to have peak performance but to be very sensitive to geometrical imperfections. All design
parameters are stressed to their limit and even small variations may result in a rapid deterioration
of performance. Robust design systems provide geometries that are less sensitive to geometrical
imperfections and to inherent inaccuracies of the evaluation programs.
Rendering to different definitions of optimization objectives, the numerical design methods can be
classified into two groups: Direct design vs. Inverse design, which will discussed below. The direct
design and its application in optimization, is discussed briefly here as well as the following

3Ajoy Kumar Kundu, “Aircraft Design”, Cambridge University Press, ISBN-13 978-0-511-67785-4, 2010.
4R A Van den Braembussche, “Challenges and progress in turbomachinery design systems”, IOP Conf. Series:
Materials Science and Engineering 52 (2013).
 10

chapters. Hereby, after brief introduction, we address the indirect (inverse) design
methodology.

1.2.1 Design vs. Off-Design Modeling

According to [Rémi Dickes]5, a design model is a model in which you specify the state of the
working fluid along the cycle (its pressure, temperature, mass flow rate), as well as the energy
transfers in the system, so as to characterize a design operating point. Assuming the
components efficiencies, this kind of model permits to derive the geometries of the various
components (like the heat exchangers surface area) so as to realize in practice the specified design
conditions. An off-design, as is the reverse to above. It is a model into which you specify the
geometries of the different components and the boundary conditions of the system, and it will
compute the resulting state of the working fluid. The pressures/temperatures of the working fluid
are not inputs of the model anymore, but they are outputs. This kind of model permits you to know
how an existing machine, sized for a specified design point, will behave if you leave this design point.

1.2.2 Inverse vs. Direct Design Optimization

Author : R A Van den Braembussche of Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Belgium.
Original Publication : 6th International Conference on Pumps and Fans with Compressors and Wind
Turbines IOP Publishing, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 52 (2013).
Source : doi:10.1088/1757-899X/52/1/012001
Citation : R A Van den Braembussche 2013 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 52 012001
Inverse design systems define the geometry that corresponds to a pre-defined Mach number or
pressure distribution. This requires a very good insight in fluid dynamics of the designer to find out
how an optimum distribution should look like. This is more or less understood for 2D flows and has
resulted in controlled diffusion blades. The main problem is to find out how such an optimum
distribution is influenced by secondary and tip leakage flows and how to guarantee the geometrical
constraints such as minimum or maximum blade thickness (existence problem). The geometry is the
outcome of the inverse design so that the mechanical constraints can be verified at the end of the
procedure. The latter is often avoided by specifying a thickness- and loading distribution whereby
the velocity is then a consequence of the meridional contour [1]. Hence there is no direct control of
the local velocity deceleration which according to [Lieblein] is a major factor influencing the losses.
Inverse methods are often based on simplified (inviscid) flow equations eventually corrected for
boundary layer blockage and neglecting secondary flows. The outcome will be different from what
would be obtained by solving the real flow equations and the performance cannot be guaranteed. In
what follows one will limit our self to optimization systems that are based on the accurate analysis
methods commonly used now in industry. Optimization systems find the geometry that best satisfies
the design objectives function (OF) expressed in terms of performance, cost etc. while respecting the
constraints (max. stress, lifetime). This is illustrated on Figure 1.2.1 showing the iso-loss contours
in function of the two design parameters X1 and X2.
Objective is to find the combination of the design parameters X1 and X2 that result in a minimum loss
coefficient ω while respecting the constraints. Most systems make use of an iterative procedure and
start from an existing geometry (X0). Simple mechanical and geometrical constraints (X1 < X1max and
X2 < X2max) can already be verified before any time consuming flow analysis is started. First order
methods find the optimum geometry by following the direction of steepest descend. This requires
the calculation of the derivatives ∂ω/∂X1 and ∂ω/∂X2 , and the calculation of the optimum step length
to reach the point X1. New steps are calculated until the optimum geometry is found (zero gradient)
or the path is blocked by a constraint.

5 ResearchGate Questions and Answer, March 2017.

 11

Figure 1.2.1 Optimization with Two Parameters

Most optimization systems make use of existing and well proven solvers to predict the (OF) of
different geometries so that the outcome is very trustworthy. The large number of analyses that are
needed to calculate the gradients and the large number of steps that may be required to reach the
optimum, results in a computational effort that may be prohibitive for most real cases. A first
challenge is to reduce this effort by reducing the number of required iterations and/or reducing the
computational effort for each iteration.
Adjoint methods allow calculating the steepest gradient with a computational burden that is
comparable to the one of an analysis. This requires a modification of the flow solver, excluding the
use of “off the shelf” solvers. It also complicates the extension to multidisciplinary designs.
An alternative are the zero-order or stochastic search mechanisms requiring only OF evaluations.
The systematic exploration of the design space, indicated by “X” on Figure 1.2.1, requires only nine
OF evaluations to obtain a rather good idea of the optimum geometry. However the number of
evaluations increases exponentially with the number of design parameters, leading to prohibitive
computer efforts for more complex geometries. Zero order methods have fewer chances to get stuck
in a local minimum.
Evolutionary strategies such as Genetic Algorithms (GA), Simulated Annealing (SA), Kriging and
many others can accelerate the procedure by replacing the systematic sweep by a more intelligent
selection of new geometries using in a stochastic way the information obtained during previous
calculations. A way to reduce the computational burden is by working on different levels of
sophistication, combining approximate but fast prediction methods with accurate but time
consuming ones [2,3].
Such a system is illustrated on Figure 1.2.2. The fast but less accurate optimization loop is to the
right; the expensive but accurate one is to the left. The OF driving the GA is predicted by means of a
 12

Meta function or
surrogate model i.e. an
interpolator using the
information contained in
the Database to correlate
the OF to the geometry
similar to what is done by
the accurate analyzers.
Surrogate models have
the same input and output
as the analysis methods
they replace. Once they
have been trained on the
data contained in the
Database, they are very
fast predictors and allow
the evaluation of the (OF)
of the many geometries,
generated by the GA, with
much less effort than the Figure 1.2.2 Flowchart of Optimization System
accurate solvers. The
optimized geometry is then verified by the accurate one. The procedure is stopped when the accurate
solver confirms that the surrogate model makes accurate predictions i.e. confirms that the optimizer
was driven by accurate predictions. Otherwise a new GA optimization is started after a new learning
of the meta function considering also the new optimized geometries. The main advantages of such an
approach are:

➢ The existence of only one “master” geometry i.e. the one defined by the geometrical
parameters used in the GA optimizer. This eliminates possible approximations and errors
when transferring the geometry from one discipline to another,
➢ The possibility to shorten the design time by making all expensive analyses in parallel,
➢ The existence of a global OF accounting for all disciplines. This allows a concurrent
optimization driving the geometry to a compromise between all requirements without
iterations between the aerodynamically optimum geometry and the mechanically acceptable
one.
1.2.2.1 References
[1] Watanabe H and Zangeneh M 2003 ,”Design of the blade geometry of swept transonic fans by 3D
inverse design”, ASME-GT 38770.
[2] Pierret S and Van den Braembussche R A 1999”, ASME Journal of Turbomachinery”, 121 326-332.
[3] Verstraete T, Alsalihi Z and Van den Braembussche R A 2007, ” ASME Journal of Turbomachinery”,
132 03104.
[4] Van den Braembussche R A, Alsalihi Z, Verstraete T, Matsuo A, Ibaraki S, Sugimoto K and Tomita
I 2012, “ Multidisciplinary Multipoint Optimization of a Transonic Turbocharger Compressor”, ASME-
GT 695645.
[5] Sugimura K, Jeong S, Obayashi S and Kimura T 2008.” Multi-Objective Robust Design Optimization
and Knowledge Mining of a Centrifugal Fan that takes Dimensional Uncertainty into Account”, ASME-
GT 51301.
[6] Verstraete T, Amaral S, Van den Braembussche R A and Arts T 2008, ”ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery”, 132 021014.
 13

[7] Verstraete T, Amaral S, Van den Braembussche R A and Arts T 2008, “ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery”, 132 021013.

1.3 CFD in the Design Process

The actual use of CFD by Aerospace companies is a consequence of the trade-off between perceived
benefits and costs. While the benefits are widely recognized, computational costs cannot be allowed
to swamp the design process [Jameson, A. and Ou, K. (2010)]6. The need for rapid turnaround,
including the setup time, is also crucial. In current industrial practice, the design process can
generally be divided into three phases:
1. Conceptual Design,
2. Preliminary Design,
3. Detailed Design.

1.3.1 Conceptual Design

The conceptual design stage, typically carried out by a staff of 15 - 30 engineers, defines the mission
in the light of anticipated market requirements, and determines a general preliminary
configuration, together with first estimates of size, weight and performance. The costs of this phase,
depending on application (i.e., airplane configuration), and costs in the range of $M 6-12.

1.3.2 Preliminary Design

In the preliminary design stage the aerodynamic shape and structural skeleton progress to the point
where detailed performance estimates can be made and guaranteed to potential customers, who can
then, in turn, formally sign binding contracts for the purchase of a certain number of aircraft. A staff
of 100-300 engineers is generally employed for up to 2 years, at a cost of $M 60 - 120 (again the same
application). Initial aerodynamic performance is explored by computational simulations and through
wind tunnel tests. While the costs are still fairly moderate, decisions made at this stage essentially
determine both the final performance and the development costs. There is an excellent example of
preliminary design for an environmentally friendly, high capacity, aircraft which is done by a group
of TU Delft University students (“Design of the Jumbo City Flyer”, Group D06, V.2, 2013). Of course
there are others, like the case study.
1.3.2.1 Case Study - Preliminary
Design of an Axial-Flow
Fan
A computerized preliminary design
system for an axial flow fan is used
to construct the basic 3D blade
geometry and predict its
aerodynamic performance on the
basis of simple analytical methods.
The system used in this work was
previously applied to actual aircraft
and air-conditioning fans, and the
results of its predictions are
compared with corresponding
experimental results to verify the
Figure 1.3.1 Sections of Blade Profiles from Hub to Tip
prediction accuracy of the design

6Antony Jameson and Kui Ou, “Optimization Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics”, Aeronautics and
Astronautics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
 14

system [1-2].
The preliminary aerodynamic blade design of
the axial-flow fan, shown in Figure 1.3.1, is
conducted by using a through-flow modeling
technique to successively determine the blade
angle distribution, camber line, and airfoil
thickness distribution, and finally stack the
blade profiles in the spanwise direction.
Before creating the preliminary design,
however, the four design variables (e.g., tip
diameter, hub-to-tip ratio, chord length,
number of blades) are decided by setting the
design requirements. The required pressure Table 1.3.1 Design specifications for axial-flow fan
rise is 100 Pa at a volume flow rate of 60
m3/min. The axial-flow fan is operated at a speed of 1170 rpm, the number of fan blades is 10, the
tip diameter is 0.510 m, and the hub-to-tip ratio is 0.294. More detailed specifications are given in
Table 1.3.1.
1.3.2.1.1 References
[1] Jin-Hyuk Kim, Jae-Woo Kim, Kwang-Yong Kim, “Axial-Flow Ventilation Fan Design Through Multi-
Objective Optimization to Enhance Aerodynamic Performance”, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2011.
[2] Lee, C., and Kil, H. G., 2010, “A Computerized Design System of the Axial Fan Considering
Performance and Noise Characteristics,” J. Fluid Mach. (in Korea), 13(2), 48–53.

1.3.3 Detailed or Final Design

In the final design stage the structure must be defined in complete detail, together with complete
systems, including the flight deck, control systems (involving major software development for fly-
by-wire systems), avionics, electrical and hydraulic systems, landing gear, weapon systems for
military aircraft, and cabin layout for commercial aircraft. Major costs are incurred at this stage,
during which it is also necessary to prepare a detailed manufacturing plan. Thousands of engineers
define every part of the aircraft. Total costs are $B 3-10. Therefore, the final design would normally
be carried out only if sufficient orders have been received to indicate a reasonably high probability
of recovering a significant fraction of the investment7. Prior to discussing classical and modern
design techniques, it is useful to present some standard definitions and terms, as appear in [Giunta
et al.]8.
Optimization in Detail Design tends to be subsystem or part specific, not system-wide. Design
procedures for structural parts, equipment, wiring, and other areas typically include the
minimization of weight of those items, but not tradeoffs with other parts or systems. Such tradeoffs
should have been accomplished during Conceptual and Preliminary Design [Raymer, 2002]9.
1.3.3.1 Case Study – Design Process for a Wing Spar
As the design progresses through conceptual, preliminary, and detail design, the level of detail of the
design steadily increases [1]. This is illustrated in Figure 1.3.2 for a typical piece of aircraft
geometry, the front wing spar. The top of Figure 1.3.2 depicts the design of a front wing spar in
the amount of detail typical of conceptual design, usually nothing more than a straight line in top

7 See Previous.
8 Anthony A. Giunta, Steven F. Wojtkiewicz Jr. and Michael S. Eldred, “Overview Of Modern Design Of Experiments

Methods For Computational Simulations”, AIAA 2003-0649.

9 Daniel P. Raymer, “Enhancing Aircraft Conceptual Design Using Multidisciplinary Optimization”, Doctoral

Thesis, Report 2002-2, May 2002, ISBN 91-7283-259-2

 15

view at the desired location of the

spar. The spar is assumed to be
approximately the depth of the
wing.
While this seems crude, keep in
mind that the entire aircraft
arrangement is being determined at
this stage of design, and the
interactions between components
are more important than the exact
geometry of any one part. This
simple definition answers the key
questions for the initial conceptual
layout: How big can the wing box,
wing fuel tank, and leading-edge
flaps be? If this front spar is moved
forward then the wing box gets Figure 1.3.2 Wing Spar as Defined in Conceptual, Preliminary,
and Detail Design (Courtesy of Raymer [1])
larger, reducing structural weight,
but the leading-edge flaps get
smaller, reducing their lift contribution and requiring a bigger wing to meet, say, a landing distance.
The designer must attempt to trade off these conflicting desires and find a reasonable compromise
for spar location.
In preliminary design, the example wing spar's overall geometry is refined, including the actual
shaping of the spar's cross section (middle of Figure 1.3.2). Fairly sophisticated methods are used
to perform a structural analysis of the overall spar, with the objective of determining the thickness
(or number of composite plies) required to handle the expected loads. The spar is only one element
of the overall structure of the aircraft that will be defined in preliminary design, and extensive
analysis will be done of the whole structural concept to assess and optimize the overall concept.
Note that the spar design in the preliminary design phase is still not in sufficient detail to be built.
Full consideration has not yet been given to attachments, cutouts, access panels, flanges,
manufacturing limitations, fuel sealing, and other real-world details. These are the subject of detail
design (bottom of Figure 1.3.2), and are typically considered only after the aircraft structural
concept as a whole has been validated during the preliminary design phase.
Towards the end of detail design, the design drawings are of sufficient depth to determine the part
weights from the volume of various materials as indicated on the drawings. This is the first time
weight can be assessed by direct calculation – in conceptual and preliminary design, statistical
methods must be employed. For a detailed review of the aircraft design process, see Raymer [2]
chapter three.
1.3.3.1.1 References
[1] Daniel P. Raymer, “Enhancing Aircraft Conceptual Design Using Multidisciplinary Optimization”,
Doctoral Thesis, Report 2002-2, May 2002, ISBN 91-7283-259-2
[2] Raymer, D., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Washington, D.C., Third Edition 1999
1.3.4 Design Variables
Design Variables are the parameters or quantities to be varied during the experiment. A synonym in
the statistical literature is “factors.” In this text, a design variable is represented as an element in an
n-dimensional vector, xi, where I =1,…,n. The entire vector of design variables is represented in bold
font as x.
 16

1.3.5 Design Space

The n-dimensional space defined by the lower and upper bounds of each design variable. Typically,
the design space bounds are scaled to range from –1 to +1 or from 0 to +1. This scaling is a
convenience for representing tables of samples, as well as a mathematical necessity for avoiding ill
conditioned matrices in some of the linear algebra used in generating DoE samples. An n-
dimensional design space is indicated in this text using the closed interval notation [-1,1]n or [0,1]n,
as appropriate for the particular design method. Both [-1,1]n and [0,1]n define n-dimensional
hypercube design spaces.
1.3.6 Sample Data
A specific instance of x, where all values in the vector x fall within the bounds of the design space.
The terms “design point” and “point” are synonymous with “sample.” A sample is represented as
either a vector of length n, or as an ordered n-tuple of the form (x1, x2,,…, xn).

1.3.7 Design of Experiments (DoE)

A procedure for choosing a set of samples in the design space, with the general goal of maximizing
the amount of information gained from a limited number of samples. The phrase “design and analysis
of computer experiments” (DACE) is used in some sources as a synonym for modern DoE methods.
Design of Experiments (DOE) is also referred to as Designed Experiments or Experimental
Design is defined as the systematic procedure carried out under controlled conditions to
discover an unknown effect, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known effect. It
involves determining the relationship between input factors affecting a process and the output
of that process. It helps to manage process inputs to optimize the output.10
In the Design of Experiments (DoE) phase of the RSM, the design space is systematically explored
using the DoE technique, which generates the test matrix of design points to be computed in each
computational experiment. The aim of DoE is to discretize the entire design space in a way such that
a matrix of design variable values is obtained. This is done by discretizing the variation range of each
design variable into 𝑁𝑠 levels. Combining the values of all the design variables at a specific level yields
one experiment. Combining all the above yielded experiments therefore forms a set of 𝑁𝑠
experiments, which is thereby referred to as a DoE. If X is the design vector consisting of Nvar design
variables (DV), and if each design variable is split into 𝑁𝑠 levels, the DoE matrix is given by [Kapoor]11.

𝐗11 𝐗12 ⋯ 𝐗1Nvar ← Experiment 1

𝐗 21 𝐗 22 … 𝐗 2Nvar ← Experiment 2
𝐗 DoE =
⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮
[𝐗 N S 1 𝐗 NS 2 ⋯ 𝐗 NSNvar ] ← Experiment NS
Eq. 1.3.1
1.3.7.1 Factorial Designs
The most basic experimental design is a full factorial design. The number of design points dictated
by a lull factorial design is the product of the number of levels for each factor. The most common are
2 k (for evaluating main effects and interactions) and 3 k designs (for evaluating main and quadratic
effects and interactions) for k factors at 2 and 3 levels, respectively. A 23 full factorial design is shown
in Figure 1.3.3 (a). The size of a full factorial experiment increases exponentially with the number
of factors; this leads to an unmanageable number of experiments. Fractional factorial designs are

10 ANSYS Fluent
11 Gaurav Kapoor, “Exploration Of A Computational Fluid Dynamics Integrated Design Methodology For Potential
Application To A Wind Turbine Blade”, Thesis Submitted to the Department of Aerospace Engineering, College
of Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach. December 2014.
 17

used when experiments are costly and many factors are required. A fractional factorial design is a
fraction of a full factorial design; the most common are 2(k-p) designs in which the fraction is 1/2(p). A
half fraction of the 23 full factorial design is shown in Figure 1.3.3 (b). The reduction of the number
of design points in a fractional factorial design is not without a price. The 23 full factorial design

Figure 1.3.3 Basic Three-Factor Designs

shown in Figure 1.3.3 (a) allows estimation of all main effects (x1, x2, x3), all two factor interactions
(x1x2, x1x3 and x2 x3) , as well as the three factor interaction (x1 x2 x3). For the 23-1 fractional factorial
indicated by the solid dots in Figure 1.3.3 (b), the main effects are aliased (or biased) with the two
factor interactions. (Simpson, et al., 2018)12
1.3.8 Design Matrix
The design matrix is formed by concatenating the values of the design variables at all levels
[Kapoor]13. In order to do so, the design space needs to be discretized into levels which are equal to
the desired number of computer simulations to be performed. The design space as described above
is the region bounded by the upper and lower limits of the design variables. The range of each of the
design variables DVRange (the design space) is the difference between the upper, DVUpper, and lower
limits, DVLower, of the design variable. This range is discretized into equal number of levels 𝑁𝑠 which
is equivalent to the number of experiments (computer simulations) to be performed. To obtain the
values of the design variables at each level, first a LHS plan is generated for the 10 design variables
and 𝑁𝑠 levels. This generates a matrix L of size (𝑁S x 10), with the 𝑁𝑠 values in each of the 10 columns
varying from 0 to 1 in a LHS pattern. The values of the design variables at each level are then obtained
based on the following equation:

XDoE (i) = DVLower (j) + [DVRange (j) × L(i, j)]

Eq. 1.3.2
The matrix thus formed, describes the set of blade geometries for which the CFD simulations are to
be performed in order to construct the RSM.
1.3.9 Response Surface Method (RSM)
Any function that represents the trends of a response over the range of the design variables. In some
engineering fields, the term “response surface” denotes the use of a low-order polynomial function.

12 Timothy W. Simpson, Jesse Peplinski, Patrick N. Koch, and Janet K. Allen, “Meta models For Computer-Based
Engineering Design: Survey And Recommendation”, NASA-NTRS, 2018.
13 Gaurav Kapoor, “Exploration Of A Computational Fluid Dynamics Integrated Design Methodology For Potential

Application To A Wind Turbine Blade”, Thesis Submitted to the Department of Aerospace Engineering, College
of Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach. December 2014.
 18

However, this is not consistent with the statistical community in which “response surface” is the
true, unknown response trend, and “response surface approximation” denotes a user-defined
function that models the response trend. Synonyms for “response surface approximation” include
“model,” “meta model” ,“surrogate model”. Note that response surface approximations are often
associated with design of experiments. For further details, reader should consult [Giunta et al.]14.
Overall, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) explores the relationships between several input
variables and one or more response variables, as depicted by [Kapoor]15. The method was introduced
by [Box & Wilson]16. The main idea of response surface methodology is to use a sequence of designed
experiments to converge to an optimal response. Incorporating this routine in the context of design
optimization falls into the category of Surrogate or Response Surface Optimization (RSO). It has
emerged as an effective approach for the design of computationally expensive models such as those
found in aerospace systems, involving aerodynamics, structures, and propulsion.
For a new or a computationally expensive design, optimization based on an inexpensive surrogate,
such as Response Surface Model (also known as surrogate or approximation models). RSO helps in
the determination of an optimum design candidate, and also aids by providing insight into the
workings of the design. A response model not only provides the benefit of low cost for output
evaluations, it also helps revise the problem definition of a design task. Furthermore, it can
conveniently handle the existence of multiple desirable design points and offer quantitative
assessments of trade-offs as well as facilitate global sensitivity evaluations of the design variables.
Thus, the use of Response Surface Models (RSM) in optimization is becoming increasingly popular.
The RSM is not in itself an optimizer, but instead a helper tool for increasing the speed of
optimization. Instead of making direct calls to a computationally expensive numerical analysis code,
such as CFD, an optimization routine takes values from a cheap surrogate model, that is formulated
using a specific set of responses obtained from the numerical code. The popularity of such methods
has probably increased due to the development of approximation methods which are better able to
capture the nature of a multi-modal design space.
The main objective behind creating an RSM is to be able to predict the response of a system for an
operating point without actually performing a simulated analysis at that point. The response of the
system can then be predicted just by inputting the operating point values into the RSM and obtaining
the value of the response. The RSM basically takes the shape of a mathematical equation (𝐱),
essentially a quadratic polynomial, which takes the values of the design variables X as an input, and
returns an approximated value of the system response. Various optimization methodologies can then
be employed to optimize this computationally cheap response model in order to obtain the best
operating point.

1.4 Relationship of Design Freedom, Knowledge, and Cost Committed

In these various examples, design engineers had no reliable data about the configurations or
technologies to be explored. Thus, to achieve valuable assessments and robust down selection of the
concepts, there was a required search of additional details on the airframe and the propulsion system
so that physics-based analyses could be performed (Schmollgruber, P., 2018). This clearly
multidisciplinary effort has been made towards a unique goal: knowledge about the aircraft had to
be generated. This idea is corroborated by Wood and Bauer in their research towards improving the

14 Anthony A. Giunta, Steven F. Wojtkiewicz Jr. and Michael S. Eldred, “Overview Of Modern Design Of
Experiments Methods For Computational Simulations”, AIAA 2003-0649.
15 Gaurav Kapoor, “Exploration of a Computational Fluid Dynamics Integrated Design Methodology for Potential

Application to a Wind Turbine Blade”, Thesis Submitted to the Department of Aerospace Engineering, College
of Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, December 2014.
16 Box, G. E. P., and Wilson, K. B., (1951), “On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions,” Journal of

the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 1-45.

 19

efficiency and
effectiveness of
multidisciplinary
design; they state
that “we must focus
on including ever
greater amount of
knowledge into the
conceptual design”.
In Figure 1.3.4,
benefits of
knowledge addition
in the early phases of
the design process
are shown. With Figure 1.5.1 The relationship of design freedom, knowledge, and cost
additional committed [17]
knowledge available
in the early phases, the design engineers have more options to consider which translates into an
increase of design freedom for a longer period. With the design freedom expanded, cost commitment
can be delayed. Thus, at a given step in the aircraft program, this is equivalent to a reduction in
committed cost17. At industry level, such change is key for program management as decisions based
on better knowledge would decrease major risks.

1.5 Multidisciplinary Design Analysis at Conceptual Design Level

Author : Peter Schmollgruber
Affiliation : Université de Toulouse, Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace
Title of Thesis : Enhancement of the aircraft design process through certification constraints
management and full mission simulations
Citation : Schmollgruber, P. (2018). Enhancement of the conceptual aircraft design process through
certification constraints management and full mission simulations. (Amélioration du processus de
conception avion en prenant en compte les contraintes de certification et des simulations de mission
complètes).
The conceptual design phase is characterized by many multidisciplinary design loops to assess the
performances of potential promising concepts. In various text books about aircraft design, each
author proposes its description of these iterative sequences [1][5][6][13][18][24][46]. A
preliminary review of all these flowcharts reported in Figure 1.5.1 (not inclusive by any means)
rightfully points out the non-uniform nature of the design process: iterative loops are not made at
the same time, the number and type of aircraft parameters to be considered are different and
disciplines to be addressed are not the same. Indeed, each design follows a specific mission,
requirements are translated into design decisions following company policies and Measure of Merit
will differ [61]. Besides, it is worth noting that all authors propose to initiate the sizing process only
after the definition of a first drawing or 3D model of the concept. As it can be quite difficult to have
an estimation of the aircraft high level characteristics when starting from scratch, one effective
solution is to build the constraint diagram following the approach detailed by Mattingly [21]. This
approach consists in translating all the various segments of the mission into constraints related to

17Mavris D. N., DeLaurentis D., “Methodology for examining the simultaneous impact of requirements, vehicle
characteristics, and technologies on military aircraft design”, 22 nd Congress of the International Council of the
Aeronautical Sciences ICAS, Harrogate International Conference Centre, UK, 2000
 20

the thrust loading and wing loading [Schmollgruber, P. (2018)]. Design engineers can then identify
a feasible point for which the maximum thrust at sea level, the wing area and the maximum takeoff
weight are related. Assumptions on weight or maximum thrust at sea level (existing engines provide
a good starting point) lead to an estimated value of the wing area so that an initial wing layout can be
generated.
A subsequent thorough analysis reveals an additional common backbone between all diagrams
regarding the airplane sizing process. The calculation of the fuel consumption over a reference
mission is based on three disciplinary analyses associated to both fundamental aeronautical sciences
and key enablers: propulsion, aerodynamics and structure. In order to enable the computation of
all engineering characteristics, this common process equally relies on a geometry module that
provides all information about the airframe shape as well as the components and systems position
within the airframe [62]. To describe this generic Multidisciplinary Design Analysis at conceptual
design, it has been
decided to use the
eXtended Design
Structure Matrix
(XDSM) proposed by
Lambe and Martins
[63]. In the field of
Aircraft Design, the
need of iterative loops
rapidly led to
computer based
synthesis codes
[64][65] and recent
books [18][46] center
their rationale on such
computer based
approach. The XDSM
format is thus well
tailored to detail a
Multidisciplinary
Design Analysis that
can be programmed
later [see section 1.4.3 Figure 1.5.2 Aircraft Conceptual Design Process [5]
in Schmollgruber, P.,
(2018)].

1.5.1 References
[1] Roskam J., “Aircraft Design Part VIII: Airplane Cost Estimation: Design, Development,
Manufacturing and Operating”, DARcorporation, 2002
[2] “Airbus launches Sharklet retrofit for in-service A320 Family aircraft” [website] URL:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2013/10/airbus-launches-sharklet
retrofitfor-in-service-a320-family-aircraft.html, [cited 21 August 2018]
[3] Pardessus T., “Concurrent engineering development and practices for aircraft design at Airbus”,
24th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences ICAS, Yokohama, Japan, 2004
[4] Morales J., “The A380 Transport Project and Logistics”, 13th Colloquium in Aviation, University
of Darmstadt, 2006 [online publication] URL : http://www.aviation.tudarmstadt.
de/media/arbeitskreis_luftverkehr/downloads_6/kolloquien/13kolloquium/05druckvor
lage_morales.pdf, [cited 21 July 2018]
 21

[5] Raymer D. P., “Aircraft Design : A Conceptual Approach”, 5th Edition, AIAA, 2012
[6] Anderson J. D., “Aircraft performance and design”, WCB/Mc Graw-Hill, 1999
[7] Anderson J. D., “The Grand Designers: The Evolution of the Airplane in the 20th Century”,
Cambridge Centennial of Flight, Cambridge University Press, 2018
[8] Dieter G. E., “Engineering Design”, 3rd Edition, Mc Graw Hill, 2000
[9] Mavris D. N., DeLaurentis D., “Methodology for examining the simultaneous impact of
requirements, vehicle characteristics, and technologies on military aircraft design”, 22nd Congress of
the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences ICAS, Harrogate International Conference
Centre, UK, 2000
[10] “System specification for the advanced pilot training (APT) program, aircraft system”, PRF APT-
ACFT-1001, 2016 [on line database] URL:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=646b86a7bd46af87a7fc69de9ed306fc, [cited 12 August 2018]
[11] “Commercial Market Outlook 2018-2037”, Boeing, 2017
[12] “Virgin Galactic Vision” [website] URL: https://www.virgingalactic.com/vision/ [cited 12
August 2018]
[13] Nicolai L., Carichner G., “Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design Volume I – Aircraft
Design”, AIAA, 2010
[14] McDonald R., “Welcome & Overview”, OpenVSP Workshop, 2014 [online proceedings]
URL:http://openvsp.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=workshopv3:welcome_overview_mcdonal
d.pdf, [cited 11 August 2018]
[15] Whitford R., “Fundamentals of fighter design”, The Crowood Press, 2004
[16] Rich B. R., Janos L., “Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed”, Back Bay Books,
1994
[17] Nicolai L., “Lessons learned, a guide to improved Aircraft Design”, Library of Flight, AIAA, 2016
[18] Takahashi T., “Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume II, Applied Aerodynamic Design”,
Aerospace Engineering Collection, Momentum Press Engineering, 2016
[19] “OpenVSP, NASA Open Source Parametric Geometry”, [website] URL:
http://www.openvsp.org/, [cited 27 October 2016]
[20] Raymer D. P., “Advanced Technology Subsonic Transport Study, N+3 Technologies and Design
Concepts”, NASA/TM 2011-217130, 2011
[21] J. D. Mattingly, W. H. Heiser, D. T. Pratt, “Aircraft Engine Design”, AIAA, 2002
[22] Roskam J., “Aircraft Design Part V: Component Weight Estimation”, DARcorporation, 1999
[23] Roskam J., Lan C. T., “Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance”, DARcorporation, 2003
[24] Torenbeek E., “Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design”, Delft University Press, 1982
[25] Roskam J., “Aircraft Design Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes”, DARcorporation, 1997
[26] Sforza P., “Commercial Airplane Design Principles”, Elsevier Aerospace Engineering Series,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014
[27] Takahashi T., “Aircraft Performance and Sizing, Volume I, Fundamentals of Aircraft
Performance”, Aerospace Engineering Collection, Momentum Press Engineering, 2016
[28] Kirby M. R., “TIES for Dummies (Technology Identification, Evaluation, and Selection), Basic how
to’ s to implement the TIES method”, 3rd edition, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2002
[29] Roskam J., “Aircraft Design Part III: Layout design of cockpit, fuselage, wing and empennage:
cutaways and inboard profiles”, DARcorporation, 2002
[30] Kenway G. K. W., Martins J. R. R. A., “Multipoint High-fidelity Aero structural Optimization of a
Transport Aircraft Configuration”, Journal of Aircraft, Volume 51, Issue 1, 2014
[31] Roskam J., “Lessons Learned in Aircraft Design, the devil is in the details”, DARcorporation, 2017
[32] “GSP, Gas Turbine Simulation Program”, [website] URL: https://www.gspteam.com/, [cited 14
August 2018]
 22

[33] “Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS)”, [website] URL:

https://software.nasa.gov/software/LEW-17051-1, [cited 14 August 2018]
[34] Lapins M., Martorella R. P., Klein R. W., Meyer R C., Sturm M. J., “Control Definition Study for
Advanced Vehicles”, NASA CR 3738, 1983
[35] Roskam J., “Aircraft Design Part IV: Layout of Landing Gear and Systems”, DARcorporation, 2000
[36] Chakraborty I., Trawick D. R., Mavris D. N., Emeneth M., Schneegans A., “Integrating Subsystem
Architecture Sizing and Analysis into the Conceptual Aircraft Design Phase”, 4 th Symposium in
Collaboration in Aircraft Design, 2014, [online presentation] URL: http://w3.onera.fr/ceas-
tcad2014/sites/w3.onera.fr.ceastcad2014/ files/03_industrial_vision_s1_c_pace.pdf, [cited 14
August 2018]
[37] “Northrop YF-23 ATF”, [website] URL: https://yf-23.net/, [cited 14 August 2018]
[38] Mason W. H., “Some High Alpha and Handling Qualities Aerodynamics”, Configuration
Aerodynamics Class, 2018 [online presentation] URL:
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/HiAlphaBasicsPres.pdf, [cited 14 August 2018]
[39] Bartels R.E., Scott R. C., Allen T., Sexton B., “Aeroelastic Analysis of SUGAR Truss-Braced
Wing Wind-Tunnel Model Using FUN3D and a Nonlinear Structural Model”, AIAA 2015-1174, 2015
[40] Fualdes C., “Experience and lessons learned of a Composite Aircraft”, 30th Congress of the
International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences ICAS, Daejeon, Korea, 2016
[41] Kaufmann M., “Cost/Weight Optimization of Aircraft Structures”, Licentiate Thesis, KTH
[42] “Airbus A350 XWB passes ultimate load wing test”, [website] URL:
https://www.compositesworld.com/news/airbus-a350-xwb-passes-ultimate-load-wing-test, [cited
19 August 2018]
[43] “Taking flight with the Airbus “Iron Bird””, [website] URL:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2017/05/taking-flight-with-the-airbus-ironbird.
html, [cited 19 August 2018]
[44] “Jigs & Tools Solutions”, [website] URL: https://www.ecagroup.com/en/find-your-
ecasolutions/aerospace-jigs-tools, [cited 19 August 2018]
[45] Menéndez J.L., Mas F., Serván J., Ríos J., “Virtual Verification of an Aircraft Final Assembly
Line Industrialization: An Industrial Case”, Key Engineering Materials Vol. 502 pp 139-144, 2012
[46] Torenbeek E., “Advanced Aircraft Design: Conceptual Design, Analysis and Optimization of
Subsonic Civil Airplanes”, Aerospace Series, Wiley, 2013
[47] Pappalardo J., “Weight Watchers”, Air & Space Magazine, 2006 [online article] URL:
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/weight-watchers-13117183/?all, [cited 19
August 2018]
[48] “IATA Fact Sheet Industry Statistics, June 2018”, [website] URL:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-industryfacts.
pdf, [cited 15 August 2018]
[49] “IATA Fact Sheet Aviation Benefits Beyond Borders, December 2017”, [website] URL:
https://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-economic-and
social-benefits-of-air-transport.pdf, [cited 15 August 2018]
[50] “International Civil Aviation, Uniting Aviation”, [website] URL:
https://www.icao.int/abouticao/ Pages/default.aspx, [cited 15 August 2018]
[51] “ICAO Environment, Market-based Measures and Climate Change”, [on line publication] URL:
https://cfapp.icao.int/tools/38thAssyiKit/story_content/external_files/Flyer_USLetter_
ENV_MBMs_2013-08-30.pdf, [cited 15 August 2018]
[52] “An introduction to market-based measures (MBMs)”, [online presentation] URL:
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/EnvironmentalWorkshops/Documents/2015
Warsaw/6_1_Anintroduction-to-market-based-measures-MBMs.pdf, [cited 21 August 2018]
 23

[53] “Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation”, Report of the High Level Group on Aviation
Research, European Commission, 2011
[54] Collier F., “NASA Aeronautics Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project”, AIAA , 2012
[online presentation] URL: https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press-
Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/2012/Collier-NASA-AVC-AIAA-GEPC2- 2.pdf,
[cited 21 August 2018]
[55] Anderson J. D., “Introduction to Flight”, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2005
[56] “UPS to Upgrade Boeing 757, 767 Cockpits” [website] URL:
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2017/05/09/ups-upgrade-boeing-757-767-cockpits/, [cited 21
August 2018]
[57] “A320 neo” [website] URL: https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a320-
family/a320neo.html, [cited 22 August 2018]
[58] “737 MAX” [website] URL: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/, [cited 22 August
2018]
[59] Hensey R., Magdalina A., “A320 NEO vs. CEO comparison study”, FPG Amentum, 2018 [online
publication] URL: http://www.fpg-amentum.aero/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/180719- FPG-
Amentum-research-A320-NEO-vs-CEO-comparison-study.pdf, [cited 25 August 2018]
[60] Martins J. R. R. A., “A Short Course on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization”, Aerospace
Engineering, University of Michigan, 2012
[61] Carichner G. E., Nicolai L. M., “Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, Volume 2 – Airship
Design and Case Studies”, AIAA, 2013
[62] La Rocca G., Krakers L., Van Tooren M. J. L., “Development of an ICAD generative model for
Blended Wing Body aircraft design”, AIAA 2002-5447, 2002
[63] Lambe A. B., Martins J. R. R. A., “Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of
multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes”, Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, 46(2), pp.273-284, 2012
[64] Raymer D. P., “RDSwin : Seamlessly-Integrated Aircraft Conceptual Design for Students &
Professionals”, AIAA 2016-1277, 2016
[65] “Advanced Aircraft Analysis” [website] URL: http://darcorp.com/Software/AAA/, [cited 21
August 2018]
 24

2 Aerodynamic Shape Parameterization (ASP)

2.1 Overviews
Aerodynamic shape parameterization plays more and more important role in aircraft design. Shape
parameterization methods enormously impact on the results of aerodynamic optimization. In
general, the current shape parameterization methods used in aerodynamic optimization could be
classified into eight categories18: Basis Vector, Domain Element, Partial Differential Equation,
Discrete (mesh point), Polynomial and Spline, Analytical, CAD-based and Free-Form
Deformation (FFD). (Samareh, 2001)19 has reviewed and compared these methods, and pointed out
that successful parameterization methods should have following properties:
1) compact on the number of design variables,
2) providing the high flexibility to cover the optimal solution in design space,
3) representing existing geometries with high accuracy,
4) producing smooth and realistic shape.
Few researchers have investigated the effect of different shape parameterization methods on
optimization process. (Kulfan & Bussoletti, 2006) studied the effect of parametric geometry
representations for aircraft component shapes. (Sripawadkul et al., 2010)20 studied and compared
five airfoil parameterization methods, Ferguson’s curves, Hicks-Henne bump functions, B-Spline,
PARSEC and Class/Shape function transformation method (CST), in terms of parsimony,
completeness, orthogonality, flawlessness and intuitiveness. Five parameterization methods were
scored to assist to select the proper method respect to specific issue. (Song and Keane, 2007)21
investigated effect of two parameterization methods, orthogonal basis function and B-Spline, on
inverse fitting the different airfoils. The results showed the B-spline could provide higher accuracy
than orthogonal basis function using high number of design variables. (Castonguay,2007)22 studied
the effect of four parameterization methods, mesh points, B-Splines Hicks-Henne bump function and
PARSEC, on inverse design and drag minimization in 2D airfoil. The results demonstrated the mesh
points method provides the highest level of accuracy comparing to other methods, and PARSEC may
be unable to provide high flexibility since it failed in inverse design case. (Mousavi, 2007)23
performed the 2D airfoil inverse design, 2D drag minimization and 3D wing drag minimization using
mesh points, B-Spline and CST methods. It showed the mesh points method provided the best results
in all test cases. The B-Spline and CST methods were able to provide the reasonable accuracy with
low number of design variables. The CST was able to eliminate the shock wave using very low number
of variables in drag minimization case.
[He et al.]24 studied an aerodynamic shape optimization problem that demonstrates the importance
of robustness. The problem was to minimize the drag at a transonic condition while constraining lift

18 Samareh, J.A., “Survey of shape parameterization techniques for high-fidelity multidisciplinary shape
optimization”. AIAA Journal, 2001.
19 See the previous.
20 Sripawadkul, V., M. Padulo and M.Guenov, “A Comparison of Airfoil Shape Parameterization Techniques for

Early Design Optimization”, AIAA-2010-9050, t.A.I.M.A.O. Conference, 2010.

21 Song, W. and A.J. Keane, “A Study of Shape Parameterization Methods for Airfoil Optimization”, AIAA- 2004.
22 Castonguay, P. and S. Nadarajah, “Effect of Shape Parameterization on Aerodynamic Shape Optimization”,

AIAA-2007-59. 2007.
23 Mousavi, A., Castonguay P., and S. K. Nadarajah, “Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques and Its Effect

on Three-dimensional Aerodynamic Shape Optimization”. AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference

2007-3837, 2007.
24 He, X., Li, J., Mader, C. A., Yildirim, A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Robust aerodynamic shape optimization from a

circle to an airfoil," Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 87, 2019.

 25

starting from a circular shape. This required CFD simulations of many shapes a human designer
would not consider, such as the shape shown in the second frame of Figure 2.1.1. Although RANS
cannot accurately predict the aerodynamic performance of such designs due to the massive
separation, the gradients provided the correct trends, and the optimization eventually converged to
an optimal supercritical airfoil for which RANS is valid.

Figure 2.1.1 The optimizer started with the initial shape of a circle (1st frame) and converged to a super-
critical airfoil (3rd frame). In this process, the optimizer had to go through infeasible intermediate shapes,
such as the one shown here (2nd frame)

2.2 Geometric Parameterization

[Chernukin and Zingg]25 conducted one of the few studies on how the number of design variables
used, and the related modality, can affect aerodynamic designs and highlight that distinguishing
between multi-modality and poor optimizer convergence can prove problematic. By increasing the
dimensionality of a design space it can be expected, but not guaranteed, to increase the modality of
the search space. The planform shapes are distinct and so demonstrate that geometric variation is
significant between local optima which share similar performance characteristics. The method of
geometric parametrization used to communicate a set of variables plays an important role in
identifying optimal aerodynamics.
It determines what shapes and topologies can be represented, and how many design variables are
necessary for sufficient representation of the geometry. Thus, parametrization dictates particular
geometric requirements and has a strong influence on the design landscape. Therefore it cannot
be precluded that different geometric parametrizations will increase or decrease the degree of
modality, linearity, or discontinuity observed. Additionally, a complex geometry parametrization
may impose distinct computational costs. Representations of a geometry can be broken down into a
number of categories but in a more broad sense they can be considered to be constructive,
reformative, or volume based.
2.2.1 Types of Parametrization
Conferring to [Samareh]26, the shape parameterization must be compatible with and adaptable to
various analysis tools ranging from low-fidelity tools, such as linear aerodynamics and equivalent
laminated plate structures, to high-fidelity tools, such as nonlinear CFD and detailed CSM. For a

25 O.Chernukhin and D.W. Zingg. ”Multimodality and Global Optimization in Aerodynamic Design”. AIAA Journal,
51(6):1342{1354, 2013.
26 Jamshid A. Samareh, “A Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques”, NASA Langley Research Center,

Hampton, Va.
 26

multidisciplinary problem, the application must also use a consistent parameterization across all
disciplines. An MDO application requires a common geometry data set that can be manipulated and
shared among various disciplines. In addition, an accurate sensitivity derivative analysis is required
for gradient-based optimization. The sensitivity derivatives are defined as the partial derivatives of
the geometry model or grid-point coordinates with respect to a design variable. The sensitivity
derivatives of a response, F, with respect to the design variable vector D, can be written as:

F Field Grid
∂𝐅 ∂𝐅 ∂𝐑 F ∂𝐑 S ∂𝐑 G S Surface Grid
=[ ][ ][ ][ ] where {
∂𝐃 ⏟ ∂𝐑 F ⏟∂𝐑 S ⏟∂𝐑 G ⏟∂𝐃 G Geometery
I II III IV D Design Variables
Eq. 2.2.1
The 1st term on the right-hand side of Eq. 2.2.1 represents the sensitivity derivatives of the response
with respect to the field grid point coordinates. The 2nd term on the right-hand side is vector of the
field grid-po,int sensitivity derivatives with respect to the surface grid points. The sensitivity
derivative vector must be provided by the field grid generator, but few grid generation tools have the
capability to provide the analytical grid-point sensitivity derivatives? The third term on the right-
hand side of Eq. 2.2.1 denotes the surface grid sensitivity derivatives with respect to the shape
design variables, which must be provided by the surface grid generation tools. The fourth term on
the right-hand side of Eq. 2.2.1 signifies the geometry sensitivity derivatives with respect to the
design variable vectors; this must be provided by the geometry construction tools27. An important
ingredient of shape optimization is the availability of a model parameterized with respect to the
airplane shape parameters such as planform, twist, shear, camber, and thickness. The
parameterization techniques, according to [Samareh], are divided into the following categories:
➢ Basis vector,
➢ Domain Element,
• Radial Basis Function (RBF)
➢ Partial Differential Equation (PDE),
➢ Discrete,
➢ Polynomial and Spline Representation,
➢ CAD-Based,
➢ Analytical,
• Hicks-Henne bump functions
➢ Free Form Deformation (FFD),
• Modified FFD.
Not to overlook the Class-Shape Transformation (CST), and Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)
method. Among those, we attend to Discrete, Analytical, PDE, CST, B-Spline Representation and
Free From Deformation (FFD).
2.2.1.1 Discrete Approach28
The discrete approach is based on using the coordinates of the boundary points as design variables.
This approach is easy to implement, and the geometry changes are limited only by the number of
design variables. However, it is difficult to maintain a smooth geometry, and the optimization
solution may be impractical to manufacture. To control smoothness, one could use multipoint

27See Previous.
28Jamshid A. Samareh, “A Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques”, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, Va.
 27

constraints and dynamic adjustment of lower and upper bounds on the design variables. For a model
with a large number of grid points, the number of design variables often becomes very large, which
leads to high cost and a difficult optimization problem to solve. The natural design approach is a
variation of the discrete approach that uses a set of fictitious loads as design variables. These
fictitious loads are applied to the boundary points, and the resulting displacements, or natural shape
functions, are added to the baseline grid to obtain a new shape. Consequently, the relationship
between changes in design variables and grid-point locations is established through a finite element
analysis.
[Zhang and Belegundu]29 provided a systematic approach for generating the sensitivity derivatives
and several criteria to determine their effectiveness. The typical drawback of the natural design
variable method is the indirect relationship between design variables and grid-point locations. For
an MDO application, grid requirements are different for each discipline. So, each discipline has a
different grid and a different parameterized model. Consequently, using the discrete
parameterization approach for an MDO application will result in an inconsistent parameterization30.
The most attractive feature of the discrete approach is the ability to use an existing grid for
optimization. The model complexity has little or no bearing on the parameterization process. It is
possible to have a strong local control on shape changes by restricting the changes to a small area.
When the shape design variables are the grid-point coordinates, the grid sensitivity derivative
analysis is trivial to calculate; the third and fourth terms in Error! Reference source not found. can be c
ombined to form an identity matrix.
2.2.1.2 Analytical Approach
[Hicks and Henne]31 introduced a compact formulation for parameterization of airfoil sections. The
formulation was based on adding shape functions (analytical functions) linearly to the baseline
shape. The contribution of each parameter is determined by the value of the participating coefficients
(design variables) associated with that function. All participating coefficients are initially set to zero,
so the first computation gives the baseline geometry. The shape functions are smooth functions
based on a set of previous airfoil designs. [Elliott and Peraire]32 and [Hager et al.]33 used a formulation
similar to that of [Hicks and Henne], but a different set of shape functions. This method is very
effective for wing parameterization, but it is difficult to generalize it for a complex geometry.
2.2.1.3 Partial Differential Equation Approach
This method views the surface generation as a boundary-value problem and produces surfaces as the
solutions to elliptic partial differential equations (PDE). [Bloor and Wilson]34 showed that it was
possible to represent an aircraft geometry in terms of a small set of design variables. [Smith et al. ]35
extended the PDE approach to a class of airplane configurations. Included in this definition were
surface grids, volume grids, and grid sensitivity derivatives for CFD. The general airplane
configuration had wing, fuselage, vertical tail, horizontal tails, and canard components. Grid
sensitivity was obtained by applying the automatic differentiation tool ADIFOR. Using the PDE

29 Zhang, S. and Belegundu, A. D., "A Systematic Approach for Generating Velocity Fields in Shape Optimization,"
Structural Optimization, Vol. 5, No. 1-2, 1993, pp. 84-94.
30 Jamshid A. Samareh, “A Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques”, NASA Langley Research Center, VA.
31 Hicks, R. M. and Henne, P. A., "Wing Design by Numerical Optimization," Journal of Aircraft, 1978.
32 Elliott, 3. and Peralre, J., "Practical Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Design and Optimization Using

Unstructured Meshes," AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 9, 1997, pp. 1479-1486.
33 Hager, J. O., Eyi, S., and Lee, K. D., "A Multi-Point Optimization for Transonic Airfoil Design," AIAA 92-4681.
34 Bloor, M. I. G. and Wilson, M. J., "Efficient Parameterization of Genetic Aircraft Geometry," Journal of Aircraft,

Vol. 32, No. 6, 1995, pp. 1269-1275.

35 Smith, R. E., Bloor, M. I. G., Wilson, M. J., and Thomas, A. T., "Rapid Airplane Parametric Input Design (RAPID),"

AIAA 12th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA, Jun. 1995, pp. 452-462, also AIAA-95-1687
 28

approach to parameterize an existing complex model is time-consuming and costly. Also, because
this method can only parameterize the surface geometry, it is not suitable for the MSO applications
that must model the internal structural elements such as spars, ribs, and fuel tanks. As a result, this
method is suitable for problems involving a single discipline with relatively simple external geometry
changes.
2.2.1.4 B-Spline Based Parameterization
Constructive models include functions which define basic body shapes, spline methods such as Bezier
splines, basis splines (B-splines), Non-Uniform Rational Basis B-Spline (NURBS)36, and partial
differential equations. The basic wing topology was defined through a series of globally enforced
geometric variables to manipulate a series of wing sections. Parametrizing the entire geometry in
this way typically allows for global shape control with few basic variables. This method is well suited
to low-fidelity aerodynamic models if a wide allowable design scope is necessary; no need for mesh
deformations. Spline-based geometric parametrizations are used to represent 2 or 3D surfaces and
are typically used in conjunction with higher-fidelity flow solvers, such as Euler and Navier Stokes
solvers, with the control points being the design variables. Bezier splines are most efficient to
evaluate requiring few variables and have been used for efficient aero-foil definition by [Peigin and
Epstein]37. Modification of any single control point defining a Bezier spline will modify the entire
curve and thus is inherently effective for global shape definition, but has very limited local control.
B-splines address this issue of local control allowing single control point modifications to modify
small portions of the overall curve. This allows for more complex aero foil definitions, as
demonstrated by [Koziel at al.]38, and can enable the use of hinged control surfaces to an otherwise
rigid body. NURBS increase the local deformation control over surface definitions further in order to
have more complex geometric shapes such as fairings or wing-fuselage junctions. [Vecchia and
Nicolosi]39 and [Hashimoto et al.]40 adopt NURBS to parametrize the entire aircraft configuration in
order to reduce drag of the vehicle through steam-lining fillets and fairings.
Figure 2.2.1 shows an example of NURBS control points re-defining the surface over the upper
section of the fuselage/wing juncture [Vecchia and Nicolosi]41. Geometry definition through the use
of partial differential equations (PDEs) are not as commonly used as well-established spline-based
methods but are just as versatile for geometry surface definition. [Athanasopoulos et al.]42 show that
for equivalently complex surface construction PDEs require fewer design variables, resulting in a
more compact design space. Due to the small set of design parameters required by the PDE method
the computational cost associated with the optimization of a given aerodynamic surfaces can be
reduced. In a PDE-based method the parameters are boundary values to the PDE, hence the

36 M.J. Martın, E. Andres, M Widhalm, P. Bitrian, and C. Lozano,“Non-uniform rational B-splines-based

aerodynamic shape design optimization with the DLR TAU code”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2011.
37 S. Peigin and B. Epstein. “Multi-constrained Aerodynamic Design of Business Jet By CFD Driven Optimization

Tool”. Aerospace Science and Technology, 12(2):125-134, 2008.

38 S. Koziel, Y. Tesfahunegn, A. Amrit, and L.T. Leifsson. “Rapid Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Design Using Co-

Kriging and Space Mapping”. 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, AIAA 2016-0418, number January, pages 1-10, San Antonio, TX, USA, 2016.
39 P.D. Vecchia and F. Nicolosi. “Aerodynamic Guidelines in The Design and Optimization of New Regional

Turboprop Aircraft”. Aerospace Science and Technology, 38:88{104, Oct 2014.

40 A.H. Hashimoto, S.J. Jeong, and S.O. Obayashi. “Aerodynamic Optimization of Near-Future High-Wing Aircraft”.

Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 58(2):73{82, 2015.

41 P.D. Vecchia and F. Nicolosi. “Aerodynamic Guidelines in The Design and Optimization of New Regional

Turboprop Aircraft”, Aerospace Science and Technology, Oct 2014.

42 M. Athanasopoulos, H. Ugail, and G.G. Castro. “Parametric Design of Aircraft Geometry Using Partial

Diffferential Equations. Advances in Engineering Software”, 40(7):479-486, 2009.

 29

relationship between the value of the

design parameter and the geometry
can be unclear making method-
official surface deformations tedious.
This is likely why the aerodynamic
definition of a body in an
optimization scheme does not used
PDE representation even though it
may initially seem a more
appropriate method. Comparatively,
spline-based methods are
conceptually simpler and will
provide a more direct relationship
between design parameters and the
resulting geometry and thus allow
better control over the range of
geometries that can be generated.
If optimization establishes Figure 2.2.1 NURBS Surfaces Parametrizing Surface Blend
performance metrics from CFD, the on Fuselage (Courtesy of Vecchia & Nicolosi)
simplest methods for body surface
definitions are reformative ones. In reformative methods the mesh points on the surface of the body
are directly treated as design variables,43 and their position can be perturbed by the optimizer in
order to generate new shapes. These approaches have the significant advantage that any geometry
the mesh generation algorithm is capable of can be evaluated, however it is likely to require many
hundreds of design variables; deformations are therefore usually limited to single-degree-of-
freedom deformations.

2.2.2 Functions Used as Parameter

2.2.2.1 Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS)
Among many ideas proposed for generating any arbitrary surface, the approximate techniques of
using spline functions are gaining a wide range of popularity. The most commonly used approximate
representation is the Non-uniform Rational B-Spline (NURBS) function. They provide a powerful
geometric tool for representing both analytic shapes (conics, quadrics, surfaces of revolution, etc.)
and free-form surfaces44; or occasionally called Free From Deformations (FFD). The surface is
influenced by a set of control points and weights to where unlike interpolating schemes the control
points might not be at the surface itself. By changing the control points and corresponding weights,
the designer can influence the surface with a great degree of flexibility without compromising the
accuracy of the design. NURBS are generalization of B-splines and Bezier representations, thus the
family of curves and surfaces that can be represented with NURBS is much wider. The relation for a
NURBS curve is

n
Ni,p (r) ωi
X (r) = ∑ R i,p (r) Di i = 0,.........,n R i,p (r) =
∑i=0 Ni,p (r) ωi
n
i=0
Eq. 2.2.2

43 A. Jameson, L. Martinelli, and N.A. Pierce. “Optimum Aerodynamic Design Using the Navier-Stokes Equations.
Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics”, 1998.
44 Tiller, W., “Rational B-Splines for Curve and Surface Representation, "Computer Graphics, 1983.
 30

where X(r) is the vector valued surface coordinate in the r-direction, Di are the control points
(forming a control polygon), ωi are weights, Ni,p(r) are the p-th degree B-Spline basis function (see
Eq. 2.2.2), and Ri,p(r) are known as the Rational Basis Functions satisfying:

∑ R i,p (r) = 1 , R i,p (r) ≥ 0

i=1
Eq. 2.2.3
Eq. 2.2.3 illustrates a six control point representation of a generic airfoil. The points at the leading
and trailing edges are fixed. Two control points at the 0% chord are used to affect the bluntness of
the section. Similar procedure can be applied to other airfoil geometries such as NACA four or five
digit series.

Figure 2.2.2 B-Spline Approximation of NACA0012 (left) and RAE2822 (right) Airfoils

As an example Figure 2.2.2 shows two airfoils NACA0012 and RAE2822 parameterized using B-
Spline curve of order 4 with control points. The procedure is easily applicable to 3D for example like
the common wing & fuselage [Kenway et al.]45. The choice for number of control points and their
locations are best determined using an inverse B-Spline interpolation of the initial data. The
algorithm yields a system of linear equations with a positive and banded coefficient matrix.
Therefore, it can be solved safely using techniques such as Gaussian elimination without pivoting.
The procedure can be easily extended to cross-sectional configurations, when critical cross-sections
are denoted by several circular conic sections, and the intermediate surfaces have been generated
using linear interpolation. Increasing the weights would deform the circular segments to other conic
segments (elliptic, parabolic, etc.) as desired for different flight regions. In this manner, the number
of design parameters can be kept to a minimum, which is an important factor in reducing costs. The
choice for number of control points and their locations are best determined using an inverse B-Spline
interpolation of the initial data. The algorithm yields a system of linear equations with a positive and
banded coefficient matrix. Therefore, it can be solved safely using techniques such as Gaussian
elimination without pivoting.
The procedure can be easily extended to cross-sectional configurations, when critical cross-sections
are denoted by several circular conic sections, and the intermediate surfaces have been generated
using linear interpolation. Increasing the weights would deform the circular segments to other conic
segments (elliptic, parabolic, etc.) as desired for different flight regions. In this manner, the number
of design parameters can be kept to a minimum, which is an important factor in reducing costs. An
efficient gradient-based algorithm for aerodynamic shape optimization is presented by [Hicken and
Zingg]46 where to integrate geometry parameterization and mesh movement.

45 Gaetan K.W. Kenway, Joaquim R. R. A. Martins, and Graeme J. Kennedy, “Aero structural optimization of the
Common Research Model configuration”, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
46 Jason E. Hickenand David W. Zingg, “Aerodynamic Optimization Algorithm with Integrated Geometry

Parameterization and Mesh Movement”, AIAA Journal Vol. 48, No. 2, February 2010.
 31

2.2.2.1.1 NURBS Surfaces

The generalized B-spline volumes are used to parameterize both the surface and volume mesh as
described by [Zhang]47. Volume mesh of B-spline control points mimics a coarse mesh where a linear
elasticity mesh-movement algorithm is applied directly to this coarse mesh and the fine mesh is
regenerated algebraically. Using this approach, mesh-movement time is reduced by two to three
orders of magnitude relative to a node-based movement. A NURBS patch is a 3D surface defined as48:

∑ni=0 ∑m
j=1 Ni.p (u)Nj,q (v)ωi,j 𝐏i,j
𝐬(u, v) = 0 ≤ u, v ≤ 1
∑ni=0 ∑m
j=1 Ni,p (u)Nj,q (v)ωi,j
Eq. 2.2.4
where Pi,j are control points, ωi,j are the corresponding weights. Ni,p(u) and Nj,q (v) are p-th and q-th
degree B-spline basis functions defined in the following knot vectors:

{0,
⏟ , , ,0 up+1 , , , , , ui , , , , , , ur−p−1 , , , , , , 1,
⏟, , , ,1}
p+1 p+1
{0,
⏟ , , ,0 uq+1 , , , , , ui , , , , , , us−q−1 , , , , , , 1,
⏟, , , ,1}
q+1 q+1
Eq. 2.2.5
where r = n + p + 1 and s = m + q + 1. Ni,p(u) and Nj,q(v) are given by the following recursive expression:

1 if ui < u < ui+1

Ni,0 (u) = {
0 otherwise
u − ui ui+k+1 − u
Ni,k (u) = ( ) Ni,k−1 (u) + ( ) Ni+1,k−1 (u)
ui+k − ui ui+k+1 − ui+1
Eq. 2.2.6
The basic functions are equal to zero everywhere except for an interval delimited by the order of
NURBS, (ui, ui+p+1) x (vj , vj+q+1), defining the area of influence of each control point and its weight. In
these figures, curves from left to right are N0,p, N1,p, N2,p, N3,p, N4,p, N5,p, respectively. It can be observed
that each basis function is non-zero only in an interval controlled by degree, namely higher degree
leads to larger affection area. Also note the symmetry of the basic functions about the u = 0.5 line.
Introducing the piecewise rational basis functions, the surface can be rewritten as:

n m
Ni,p (u)Nj,q (v)ωi,j
s(u, v) = ∑ ∑ R i,j (u, v) Pi,j , R i,j (u, v) =
∑k=0 ∑m
n
l=1 Ni,p (u)Nj,q (v)ωk,l
i=0 j=1
Eq. 2.2.7
As can be seen from the definition of NURBS, three factors have impact on the shape of a NURBS
surface given the basic functions, namely position of the control point, weight of the control point
and the knot vector. Usually in practice, only the positions of control points are used. In this study,
the approach is extended to NURBS, i.e. weights can also be perturbed by using the homogeneous
form of NURBS.

47 Xingchen Zhang, “CAD-based geometry parametrization for shape optimization using Non-uniform Rational
B-splines”, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, September 2017.
48 L. Piegl and W. Tiller. The NURBS book. Springer Science & Business Media, 2nd edition, 1997.
 32

(a) p=1, (b) p=2,

{0,0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1,1} {0,0,0,0.25,0.5,0.75,1,1,1}

(c) p=3, (d) p=4,

{0,0,0,0,0.33,0.67,1,1,1,1} {0,0,0,0,0,0.5,1,1,1,1,1}

Figure 2.2.4 Basis Function of Different Degree

2.2.2.1.2 Advantages of
NURBS
This enormous popularity of
NURBS is due to their important
geometric properties which
make then very powerful:

➢ NURBS are
generalization of Non-
Rational B-Spline,
Bezier and Rational
Bezier surfaces. This
means by using NURBS,
wider range of
geometries can be
described.
➢ Invariance. Figure 2.2.3 The Effect of Control Point Weight on NURBS Curve
 33

➢ Strong convex hull property.

➢ Differentiability.
Compared to B-splines, NURBS provide weight attached to each control point, thus having more
freedoms in controlling the shape. Figure 2.2.3 presents a NURBS curve with 7 control points.
Different weights are set to the control points P4, which clearly show how the weight affects the
curve. Put specifically, a larger weight pulls the curve closer to this control point, while a smaller
weight pushes the curve away from this control point. (see [Zhang]49).
2.2.2.2 Mesh Projection
In shape optimization problem, although mesh is generated based on the CAD geometry initially, the
discrete surface grid and the NURBS representation of the geometry are actually independent in the
program. The program has no idea how to update the mesh if the geometry is perturbed. Therefore,
a link between them is required such that the mesh can be deformed along with the perturbation of
geometry automatically. This is achieved by projecting the mesh nodes onto the NURBS patches and
assigning the corresponding parametric coordinates (u , v) to each surface mesh points. In this way,
during the optimization process, the surface mesh points can be easily mapped onto the deformed
NURBS surface to obtain new spatial coordinates with the parametric coordinates (u , v). This
guarantees that the surface grid points always remain on the NURBS surface. Good performance of
mesh projection is crucial for the shape optimization problem. The point inversion algorithm is
devoted to perform mesh projection, and to find the parametric coordinates (u , v) satisfying S(u , v)
= X, where X is a mesh node, S is a NURBS surface. Note that the parametric coordinates (u , v) are
maintained throughout the optimization once found.
2.2.2.3 Radial Basis Function50
A radial basis function (RBF) is a real-valued function φ whose value depends only on the distance
between the input and some fixed point, either the origin, so that φ(x) = φ(||x||), or some other fixed
point (c), called a center, so that φ(x) = φ (||x -c||). Any function φ that satisfies the property φ(x)
= φ(||x||) is a radial function. The distance is usually Euclidean distance, although other metrics are
sometimes used. They are often used as a collection {φk}k which forms a basis for some function space
of interest, hence the name.
Sums of radial basis functions are typically used to approximate given functions. This approximation
process can also be interpreted as a simple kind of neural network; this was the context in which they
were originally applied to machine learning, in work by [David Broomhead] and [David Lowe] in
1988 51 -52 which stemmed from [Michael J. D. Powell]'s seminal research from 1977. RBFs are also
used as a kernel in support vector classification. The technique has proven effective and flexible
enough that radial basis functions are now applied in a variety of engineering applications. Radial
basis functions are typically used to build up function approximations of the form

y(𝐱) = ∑ ωi φ (‖𝐱 − 𝐱 𝑖 ‖)
i=1
Eq. 2.2.8

49 Xingchen Zhang, “CAD-based geometry parametrization for shape optimization using Non-uniform Rational
B-splines”, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, September 2017.
50 Wikipedia.
51 Radial Basis Function networks Archived 2014-04-23 at the Wayback Machine
52 Broomhead, David H.; Lowe, David (1988). "Multivariable Functional Interpolation and Adaptive

Networks" (PDF). Complex Systems. 2: 321–355. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-07-14.
 34

where the approximating function y (x) is represented as a sum of radial basis functions, each
associated with a different center xiand weighted by an appropriate coefficient . The weights ω can
be estimated using the matrix methods of linear least squares, because the approximating function
is linear in the weights.
2.2.2.4 Class/Shape Function Transformation (CST) Method
In order to present a general parameterization technique for any type of geometries and to overcome
the mentioned limits, [Kulfan]53, [Kulfan & Bussoletti]54 and [Ceze]55 among others developed the
method of Class/Shape Function Transformation (CST). This method provides the mathematical
description of the geometry through a combination of a shape function and class function. The
class function provides for a wide variety of geometries. The shape function replaces the complex
non-analytic function with a simple analytic function that has the ability to control the design
parameters and uses only a few scalable parameters to define a large design space for aerodynamic
analysis. The advantage of CST lies in the fact that it is not only efficient in terms of low number of
design variables but it also allows the use of industrial related design parameters like radius of
leading edge or maximum thickness and its location56.
2.2.2.4.1 CST Airfoils & Wings Geometric Parameterization
Any smooth airfoil can be represented by the general 2D CST equations. The only things that
differentiate one airfoil from another in the CST method are two arrays of coefficients that are built
into the defining equations. These coefficients control the curvature of the upper and lower surfaces
of the airfoil. This gives a set of design variables which allows for aerodynamic optimization. This
method of parameterization captures the entire design space of smooth airfoils and is therefore
useful for any application requiring a smooth airfoil. The upper and lower surface defining equations
are as follows:

N1 x z
ςU (ψ) = CN2 (ψ). SU (ψ) + ψ.ΔςU
N1
} where ψ = and ς =
ςL (ψ) = CN2 (ψ). SL (ψ) + ψ.ΔςL c c
Eq. 2.2.9
The last terms define the upper and lower trailing edge thicknesses. Equation uses the general class
function to define the basic profile and the shape function to create the specific shape within that
geometry class. The general class function is defined as:

N1
CN2 (ψ) = ψN1 . (−ψ)N2
Eq. 2.2.10
For a general NACA type symmetric airfoil with a round nose and pointed aft end, N1 is 0.5 and N2 is
0 in the class function. This classifies the final shape as being within the "airfoil" geometry class,
which forms the basis of CST airfoil representation. This means that all other airfoils represented by
the CST method are derived from the class function airfoil. Further details can be found in [Lane and
Marshall]57, or [Ceze et al.]200. The 2D process for airfoils is easily extended to wings as a simple

53 Kulfan, B. M., “Universal parametric geometry representation method,” Journal of Aircraft,, 2008.
54 Kulfan, B. M. and Bussoletti, J. E., “Fundamental Parametric Geometry Representations for Aircraft
Component Shapes," 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2006.
55 Marco Ceze, Marcelo Hayashiy and Ernani Volpe, “A Study of the CST Parameterization Characteristics”, AIAA

2009-3767.
56 Arash Mousavi, Patrice Castonguay and Siva K. Nadarajah, “Survey Of Shape Parameterization Techniques And

its Effect on Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Shape Optimization”, AIAA 2007-3837.

57 Kevin A. Lane and David D. Marshall, “A Surface Parameterization Method for Airfoil Optimization and High

Lift 2D Geometries Utilizing the CST Methodology”, AIAA 2009-1461.

 35

extrusion of parameterized airfoils. This greatly

increases the number of design variables for an
optimization scheme. However, it is no less
powerful. By controlling the distribution of airfoils,
any smooth wing can be represented. Also, such
characteristics as sweep, taper, geometric twist, and
aerodynamic twist can be included. The definition of
a 3D surface follows a similar structure to that of a
2D surface. Again, for complete description of
method, readers are encouraged to consult58. For
further and complete information, readers
encourage to consult [Su et al.]59. Figure 2.2.5
illustrates basis function for six design variables.
2.2.2.4.2 Case Study - Airfoil Optimization Figure 2.2.5 Basis functions for six design
As previously explained, the CST method gives variable configurations of the CST method
equations for the upper and lower surfaces of an
airfoil in terms of the curvature coefficient. These coefficients can be used as design variables in an
aerodynamic optimization scheme. Such a scheme is currently being developed to maximize the lift
to drag ratio (L/D) of a supercritical airfoil for use on a next generation commercial airliner. The
optimization scheme uses the MATLAB function as the optimizer. This function was selected based
on that constraints could be placed on the airfoil geometry. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was
selected for the solution method because the optimization is performed in the transonic regime
where many other solution methods are not valid. This complicates the process greatly. Since CFD is
to be used by an optimizer, both the meshing and solution processes must be automated. Therefore,
the meshing process must be robust enough to handle any airfoil selected by the optimizer. However,
the meshing process will still be sensitive to the given airfoil geometry. If the airfoil selected by the
optimizer is too unlike the airfoil used to develop the meshing automation, the meshing process is
prone to errors. Therefore, constraints are used to force the optimizer to select airfoils that somewhat
resemble the initial airfoil. Constraints implemented to ensure an airfoil successfully passes the
meshing stage include limits on maximum thickness and minimum thickness. An additional
constraint was placed so that the upper surface does not cross the lower surface. The optimizer is
currently being tested for a cruise condition of Mach 0.8 at an altitude of 35,000 feet. To ensure that
a constant CL is maintained, the objective function estimates the current airfoil's lift curve by fitting
a line to CL values taken from CFD solutions at different angles of attack. This is used to obtain the
angle of attack that should produce the desired Cl. This
angle of attack is used for the final CFD solution of the Initial Optimized
objective function from which L/D is taken and read by CL 0.329 0.318
the optimizer. The initial airfoil selected for the CD 0.0273 0.0140
optimization scheme was the RAE 2822 transonic L/D 12.05 22.78
airfoil previously used in the class function coefficient AoA 0.96 1.5
optimization study. A CL of 0.322 was selected to
correspond to the CL at cruise of the airfoil used by a Table 2.2.1 Performance Comparison of
next generation commercial airliner currently being Initial an Optimize Airfoils (Courtesy of 44)
studied at Cal Poly. Table 2.2.1 displays a comparison

58 See 40.
59 Hua Su, Chunlin Gong, and Liangxian Gu, “Three-Dimensional CST Parameterization Method Applied in Aircraft

Aero elastic Analysis”, Hindawi, International Journal of Aerospace Engineering Volume 2017, Article ID
1874729, 15 pages, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1874729.
 36

between the performance of the initial and optimized airfoils. The CL values differ somewhat and
displays some error in the selection of angle of attack. However, the CD of the optimized airfoil is
dramatically lower than that of the initial airfoil. The CD value drops from 273 drag counts to 40,
which is a reduction of 33 drag counts or about 49%. This also causes the L/D to increase from 2.05
to 22.78, which is an increase of about 89%. Figure 2.2.6 displays contours of Mach number over
the initial and optimized airfoils. The initial airfoil is displayed on the left while the optimized airfoil

Figure 2.2.6 Contours of the Initial Airfoil (Left) an Optimize Airfoil (Right)44

is shown on the right. The maximum Mach number in the flow over the initial airfoil is much higher
than that of the optimized airfoil. This is because the upper surface of the optimized airfoil is much
flatter than that of the initial airfoil, which causes the flow to accelerate less over the upper surface
of the optimized airfoil. This is the cause of the dramatic drag reduction. The lowest point of the lower
surface of the optimized airfoil is forward from that of the initial airfoil. This allows for lower speed
flow and therefore higher pressure.
2.2.2.5 Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)60
In linear algebra, the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) is factorization of real or complex matrix.
It is the generalization of the eigen decomposition of a normal matrix (for example, a symmetric
matrix with non-negative eigenvalues) to any [m x n] matrix via an extension of the polar
decomposition. It has many useful applications in signal processing and statistics. Suppose M is
an m × n matrix whose entries come from the field K, which is either the field of real numbers or the
field of complex numbers. Then the singular value decomposition of M exists, and is a factorization
of the form
𝐌 = 𝐔 ∑ 𝐕∗
Eq. 2.2.11
Where
• U is an m × m unitary matrix over K (if K = , unitary matrices are orthogonal matrices),
• Σ is a diagonal m × n matrix with non-negative real numbers on the diagonal,
• V is an n × n unitary matrix over K, and V∗ is the conjugate transpose of V.

The diagonal entries σi of Σ are known as the singular values of M. A common convention is to list
the singular values in descending order. In this case, the diagonal matrix, Σ, is uniquely determined

60 Wikipedia.
 37

by M (though not the matrices U and V if M is not square).

2.2.2.6 Hicks-Henne Bump Functions
Hicks and Henne61 introduced an analytical approach that takes a baseline geometry and adds a
linear combination of bump functions to the upper and lower surface to create a new shape. For 2D
problems, the parameterized geometry function can be expressed by:

n
log 0.5 ti
y = ybaase + ∑ bi (x) , bi (x) = ai [sin (πx log h )] 0≤ x≤ 1
i=1
Eq. 2.2.12
where n is the number of bump functions; bi (x) is the bump function (or basis function) proposed by
Hicks and Henne; ai represents the maximum bump amplitude and acts as the weighting coefficient;
hi locates the maximum point of the bump and ti controls the width of the bump. By setting all the
coefficients ai to zero, the baseline geometry is recovered.
By inspecting Eq. 2.2.12, it is apparent that every bump function is defined by three parameters that
can either be fixed or varying during optimization. To ensure the parameterization is a linear
function of the design variables, only the bump amplitude coefficients ai are allowed to vary and thus
treated as design variables, while the other two parameters are fixed. For the bump maximum
positions hi, two approaches are employed in this study:
a) even distribution over the range of [0.5/n; 1 - 0.5/n]; and
b) uneven distribution described by a "one-minus-cosine" function:
1 iπ
hi = [1 − cos ( )] i = 1,2, , , , , , n
2 n+1
Eq. 2.2.13

Figure 2.2.7 Three sets of Hicks-Henne Bump functions with different settings of t (n = 5, ai = 1, hi ϵ
[0.1; 0.9]).

Figure 2.2.7 shows three sets of Hicks-Henne Bump functions with different settings of t. It is
observed that the bump width narrows down as t increases, which indicates that a relatively smaller
value of t can provide more global shape control whereas a relatively larger value of t generates more
local shape control. For the bump width control parameter, t, a constant value is specified within the

61Hicks, R. M. and Henne, P. A., Wing design by numerical optimization," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 7, 1978,
pp. 407-412.
 38

SU2 code. In this study, in addition to the default setting t = 3, a range of values of t is defined and the
impact on the optimization results is investigated.

Figure 2.2.8 Two distributions for Hicks-Henne bump functions (n = 10) on the NACA 0012 airfoil. Red
dashed lines indicate bump maximum positions.

A comparison of these two distributions is shown in Figure 2.2.8, where a set of ten bump functions
are distributed on the NACA 0012 airfoil. It is not unexpected that the "one{minus{cosine"
distribution results in bump functions clustered at the leading edge (LE) and trailing edge (TE) of the
airfoil.
2.2.2.7 Free-Form Deformation (FFD)
Free-Form Deformation (FFD), which was initially proposed by [Sederberg and Parry]62, is a premier
parameterization method. The basic FFD concept can be visualized by embedding a flexible object
inside a flexible volume and deforming both of them simultaneously by perturbing the lattice of the
volume. The FFD control volume (or FFD box) has a topology of a cube when deforming three-
dimensional (3D) objects or a rectangular plane for 2D objects, and thus it can be parameterized as
either a triradiate volume or a bivariate surface. Both Bezier curves and uniform B-splines are used

Figure 2.2.9 View of FFD box enclosing the embedded object, including the control points shown in
spheres.

62 Sederberg, T.W. and Parry, S. R., Free-form deformation of solid geometric models," ACM SIGGRAPH computer
graphics, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1986, pp. 151-160.
 39

as FFD blending function. Figure 2.2.9 illustrates the FFD box encapsulating a rectangular wing and
the RAE 2822 airfoil, where a lattice of control points are uniformly spaced on the surface of FFD box.
The parameterized Bezier volume can be described using the following equation:

l m n

𝐗(ξ , η , ζ) = ∑ ∑ ∑ 𝐏𝐢𝐣𝐤 Bil (ξ)Bjm (η)Bkn (ζ)

i=0 j=0 k=0
Eq. 2.2.14
where l, m, n are the degrees of FFD blending function; ξ , η , ζ ϵ [0, 1] are the parametric
coordinates; Pijk are the Cartesian coordinates of the control point (i , j , k); X are the corresponding
Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) for a given (ξ , η , ζ) in the Bezier volume Bli (ξ), Bmj (η), and Bnk (ζ), are
the Bernstein (Basis) polynomials, which are expressed as

l!
Bil (ξ) = ξi (1 − ξ)l−i
(l
i! − i)!
m!
Bjm (η) = ηj (1 − η)m−j
j! (m − j)!
n!
Bkn (ζ) = ζj (1 − ζ)n−k
(k
k! − ζ)!
Eq. 2.2.15
The control points of the FFD box are defined as the
design variables, the number of which depends on
the degree of the chosen Bernstein polynomials.
FFD is numerically executed in three steps. Firstly,
for the embedded object, a mapping is performed
from the physical space to the parametric space of
the FFD box. The parametric coordinates (ξ , η , ζ )
of each surface mesh node are determined and
remain unchanged during the optimization. Note
that this mapping is evaluated only once. Secondly,
the FFD control points are perturbed, which leads
to the deformation of the FFD box as well as the
embedded object. Thirdly, once the FFD box has
been deformed, the new Cartesian coordinates X =
(x, y, z) of the embedded object in physical space Figure 2.2.10 The base functions on the
range t in [0,1] for cubic Bézier curves:
are algebraically computed using Eq. 2.2.14. A key
blue: y = (1 − ξ)3, green: y= 3(1 − ξ)2 t, red: y=
feature of FFD parameterization approach is that 3(1 − ξ) ξ2, and cyan: y = ξ3.
multiple control points can be grouped together to
perform specific motions and thus achieve desired
shape deformation, such as redefining airfoil camber and thickness, applying changes to wing twist
and sweep, etc. See [Yang & Da Ronchy ]63. For example, a sample of the cubic Bezier basis function
is given Figure 2.2.10.

63Guangda Yang and Andrea Da Ronchy, “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Benchmark Problems Using SU2”,
AIAA, January 2018.
 40

2.2.2.7.1 Case Study - Free-Form Deformation Approach to Wing Section

A common method used for aerodynamic optimization is the Free-Form Deformation (FFD) approach
which is useful if the geometry manipulations are particularly complex; FFD is covered in depth by
(Kenway, Kennedy, & Martins, 2010)64. This approach embeds the solid geometry within a FFD hull
volume (volumes are typically referends of Bezier splines, Non-Uniform Rational B-splines of
NURBS), which are parametrized by a series of control points as shown in Figure 2.2.11. These
control points deform the volume which translate to geometric changes of the solid geometry rather
than redefining the whole geometry itself which can give a relatively more efficient set of design
variables. A key assertion of the FFD approach, when applied within a CFD environment, is that a
geometry has constant topology through-out the optimization process; this is typical of high-fidelity
optimizations where the initial geometry considered is sufficiently close to the optimal solution.
Figure 2.2.11 shows the FFD hull volume enclosing a wing with 720 geometric control points used
by [Lyu et al.]65 which control shape deformation in the vertical (z) axis. The initial random wing
deformation and associated optimized wing cross-sections at select locations are also shown. A

Figure 2.2.11 Free-Form Deformation (FFD) Parametrizing Wing with 720 Control Points - (Courtesy
of Kenway and Martins)

similar method is based on Radial Basis Function (RBF) interpolation which defines data sets of
design variables and their global relationships. [Fincham & Friswell]66 and [Poole et al.]67 use radial
basis functions to optimize morphing aero-foils and report that they provide a means to deform both
aerodynamic and structural meshes and interpolate performance metrics between two non-
coincident meshes. Volumetric-based body representation have been used for optimization but
rarely in the field of aerodynamics, a recent review of the applicability of volumetric parametrization

64 G. Kenway, G. Kennedy, and J.R.R.A. Martins. “A CAD-Free Approach to High-Fidelity Aero-structural

Optimization”. 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, AIAA 2010-9231.
65 Z. Lyu, G. Kenway, and J.R.R.A. Martins, “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Investigations of the Common

Research Model Wing Benchmark”. AIAA Journal, 53(4):968{985, 2014.

66 J.H.S. Fincham and M.I. Friswell. “Aerodynamic Optimisation of a Camber Morphing Aerofoil”, Aerospace

Science and Technology, 2015.

67 D.J. Poole , C.B. Allen, T.C.S. Rendall, “Aero-foil Design Variable Extraction for Aerodynamic Optimization”, AIAA

2013.
 41

for aerodynamic optimization is given by [Hall et al.]68.

2.2.2.8 Continuity Constraint
There are two kinds of continuity associated with parametric curves and surfaces, i.e. the parametric
continuity and geometric continuity. For two curve segments, if they are joint together at end
points, then the resulting curve is said to have G0 continuity at the join. The resulting curve will have
G1 continuity if the tangent vector of both segments have
share the same direction. Similarly, if two curve
segments are jointed together, the resulting curve then
has C0 continuity. For the parametric C1 continuity, the
tangent vector of two curve segments should have both
the same direction and magnitude. The comparison
between G1 and C1 continuity is illustrated in Figure
2.2.12, where the difference can be seen clearly.
Obviously, parametric continuity is more restrictive
than geometric continuity. For many applications, G1
continuity is adequate. However, for those applications
which depend on a smooth transition of reflected light,
Figure 2.2.12 Continuity comparison
such as the car bodies, G1 cannot satisfy the between G1 and C1
requirement. In these cases, at least C2 should be
achieved69. Obviously, parametric continuity is
more restrictive than geometric continuity. For
many applications, like those presented in this
thesis, G1 continuity is adequate. However, for
those applications which depend on a smooth
transition of reflected light, such as the car bodies,
G1 cannot satisfy the requirement. In these cases,
at least C2 should be achieved70. The half-cylinder
shown in Figure 2.2.13 consists of two NURBS Figure 2.2.13 Half-Cylinder Geometry and
surfaces and 20 control points. G0 continuity is Corresponding Control Points
imposed along the common edge. The figure
clearly indicates that different columns result in different perturbation of control points.

2.2.3 Parameterized Curves and Surfaces as Envisioned by “Helmut Sobieczky” 71

The geometry tool explained here has been developed in the years shortly before interactive graphic
workstations became available, originally for input with data lists but increasingly laid out for
interactive usage in the windows environment of the workstation. The list input still is the basic
option and data for such usage will be presented here for explanation. Focusing on surface modelling
of aerodynamically efficient aircraft components, we realize that the goal of shape generation
requires much control over contour quality like slopes and curvature, while structural constraints
require also corners, flat parts and other compromises against otherwise idealized shapes. When
familiarity is gained with a set of simple analytic functions and the possibility is used to occasionally
extend the existing collection of 1D functions, ground is laid to compose these functions suitably to

68 J. Hall, D.J. Poole, T.C.S. Rendall, and C.B. Allen. “Volumetric Shape Parameterization for Combined Aerodynamic

Geometry and Topology Optimization”.16th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization

Conference, AIAA 2015-3354, number June, pages 1-29, Dallas, TX, 2015.
69 D. F. Rogers. An introduction to NURBS: with historical perspective. Elsevier, 2000.
70 See Previous.
71 Helmut Sobieczky, ”Geometry Generator for CFD and Applied Aerodynamics”, Geometry Generator for CFD

and Applied Aerodynamics.

 42

yield complex 2D curves and finally surfaces in 3D space. This way we intend to develop tools to
define data for airframe components with a nearly unlimited variety within conventional, new and
exotic configurations.
2.2.3.1 Function Catalog
A set of functions Y (X) is suitably defined within the interval 0 < X < 1, with end values at X , Y = (0,
0) and (1 , 1), see Figure 2.2.14. We can imagine a multiplicity of algebraic and other explicit
functions Y(X) fulfilling the boundary requirement and, depending on their mathematical structure,
allowing for the control of certain properties especially at the interval ends. Four parameters or less
were chosen to describe end slopes (a, b) and two additional properties (eG, fG) depending on a
function identifier G.

Figure 2.2.14 Selection of 4 Basic Functions FG in Non-Dimensional Unit Interval

The squares shown depict some algebraic curves where the additional parameters describe
exponents in the local expansion (G=1), zero curvature without (G=2) or with (G=20) straight ends
added, polynomials of fifth order (G=6, quantic) and with square root terms (G=7) allowing
curvatures being specified at interval ends. Other numbers for G yield splines, simple Bezier
parabolas, trigonometric and exponential functions. For some of them a, b, eG and/or fG do not have
to be specified because of simplicity, like G=4 which yields just a straight line. The more recently
introduced functions like G=20 give smooth connections as well as the limiting cases, “ of curves with
steps and corners. Implementation of these mathematically explicit relations to the computer code
allows for using functions plus their first, second and third derivatives. It is obvious that this library
of functions is modular and may be extended for special applications, the new functions fit into the
system as long as they begin and end at (0, 0) and (1,1), a and b - if needed - describe the slopes and
two additional parameters are permitted.

Y = FG (a, b, eG , fG , X)
Eq. 2.2.16
2.2.3.2 Curves
The next step is the composition of curves by a piecewise scaled use of these functions. Figure
2.2.15 illustrates this for an arbitrary set of support points, with slopes prescribed in the supports
and curvature or other desired property of each interval determining the choice of function
identifiers G. The difference to using spline fits for the given supports is obvious: for the price of
having to prescribe the function identifier and up to four parameters for each interval we have a
strong control over the curve. The idea is to use this control for a more dedicated prescription of
special aerodynamically relevant details of airframe geometry, hoping to minimize the number of
 43

Figure 2.2.15 Construction of arbitrary, dimensional curves in plane (xi, xj) by piecewise
use of scaled basic functions. Parameter input list with 2 parameters changed (shaded curves).

optimization parameters as well as focusing on problem areas in CFD flow analysis code
development. Numbers serving as names (“keys”) distinguish between a number of needed curves,
the example shows two different curves and their support points. Besides graphs a table of input
numbers is depicted, illustrating the amount of data required for these curves. Nondimensional
function slopes a, b are calculated from input dimensional slopes s1 and s2, as well as the additional
parameters eG, fG are found by suitable transformation of e and f. A variation of only single parameters
allows dramatic changes of portions of the curves, observing certain constraints and leaving the rest
of the curve unchanged. This is the main objective of this approach, allowing strong control over
specific shape variations during optimization and adaptation.
2.2.3.3 Surfaces
Aerospace applications call for suitable
mathematical description of
components like wings, fuselages,
empennages, pylons and nacelles, to
mention just the main parts which will
have to be studied by parameter
variation. Three-view geometries of
wings and bodies are defined by
planforms, crown lines and some other
basic curves, while sections or cross
sections require additional parameters
to place surfaces fitting within these
planforms and crown lines. Figure
2.2.16 shows a surface element
defined by suitable curves
(generatrices) in planes of 3D space, it
can be seen that the strong control Figure 2.2.16 Surface definition by cross sections c in
plane (x1, x3) determined by generatrices (keyi), along x2
which has been established for curve
and defined in planes (x1, x2) and (x2, x3).
definition, is maintained here for
surface slopes and curvature.
 44

2.2.3.3.1 Case Study - Generic High Speed Civil Transport Configuration

Figure 2.2.17 illustrate data visualization of a generated configuration derived from a Boeing HSCT
design case for Mach 2.472. The configuration consists of 10 components, engine pylons are not yet
included. Wing and horizontal and vertical tail components are spanwise defined, fuselage and
engines are axially defined
components. The wing has a
subsonic leading edge in the inner
portion and a supersonic leading
edge on the outer portion.
For this study a minimum of support
airfoils is used to get a reasonable
pressure distribution: a rounded
leading edge section in most of the
inner wing and a wedge-sharp
section in the outer wing portion
define the basic shape of the wing.
Wing root fillet blending, the smooth Figure 2.2.17 Generic HSCT configuration derived from
transition between rounded and Boeing Mach 2.4 case study: shaded graphic visualization of
sharp leading edge and the tip geometry modelling result
geometry are effectively shaped by
the previously illustrated wing keys, the fuselage here is a simple slender body requiring just the
baseline body tool with elliptical cross sections.
Preprocessing input data for CFD requires providing a grid surrounding the configuration. For
application of either structured or unstructured grids additional geometric shapes need to be
provided. In the case of the generic HSCT with given supersonic flight Mach number the far field
boundary is chosen to engulf the expected bow shock wave (Figure 2.2.18-a) and a cross sectional
grid for both wing and body is generated, either as simple algebraic trajectories or using elliptic

Figure 2.2.18 Grid Boundaries for Euler analysis of HSCT wing-body in supersonic flow M∞ = 2.4

72Kulfan, R. High Speed Civil Transport Opportunities, Challenges and Technology Needs. Lecture at Taiwan IAA
34th National Conference, 1992.
 45

equations. Short runs using an the inviscid flow Euler option of a flow solver73 were carried out on a
coarse (33 x 81 x 330) grid, here only to get an idea about the needed wing section and twist
modifications for acceptable pressure distributions. Visualization of the results in various grid
surfaces is needed, like pressure distributions in cross section planes as shown in Figure 2.2.18-b.

2.3 Constraint Handling

Constraint handling in aerodynamic, and indeed any industrial optimization problem, plays a
consequential role in the quality and robustness of an optimized solution within the defined design
space. Geometric parametrization itself poses a constrained optimization problem since, in addition
to minimizing the objective f(x), the design variables must satisfy some geometric constraints.
Constraint management techniques found in literature which have been classified by [Koziel &
Michalewicz]74 and [Sienz & Innocente]75 as:
➢ strategies that preserve only feasible solutions with no constraint violations: infeasible
solutions are deleted;
➢ strategies that allow feasible and infeasible solutions to co-exist in a population, however
penalty functions penalize the infeasible solutions (constraint based reasoning);
➢ strategies that create feasible solutions only;
➢ strategies that artificially modify solutions to boundary constraints if boundaries are
exceeded; and
➢ strategies that repair/modify infeasible solutions.
Most commonly optimizations apply weighted penalties to the objective function if the constraint(s)
are violated. The reason for this is that
penalty functions are often deemed to
ease the optimization process, and bring
the advantage of transforming
constrained problems into
unconstrained one by directly enforcing
the penalties directly to the objective
function. With this method Pareto-
optimal solutions with good diversity
and reliable convergence for many
algorithms can be obtained easily when
the number of constraints are small;
fewer than 20 constraints. It becomes
more difficult to reach Pareto-optimal
solutions efficiently as the number of
constraints increase, and the number of
analyses of objectives and constraints
quickly becomes prohibitively expensive Figure 2.3.1 Concept of using Parallel Evaluation
for many applications. Strategy of Feasible and Infeasible Solutions to Guide
This is because the selection pressure Optimization Direction in a GA
decreases due to the reduced region in
which feasible solutions exist. (Kato et al.,

73 Kroll, N., Radespiel, R. An Improved Flux Vector Split Discretization Scheme for Viscous Flows. DLR-FB , 1993.
74 S. Koziel and Z. Michalewicz. “Evolutionary Algorithms, Homomorphous Mappings, and Constrained Parameter
Optimization”. Evolutionary Computation, 7(1):19{44, 1999.
75 J. Siens and M.S. Innocente. “Particle Swarm Optimisation: Fundamental Study and its Application to

Optimisation and to Jetty Scheduling Problems”. Trends in Engineering Computational Technology, 2008.
 46

2015)76 suggest that in certain circumstances Pareto-optimal solutions may exist in-between regions
of solution feasibility and infeasibility. This is illustrated in Figure 2.3.1, where it is seen that feasible
and infeasible solutions could be evaluated in parallel to guide the optimization search direction
towards feasible design spaces. This is intuitively true for single discipline aerodynamic optimization
problems where often small modifications to design variables can largely impact the performance
rendering designs infeasible. Algorithm understanding of infeasible solutions can help in the
betterment of feasible solutions though algorithm learning/training and constraint based reasoning.
(Robinson et al., 2006)77, comparing the performance of alternative trust-region constraint handling
methods, showed that reapplying knowledge of constraint information to a variable complexity wing
design optimization problem reduced high-fidelity function calls by 58% and additionally compare
the performance to alternative constraint managed techniques.
Elsewhere, (Gemma and Mastroddi, 2015)78 demonstrated that for the multi-disciplinary, multi-
objective aircraft optimizations the objective space of feasible and infeasible design candidates are
likely to share no such definitive boundary. With the adoption of utter constraints, structural
constraints, and mission constraints solutions defined as infeasible under certain conditions would
otherwise be accepted, hence forming complex Pareto fronts. Interdisciplinary considerations such
as this help to develop and balance conflicting constraints. For example, structural properties which
may be considered feasible, but are perhaps heavier than necessary will inflict aero-elastic
instabilities at lower frequencies. In the aerospace industry alone there are several devoted open-
source aerodynamic optimization algorithms with built-in constraint handling capability. Some
studies have also adopted MATLAB's optimization tool-box for successful optimization constraint
management.

76 T. Kato, K. Shimoyama, and S. Obayashi. “Evolutionary Algorithm with Parallel Evaluation Strategy of Feasible
and Infeasible Solutions Considering Total Constraint Violation”. IEEE, 1(978):986-993, 2015.
77 T.D. Robinson, K.E. Willcox, M.S. Eldred, and R. Haimes. “Multi-fidelity Optimization for Variable-Complexity

Design”. 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, pages 1-18, Portsmouth,
VA, 2006. AIAA 2006-7114.
78 S. Gemma and F. Mastroddi. “Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Objective Optimization of an Unconventional Aircraft

Concept”. 16th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA 2015-2327, pages
1-20, Dallas, TX, 2015.
 47

3 Airplane Conceptual Design (I)

3.1 Conceptual Aerodynamic Design Process as Applied to Airplanes
In the development of commercial aircraft, aerodynamic design plays a leading role during the
conceptual and preliminary design stage, Ultimately, the definition of the external aerodynamic
shape is typically finalized after a detailed analysis. The road map of the first design methodology
of a typical airplane is given by (Bravo-Mosquera et al., 2018)79 in Figure 3.1.1.

Conceptual Design
Reqiurements

Market Mission
Research Analysis

Constraint Propusion Configuation

Analysis Selection Layout

Weight & Control

Arodynamics Stability Performance
Balances Surfaces

Gravity Center Power

Wing Ailerons Static
(GC) Output

Rate of
Fuselage Elevators Dynamic
Climb

Take-Off and
Empennage Rudder
Landing

Turning
Drag Polar Flaps
Radius

Figure 3.1.1 Conceptual Design Roadmap

3.1.1 Purpose and Scope of Conceptual Airplane Design

The process of design of a device or a vehicle, in general involves the use of knowledge in diverse
fields to arrive at a product that will satisfy requirements regarding functional aspects, operational
safety and cost. The design of an airplane, which is being dealt in this course, involves synthesizing
knowledge in areas like aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, systems and manufacturing
techniques. The aim is to arrive at the configuration of an airplane, which will satisfy

79 Pedro David Bravo-Mosquera, Hernán DaríoCerón-Muñoz, Guillermo Díaz-Vázquez, Fernando Martini

Catalano, “Conceptual design and CFD analysis of a new prototype of agricultural aircraft”, Aerospace Science
and Technology, 2018.
 48

abovementioned requirements. The design of an airplane is a complex engineering task. which

generally involves the following among others:
➢ Obtaining the specifications of the airplane, selecting the type and determining;
➢ Aerodynamic Considerations;
➢ Wing design;
➢ Optimization of wing loading and thrust loading;
➢ Fuselage design, preliminary design of tail surface and preliminary layout;
➢ Center of Gravity calculation;
➢ the geometric parameters for different surfaces;
➢ Preliminary weight estimation;
➢ Estimates of areas for horizontal and vertical tails;
➢ Engine Selection;
➢ Detail Structural design;
➢ Determination of airplane performance, stability, and structural integrity from flight tests.
The aerodynamic lines of the Boeing 777 were frozen, for example, when initial orders were
accepted, before the initiation of the detailed design of the structure. The starting point is an initial
CAD definition resulting from the conceptual design. The inner loop of aerodynamic analysis is
contained in an outer multi-disciplinary loop, which is in turn contained in a major design cycle
involving wind tunnel testing. In recent Boeing practice, three major design cycles, each requiring
about 4-6 months, have been used to finalize the wing design. Improvements in CFD, might allow
the elimination of a major cycle, would significantly shorten the overall design process and reduce
costs. Moreover, the improvements in the performance of the final design, which might be realized
through the systematic use of CFD, could have a crucial impact.
3.1.2 Cost Estimation
An improvement of 5 percent in lift to drag (L/D) ratio directly translates to a similar reduction in
fuel consumption. With the annual fuel costs of a long-range airliner in the range of $5-10 million, a
5 percent saving would amount to a saving of the order of $10 million over a 25 year operational
life, or $5 billion for a fleet of 500 aircraft. In fact an improvement in L/D enables a smaller aircraft
to perform the same mission, so that the actual reduction in both initial and operating costs may be
several times larger. Furthermore a small performance advantage can lead to a significant shift in
the share of a market estimated to be more than $1 trillion over the next decades.
3.1.3 Preliminary Weight Estimation
An accurate estimate of the weight of the airplane is required for the design of the airplane. This is
arrived at in various stages. In the last chapter, the procedure to obtain the first estimate of the gross
weight was indicated. This was based on the ratio of the payload to the gross weight of similar
airplanes. This estimate of the gross weight is refined by estimating (a) the fuel fraction i.e. weight
of fuel required for the proposed mission of the airplane, divided by gross weight and (b) empty
weight fraction i.e. empty weight of airplane divided the gross weight.
3.1.4 Breguet Range Estimation
A good first estimate of performance is provided by the Breguet range equation:

VL 1 W0 + Wf
Range = log
⏟ ⏟
D SFC ⏟ W0
Aero. Porp. Structure
Eq. 3.1.1
Here V is the speed, L/D is the lift to drag ratio, SFC is the specific fuel consumption of the engines,
 49

W0 is the loading weight (empty weight + payload + fuel resourced), and W f is the weight of fuel
burnt. Error! Reference source not found. displays the multidisciplinary nature of design. A light s
tructure is needed to reduce W0. SFC is the province of the engine manufacturers. The aerodynamic
designer should try to maximize VL/D. This means the cruising speed V should be increased until the
onset of drag rise at a Mach Number M = V/C ∼ 0.85. But the designer must also consider the impact
of shape modifications in structure weight80. An excellent discussion of these and other factors in
design of airplane, is documented by [Tulapurkara]81 and readers encourage to consult the on-line
material.
3.1.5 Aerodynamic Considerations
A poorly designed external shape of the airplane could result in undesirable flow separation
resulting in low CLmax, low lift to drag ratio and, large transonic and supersonic wave drag. Following
remarks can be deducted:
➢ Minimization of wetted area is an important consideration as it directly affects skin friction
drag and in turn parasite drag. One way to achieve this is to have smallest fuselage diameter
and low excellence ratio. However, proper space for payload, ease of maintenance and tail
arm also needs to be considered.
➢ To prevent flow separation, the deviation of fuselage shape from free stream direction
should not exceed 10 – 12 degrees .
➢ Proper fillets should be used at junctions between
• wing and fuselage,
• fuselage and tails and
• wing and pylons.
➢ Base area should be minimum.
➢ Canard, if used, should be located such that its wake does not enter the engine inlet as it
may cause engine stalling.
➢ Area ruling
The plan view of supersonic airplanes indicates that the area of cross section of fuselage is decreased
in the region where wing is located. This is called area ruling. A brief note on this topic is presented
below. It was observed that the transonic wave drag of an airplane is reduced when the distribution
of the area of cross section of the airplane, in planes perpendicular to the flow direction, has a
smooth variation. In this context, it may be added that the area of cross section of the fuselage
generally varies smoothly. However, when the wing is encountered there is an abrupt change in the
cross sectional area. This abrupt change is alleviated by reduction in the area of cross section of
fuselage in the region where the wing is located. Such a fuselage shape is called ‘Coke-bottle shape’.

3.1.6 What is the Proper Design (Target) Pressure Distribution?

Which pressure distribution should one try to obtain in the design flight condition which will fulfil
all design requirements? In order to postpone flow separation as far as possible and to minimize
drag, the general goal in aerodynamic design should be:

80 Antony Jameson, “Airplane Design with Aerodynamic Shape Optimization”, Aeronautics & Astronautics
Department, Stanford University, 2010.
81 E.G. Tulapurkara, ”Airplane design(Aerodynamic)”, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering., Indian Institute of

Technology, Madras, India.

 50

➢ For components that

do not have to
produce resultant
forces, local Super
velocities should be
minimized.
➢ For components that
do need to produce
resultant forces (such
as the wing or
rudder), the pressure
distribution at the
relevant flight
conditions should be
optimized such that
the momentum loss in
the boundary layer
and behind the
shockwave is minimal.
➢ Finally, for
components that must
tolerate a large
variation in local flow
direction (such as tail
surfaces and engine
intakes), leading-edge
shapes and design
pressure distributions
must be found, which
cope with this Figure 3.1.2 Fuselage Pressure Distribution Comparison, Boeing
variation. (Figure 747. Source: AIAA Paper No 72-188
3.1.2).

3.2 Airfoil Design and Parameter Selection

Large airplane companies like Boeing and Airbus may design their own airfoils. However, during
the preliminary design stage, the usual practical is to choose the airfoil from the large number of
airfoils whose geometric and aerodynamic characteristics are available in the aeronautical
literature. To enable such a selection it is helpful to know the aerodynamic and geometrical
characteristics of airfoils and their nomenclature.

3.2.1 Presentation of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils

Figure 3.2.1 shows typical experimental characteristics of an airfoil. The features of the plots can
be briefly described as follows.
• Lift coefficient vs angle of attack.
• Drag coefficient (CD) vs Lift Coefficient (CL)
• Pitching moment coefficient about quarter-chord vs. Angle of attack .
• Stall pattern : Variation of the lift coefficient with angle of attack near the stall is an
indication of the stall pattern
 51

3.2.2 Geometrical Characteristics of Airfoils

In this procedure, the camber line or the mean line is the basic line for definition of the airfoil shape
(Figure 3.2.1-A). The line joining the extremities of the camber line is the chord. The leading and
trailing edges are defined as the forward and rearward extremities, respectively, of the mean line.
Various camber line shapes have been suggested and they characterize various families of airfoils.
The maximum camber as a fraction of the chord length (ycmax/c) and its location as a fraction of chord
(xycmax/c) are the important parameters of the camber line. Various thickness distributions have
been suggested and they characterize different families of airfoils Figure 3.2.1 B. The maximum
ordinate of the thickness distribution as fraction of chord (ytmax/c) and its location as fraction of
chord (xytmax/c) are the important parameters of the thickness distribution.

A&B

C&D

Figure 3.2.1 Aerodynamic Shape of an Airfoil

 52

3.2.3 Airfoil Shape and Ordinates

The airfoil shape is obtained by combining the camber line and the thickness distribution in the
following manner, according to Figure 3.2.1-C. First, draw the camber line shape and draw lines
perpendicular to it at various locations along the chord. Then, lay off the thickness distribution along
the lines drawn perpendicular to the mean line. Finally, the coordinates of the upper surface (xu, yu)
and lower surface (xl, yl) of the airfoil are given by the four equations presented as :

x u = x − y t sinθ y u = yc + y t cosθ
Eq. 3.2.1
x l = x + y t sinθ yl = yc − y t cosθ

where yc and yt are the ordinates, at location x, of the camber line and the thickness distribution
respectively; tan θ is the slope of the camber line at location x (see also Figure 3.2.1-C & D). The
leading edge radius is also prescribed for the airfoil. The center of the leading edge radius is located
along the tangent to the mean line at the leading edge. Depending on the thickness distribution, the
trailing edge angle may be zero or have a finite value. In some cases, thickness may be non-zero at
the trailing edge. There are some attempts made by [Xiaoqiang et al. ]82 to decouple the camber from
the thickness so that camber and thickness could be constructed respectively with fewer parameters
for design purposes.

3.2.4 Airfoil Nomenclature

Early airfoils were designed by trial and error. Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE), UK and Gottingen
laboratory of the German establishment which is now called DLR (Deutsches Zentrum fϋr Luft-und
Raumfahrt – German Centre for Aviation and Space Flight) were the pioneers in airfoil design. Taking
advantage of the developments in airfoil theory and boundary layer theory, NACA (National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics) of USA systematically designed and tested a large number of airfoils in
1930’s. These are designated as NACA airfoils. In 1958 NACA was superseded by NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration). This organization has developed airfoils for special
purposes. These are designated as NASA airfoils. A brief description of their nomenclature is
presented below.

3.2.5 NACA Four-Digit Series Airfoils

Earliest NACA airfoils were designated as four-digit series. The thickness distribution was based on
successful RAE & Gottigen airfoils. It is given as:

 yt =
t
20

0.2969 x − 0.1260x − 0.3516x2 + 0.2843x3 − 0.1015x5 
Eq. 3.2.2
where, t = maximum thickness as fraction of chord. The leading radius is : rt = 1.1019 t2. Figure
3.2.1-b shows the shape of NACA 0009 airfoil. It is a symmetrical airfoil by design. The maximum
thickness of all four-digit airfoils occurs at 30% of chord. In the designation of these airfoils, the first
two digits indicate that the camber is zero and the last two digits indicate the thickness ratio as
percentage of chord. The camber line for the four-digit series airfoils consists of two parabolic arcs
tangent at the point of maximum ordinate. The expressions for camber(yc) are :

82Lu Xiaoqiang, Huang Jun, Song Leia,, Li Jingb, “An improved geometric parameter airfoil parameterization
method”, Aerospace Science and Technology 78, 241–247, 2018.
 53

yc =
m
p 2
 
2px - x 2 x  x ycmax
Eq. 3.2.3
=
m
(1 - p) 2

(1 - 2p) + 2px - x 2  x  x ycmax

Where m = maximum ordinate of camber line as fraction of chord and p = chord wise position of
maximum camber as fraction of chord. The camber lines obtained by using different values of m & p
are denoted by two digits, e.g. NACA 64 indicates a mean line of 6% camber with maximum camber
occurring at 40% of the chord. A cambered airfoil of four-digit series is obtained by combining mean
line and the thickness distribution as described in the previous subsection. For example, NACA 2412
airfoil is obtained by combining NACA 24 mean line and NACA 0012 thickness distribution. This
airfoil has (a) maximum camber of 2% occurring at 40% chord and (b) maximum thickness ratio of
12%.

3.2.6 NACA Five-Digit Series Airfoils

During certain tests it was observed that CLmax (Max. Lift Coefficient) of the airfoil could be increased
by shifting forward the location of the maximum camber. This finding led to development of five-digit
series airfoils. The new camber lines for the five-digit series airfoils are designated by three digits.
The same thickness distribution was retained as that for NACA four-digit series airfoils. The camber
line shape is given as :

1

y c = k1 x 3 - 3mx 2 + m 2 (3 − m)x
6
 0xm
Eq. 3.2.4
= k1m3 1 - x  m  x  1
1
6
The value of ‘m’ decides the location of the maximum camber and that of k1 the design lift coefficient.
A combination of m = 0.2025 and k1 = 15.957 gives li C = 0.3 and maximum camber at 15% of chord.
This mean line is designated as NACA 230. The first digit ‘2’ indicates that CL = 0.3 and the
subsequent two digits (30) indicate that the maximum camber occurs at 15% of chord. A typical
five-digit cambered airfoil is NACA 23012. The digits signify : First digit(2) indicates that li C L = 0.3.
Second & third digits (30) indicate that maximum camber occurs at 15% of chord. Last two digits
indicate that the maximum thickness ratio is 12%.

3.2.7 Six Series Airfoils

As a background to the development of these airfoils the following points may be mentioned. In
1931 [Theodorsen] presented ’Theory of wing sections of arbitrary shape’ NACA TR 411, which
enabled calculation flow past airfoils of general shape. Around the same time the studies of
[Tollmien and Schlichting] on boundary layer transition, indicated that the transition process, which
causes laminar boundary layer to become turbulent, depends predominantly on the pressure
gradient in the flow around the airfoil. A turbulent boundary layer results in a higher skin friction
drag coefficient as compared to when the boundary layer is laminar. Hence, maintaining a laminar
boundary layer over a longer portion of the airfoil would result in a lower drag coefficient. Inverse
methods, which could permit design of mean line shapes and thickness distributions, for prescribed
pressure distributions were also available at that point of time. Taking advantage of these
developments, new series of airfoils called low drag airfoils or laminar flow airfoils were designed.
 54

These airfoils are designated as 1-series, 2-series,…….,7-series. Among these the six series airfoils
are commonly used airfoils. When the airfoil surface is smooth, these airfoils have a CDmin which is
lower than that for four-and five-digit series airfoils of the same thickness ratio. Further, the
minimum drag coefficient extends over a range of lift coefficient. This extent is called drag bucket.
The thickness distributions for these airfoils are obtained by calculations which give a desired
pressure distribution. Analytical expressions for these thickness distributions are not available.
However, the camber lines are designated as : a = 0, 0.1, 0.2 …., 0.9 and 1.0. For example, the camber
line shape with a = 0.4 gives a uniform pressure distribution from x/c = 0 to 0.4 and then linearly
decreasing to zero at x/c = 1.0. If the camber line designation is not mentioned, ‘a’ equal to unity is
implied. It is obtained by combining NACA 662 – 015 thickness distribution and a = 1.0 mean line.

3.2.8 NASA Airfoils

NASA has developed airfoil shapes for special applications. For example GA(W) series airfoils were
designed for general aviation aircraft. The ‘LS’ series of airfoils among these are for low speed
airplanes. A typical airfoil of this category is designated as LS(1) - 0417. In this designation, the digit
‘1’ refers to first series, the digits ‘04’ indicate CLOPT of 0.4 and the digits ‘17’ indicate the thickness
ratio of 17%. Figure 5.3e shows the shape of this airfoil. For the airfoils in this series, specifically
designed for medium speed airplanes, the letters ‘LS’ are replaced by ‘MS’. NASA NLF series airfoils
are ‘Natural Laminar Flow’ airfoils. NASA SC series airfoils are called ‘Supercritical airfoils’. These
airfoils have a higher critical Mach number.
3.2.9 Estimation of Wing Loading & Thrust Loading
The wing loading (W/S) and the thrust loading (T/W) or power loading (W/P) are the two most
important parameters affecting the airplane performance. It may be recalled that for airplanes with
jet engines, the parameter characterizing engine output is the thrust loading (T/W) and for airplane
with engine-propeller combination the parameter characterizing the engine output is the power
loading (W/P). It is essential that good estimates of (W/S) & (T/W) or (W/P) are available before
the initial layout is begun. The approaches for estimation of (W/S) and (T/W) or (W/P) can be
divided into two categories.
➢ In the approach given by [Lebedinski], the variations, of the following quantities are
obtained when the wing loading is varied.
• (T/W) or (W/P) required for prescribed values of flight speed, absolute ceiling,
(R/C)max and output of a piston engine.
• Weight of the fuel (Wf) required for a given range.
• Distance required for landing.
From these variations, the wing loading which is optimum for each of these items is obtained.
However, the optimum values of W/S in various cases are likely to be different. The final wing
loading is chosen as a compromise.
➢ In the approach followed by [Raymer], (T/W) or (P/W) is chosen from statistical data
correlations and then W/S is obtained from the requirements regarding V max, (Range)max,
maximum based on rate of climb, absolute ceiling, maximum rate of turn, landing distance
and take-off distance.
Finally, W/S is chosen such that the design criteria are satisfied.

3.3 Aerodynamic Design of Wings

In the context of wing design the following aspects need consideration:
➢ Wing area (S) : This is calculated from the wing loading and gross weight which have been
already decided i.e. S = W/(W/S)
 55

➢ Location of the wing on fuselage : High-, low- or mid-wing

➢ Airfoil : Thickness ratio, camber and shape
➢ Sweep : Whether swept forward, swept backward, angle of sweep, cranked wing, variable
sweep.
➢ Aspect ratio : High or low, winglets
➢ Taper ratio : Straight taper or variable taper.
➢ Twist: Amount and distribution
➢ Wing incidence or setting
➢ High lift devices : Type of flaps and slats; values of CLmax, Sflap/S
➢ Ailerons and spoilers : Values of Saileron/S; Sspoiler/S
➢ Leading edge strakes if any;
➢ Dihedral angle.
➢ Other aspects : Variable camber, planform tailoring, area ruling, braced;
➢ Wing, aerodynamic coupling (intentionally adding a coupling lifting surface like canard).

3.3.1 Estimation of Wing and Thrust Loading Based on Conception Design

The wing loading and the thrust loading or the power loading influence a number of performance
items like take-off distance, maximum speed (Vmax) , maximum rate of climb (R/C)max, absolute ceiling
(Hmax) and maximum rate of turn. Thus, they are the two most important parameters affecting the
airplane performance. It may be recalled that for airplanes with jet engines, the parameter
characterizing engine output is the thrust loading (T/W) and for airplane with engine-propeller
combination the parameter characterizing the engine output is the power loading (W/P). It is
essential that good estimates of (W/S) & (T/W) or (W/P) are available before the initial layout is
begun. The approaches for estimation of (W/S) and (T/W) or (W/P) can be divided into two
categories.
➢ In the approach given by [Lebedinski], the variations, of the following quantities are obtained
when the wing loading is varied.
• (T/W) or (W/P) required for prescribed values of Vp, Hmax (R/C)max and sto.
• Weight of the fuel (Wf) required for a given range (R).
• Distance required for landing.
• From these variations, the wing loading which is optimum for each of these items is
obtained. However, the optimum values of W/S in various cases are likely to be
different. The final wing loading is chosen as a compromise.
➢ In the approach followed by [Raymer], (T/W) or (P/W) is chosen from statistical data
correlations and then W/S is obtained from the requirements regarding V max, Rmax, (R/C)max,
Hmax, max ψ , landing distance and take-off distance.
Finally, W/S is chosen such that the design criteria are satisfied. These two approaches are described
in the subsequent sections.
3.3.1.1 Remarks on for Choosing Wing Loading and Thrust Loading or Power Loading
It is felt that the approach presented by [Lebedinski] about 50 years ago, is still relevant. The main
features are:
• Derive simplified relations between the chosen performance parameter and the wing loading.
• Obtain the wing loading which satisfies/optimizes the chosen parameter e.g. landing
distance, thrust required for Vp, fuel required for range.
• Examine the influence of allowing small variations in wing loading from the optimum value
and obtain a band of wing loadings. This would give an estimate of the compromise involved
when (W/S) is non-optimum.
 56

• After all important cases are examined, choose the final wing loading as the best compromise.
• With the chosen wing loading, obtain (T/W) or (W/P) which satisfy requirements of V max,
(R/C)max, ceiling (Hmax), take-off field length ( to s ) and maximum turn rate (ψmax). If the
requirements of engine output in these cases are widely different, then examine possible
compromise in specification. After deciding the (T/W) or (W/P) obtain the engine output
required. Choose the number of engine(s) and arrive at the rating per engine. Finally choose
an engine from the engines available from different engine manufacturers.
During the process of optimizing the wing loading, a reasonable assumption is to ignore the changes
in weight of the airplane (W0). However, when W0 is constant but W/S changes, the wing area and in
turn, the drag polar would change. This is taken into account by an alternate representation of the
drag polar.
3.3.1.2 Selection of Wing Loading based on Landing Distance
Landing distance (Sland) is the horizontal distance the airplane covers from being at the screen height
till it comes to a stop. The approach to landing begins at the screen height of 50’ (15.2 m). The flight
speed at this point is called ‘Approach speed’ and denoted by VA. The glide angle during approach is
generally 30. Then, the airplane performs a flare to make the flight path horizontal and touches the
landing field at touch down speed (VTD). Subsequently, the airplane rolls for a duration of about 3
seconds and then the brakes are applied. The horizontal distance covered from the start of the
approach till the airplane comes to a halt is the landing field length.
• It may be added that in actual practice the airplane does not halt on the runway. After
reaching a sufficiently low speed the pilot takes the airplane to the allotted parking place.
• Landing ground run is the distance the airplane covers from the point the wheels first touch
the ground to the point the airplane comes to a stop.
• VA = 1.3(Vs) land, VTD = 1.15(Vs) land (4.1) (Vs)land is the stalling speed in landing
configuration. Exact estimation of landing distance (sland) is difficult as some phases like flare
depend on the piloting technique. based on consideration of landing distance.
3.3.1.3 Wing Loading from Landing Consideration based on Take-off Weight
The wing loading (W/S) of the airplane is always specified with reference to the take-off weight
(WTO). Hence, the wing loading from landing consideration, based on take-off weight, is

WT0
(W/S)land = pland ( )
Wland
Eq. 3.3.1
The weight of the airplane at the time of landing (Wland) is generally lower than WTO. The difference
between the two weights is due to the consumption of fuel and dropping of any disposable weight.
However, to calculate Wland only a part of the fuel weight is subtracted, from the takeoff weight.

3.3.2 Aerodynamic Design and Analysis Coupling for Wing

The Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations can represent most of the flow phenomena of
practical interest associated with complex aircraft configurations. In this respect, they could easily
handle the analysis and design of transport wings in the transonic and in the low-speed, high-lift,
separated-flow regimes. Their disadvantages lay usually on the long times involved in preparing
suitable computational grids and solving the equations themselves. If viscous phenomena are not
important for a particular case, the viscosity can be set to zero and an Euler analysis can be performed
on a coarser grid in a considerably reduced time. A 2D/3D RANS/Euler code for detailed analyses of
complex geometric configurations such as wing plus pylons and nacelles. Figure 3.3.1 present an
example of this application where transonic winglet design is performed with the 3D Euler and N-S
 57

Figure 3.3.1 Pressure Distribution for wing-pylon-nacelle Configuration; (Initial left), (refined right)

code. 2D analyses are also performed for airfoils in situations where large separated regions are
present, such as an airfoil with a deployed spoiler83. According to [EMBRAER], a civil transport
aviation company out of Brazil, three major different aerodynamic configurations were extensively
studied during the development phase; straight wing with over wing mounted engines (Error!
Reference source not found. (a)), swept wing with underwing mounted engines (Figure 3.3.2
(b)) and swept wing with rear fuselage mounted engines (Figure 3.3.2 (c)).

(a) Over Wing Mounted (b) Under Wing Mounted (c) Rear Fuselage Mounted
Engines Configuration Engines Configuration Engines Configuration

Figure 3.3.2 Different Wing Mounted & Localities

3.3.2.1 Straight Wing Configuration

The initial configuration was directly derived from the turbofan engines mounted over the wings
approximately at the same position of the original turboprops (see Figure 3.3.2 (a)). The center
fuselage was stretched to carry 45 passengers, thus resulting in its designation. The straight tapered
un-swept wing was derived from the Brasilia's. The wing rear part was kept, including the original
rear and front spars, but the entire leading edge was extended to reduce the airfoil maximum relative
thickness from 16% to 14% at the root and from 12% to 10% at the tip. An additional front spar was
also introduced, the wing span was increased and winglets were installed. Initially, the design cruise
Mach number was M=0.70, but during development it was raised to M = 0.75 to provide a cruise
performance differential in respect to that of competing new generation turboprops. The advantages

83 O. C. de Resende, “The Evolution of the Aerodynamic Design Tools and Transport Aircraft Wings at Embraer”,
J. of the Brazilian Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Engineering, October-December 2004.
 58

of the configuration would be its low development and production costs (using modified Brasilia
tooling and jigs), superior performance and comfort in respect to turboprops and reduced acquisition
and operating costs in respect to other regional jets then in development. However, transonic wind
tunnel tests indicated higher than expected drag at M = 0.75 and the modified wing was also found
to be heavier than originally estimated. The aerodynamic analysis and design tools available at the
time (full potential 2D airfoil code with coupled boundary layer, 3D inviscid wing full potential code
and a 3D panel method) were not capable of calculating the unfavorable aerodynamic interference
between the jet exhaust and the supersonic flow on the wing upper surface. Although there was prior
qualitative knowledge of the phenomenon and the associated risks, it took a transonic wind tunnel
test.
3.3.2.2 Swept Wing Configuration
The second configuration had an entirely new wing with approximately 26 degrees of leading edge
sweep. The engines were mounted in pylons under the wings, requiring taller landing gears (see
Figure 3.3.2 (b)). The fuselage was stretched to carry 48 passengers and the nose was extended to
accommodate the longer landing gear leg. The design cruise Mach number was raised to around M =
0.80 to 0.82. The wing was designed using the available full potential transonic 2D and 3D codes. The
resulting transonic airfoils had moderate rear loading, being of the type commonly called
'supercritical' due to the large region (typically from 10% to 70% chord) of supersonic flow on their
upper surface at cruise conditions. This type of airfoil has been used in transonic transport aircraft
since the late 1970's/early 1980's. Low transonic drag is obtained by keeping the flow on its upper
surface at low supersonic Mach numbers, avoiding the presence of strong shock waves that could
cause boundary layer separation. However, these low supersonic Mach numbers on the
'supercritical' region do not allow very large pressure differences to be generated between the upper
and lower airfoil surfaces, resulting in reduced local lift. The required additional lift is achieved by
increasing the camber at the rear part of the airfoil. The resulting wing profile shape is fairly flat on
the upper surface from 10% to 60 or 70% of the chord, curving downward from that point until the
trailing edge. In the lower surface, a concave region is present in the rear 30% to 40% of the chord.
The pylon and underwing engine installation were evaluated using a 3D panel code which, in spite of
being formally incapable of handling transonic problems, gave useful qualitative subsonic design
indications. The configuration was successfully tested in the transonic Boeing Transonic Wind tunnel
and met the performance expectations. Although the aerodynamic configuration was successful, the
problems associated with the longer landing gear proved harder to solve. The cost of the fuselage
nose modification would have been high, the longer landing gears would have required the
installation of emergency escape slides, leading to the loss of space for two passenger seats and the
close proximity of the engines to the ground would still have posed considerable risks of foreign
object ingestion and damage. All these problems caused the underwing engine configuration to be
abandoned.
3.3.2.3 Rear Fuselage Mounted Engine Configuration
The third major aerodynamic configuration had the engines mounted on pylons on the rear fuselage
(see Figure 3.3.2 (c)). There was a further increase in fuselage length to accommodate 50
passengers and the wing was initially the same as that of the underwing configuration. This
configuration, with the changes described below, was the one finally chosen for production. Although
good transonic wind tunnel results had been obtained for the cruise wing at the Boeing Transonic
Wind tunnel, low speed wind tunnel tests at CTA indicated that the maximum lift coefficient values
would not meet the short take-off and landing field lengths required for regional airline operations.
At about the same time, market surveys indicated that the potential clients would not require cruise
speeds in excess of Mach 0.75 to 0.78. This provided design margins to allow the leading edge to be
modified with a fixed 'droop' and the wing root flap chord to be extended by 0.15 m. The droop was
 59

designed using the 2D and 3D full

potential methods. Additionally,
four vortilons were installed on the
lower surface leading edge of the
outboard wing panel. During the
initial flight test campaign, some
adverse yaw (aileron roll command
to the left would produce a slight
Figure 3.3.3 Leading Edge Droop and Vortilons
yawing moment to the right and
vice-versa) was noticed during
climb. The ailerons already possessed differential gearing (the aileron whose trailing edge is going
up always deflects more than the one whose trailing edge is going down) to counter the theoretically
predicted adverse yaw, but the effect in flight was found to be larger than expected. Flow
visualizations with wool tufts showed that the aileron going down had some regions of separated
flow. This produced additional drag at that wingtip, which in turn produced the increased adverse
yaw. The problem was solved by placing a row of vortex generators in front of the aileron to 'energize'
the boundary layer and delay its separation. (See Figure 3.3.3).

3.3.3 Pressure Distributions on Wings

Here, some general design considerations for the pressure distribution on wings designed for
transonic flight conditions (the focus of this book is on this kind of aircraft) are given. In defining the
wing shape the following aerodynamic parameters have to be taken into consideration:
1 In cruising flight:
➢ CL
➢ CD
➢ Drag Creep
2 Around the boundaries of cruise flight conditions:
➢ Buffet Boundaries
➢ Maximum Buffet Penetration
➢ Stability and Control above Buffet onset (Pitch and Roll)
➢ Margined Between MMO and MD
➢ Stability and Control between MO and MD
3 At low speeds:
➢ CLmax for all aircraft configurations
➢ Buffet Boundary
➢ Stalling Characteristics for all Aircraft Configurations Over the complete C.G. range
(both pitch and roll)
➢ Lift/Drag ratio at one engine -out initial climb speed
4 For structural and trim drag reasons:
➢ Section zero-lift pitching moment distribution along the span or for the cruse
condition
➢ Moment distribution for aircraft-less-tail
The prime characteristics defining the wing design are:
• Mdesign and CLdesign (the latter due to wing loading W/S and cruise altitude)
• Aspect ratio (A), sweep angle (Λ) and the basic airfoil section in the outboard wing.
 60

Defining these characteristics is of most importance for the outboard wing, because when minimum
induced drag is pursued, then the spanwise lift distribution (Cl x chord versus wing span) has to be
elliptical. Consequently, on a tapered wing, Clmax is found at 60-70% of the semi-span. This is then
the section with the most severe design requirements.

3.3.4 Control Surfaces

Aircraft flight control surfaces are aerodynamic devices allowing a pilot to adjust and control the
aircraft's flight attitude. Development of an effective set of flight control surfaces was a critical
advance in the development of aircraft. Early efforts at fixed-wing aircraft design succeeded in
generating sufficient lift to get the aircraft off the ground, but once aloft, the aircraft proved
uncontrollable, often with disastrous results. The development of effective flight controls is what
allowed stable flight84.
The directional control of a fixed-wing aircraft takes place around the lateral, longitudinal, and
vertical axes by means of flight control surfaces designed to create movement about these axes.
These control devices are hinged or movable surfaces through which the attitude of an aircraft is
controlled during takeoff, flight, and landing. They are usually divided into two major groups:
1) primary or main flight control surfaces and
2) secondary or auxiliary
control surface
The primary flight control
surfaces on a fixed-wing aircraft
include: ailerons, elevators,
and the rudder. The ailerons are
attached to the trailing edge of
both wings and when moved,
rotate the aircraft around the
longitudinal axis. The elevator is
attached to the trailing edge of
the horizontal stabilizer. When
it is moved, it alters aircraft
pitch, which is the attitude
about the horizontal or lateral
axis. The rudder is hinged to the
trailing edge of the vertical
stabilizer. When the rudder
changes position, the aircraft
rotates about the vertical axis
(yaw). Figure 3.3.4 shows the
primary flight controls of a light
aircraft and the movement they
create relative to the three axes
of flight. Primary control
surfaces constructed from
composite materials are also
commonly used. These are
Figure 3.3.4 Flight control surfaces move the aircraft around the
found on many heavy and high- three axes of flight (Courtesy of Aeronautics Guide Web Page)
performance aircraft, as well as

84 Wikipedia
 61

gliders, home-built, and light-sport aircraft. The weight and strength advantages over traditional
construction can be significant. A wide variety of materials and construction techniques are
employed85.

a) Fixed Aileron

b) Morphing Aileron system

Figure 3.3.5 Aileron Surface

3.3.4.1 Primary Control Surfaces

3.3.4.1.1 Ailerons
Ailerons are mounted on the trailing edge of each wing near the wingtips and move in opposite
directions. When the pilot moves the stick left, or turns the wheel counter-clockwise, the left aileron
goes up and the right aileron goes down. A raised aileron reduces lift on that wing and a lowered one
increases lift, so moving the stick left causes the left wing to drop and the right wing to rise. This
causes the aircraft to roll to the left and begin to turn to the left. Centering the stick returns the
ailerons to neutral maintaining the bank angle. The aircraft will continue to turn until opposite
aileron motion returns the bank angle to zero to fly straight. (Figure 3.3.5 a-b)86.

Figure 3.3.6 In (a) is the OAT15A Airfoil geometry and in (b) the Pressure distribution with the Aileron
deflected at 6 degrees

85 Aeronautics Guide
86 Wikipedia
 62

3.3.4.1.2 Case Study 1 – Aileron Effects on a 2D Airfoil for Steady CFD

The airfoil geometry is shown in
Figure 3.3.6 (Lancelot & De
Breuker, 2020)87. We perform
CFD using Ansys Fluent with a RANS
K-ω SST turbulence model [1].
Steady wind tunnel results for this
airfoil are used as validation, in the
conditions described by Fillola [2].
The airfoil angle of attack is set at
1.5 degrees, the aileron is deflected
down by 6 degrees, and the Mach
number is M = 0.73. The transonic
shock is visible on the pressure
coefficient plot, and we can see a
good agreement between the CFD Figure 3.3.7 Lift coefficient increment from -25 to +25 degrees
Aileron deflections
results and the experiment. The
airfoil is set to 0 degrees angle of
attack (AoA), as we are mostly interested in load increments from control reflections. Incidence
effects between the wing AoA and the lift increment are not considered. The static aileron sweep in
Figure 3.3.7 highlights the non-linearity of the lift increment. It was rivetted that the shock position
moving downstream when the aileron is deflected down, as shown in Figure 3.3.8. The linear region
in Figure 3.3.7 is sustained longer for high negative deflection angles due to the shock being
mitigated on the upper surface of the wing when the aileron is deflected up. Similar observations
were already made by Fillola [2].

Figure 3.3.8 Mach flow contours around the airfoil with AoA = 0 deg. The shock moves downstream
as the aileron is deflected down

87Lancelot, P., & De Breuker, R. (2020). Unsteady Non-linear Control Surface Modelling for Aeroservoelastic
Applications. ASD Journal, 23-44.
 63

3.3.4.1.3 References
[1] Ansys fluent 12.0 theory guide - 4.5.2 shear-stress transport (SST) - model.
[2] G. Fillola. Étude expérimentale et simulations numériques d’écoulements autour des surfaces
mobiles de voilure. Phd thesis, Toulouse, ENSAE, January 2006.
3.3.4.1.4 Elevator
The elevator is a moveable part of the horizontal stabilizer, hinged to the back of the fixed part of
the horizontal tail (see Figure 3.3.9). The elevators move up and down together. When the pilot
pulls the stick backward, the elevators go up. Pushing the stick forward causes the elevators to go
down. Raised elevators push down on the tail and cause the nose to pitch up. This makes the wings
fly at a higher angle of attack, which generates more lift and more drag. Centering the stick returns
the elevators to neutral and stops the change of pitch. Some aircraft, such as an MD-80, use a servo
tab within the elevator surface to aerodynamically move the main surface into position. The
direction of travel of the control tab will thus be in a direction opposite to the main control surface.
It is for this reason that an MD-80 tail looks like it has a 'split' elevator system. In the canard
arrangement, the elevators are hinged to the rear of a fore plane and move in the opposite sense, for
example when the pilot pulls the stick back the elevators go down to increase the lift at the front and
lift the nose up.

Figure 3.3.9 Flight control surfaces of Boeing 727 (Wikipedia)

3.3.4.1.5 Rudder
The rudder is typically mounted on the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer, part of
the empennage. When the pilot pushes the left pedal, the rudder deflects left. Pushing the right pedal
causes the rudder to deflect right. Deflecting the rudder right pushes the tail left and causes the nose
to yaw to the right. Centering the rudder pedals returns the rudder to neutral and stops the yaw. (see
Figure 3.3.9).
 64

3.3.4.2 Secondary Control Surfaces

Secondary flight control systems may consist of
wing flaps, leading edge devices, spoilers, and
trim systems.
3.3.4.2.1 Flaps
Flaps are the most common high-lift devices
used on aircraft. These surfaces, which are
attached to the trailing edge of the wing,
increase both lift and induced drag for any
given AOA. Flaps allow a compromise between
high cruising speed and low landing speed
because they may be extended when needed Figure 3.3.10 KLM Fokker 70, showing position of
and retracted into the wing’s structure when flap and lift dumpers flight controls
not needed. The flaps are the large drooped
surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing. (see
Figure 3.3.10).
3.3.4.2.2 Spoilers
Found on some fixed-wing aircraft, high drag
devices called spoilers are deployed from the
wings to spoil the smooth airflow, reducing lift
and increasing drag. On gliders, spoilers are
most often used to control rate of descent for
accurate landings. On other aircraft, spoilers
are often used for roll control, an advantage of
which is the elimination of adverse yaw. To
turn right, for example, the spoiler on the right
Figure 3.3.11 Spoilers reduce lift and increase
wing is raised, destroying some of the lift and
drag during descent and landing
creating more drag on the right. The right wing
drops, and the aircraft banks and yaws to the
right. Deploying spoilers on both wings at the
same time allows the aircraft to descend
without gaining speed. Spoilers are also
deployed to help reduce ground roll after
landing. By destroying lift, they transfer weight
to the wheels, improving braking effectiveness.
[see Error! Reference source not found.].
3.3.4.2.3 Slats
Slats, also known as leading edge devices, are
extensions to the front of a wing for lift
augmentation, and are intended to reduce the
stalling speed by altering the airflow over the
wing. Slats may be fixed or retractable - fixed
slats give excellent slow speed
and STOL capabilities, but compromise higher
speed performance. Retractable slats, as seen
on most airliners, provide reduced stalling Figure 3.3.12 Flexible Slats (Wikipedia)
speed for take-off and landing, but are retracted
for cruising. (see the orange ring on Figure 3.3.12). Schmidt & Wild [1] developed A passive-
 65

adaptive slat concept which was designed to avoid separation in the root region of a horizontal-axis
wind turbine blade.
[1] Florian N. Schmidt and Jochen Wild, “Development of a passive-adaptive slat for a wind turbine
Airfoil”, DOI: 10.1002/we.2696, 2021.
3.3.4.2.4 Control Trimming Surfaces
Although an aircraft can be operated throughout a wide range of attitudes, airspeeds, and power
settings, it can be designed to fly hands-off within only a very limited combination of these variables.
Trim systems are used to relieve the pilot of the need to maintain constant pressure on the flight
controls, and usually consist of flight deck controls and small hinged devices attached to the trailing
edge of one or more of the primary flight
control surfaces. Designed to help minimize
a pilot’s workload, trim systems
aerodynamically assist movement and
position of the flight control surface to
which they are attached. Common types of
trim systems include trim tabs, balance
tabs, anti-servo tabs, ground adjustable
tabs, and an adjustable stabilizer.
3.3.4.2.5 Trim Tabs
The most common installation on small
aircraft is a single trim tab attached to the
trailing edge of the elevator88. Most trim
tabs are manually operated by a small,
vertically mounted control wheel.
However, a trim crank may be found in
some aircraft. The flight deck control
includes a trim tab position indicator.
Placing the trim control in the full nose-
down position moves the trim tab to its full
up position. With the trim tab up and into
the airstream, the airflow over the
horizontal tail surface tends to force the Figure 3.3.13 The movement of the elevator is
trailing edge of the elevator down. This opposite to the direction of movement of the elevator
causes the tail of the aircraft to move up and trim tab
the nose to move down. (see Figure
3.3.13). If the trim tab is set to the full nose-up position, the tab moves to its full down position. In
this case, the air flowing under the horizontal tail surface hits the tab and forces the trailing edge of
the elevator up, reducing the elevator’s AOA. This causes the tail of the aircraft to move down and
the nose to move up.
In spite of the opposing directional movement of the trim tab and the elevator, control of trim is
natural to a pilot. If the pilot needs to exert constant back pressure on a control column, the need for
nose-up trim is indicated. The normal trim procedure is to continue trimming until the aircraft is
balanced and the nose-heavy condition is no longer apparent. Pilots normally establish the desired
power, pitch attitude, and configuration first, and then trim the aircraft to relieve control pressures
that may exist for that flight condition. As power, pitch attitude, or configuration changes,
retrimming is necessary to relieve the control pressures for the new flight condition.

88 Flight Controls, Ch. 6

 66

3.3.4.3 Difference Between Ailerons, Flaps and Spoilers

Other descriptions are available for primary/secondary controls surfaces. For example, according to
[Hachi Ko, Pilot (ATP) & Air Traffic Controller (FAA Terminal ATC-12)], Ailerons are used to bank
the airplane and are usually positioned symmetrically on both wings; that is, an aileron on one wing
has an identical counterpart in an identical or “mirror” location on the opposite wing. An up aileron
reduces the lift (and drag) and a down aileron increases the lift (and drag). Corresponding ailerons
act or move opposite (in opposite directions) to each other… if one goes up, the other goes down, and
vice-versa. Working together, an up aileron on one wing and the corresponding down aileron on the
other banks the airplane. The drag is opposite to the turn, but careful aileron design and/or use of
the rudder can counter this.
Although there are several different types of flaps, a flap is, essentially, a down aileron. Like ailerons,
flaps are usually positioned symmetrically on both wings. Unlike ailerons, corresponding flaps act or
move together, in the same direction. If one goes down, the other goes down. Flaps do not typically
go above a neutral setting (i.e. Up),
although some flaps do have
“negative” settings, typically only
to be used during cruise flight. It’s
difficult to see the difference
between a simple flap and an
aileron just by looking, unless they
are moving, since they are
essentially the same kind of
control surface. However, you can
easily tell the difference when they
are in motion, and flaps are usually
positioned inboard of ailerons.
(Figure 3.3.14). Some airplanes
use the same control surfaces as
both ailerons and flaps. Such a
surface is called a “Flaperon.”
There is a third control surface ;
the spoiler, which is the “opposite” Figure 3.3.14 Ailerons vs. Flaps
of a flap. Spoilers only go “up” from
neutral and act like an up aileron,
reducing lift. On larger airplanes, spoilers are often used for roll control. Both flaps and spoilers can
also be deflected greatly, disturbing the airflow over the wing to the point that a great deal of lift is
lost and/or drag is added. This mode is sometimes used immediately after landing, to keep the
airplane on the ground.
 67

3.3.5 Case Study 2 – Reducing Drag in Aeroelastic Wing via Active Wing Shaping Control
The commercial transport industry is trending towards incorporating composite materials and other
lightweight materials with the goal of achieving more energy-efficient aircraft (Chaparro et al.,
2017)89. Weight reduction leads to lower lift requirements and subsequent reductions in drag and
thrust requirements.
Ultimately, lower drag
and thrust translate into
higher efficiency and
lower fuel consumption.
The additional
structural flexibility of
these lightweight
materials can, Figure 3.3.15 Generic Transport Model (GTM) with Flexible Wing
however, lead to
aeroelastic interactions that can degrade aerodynamic performance at off-design conditions.
Recovering off-design performance through the use of active wing shaping control can maximize the
benefits of employing lightweight/highly flexible aerospace materials in wing structures. (Figure
3.3.15).
In 2010, a conceptual study titled “Elastically Shaped Future Air Vehicle Concept” [1] was conducted
by NASA to investigate multiple active wing shaping control concepts for flexible wings. The study
proposed the Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap (VCCTEF) control effector as a
means to elastically control the wing washout twist and wing bending deflection to change the
local angle of attack to reduce drag [1-4]. The Fixed Wing project Active Aeroelastic Shape Control
(AASC) element, NASA and Boeing conducted a joint study to investigate the application and potential
of the VCCTEF [5-6].
As shown in Figure 3.3.16, the VCCTEF is composed of multiple spanwise flap sections connected
by flexible elastomer material. Unlike traditional flap systems, elastomer material is incorporated as
a means to prevent vorticity generation between flap sections that occurs if a geometric discontinuity
exists. The
VCCTEF
configuration for
the General
Transport Model
(GTM) is
comprised of
three chordwise
segments per
spanwise flap, as
shown in Figure
3.3.18 where
each segment
can finely tune
the camber of the
wing at any point
within the flight
envelope. Figure 3.3.16 VCCTEF Configuration on a Notional Transport Wing

Daniel Chaparro, Gustavo E. C. Fujiwara, Eric Ting and Nhan Nguyen, “Transonic and Viscous Potential Flow
89

Method Applied to Flexible Wing Transport Aircraft”, AIAA 2017-4221. DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-4221
 68

The aircraft used in this study

is based on the NASA Generic
Transport Model (GTM),
which is a research model
that originated from NASA
Langley Research Center.
The model is selected
because subsonic wind
Figure 3.3.18 VCCTEF Section with 3 Camber Segments (Green)
tunnel data is available for Compared to a Traditional Flap System (Blue)
validation of computational
models. The GTM is a notional single-aisle, mid-size, 200-passenger aircraft1. The design lift
coefficient is ¯CL = 0.51 at the design mid-cruise condition of M = 0.797 at 36000 ft, however, the
stiffness properties of the GTM wing are scaled by half to represent current trends towards
lightweight and flexible wing designs. Therefore, the GTM with the flexible wing is modeled as having
a cruise ¯CL = 0.497 to account
for the weight benefit of a
lighter, but more flexible wing.
The GTM equipped with the
VCCTEF is shown in Figure
3.3.17.
3.3.5.1 References
[1] Nguyen, N., “Elastically
Shaped Future Air Vehicle
Concept,” NASA Innovation
Fund Award 2010 Report,
Submitted to NASA Innovative
Partnerships Program Office,
October 8, 2010. Figure 3.3.17 Illustration of the GTM Aircraft Equipped with the
[2] Nguyen, N., and Urnes, J., VCCTEF
“Aeroelastic Modeling of
Elastically Shaped Aircraft Concept via Wing Shaping Control for Drag Reduction,” AIAA Atmospheric
Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA-2012-4642, August 2012.
[3] Nguyen, N., Trinh, K., Reynolds, K., Kless, J., Aftosmis, M., Urnes, J., and Ippolito C., “Elastically
Shaped Wing Optimization and Aircraft Concept for Improved Cruise Efficiency,” 51st AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, AIAA-
2013-0141, January 2013.
[4] Ippolito, C., Nguyen, N., Totah, J., Trinh, K., Ting, E., “Initial Assessment of a Variable-Camber
Continuous Trailing-Edge Flap System for Drag-Reduction of Non-Flexible Aircraft in Steady-State
Cruise Condition,” AIAA Infotech@Aerospace (I@A) Conference, AIAA-2013-5143, August 2013.
[5] Boeing Report No. 2010X0015, "Development of Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap
System,” October 4, 2012.
[6] Urnes, Sr., J., Nguyen, N., Ippolito, C., Totah, J., Trinh, K., Ting, E., “A Mission-Adaptive Variable
Camber Flap Control System to Optimize High Lift and Cruise Lift-to-Drag Ratios of Future N+3
Transport Aircraft,” 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and
Aerospace Exposition, AIAA-2013-0214, January 2013.
[7] Lebofsky, S., Ting, E., Nguyen, N., “Multidisciplinary Drag Optimization of Reduced Stiffness
Flexible Wing Aircraft With Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap,” 56th
AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA-2015-1408,
January 2015.
 69

3.4 Pressure Distributions Over Aircraft Fuselage

The pressure distribution
over an aircraft fuselage
shows the same
characteristics as explained
here and on the previous
page as illustrated in Figure
3.4.1. The difference in
theoretical and experimental
pressure distribution at the
position of the tail is caused
by the theory not taking the
vertical tail into account.
Notice the increase in
pressure between cockpit
and wing. Because here the
fuselage has a cylindrical
shape the pressure
coefficient increases towards
zero, for θ = 0° and 90°. For θ
=180° the pressure
coefficient even becomes
positive shortly before the
wing because of the
proximity of the stagnation
area at the wing leading edge.
For θ = 0° the effect of the
rapid changes in the cockpit
contour can be seen. The flow
accelerates, decelerates and
accelerates again rapidly at Figure 3.4.1 Fuselage Pressure Distribution Comparison, Boeing 747.
Source: AIAA Paper No 72-188
these locations. Figure
3.4.1 shows a comparison
between the pressure distribution from wind tunnel tests and as obtained with a numerical method.
Apparently, the method used was not sufficiently sophisticated to handle the high local velocities at
the cockpit canopy resulting in large discrepancies between the data from the tests and the
calculations.
 70

Figure 3.4.1 Comparisons of Crown Line Pressure Distributions For a Low Wing Transport
Configuration at M∞ = 0.84 and α = 2.8 o , Boeing 747. Source: AIAA Paper No 72-188

3.5 Structural Considerations

Primary concern in the design process is to obtain an airplane with low structural weight. This is
achieved by provision of efficient load path i.e. structural elements by which the opposing forces are
connected. It may be recalled that the structural members are of the following types.
➢ Struts which take tension
➢ Columns which take compressive load
➢ Beams which transfer normal loads
➢ Shafts which transmit torsion
➢ Levers which transfer the load along with change of direction.
The most efficient way of transmitting the load is when the force is transmitted in an axial direction.
In the case of airplane the lift acts vertically upwards and the weights of various components and
the payload act vertically downwards. In this situation, the sizes and weights of structural members
are minimized or the structure is efficient if opposing forces are aligned with each other. This has
led to the flying wing or blended wing-body concept in which the structural weight is minimized as
the lift is produced by the wing and the entire weight of the airplane is also in the wing. However, in
a conventional airplane the payload and systems are in the fuselage. The wing produces the lift and
as a structural member it behaves like a beam. Hence to reduce the structural weight, the fuel tanks,
engines and landing gears are located on the wing, as they act as relieving load. Reduction in number
of cutouts and access holes, consistent with maintenance requirements, also reduces structural
weight.
 71

3.6 Environmental Impacts

In recent years factors like aircraft noise, emissions and ecological effects have acquired due
importance and have begun to influence airplane lay out. Following remarks can be made:

3.6.1 Airplane Noise

Noise during the arrival and departure of the airplane affects the community around the airport.
The noise is generated by:
➢ The engines
➢ Parts of the airframe like control surfaces and high lift devices which significantly change
the airflow direction
➢ Projections in airflow like landing gear and spoilers
Considerable research has been carried out to reduce the engine noise. High by-pass ratio engines
with lobed nozzle have significantly lowered
the noise level. Noise level inside the cabin has
to be minimal. This is achieved by suitable
noise insulation. Further, the clearance
between cabin and the propeller should not be
less than the half of the radius of the propeller.
In regard to last item, one of major contributors
to noise pollution are landing gears. During
landing, when the engines are operating at
reduced power, noise from the airframe,
including landing gear, can be equal to or
greater than the engine noise. This
visualization, from a collaboration between
NASA and Boeing about airframe noise
prediction, shows the simulated air flow field
around the nose landing gear of a Boeing 777, Figure 3.6.1 Simulating Nose Landing Gear
representing the complex unsteady flow Components of Boeing 777
generated by the gear components. The
visualization is colored by speed, from slower green to faster red air velocities. A strong vortex
appears coming off the edge of the landing gear doors. Simulations run on NASA supercomputers at
Ames allow researchers to better understand the changes in flow behavior that contribute to
airframe noise. (see Figure 3.6.1). Image credit: NASA's Ames Research Center, Patrick Moran;
NASA's Langley Research Center, Mehdi Khorrami; Exa Corporation, Ehab Fares

3.6.2 Emissions
Combustion of the fuel in an engine produces carbon dioxide, water vapor, various oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and Sulphur dioxide (SO2). The
components other than carbon dioxide and water vapor are called pollutants. The thrust setting
changes during the flight and hence the emission levels have to be controlled during landing, take-
off and climb segment up to 3000 ft (1000 m). At high altitudes the NOx components may deplete
ozone layer. Hence, supersonic airplanes may not be allowed to fly above 50000 ft (15 km) altitude.
It may be noted that cruising altitude for Concorde was 18 km. Improvements in engine design have
significantly reduced the level of pollutants. The amount of pollution caused by air transport is
negligible as compared to that caused by road transport, energy generation and industry. However,
the aircraft industry has always been responsive to the ecological concerns and newer technologies
have emerged in the design of engine and airframe.
 72

3.7 Performance Estimation

The performance analysis includes the following:
➢ The variation of stalling speed (VS) at various altitudes.
➢ Variations with altitude of maximum speed (Vmax) and minimum speed from power output
consideration (Vmin)Power. The minimum speed of the airplane at an altitude will be the higher
of VS and (Vmin)Power. The maximum speed and minimum speed will decide the flight envelope.
➢ Variations with altitude of the maximum rate of climb and maximum angle of climb ; the flight
being treated as steady climb.
➢ To arrive at the cruising speed and altitude, choose a range of altitudes around the cruising
altitude mentioned in the specifications. At each of these altitudes obtain the range in
constant velocity flights choosing different velocities. The information on appropriate values
of specific fuel consumption (SFC) can be obtained from the engine charts. The values of
range obtained at different speeds and altitudes be plotted as range vs velocity curves with
altitude as parameter. Draw an envelope of these curves. The altitude and velocity at which
the range is maximum can be considered as the cruising speed (V cruise) and cruising altitude
(hcruise). These curves also give information about the range of flight speeds and altitudes
around Vcruise and hcruise at which near optimum performance is obtained.
➢ The maximum rate of turn and the minimum radius of turn in steady level turn depend on
the thrust available, and the permissible load factor. The value of CLmax used here is that
without the flaps. For high speed airplanes the value of CLmax depends also on Mach number;
➢ Take - off run and take - off distance: During take-off an airplane accelerates on the ground.
For an airplane with nose wheel type of landing gear, around a speed of 85% of the take-off
speed, the pilot pulls the stick back. Then, the airplane attains the angle of attack
corresponding to take-off and the airplane leaves the ground. The point at which the main
wheels leave the ground is called the unstick point and the distance from the start of take-off
point to the unstick point is called the ground run. After the unstick, the airplane goes along
a curved path as lift is more than the weight. This phase of take-off is called transition at the
end of which the airplane climbs along a straight line. The take-off phase is said to be over
when the airplane attains screen height which is generally 15 m above the ground. The
horizontal distance from the start of the take off to the where the airplane attains screen
height is called take off distance. The takeoff run and the take-off distance can be estimated
by writing down equations of motion in different phases.
➢ Landing Distance: The landing flight begins when the airplane is at the screen height at a
velocity called the approach speed. During the approach phase the airplane descends along a
flight path of about 3 degrees. Subsequently the flight path becomes horizontal in the phase
called ‘flare’. In this phase the pilot also tries to touch the ground gently. The point where the
main wheels touch the ground is called touch down point. Subsequent to touch down, the
airplane rolls along the ground for about 3 seconds during which the nose wheel touches the
ground. This phase is called free roll. After this phase the brakes are applied and the airplane
comes to halt. In some airplanes, thrust in the reverse direction is produced by changing the
direction of jet exhaust or by reversible pitch propeller. In some airplanes, the drag is
increased by speed brakes, spoilers or parachutes. For airplanes which land on the deck of
the ship, an arresting gear is employed to reduce the landing distance. The horizontal distance
from the start of approach at screen height till the airplane comes to rest is called landing
distance.

3.7.1 General Remarks on Performance Estimation

1. Operating envelope:
 73

The maximum speed and minimum speed can be calculated from the level flight analysis.
However, the attainment of maximum speed may be limited by other considerations. The
operating envelope for an airplane is the range of flight speeds permissible at different
altitudes. Typical operating envelope for a military airplane is shown in [Tulapurkara]90
where reader are encouraged for detailed view of subject.
2. Energy height technique for climb performance:
The analysis of a steady climb shows that the velocity corresponding to maximum rate of
climb increases with altitude. Consequently, climb with involves acceleration and the rate of
climb will actually be lower than that given by the steady climb analysis. This is because a
part of the engine output would be used to increase the kinetic energy. Secondly, the aim of
the climb is to start from velocity near and at and attain a velocity near at h. To take these
aspects into account, it is more convenient to work in terms of energy height (he) instead of
height(h). The quantity he is defined as :

 V2   WV 2 
h e = h +   Multiply by W → Wh e = Wh +  
 2g   2g 
Eq. 3.7.1
The right hand side of the Eq. 3.7.1 is the sum of the potential energy and the kinetic energy of the
airplane. It is denoted by E. The energy height (he) which is E / W, is also called specific energy. It can
be shown that (dhe/ dt) = (TV – DV)/W and is referred to as specific excess power (Ps). Using energy
height concept the optimum climb path for fastest climb or economical climb can be worked out.
III) Range performance: For commercial airplanes the range performance is of paramount
importance. Hence, range performance with different amounts of payload and fuel on board the
airplane, needs to be worked out. In this context the following three limitations should to be
considered.
a) Maximum payload:
The number of seats and the size of the cargo compartment are limited. Hence maximum payload
capacity is limited.
b) Maximum fuel:
The size of the fuel tanks depends on the space in the wing and the fuselage to store the fuel. Hence,
there is limit on the maximum amount of fuel that can be carried by the airplane.
c) Maximum take-off weight:
The airplane structure is designed for a certain load factor and maximum take-off weight. This value
of weight cannot be exceed the limitations in mind a typical payload vs. range curve.

3.8 Fuselage and Tail Sizing

The primary purpose of the fuselage is to house the payload. As mentioned earlier, the payload is the
part of useful load from which the revenue is derived or for which the airplane is designed. In
transport airplanes the payload includes the passengers, their luggage and cargo. In military
airplanes it is the ammunition and /or special equipment. In addition to the payload, the fuselage
accommodates the following. In addition, the flight crew and the cabin crew in the transport airplane
and the specialist crew members in airplanes used for reconnaissance, patrol and remote sensing.
Also, fuel, engine and landing gear when they are housed inside the fuselage. Systems like air-
conditioning system, pressurization system, hydraulic system, electrical system, pneumatic system,
electronic systems, emergency oxygen, floatation vests and auxiliary power unit. Jet airplanes cruise

90E.G. Tulapurkara, ”Airplane design(Aerodynamic)”, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering., Indian Institute of

Technology, Madras, India.
 74

at altitudes of 10 to 14 km. The temperature and pressure are low at these altitudes. For the a
pressure corresponding 8000 ft (2438 m) in ISA is maintained in these portions of the fuselage. The
shell of the fuselage has to be designed to withstand the pressure difference between inside and
outside the cabin. Secondly, to isolate the cockpit and cabin, from ambient conditions, the cabin is
terminated with a pressure bulk head. The auxiliary power unit to engines and to supply power to
accessories when the engines are off.

3.8.1 Tail Cone/Rear Fuselage:

At the end of subsection, some remarks have been made regarding the tail cone of a general aviation
aircraft. Further, in the case of a passenger airplane the mid-fuselage has a cylindrical shape and is
followed by the tail cone or rear fuselage of a tapering shape. In passenger airplanes the tail cone is
of substantial length and the cabin layout extends into the rear fuselage. Galleys, toilets and storage
compartments are also located here along with the auxiliary power unit (APU). The rear fuselage also
supports the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces and the engine installation for rear mounted
engines. The lower side of the rear fuselage should provide adequate clearance (about 0.15 m) for
airplane during take-off and landing attitude (Figure 3.8.1). The length of the rear fuselage and
upsweep angle are also affected by (a) the height of the main landing gear and (b) the length of the
mid-fuselage after the main landing gear. For passenger airplanes (a) the ratio of length of the rear
fuselage to the equivalent diameter of the mid-fuselage is between 2.5 to 3.5 and (b) the upsweep
angle is between 15 to 20 degrees. For Boeing 777-300 this angle is 17 degrees.

Figure 3.8.1 Rear Fuselage Shape

3.9 Stability and Controllability

The ability of a vehicle to maintain its equilibrium is termed stability and the influence which the
pilot or control system can exert on the equilibrium is termed its controllability. The basic
requirement for static longitudinal stability of any airplane is a negative value of dCmcg /dCL. Dynamic
stability requires that the vehicle be not only statically stable, but also that the motions following a
disturbance from equilibrium be such as to restore the equilibrium. Even though the vehicle might
be statically stable, it is possible that the oscillations following a disturbance might increase in
magnitude with each oscillation, thereby making it impossible to restore the equilibrium (like
weather).

3.9.1 Static Longitudinal Stability and Control

The horizontal tail must be large enough to insure that the static longitudinal stability criterion,
dCmcg/dCL is negative for all anticipated center of gravity positions. An elevator should be provided so
that the pilot is able to trim the airplane (maintain Cm = 0) at all anticipated values of CL. The
horizontal tail should be large enough and the elevator powerful enough to enable the pilot to rotate
the airplane during the take-off run, to the required angle of attack. This condition is termed as the
nose wheel lift-off condition. For detailed view of this topics and more, please consult
 75

[Tulapurkara]91.

3.10 Control Theory Approach to Transport Airplane Design

A wing is a device to control the flow where applying the theory of controlling partial differential
equations in conjunction with CFD [Jameson]92. The simplest approach to optimization is to define
the geometry through a set of design parameters, which may, for example, be the weights αi applied
to a set of shape functions bi(x) so that the shape is represented as

f(x) = ∑ αi bi (x)
Eq. 3.10.1
Then a cost function (I) is selected which might, for example, be the drag coefficient or the lift to drag
ratio, and I is regarded as a function of the parameters αi. The sensitivities I may now be estimated
by making a small variation Sai in each design parameter in turn and recalculating the flow to obtain
the change in I. An alternative approach is to cast the design problem as a search for the shape that
will generate the desired pressure distribution. This approach recognizes that the designer usually
has an idea of the kind of pressure
distribution that will lead to the desired
performance. Thus, it is useful to consider
the inverse problem of calculating the
shape that will lead to a given pressure
distribution. The method has the
advantage that only one flow solution is
required to obtain the desired design.
Unfortunately, a physically realizable
shape may not necessarily exist, unless the
pressure distribution satisfies certain
constraints. Thus the problem must be very
carefully formulated. The shape changes in
the section needed to improve the
transonic wing (shock free) design are
quite small. However, in order to obtain a
true optimum design larger scale changes
Figure 3.10.1 Simplified Wing Planform of a
such as changes in the wing planform
Transport Aircraft - (Courtesy of Jameson)
(sweepback, span, chord, and taper) should
be considered. Because these directly affect
the structure weight, a meaningful result can only be obtained by considering a cost function that
takes account of both the aerodynamic characteristics and the weight. Consider a cost function (I) is
defined as

1
I = α1 CD + α2 ∫ (p − pd )2 dS + α3 CW
2 B
Eq. 3.10.2
where pd is the target pressure and the integral is evaluated over the actual surface area (S).

91 E.G. Tulapurkara, ”Airplane design(Aerodynamic)”, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering., Indian Institute of

Technology, Madras, India.
92 Antony Jameson, “Optimum Aerodynamic Design Using CFD and Control Theory”, Department of Mechanical

and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, AIAA 95-1729-CP.

 76

3.10.1 Design of Wing Planform

The wing section is modeled by surface mesh points and the wing planform is simply modeled by the
design variables shown in Figure 3.10.1 as root chord (c1), mid-span chord (c2), tip chord (c3), span
(b), sweepback (⩟), and wing thickness ratio (t)93. This choice of design parameters will lead to an
optimum wing shape that will not require an extensive structural analysis and can be manufactured
effectively. In the industry standard, it may require up to three hundred parameters to completely
describe the wing planform. Although we demonstrate our design methodology using the simplified
planform, our design method is still applicable to the industry standard because the adjoint method
is independent of the number of design variables. Thus our method can be easily extend to cover
many parameters without an increase in computational cost. Maximizing the range of an aircraft
provides a guide to the values for α1 and α3 as weight functions. In order to realize these advantages
it is essential to move beyond flow simulation to a capability for aerodynamic shape optimization (a
main focus of the first author research during the past decade) and ultimately multidisciplinary
system optimization. Figure 3.10.2 illustrates the result of an automatic redesign of the wing of the
Boeing 747, which indicates the potential for a 5 percent reduction in the total drag of the aircraft by
a very small shape modification. It is also important to recognize that in current practice the setup
times and costs of CFD simulations substantially exceed the solution times and costs. With presently
available software the processes of geometry modeling and grid generation may take weeks or even
months. In the preliminary design of the F22 Lockheed relied largely on wind-tunnel testing because
they could build models faster than they could generate meshes. It is essential to remove this
bottleneck if CFD is to be more effectively used. There have been major efforts in Europe to develop
an integrated software environment for aerodynamic simulations, exemplified by the German “Mega

Figure 3.10.2 Redesigned Boeing 747 Wing at Mach 0.86 based on Cp Distributions

Antony Jameson, Kasidit Leoviriyakit and Sriram Shankaran, “Multi-point Aero-Structural Optimization of
93

Wings Including Planform Variations”, 45th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January 8–11, 2007, USA.
 77

Flow” program. Figure 3.10.2 also displays Redesigned Boeing 747 wing at Mach 0.86 with Cp
distributions. In the final-design stage it is necessary to predict the loads throughout the flight
envelope. As many as 20000 design points may be considered. In current practice wind-tunnel
testing is used to acquire the loads data, both because the cumulative cost of acquisition via CFD still
exceeds the costs of building and testing properly instrumented models, and because a lack of
confidence in the reliability of CFD simulations of extreme flight conditions94.

3.10.2 Wing Structural Weight vs. Cruse Mach Number

The Lofting (Line Oriented Flight Training ) of the wing in CATIA® is necessary as input for the CAD
code. From the wing geometric definition obtained by running the code Asa Turbo, was possible to
create the CAD surfaces (Figure 3.10.3). Three airfoils define the wing geometry. These geometries
are located at the wing-fuselage intersection, trailing-edge break station, and at the tip. The airfoils

Figure 3.10.3 Wing Planform Calculated by CAD Software (Asa Turbo)

in between are obtained by linear interpolation from these three basic geometries as well as their
incidences. The profiles of the tip and break station are typical supercritical airfoils. The aft-camber
of the root-station airfoil was reduced in order to minimize interference drag. For an interesting
discussion regarding the Mach number interaction with wing conceptual design, readers are
encourage to consult the work by (André Delgado Regis, Bento Mattos and Roberto Girardi. "Wing
Structural Weight Evolution with the Cruise Mach Number of a Commercial Transport Aircraft," AIAA
2004-5192. 22nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference and Exhibit. August 2004).

3.11 Thought on Hierarchal Design Approach

Aero-engines and other large turbomachine components are very complex engineering systems.
Viewed as a single entity there might be hundred thousands of components. This is obviously too
large task to be handed by single designer and the computational costs are prohibit thought of global
back box optimization concept. To overcome these problems, is to use a hierarchal representation
in which the components is defined at different levels95. To avoid the huge computational cost of

94 Antony Jameson and, assisted by, Kui Ou, “Optimization Methods in Computational Fluid Dynamics”,
Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
95 M. B. Giles, “Some thoughts on exploiting CFD for turbomachinery design”, Oxford University Computing

Laboratory, 1998.
 78

analyzing the entire engine, the design of all aero-engines is carried out at two levels, preliminary
design and detailed component design. The preliminary design group considers the engine as an
entire system, thinking about the customer’s requirements, sizing the major components, deciding
which subsystems to retain from previous products, and aiming to maximize product over the
lifetime of the entire project.
At preliminary design process, many crucial design decisions have been made, such as engine
thrust, mass ow and fan radius. The second level of the design hierarchy is the design of individual
components within each subsystem, such as the HP turbine. The design intent for each component
has been fairly tightly specified in preliminary design, and many constraints have been imposed. The
task of the component design team is to full the design intent as well as possible (good aerodynamic

Figure 3.11.1 Tightly Coupled Two Level Design Process

performance, good structural integrity, low weight, etc.); subject to the constraints. To a large extent,
this is a matter of shape optimization, the non-geometric design parameters having been set in
preliminary design. It is worth mentioning that in some circles, there are also a conceptual design
box before preliminary. As described above, and illustrated in Figure 3.11.1 (left), the current
hierarchical design approach is sequential, preliminary design followed by component design. Except
in exceptional circumstances, the decisions made in preliminary design are not changed during
component design. This is due to preliminary design being rely based on empiricism rom past
experience, so major surprises are unlikely to arise during the component design process. There are
two weaknesses to this sequential design process. The first is that its success depends on the new
design not being too different from past designs, so that the empiricism in the modelling remains
valid. This makes it very difficult to develop radically new designs. The second drawback is that the
empiricism in the preliminary design system represents the collective experience of past projects,
but no two projects are ever identical. Even if the customer requirements are identical, technological
advances mean that the best engine or aircraft of today would be different from that designed twenty
years ago. To some extent this technological progress can be accounted for in the empiricism, but
inevitably preliminary design is based on only an approximate model of the system.
In the future, there may be a shift to a more tightly-coupled two-level design system, as illustrated in
Figure 3.11.1 (right). The overall system design will begin, as now, with a preliminary design
based on past empiricism. This will provide the starting point for the detailed component design. The
main reason a tightly coupled design system is not used today is time. The design time for an engine
or aircraft project is strictly limited.
79
 80

4 Airplane Conceptual Design (II)

4.1 Components Not Required to Generate Aerodynamic Forces
A number of aircraft components are not intended to generate aerodynamic forces. On these
components local super velocities should be minimized. Such components are:
➢ Front Fuselage including cockpit and canopies
➢ Center and rear fuselage section
➢ Engine Struts and pylons
➢ Fins in cruse flight
➢ Tail plane fin fairings , etc.
Number of various Figures are presented to displayed
pressure distributions on various front and center
fuselages (Obert, 2009)96. In Figure 4.1.1 the
pressure distribution over a cockpit is shown,
expressed as a local Mach number distribution. Due
to the convex shape the area over the cockpit
windows shows an increase in local Mach number up
to velocities close to the supersonic regime. Using
(CFD) calculations, local super velocities can be
analyzed and improvements could be made to Figure 4.1.1 Mach number distribution
minimize these. For example the shape of the cockpit on fuselage nose, McDonnell-Douglas
can be altered to reduce the size of areas with DC-10, M = 0.85
supersonic flow, resulting in less drag and cockpit
noise.
Using CFD calculations, more can be done to improve the drag characteristics of the aircraft. In
Figure 4.1.2 the outer flow velocity vectors are shown on the front fuselage of the Boeing 757. Being
able to predict these vectors, designers can design a rain protector (rain guide) above the cabin door
in the direction of the flow. If this guide is not parallel to the local flow direction the flow may separate
and increase drag. When wing and fuselage are considered together, super velocities of the individual
components are added. Before CFD
came in general use this effect was called
an interference effect. The lift over the
wing is increased due to the presence of
the fuselage.
The panel distribution used to calculate
the pressure distribution. Adding the
super velocities of the fuselage to those
of the wing alters the variation of the
local lift coefficient over the wing span.
The lift is increased due to the presence
of the fuselage. Also noticeable is the
difference between experimental data
and calculations, which is due to the
calculations having been performed for Figure 4.1.2 Outer flow velocity vectors. M = 0.80, α =
inviscid flow, whereas the experiments 2.5o. Source: AIAA 83-2060

96Ed Obert, “Aerodynamic Design of Transport Aircraft”, Published By IOS Press Under The Imprint Delft
University Press, ISBN 978-1-58603-970-7, 2009.
 81

concern viscous flow. When comparing data from calculations and experiments, the differences
found can be reduced by adding both thickness as well as viscosity effects. If only one of these two is
applied, the result in lift will not be consistent with results found from experiments. The unfavorable
summation of super velocities causes interference drag. In the design process shapes should
therefore be pursued such that a proper interposition of the various components leads to a favorable
summation of super velocities. This means that if one component has a negative pressure coefficient,
the intersecting component should at that location have a low negative or even positive CP.
This can be done by local shape modifications but in some cases this may not be sufficient. At the tail
plane-fin interaction for example a “waisted” body may be necessary. Studies were performed on
reducing the peak pressure coefficients between the fuselage and center nacelle at the fuselage aft-
end.
The original configuration showed supersonic flow and the associated drag due to shock waves. In
the final configuration, this has been reduced considerably. The unexpectedly high drag that was
found during flight tests. This high drag occurred at cruise Mach numbers and was not found in the

Figure 4.1.3 Boeing 747 cab extension, subsonic area ruling. Source: Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1973

wind tunnel tests. This was due to the unfavorable channel flow between the wing and the nacelles
which in flight showed a stronger supersonic flow and shock waves than in the wind tunnel tests
Wing-pylon-nacelle integration offers a real challenge in minimizing interference drag. The nacelle
must be positioned at a certain distance (in longitudinal and vertical sense) away from the wing. This
relation is based on a history of wind tunnel test data.
Using CFD techniques, it has become possible to move the nacelle closer to the wing, even to
previously thought-to-be unacceptable positions. Small improvements in aerodynamic quality in
order to lower the drag on aircraft in production is an ongoing process with most aircraft
manufacturers. When further development within a programmed takes place a considerable
reduction in drag is sometime realized. When the upper deck of the Boeing 747 was extended the
cross-sectional area distribution according to the transonic area rule was improved. This improved
the drag rise Mach number as is shown in Figure 4.1.3.

4.2 Components of Generating Aerodynamic Forces

Aerodynamic forces are required to be generated by:
➢ Wing
➢ Stabilizer (Horizontal Tail plane)
➢ Fin (Vertical Tail plane)
 82

➢ Control Surfaces (elevator, ailerons, rudder, spoiler panels, speed brakes)

Lift-producing surfaces should have the following characteristics, at an acceptable weight, wetted
area and internal volume:
➢ An as high as possible lift-curve gradient (CL vs α)
➢ An as high as possible maximum lift coefficient
➢ An as low as possible drag
➢ An as high as possible angle-of-attack where flow separation occurs.
For different lifting surfaces the order of importance of these points is not identical (for example: for
a fin the CLmax has the lowest priority but not so for a wing).

4.3 Aircraft Components Conceptual Design as Proposed by H. Sobieczky

4.3.1 Parameterized Curves and Surfaces
The geometry tool explained here has been developed in the years shortly before interactive graphic
workstations became available, originally for input with data lists but increasingly laid out for
interactive usage in the windows environment of the workstation. The list input still is the basic
option and data for such usage will be presented here for explanation. Focusing on surface modelling
of aerodynamically efficient aircraft components, we realize that the goal of shape generation
requires much control over contour quality like slopes and curvature, while structural constraints
require also corners, flat parts and other compromises against otherwise idealized shapes. When
familiarity is gained with a set of simple analytic functions and the possibility is used to occasionally
extend the existing collection of 1D functions, ground is laid to compose these functions suitably to
yield complex 2D curves and finally surfaces in 3D space. This way we intend to develop tools to
define data for airframe components with a nearly unlimited variety within conventional, new and
exotic configurations. A brief illustration of the principle to start with 1D functions, define curves in
2D planes and vary them in 3D space to create surfaces is given. For additional info, please see
[Sobieczky]97.
In the process of making this generally described geometry tool to become dedicated geometry
generator software for aerospace applications, a focusing on two main classes of surfaces has been
found useful. There are classes of surfaces which are traditionally ‘spanwise defined’ and others are
‘axially defined’. Lift-generating components like wings primarily belong to the first category while
fuselages are usually of the second kind. With this distinction having led to several practical versions
of geometry generators, it should not be considered too dogmatically: especially novel configuration
concepts in the high Mach number flight regime are modelled without the above distinction as will
be illustrated below, after describing the creating of conventional wings and fuselages.
4.3.2 Analytical Sections and Input for Inverse Design
Spline fits are well suited for redistribution of qualitatively acceptable dense data. The possible
occurrence of contour wiggles has restricted their use in the geometry tool discussed here to the
abovementioned option accepting external data, which is realistic for airfoils to be implemented in
wing design. For a more independent approach we may ask for a more elegant analytical
representation of wing sections, especially if these shapes still should be optimized. An important
question arising is how many free parameters are needed for representation of arbitrary, typical
wing sections, with the shape close enough to duplicate CFD or experimental results of aerodynamic
performance with reasonable accuracy. Our successive refinement of airfoil generator subroutines
using variously segmented curves has shown that an amount of 10 to 25 parameters may suffice for
quite satisfactory representation of a given airfoil. The upper limit applies to transonic and laminar

97 Helmut Sobieczky, “Geometry Generator for CFD and Applied Aerodynamics”, Geometry Generator for CFD and
Applied Aerodynamics.
 83

flow control airfoils with delicate curvature distribution as illustrated for a shock-free transonic
airfoil, where the influence of local curvature variations on the drag polar can be seen. The lower
limit seems to apply for simpler yet practical subsonic airfoils and for most supersonic sections. With
a library of functions applied to provide parametric definition of airfoils, another application of this
technique seems attractive: new inverse airfoil and wing design methods need input target pressure
distributions for specified operation conditions and numerical results are found for airfoil and wing
shapes. The status of these methods is reviewed in the next book chapter. Given the designer’s
experience in aerodynamics for selecting suitable pressure distributions, choice of a few basic
functions and parameters may provide a dense set of data just like geometry coordinates are
prescribed, the amount of needed parameters for typical attractive pressure distributions about the
same as for the direct airfoil modelling.
4.3.2.1 Variable Camber Sections
Lifting wings need mechanical control devices to vary their effective camber. Geometrical definition
of simple hinged and deflected leading and trailing edges are defined by airfoil chordwise hinge
locations and deflection angles. A more sophisticated mechanical flow control includes elastic surface
components to ensure a certain surface smoothness across the hinge, such devices are called sealed
slats and flaps (Figure 4.3.1)98. Spline portions or other analytical connection fits may suitably
model any proposed mechanical device, an additional parameter is the chord portion needed for the
elastic sealing.

Figure 4.3.1 Variable Camber Sealed Flap Example – Courtesy of Sobieczky

4.3.2.2 Multicomponent Airfoils

While sealed flaps and slats are suitable for supersonic wings, the much more complicated
multicomponent high lift systems have been developed for current subsonic transport aircraft. In

98 Flap deflection as a function of angle of attack variations, for constant lift. Airfoil in transonic flow, M ∞ = 0.75,
Re = 4 x 106, CL = 0.7, (MSES analysis).
 84

addition to angular deflection of slat and flap components, they require kinematic shifting devices
housed within flap track fairings below the wing. For a mathematical and parameter-controlled
description of slat and flap section geometries within the clean airfoil, the richness of our function
catalog provides suitable shapes and track curves for a realistic modelling of these components in
every phase of start and landing configurations. Figure 4.3.2 illustrates a multicomponent high lift
system in 2D and 3D.

Figure 4.3.2 Wing Sections for Multi-Component High Lift System, 3D Swept Wing with Slat
and Flaps - Courtesy of Sobieczky

4.3.3 Spanwise Defined Components (Aircraft Wings)

Aerodynamic performance of aircraft mainly depends on the quality of its wing, design focuses
therefore on optimizing this component. Using the present shape design method, we illustrate the
amount of needed “key curves” along wing span which is inevitably needed to describe and vary the
wing shape, Figure 4.20. The key numbers are just identification names: span of the wing y in the
wing coordinate system is a function of a first independent variable 0 < p < 1, the curve yo(p) is key
20. All following parameters are functions of this wing span: planform and twist axis (keys 21-23),
dihedral (24) and actual 3D space span coordinate (25), section twist (26) and a spanwise section
thickness distribution factor (27). Finally we select a suitably small number of support airfoils to
form sections of this wing. Key 28 defines a blending function 0 < r < 1 which is used to define a mix
between the given airfoils, say, at the root, along some main wing portions and at the tip. The
graphics in Figure 4.3.3 shows how the basic airfoils, designed with subsonic or with supersonic
leading edges, may be dominating across this wing. Practical designs may require a larger number of
input airfoils and a careful tailoring of the section twist to arrive at optimum lift distribution, for a
given planform. Recent updates to the wing generation include a spanwise definition of the
previously mentioned 10 - 25 airfoil parameters as additional key functions, replacing given support
airfoils and the blending key 28. Because of an explicit description of each wing surface point without
any interpolation and iteration, other than sectional data arrays describing the exact surface may
easily be obtained very rapidly with analytical accuracy. Wings with high lift systems are created
using multicomponent airfoils either for upswept wings with simply their varied deflected 2D
configurations as illustrated in Figure 4.3.1, or in the more practical case of swept components
(Figure 4.3.2) rotation axes and flap tracks need to be described as lines and curves in 3D space.
 85

The clean airfoil configuration of the system is then changed observing the given 3D kinematics.

Figure 4.3.3 Wing Parameters and Respective key numbers for Section Distribution,
Planform, an/Dihedral, Twist, Thickness Distribution and Airfoil Blending - Courtesy of Sobieczky

4.3.4 Other Components with Wing-Type Parameterization

Besides aircraft wings the tail and rudder fins as well as canard components are of course treatable
with the same type of parameters and key functions. Highly swept and very short aspect ratio wing
type components are the pylons for jet engines mounted to the aircraft wing; they need to be
optimized in a flow critically passing between wing and engine. Generally any solid boundary
condition to be optimized in flow with a substantial crossing velocity component is suitably defined
as a spanwise defined component with a parameter set as illustrated for the wing.
4.3.5 Axially Defined Components (Fuselage Bodies, Nacelles, Propulsion and Tunnel Geometries)
This group of shapes is basically aligned with the main flow direction, the usual development is
directed toward creating volume for payload, propulsion or, in internal aerodynamics (and
hydrodynamics) the development of channel and pipe geometries. The parameters of cross sections
are quite different to those of airfoils; the quality of their change along a main axis with constraints
for given areas within the usually symmetrical contour is the design challenge. Fuselages are
therefore described by another set of “keys” which is defined along the axis. This axis may be a curve
in 3D space, with available gradients providing cross section planes normal to the axis. For simple
straight axes in the cartesian x-direction key 40 defines axial stations just like key 20 defines
spanwise x-stations. With the simplest cross section consisting of super elliptic quarters allowing a
choice of the half axes or crown lines and body planform, plus the exponents ( with the value of 2. for
ellipses), 8 parameters (key 41 - 48) are given (Figure 4.3.4).
Basic bodies are described easily this way, with either explicitly calculating the horizontal coordinate
 86

Figure 4.3.4 Fuselage Parameters and Respective Key Numbers for Cross Section Definition,
Planform and Crown Lines, Super Elliptic Exponents - Courtesy of Sobieczky -

y(x, z) for given vertical coordinate z, or the vertical upper and lower coordinate z(x, y) for given
points y within the planform, at each cross section station x = const. More complex bodies are defined
by optional other shape definition subprograms with additional keys (49 - 59) needed for geometric
details. These may be of various kind but of paramount interest is the aerodynamically optimized
shape definition of wing-body junctures. In the following a simple projection technique is applied
requiring only a suitable wing root geometry to be shifted toward the body, but more complex
junctures require also body surface details to suitably meet the wing geometry.
4.3.6 Component Intersections & Junctures
The usual way to connect two components is to intersect the surfaces. Intersection curves are found
only by numerical iteration for non-trivial examples. Most CAD systems perform such task if the data
of different surfaces are supplied. Here we stress an analytical method to find not only the juncture
curve but also ensure a smooth surface across the components avoiding corners which usually create
unfavorable aerodynamic phenomena. Sketched in Figure 4.3.5 this can be applied generally to
two components F1 and F2 with the condition that for the first component one coordinate (here the

Figure 4.3.5 Combination of Two Components by a Blended Projection Technique

 87

spanwise y) needs to be defined by an explicit function y = F1(x , z), while the other component F2
may be given as a dataset for a number of surface points. Using a blending function for a portion of
the spanwise coordinate, all surface points of F2 within this spanwise interval may be moved toward
the surface F1 depending on the local value of the blend key function. Figure 4.3.5 shows that this
way the wing root (F2) emanates from the body (F1), wing root fillet geometry can be designed as
part of the wing prior to this wrapping process. Several refinements to this simple projection
technique have been implemented to the program.
4.3.7 Extensions to the Fourth Dimension
The outlined geometry generator based on this explicit mathematical function toolbox allows for
creating models for nearly any aerospace-related configuration. The next step is to provide a whole
series of shapes which result from a controlled variation of a parameter subset keyj, with the option
to create infinitesimally small changes between neighboring surfaces. This requires the introduction
of a “super parameter” t, its variation within a suitable interval Δt and a general variation function
f(t). Variated parameters result then to

keyj (t) = keyj (0) + f(t)∆keyj

Eq. 4.3.1
with Δ key defined by the chosen extreme deviation from the starting values. Obtaining a series of
surfaces calls for suitable computer graphic animation technology. There are three major
applications of introducing the 4th dimension (t) to the presented geometry generator for the
development of design concepts:
4.3.8 Numerical Optimization
The success of optimization performing variations of a set of parameters small enough to enable the
designer to control and understand the evolutionary process toward improved performance, but
large enough to most likely include a global optimum, depends on selecting the parameters by
knowledge based criteria. Simple first applications include the calibration of surface modifications as
experienced from shock-free transonic design 99-100.
4.3.9 Adaptive Devices
A mechanical realization of numerical optimizing processes is the use of adaptive devices controlled
by flow sensors. Experiments are needed for the development and understanding of the dynamics of
such processes, as they are already routine for adaptive wind tunnel walls. Adaptive configuration
shape simulation by the geometry generator will require a series of shapes generated by selected
functions equivalent to the mechanical model for elastic or pneumatic devices.
4.3.10 Unsteady Configurations
Finally there is time, the natural role of the super parameter t. Configurations may vary with time,
especially if there is aeroelastic coupling between structure and flow. Periodically varying shapes
are generated to study the influence of moving boundary conditions on the flow. Modelling buffeting
in the transonic regime is a well-known goal, application of periodic geometries for a coupling of
numerical structure analysis and CFD seems timely. Shape changes to model an adaptive helicopter
rotor section with a sealed slat periodically drooped nose have been carried out and the results of
unsteady Navier Stokes analysis suggest a concept for dynamic stall control 101.

99 Cosentino, G. B., Holst, T. L. Numerical Optimization Design of Advanced Transonic Wing Configurations.
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 23, pp. 192-199, 1986
100 Zhu, Y., Sobieczky, H. Numerical Optimization Method for Transonic Wing Design. Proc. 6th Asian Congress of

Fluid Mechanics, Singapore, 1995

101 Geissler, W., Sobieczky, H. Unsteady Flow Control on Rotor Airfoils. AIAA 95-1890, 1995
 88

4.3.11 Applications
Case studies for new generation supersonic transport aircraft have been carried out through the past
years in research institutions and in the aircraft industry. Our present tool to shape such
configurations needs to be tested by trying to model the basic features of various investigated
geometries. Knowing that the fine-tuning of aerodynamic performance must be done by careful
selection of wing sections, wing twist distribution and the use of sealed slats and flaps, with initial
exercises we try to geometrically model some of the published configurations, generate CFD grids
around them and use optimization strategies to determine the sensitivity of suitable geometry
parameters. This is still a difficult task but tackling its solution greatly contributes to building up the
knowledge base of high speed design.

4.4 Nacelle Design and Sizing

The design of the nacelle involves both the external shape and the inlet internal geometry (Figure
4.4.1 – Stanford University)102. The design of the engine inlet is generally the job of the airframe
manufacturer, not the engine manufacturer and is of great importance to the overall efficiency. The
outer curvature of the cowl nose is as important as the inner contour shape. The cowl nose contour
must be designed to avoid excessive local velocities in high sped flight. Here the design philosophy is
somewhat similar to the fuselage and wing approach; supercritical velocities can be permitted far
forward on the cowl provided the local velocities are subsonic well forward of the location of the
maximum nacelle diameter. Many tests of cowling shapes have been made by NASA and various
aircraft companies to determine desirable contours. Cowls are often cambered to compensate for
the high angles of attack at which aircraft operate. Some examples of common commercial nacelle
designs and wing-mounted installations are shown in Figure 4.4.2.
Commonality between engine installations, left and right, wing and tail, etc. is made as complete as
possible. Airlines keep spare engines in a neutral configuration, i.e., with all parts installed that are

Figure 4.4.1 Nacelle Design Apparatus (Courtesy of Stanford University)

102 http://aerodesign.stanford.edu/aircraftdesign/propulsion/nacelledesign.html
 89

common to all engine positions.

Only the uncommon parts must be
added to adapt the engine to a
particular position. A neutral
engine for the DC-10 consists of
the basic engine with all
accessories installed, generator
electrical leads coiled, certain
hydraulic and fuel lines not
installed, nose cowl not installed,
and engine control system not
installed. One of the most difficult
design problems is fitting all the
necessary equipment within the
slender pylon. Fuel lines,
pneumatic lines, engine and
reverser controls, electrical
cables, and numerous
instrumentation leads must fit
closely and yet permit
maintenance access. The nacelle is Figure 4.4.2 Common Commercial Nacelle Design
made as small as possible but
must provide space for all
accessories plus ventilation for accessory and engine cooling.
One can use some of the pictures in this section for initial nacelle sizing when the actual engine
dimensions are known. The nacelle diameter tends to be roughly 10% greater than the bare engine
to accommodate various engine systems. The inlet itself extends about 60% of the diameter in front
of the fan face, and the actual inlet area is about 70% of the maximum area, although this varies
depending on the engine type. For initial sizing, a representative engine may be selected and scaled
(SLS; within reason) to the selected thrust level. (Figure 4.4.3).

Figure 4.4.3 Nacelle Diameter vs. Thrust

One would expect the engine dimensions to vary with the square root of the thrust ratio (so that the
area and mass flow are proportional to thrust). Statistically, the scaling is a bit less than the square
root. The plots below show the variation in nacelle diameter and length as the thrust varies. The
concept is sometimes called "rubberizing" an engine. Using the 85" diameter 38,250 lb PW2037 as a
 90

reference and scaling diameter by

thrust to the 0.41 power yields
reasonable diameters for engines
over a very large thrust range.
Somewhat more scatter is found in
engine length but a 0.39 power
thrust scaling is reasonable here
as well. We note that the plots
below show engine diameter and
length, rather than nacelle
dimensions. The nacelle must be
scaled up as described before.

4.4.1 Nacelle vs. Cowling

The nacelle is a housing that is
separate from the fuselage, that
holds something, usually engines
or some other equipment in an
aircraft (see Figure 4.4.2). A
cowl or cowling is any part of the
aircraft (or engine nacelle) that
can be opened or removed (for Figure 4.4.4 Source: compositesworld.com
inspection etc.). The following
image (Figure 4.4.4) shows cowlings in a nacelle.

4.4.2 Nacelle Design Framework

This work is based on the framework for the aerodynamic design of nacelle aero-engines developed
by (Tejero F, MacManus DG & Sheaf C, 2020)103 and (Tejero et al. [1,2]). The method has a set of
modules that include a parametric representation of the aero-engine with intuitive Class Shape
Transformations (CST) [3], automatic structured mesh generation [4], computation of the viscous
compressible flow-field [5], post-processing to extract the pertinent objective functions [6] as well

Figure 4.4.5 2D Axisymmetric and 3D Non-axisymmetric Nacelle Definition

103 Tejero F, MacManus DG & Sheaf C (2020) Impact of droop and scarf on the aerodynamic performance of
compact aero-engine nacelles. Proceedings of the 2020 AIAA Sci tech Forum, 6-10 January, Florida, USA.
 91

as a multi-objective optimization capability with genetic algorithms [7].

4.4.3 Nacelle Parametrization and Geometry Definition

The developed tool uses a geometry parameterization of the nacelle aero-lines based on intuitive
Class Shape Transformations (CST) [3,8]. This formulation provides sufficient geometric control
and is also tractable within an optimization and design requirement. The parameterization has been
tested for axisymmetric nacelle design applications with success [1] and has been extended to
construct 3D nacelles which can accommodate azimuthal aero-line variations as well as the
necessary intake droop and scarf requirements (Figure 4.4.5). The current fan cowl definition
employs 8 intuitive design variables to describe a single aero-line: rhi, rte, Lnac, fmax, rmax, rif , βnac and

Figure 4.4.6 Nacelle geometry parametrization of the nacelle and thrust and pre-entry and post-
exit stream tubes

y”TE (Figure 4.4.5-a). The method has been extended to non-axisymmetric configurations by
employing eight control lines, which are reduced to five as left-right symmetry is considered in this
work (Figure 4.4.5-b). For each design variable CST curves are created in the cylindrical coordinate
system and the values at intermediate aero-lines are calculated by interrogating the associated CST
curves. Therefore, for fixed end-points (Lnac/rhi and rte/rhi) the current non-axisymmetric nacelle
definition is based on 5 control aero-lines (ψ = 0∘, 45∘, 90∘, 135∘ and 180∘) which are described by 4
nacelle design variables each. Overall, the method uses 20 nacelle variables. (Tejero et al., 2019 [1]).
During nacelle design, the highlight radius (rhi), fan cowl length (Lnac), maximum nacelle diameter
(rmax) and trailing edge location (rte) (see Figure 4.4.6) are usually controlled to ensure an
acceptable size and shape of the nacelle. While the highlight radius sets the mass flow capture ratio
at which the engine operates, the other parameters (Lnac, rmax and rte) ensure space for other engine
sub-systems which need to be accommodated within the nacelle.
4.4.3.1 Non-Axisymmetric Nacelle with Droop & Scarf
Droop and scarf angles to describe a non-axisymmetric nacelle aero-engine configuration (Figure
4.4.7). The tool uses a generic intake and exhaust system to minimize the interactions with the
nacelle drag characteristics. A conical exhaust is employed to generate a representative post-exit
stream tube to extract the post-exit force term.
 92

4.4.4 References
[1] F. Tejero, M. Robinson, D.
MacManus, C. Sheaf, Multi-Objective
Optimization of Short Nacelles for High
Bypass Ratio Engines, Aerospace
Science and Technology 91 (2019)
410-421.
[2] F. Tejero, D. MacManus, C. Sheaf,
Surrogate-Based Aerodynamic
Optimization of Compact Nacelle Aero-
Engines, Aerospace Science and
Technology 93 (105207). Figure 4.4.7 Definition of the droop and scarf angles
[3] R. Christie, A. Heidebrecht, D. G.
MacManus, An Automated Approach to Nacelle Parameterization Using Intuitive Class Shape
Transformation Curves, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 139 (1153).
[4] Ansys Inc., 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, ANSYS ICEM CFD Tutorial Manual.
[5] Ansys Inc., 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, ANSYS FLUENT User's Guide.
[6] M.-I. D. A. P. M. S. Group, Guide to In-Flight Thrust Measurement of Turbojets and Fan Engines,
Tech. Rep. AG-237, AGARDograph No. 237, Report AGARD (1979).
[7] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A Fast and Elitist Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm:
NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, (2) (2002).
[8] R. Christie, M. Robinson, F. Tejero, D. MacManus, The Use of Hybrid Intuitive Class Shape
Transformation Curves in Aerodynamic Design, Aerospace Science and Technology.

4.4.5 Ultra-High Bypass Engines

The aviation industry accounts for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions ( Ravindra Krishnamurthy
April 16, 2021). With an annual increase of around 4.8% in air passenger transport, greenhouse gas
emissions are very likely to go up unless some drastic measures are taken to curb them. In order to
reduce the environmental footprint of the aviation industry, various governing bodies around the
world are coming up with ambitious goals to cut carbon dioxide and Nox emissions by as high as 75
to 95% by 2050. The solution to this challenge lies in lower fuel consumption and increasing aircraft
efficiency. One promising approach the aircraft industry is currently pursuing is the development of
Ultra-high bypass ratio (UHBR) engines. UHBR engines, as the name suggests, maximizes the air
mass flowing through the bypass duct, thereby reduce thrust-specific fuel consumption (see Figure
4.4.8). The ratio of the amount of air that is allowed to bypass compared to that entering the engine

Figure 4.4.8 Bypassing flow. a. Schematic diagram. b. CFD computations. Image source 175

core is called bypass ratio. Since 1975, the bypass ratio has increased from 6 to 12 and the next
generation of engines are expected to have a bypass ratio even higher, ranging from 15 to 21.
A larger bypass ratio means larger diameter engines. Fitting a larger diameter nacelle below the wing
 93

becomes a major challenge as compliance with ground clearance regulations requires a close
coupling of nacelle and wing. This necessitates either to cut off a large chunk of the slat in order to
avoid collision with nacelle during landing and take-off or fit the engine nacelle to the upper surface
of the wing or embedded into the fuselage. Beside the next case, readers are encouraged to consult
the work by (A. Petrusson)104.

4.4.6 Aerodynamic Effects of Nacelle Generated Vortices

The nacelle vortex is generated when the flow on the slat interacts with the nacelle up-wash flow.
When compared to a simple wing-body configuration, the flow angle as seen by the slat in high-lift
propulsive configuration is higher due to the presence of nacelle. The upper slat flow’s direction,
especially from the inboard slat side, due to its close proximity to nacelle may be pitched in the
opposite direction to that of nacelle flow, resulting in reduced local velocity. This may lead to flow
separation, paving the way for the formation of the nacelle vortex. Next, the slat vortex generation is
something similar to that of the wing-tip vortex. The slat cut-out creates two vortices one on either
side of the slat gap, due to the pressure difference between the slat’s suction side and pressure side.
Further, as a cumulative effect of the presence of the nacelle vortex, the slat vortex, and the upstream
positioning of the inboard slat, a pressure difference can set in between the two sides of the pylon,
triggering a flow displacement from one side to the other. As this happens, a flow recirculation on the
pylon upper surface gets established which subsequently develops as a pylon vortex. Furthermore,
the slat-cut out portion exposes the adjacent part of the main wing profile to a higher angle of attack
flows, thereby subjecting them to early flow separation.

Figure 4.4.9 Flow topology around wing-pylon-nacelle

1 – outboard slat vortex, 2- outboard leading-edge vortex, 3- nacelle vortex, 4- pylon shoulder vortex, 5-
strake vortex, 6- inboard leading-edge vortex, 7- inboard slat vortex. Image source Ref [4]

104 Andreas Petrusson, “Aerodynamic Evaluation of Nacelles For Engines With Ultra High Bypass Ratio”, Master’s
Thesis in Applied Mechanics, Department Of Applied Mechanics Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg,
Sweden 2017.
 94

These flow separation ultimately culminates as vortices at the main wing-pylon junction. What one
should realize is that the strength and position of the vortices are directly dependent on the nacelle,
pylon, slat and main-element wing geometries and their installation. Geometric optimization of these
components will tremendously aid in reducing the installation penalties. Now that we came to know
how these vortices are generated, let us now try to understand what happens due to the presence of
these vortices. If the engine is close to the wing, the nacelle vortices attach themselves to the wing’s

Figure 4.4.10 Lift and drag polar for a Wing-Body (WB) and Wing-Body-Nacelle-Pylon configuration.
Image source Ref [3].
 95

upper surface under the influence of the low-pressure zone at the leading edge. This interaction is
beneficial as these vortices supply additional energy to the particles in the boundary layer to resist
the adverse pressure gradients and prevent flow separation. In a way, this flow phenomenon
mitigates the side effect of nacelle installation by decreasing the loss in lift.
Although the installation vortices are generally favorable since they originate in a zone of low kinetic
energy (wing-pylon junction), they tend to have a low axial velocity and as a consequence, they are
eventually bound to breakdown and cause flow separation when faced against a high-pressure
gradient, especially at higher alphas. Further, since the inboard side of the slat compared to the
outboard, is forward positioned relative to the nacelle, the inboard vortex is more exposed to higher
pressure fields. This means they are more susceptible to breakdown, leading to easier flow
separation. (see Figure 4.4.9).
All these flow interactions have a detrimental effect on the total lift and drag of the aircraft. Figure
4.4.10 shows the comparative plots of lift and drag polars for a wing-body configuration with and
without nacelle-pylon. It can be observed that nacelle introduction reduces the CLmax and stall angle.

Figure 4.4.11 Double chime strakes vortices. b. Lift and drag polar for WB (configuration 1), WBNP
(configuration 2) and WBNP with strakes (configuration 3). Image source Ref [3].
 96

While the stall angle reduces from 32 degrees to 21 degrees, the lift at alpha 21 degrees reduces by
nearly 12%. This degrading effect can be seen even at low angles of attack. For example, at alpha 6
degrees, the lift is reduced by about 2%.
4.4.6.1 Nacelle Strakes
To reduce the negative impact of the vortex system on the aerodynamic performance of the wings,
Engineers came up with the idea of mounting a pair of strakes, popularly called chimes, to generate
two additional strong vortices to regulate the flow separation on the wings. As can be seen in the lift
and drag polars in
Figure 4.4.11, strake vortices have a positive impact, as they aid tremendously in energizing the
boundary layer and prevent flow separation. Appreciable recovery of lift happens with the
introduction of nacelle strakes.

4.4.7 References
1. “DLR TAU-Code uRANS Turbofan Modeling for Aircraft Aerodynamics Investigations”, Arne
Stuermer et al, Aerospace 2019, 6, 121.
2. “Aerodynamic Evaluation of Nacelles for Engines with Ultra High Bypass Ratio”, Andreas
Petrusson, Master’s thesis 2017:02, Chalmers University of Technology.
3. “Modelling the aerodynamics of propulsive system integration at cruise and high-lift
conditions”, Thierry Sibilli, PhD Academic Year: 2011-2012, Cranfield University.
4. “Application of active flow control on aircraft – state of the art“, Ahmad Batikh1 et al, AST
2017, February 21–22, Hamburg, Germa

Figure 4.4.12 Basic Landing Gear Design

 97

4.5 Landing Gears

From : ScienceDirect - Introduction to Aerospace Materials, 2012.
The landing gear, which is also called the undercarriage, is a complex system consisting of structural
members, hydraulics, energy absorption components, brakes, wheels and tires (Figure 4.4.12).
Additional components attached to and functioning with the landing gear may include steering
devices and retracting mechanisms. Of the many components, it is the structural members that
support the heavy landing loads and
stop the landing gear from collapsing
under the aircraft weight. The
materials must be strong enough to
support heavy take-off weight when
an aircraft has a full load of fuel and
the high impact loads on landing.
Landing gear materials must
therefore have high static strength,
good fracture toughness and fatigue
strength, and the most commonly
used materials are high-strength steel
and titanium alloy.

4.5.1 Landing Gear Retraction

Design
The landing gear struts transmit their
load to the airframe through the
trunnion mounted on the rear spar of
the wing and pivot about the trunnion
Figure 4.5.1 Mechanism of a Retractor Gear
for stowage within the wing and
fuselage, as shown in Figure 4.5.1.
Landing retraction mechanisms are often quite different in configuration (please consult the
Pasquale Sforza, in Commercial Airplane Design Principles, 2014).

View publication stats