6th World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

Rio de Janeiro, 30 May - 03 June 2005, Brazil

Strength and Aeroelastic Structural Optimization of Aircraft Lifting Surfaces

using Two-Level Approach
Svetlana I. Kuzmina1, Vasily V. Chedrik1, Fanil Z. Ishmuratov1

(1) Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, Zhukovsky, Moscow region, Russia, kuzmina@tsagi.ru

Abstract
The paper gives brief description of the multidisciplinary design system for aeroelastic and strength optimization of aircraft lifting
surfaces. Structural models of two levels are described. Main relationships for analysis of characteristics of static and dynamic
aeroelasticity used as constraints in structural optimization are given. The optimization methods used for the optimization are
described. The solution of two example problems of optimization under strength and aeroelasticity constraints of lifting surfaces of
aircraft illustrates the possibilities of the approach.

Keywords: structural optimization, aeroelasticity, aircraft, software.

1. Introduction
The problem of the preliminary design of an aircraft structure is to define structural sizes that will ensure minimum weight while
satisfying the numerous multidisciplinary constraints. These constraints are of different types for many load conditions in disciplines
such as linear statics, normal modes, and static and dynamic aeroelasticity. The responses in the disciplines can be analyzed by
programs which use structural models of different fidelity and different approach. In the multidisciplinary design system ARGON [1]
the problems of aeroelasticity and loads calculation are solved by using the discrete-continual model of prescribed forms (first level
model) [2]. The finite element model (second level model) [3] is used for detailed evaluation of stresses and displacements of
structure. An approach for structural optimization of lifting surfaces based on two-level modeling of aircraft is presented in the paper.
Basic relations for computing the strength/stiffness/aeroelasticity constraints are discussed.
By now the automated multidisciplinary design systems for solving this problem were developed at various companies [4-6]. The
integrated design systems enable engineers to increase a bulk of numerical investigations and promote weight, aerodynamic and
structural improvement of aircraft. Optimization methods play an important role in the design systems. In ARGON system optimality
criteria algorithms for minimization of structural weight under stress and displacement constraints were implemented for practical
optimization [7]. To take into account buckling constraints the criterion of equal stability of structural panels was used for
determination of reasonable sizes of panel. The efficient methods of mathematical programming were realized to solve optimization
problems while satisfying various constraints [8]. In this paper particular attention is paid to the allowance for aeroelastic constraints
in optimization problems.
The numerical studies were performed on the example of a 4-engine wide body airplane which is researched in the 3AS European
project. Structural optimization is performed for the airplane model with different types of aeroelastic wing tip controls (AWTC).
Obtained results contain the influence of availability of the AWTC on optimum structural weight and aeroelastic characteristics and
comparative analysis of baseline configuration with the new “active aeroelastic” configurations. The second example is a small-
aspect-ratio wing of fighter. Numerical results of structural design with strength and aeroelastic constraints are presented.

2. Two-level approach for structural design

The multidisciplinary system ARGON integrates several aircraft disciplines:
− linear aerodynamics;
− analysis of maneuver loads on elastic structure;
− analysis of dynamic loads on elastic structure;
− structural analysis;
− calculation of eigen frequencies and modes;
− static aeroelasticity;
− flutter;
− aeroservoelasticity.
The computational efficiency of the implemented analysis methods is related with the fidelity of employed structural models. The
high fidelity models leads to time-consuming calculations whereas the low fidelity models can lead to incorrect results for some
structural characteristics and describe other characteristics rather correctly. For example, the Ritz polynomial method is good enough
for calculation of displacements and normal modes and it can be used for solution of aeroelastic problems of aircraft but stresses
obtained by this method are rather rough. Therefore there is a deal of sense to utilize the models of different fidelities. The models of
two levels usually are used in ARGON software. Mainly, first-level model based on prescribed forms method is used for calculation
of loads and aeroelasticity problems and structural stresses and strains are computed by using second-level model based on the finite
element method. The design procedure based on the two-level approach is shown in Fig. 1.
The aeroelastic/strength design cycle starts with calculation of aerodynamic/inertial loads for various parameters of maneuvers.
Optimization under both stress constraints (for these loads) and aeroelasticity constraints is performed in the first level model. Loads
for the optimized elastic structure are recalculated again, and new optimization is carried out. The optimization procedures are done
up to the full convergence. The obtained results on the first-level model can be used for determination of the extreme load cases for
structural parts with their corresponding load distribution, determination stiffness requirements and preliminary structural sizing of
lifting surfaces structure.

First-level model (PF method)

Verifying Stress, Buckling and

Aerodynamics Aeroelasticity Aeroelasticity Requirements Exit

Loads

Reducing FEM Matrices

Second-level Model (FE Method)

Structural Structural Optimization under Strength,

Analysis Stiffness and Buckling Constraints

Figure 1. Flow diagram of ARGON system

The first-level model results are used to form initial data for detailed structural design by the second-level model. Optimization of
design variables under stress, displacement, frequency and buckling constraints is also performed by using this model for chosen
extreme load cases. The finite element stiffness/mass matrices for the structure with the optimal design variables can be transformed
into the corresponding stiffness/mass matrices of the first-level model. This makes it possible to verify aeroelastic characteristics of
aircraft after the optimization on the finite element model. The design cycle is completed if strength, buckling and aeroelasticity
constraints are satisfied.

2.1 Structural analysis models

As above mentioned the structural analysis in the multidisciplinary system can be carried out by using two different models based on:
1) prescribed form method, and 2) finite element method.
With the first method the structure is modeled as aircraft parts joined by springs. Displacements of each part are assumed to be sums
of polynomial functions. Each part of aircraft consists of structural elements of the following types: isotropic, orthotropic and
laminated panels (plates), and one-dimensional beams that have bending and torsional stiffness. The Ritz method is employed to
form the linear equation system. The Ritz solution procedure is used to determine the numerical values of the set of unknown
coefficients that minimize total energy. This method is a classical approach in structural analysis, and details of its application are
described in [2].
The most commonly employed method for detailed analysis of stresses and displacements is finite element method. The finite
element structural analysis program contains a wide variety of isoparametric one- and two-dimensional finite elements: membranes,
shells, beams and rods. Additional nonstructural masses can be included in structural model. Isotropic, orthotropic and composite
materials can be treated in the programs. The aerodynamic and inertial loads that are obtained by using the first-level model can be
automatically transferred to nodes of the finite element mesh. Nodal displacements are determined from solution of set of linear
algebraic equations: KU = R , where K is stiffness matrix, U are unknown nodal displacements (several load cases are treated) and R
are applied forces. Obtained displacements are used for determination of strains and stresses in finite elements.
The computation of eigen values and vectors is performed for solution of problems on free structural vibration and general buckling
analysis. The program allows determining several eigen vectors that correspond to the first lowest eigen values by solving the eigen-
value problem: KU = λMU , where M is structural mass matrix for vibration problem or geometric stiffness matrix for buckling
problem. Rayleigh-Ritz iteration method is used for solution of the eigen-value problem.

2.2 Static aeroelasticity relationships

Linear panel method is used for analysis of aerodynamic forces in static aeroelasticity problems. Aircraft is modeled by a set of
lifting surfaces and body elements for fuselage modeling. In the case of the using body elements the aerodynamic properties of 3D
fuselage model are assigning to flat surfaces. This approach is in good agreement with elastic surface concept used on the first-level
model for modeling elastic-mass characteristics of aircraft. The approach is based on reducing the aerodynamic influence matrix for
3D pressure distribution to the matrix (with smaller dimension) for the pressure distribution on flat aerodynamic model. It allows
saving a unified procedure for analysis of static aeroelasticity characteristics both with body elements and without them.
The influence coefficients method [9] is used to analyze static aeroelasticity. The basis for aeroelasticity equation is that the total
angle of attack αΣ in points of an aerodynamic mesh is sum of specified angle of attack α0 and incremental angle of attack (elastic
twist angle) due to the structural elasticity αel:
α Σ = α 0 + α el
Specified angle of attack α0 is defined by airplane motion as rigid body, control surface deflection and initial twist of lifting surfaces.
The total angle of attack is related with dimensionless pressure ∆P by means of the aerodynamic influence matrix: αΣ=A ∆P. By
analogy with above equation the relation between aerodynamic force vector and elastic twist angles αel can be written
α el = C αf qS∆P ,
where C αf is the structural elastic influence matrix which is determined by the polynomial Ritz method in the first-level model, q is
dynamic pressure, S is vector of aerodynamic panel areas. The matrix of elasticity influence coefficients of “force-angle” type in the

2
points of aerodynamic mesh is defined by inversion of stiffness matrix for fixed structure:
C αf = X x G −1 X T , (1)
where G is assembled stiffness matrix of polynomial method, X и X x are transformation matrices from the vector of polynomial
generalized coordinates to displacements and angles in the points of aerodynamic mesh. As result, the aeroelasticity equation in
method of influence coefficients has the form:
( A − qC αf S ) ∆P = α 0 (2)
Main advantage of the method of influence coefficients is that equation Eq.(2) doesn’t depend on method of structural analysis. If
FEM is used instead of PFM then matrices in right hand side of (1) should be changed only. Solving the set of linear equation Eq.(2)
we get pressures ∆P on elastic aircraft for specified mass distribution and angles of attack of rigid aircraft. The obtained pressures are
used for computation of static aeroelasticity coefficients. It is convenient to present the right-hand side of Eq.(2) α0 as linear
combination of basic vectors. General solution in this case will be linear combination of basic solutions. For symmetrical motion of
airplane the following basic vectors are considered: unit angle of attack of rigid airplane, unit pitch angular speed, and unit normal
load factor, initial twist of lifting surfaces and unit symmetrical deflection of control surfaces. For anti-symmetrical motion of
airplane the following basic vectors are considered: unit sideslip angle, unit roll angular speed, unit yaw angular speed and unit anti-
symmetrical deflection of control surfaces. The set of linear equation Eq.(2) is solved for each basic vector. The derivatives of
aerodynamic forces and moments for elastic aircraft CLα ,K,M xδ ,K are determined by corresponding summation of obtained pressure
distributions. They can be included as constraints or objective function in the structural optimization. Obtained pressure distributions
for basic vectors are also used for analysis of quasi-steady loads.
Parameters of an aircraft structure at the preliminary design stage essentially depend on quasi-steady cases of loading. It is very
important to know how to choose extreme load flight conditions and to assign appropriate load cases. Sometimes it is necessary to
sort out several dozens of various parameter combinations. Therefore, it is extremely important to provide the possibility to analyze
load cases sufficiently quickly with graphical displaying of essential intermediate and all final results. The satisfaction of these
requirements was one of the main goals at developing loads analysis module of the system.
Trimmed flight with a specified vertical load factor is treated as a main flight condition. Thereafter, additional pressure distributions
due to specified motion parameters are added to the main pressure distribution. Early computed distributions of pressures for the
basic vectors are used to get maneuver loads. Primary sorting of load cases is performed via integral load distributions such as
bending moments, shear forces, etc., taking (or not taking) into account inertia forces. A few load cases are saved to the stress
analysis and structural optimization stages.

2.3 Dynamic aeroelasticity relationships

Unsteady aerodynamic forces in the dynamic aeroelasticity problems are analyzed by using the doublet-lattice method and panel
method. Dynamic aeroelasticity equations are derived from equilibrium condition for generalized forces that correspond to
generalized coordinates of PFM. For solving the dynamic aeroelasticity problems (flutter, dynamic response, aeroservoelasticity) the
equations are reduced to generalized coordinates corresponding to the natural modes without flow. They can be written in the matrix
form as:
Cq&& + D0 q& + Gq = Q a + Rδ r + F
, (3)
z = H q + H q& + H q&&
0 1 2

where q =col( q r , q e , δ) is generalized coordinate vector including motion of the aircraft as the rigid body ( q r ), its elastic
deformations ( q e ) and control deflections (δ); C, D0, G denote matrices of inertia, damping and stiffness of structure; Qa, vector of
generalized aerodynamic forces; δr, vector of actuator rod deflections; R, matrix of actuator influence efficiency; F, vector of the
external concentrated forces; z, output parameters vector including displacements, angles, accelerations and angular rates at sensor
locations and also loads in chosen sections of structure; H0, H1, H2 denote matrices of transformation from generalized coordinates,
respective speeds and accelerations to physical ones.
Aerodynamic forces are computed in the frequency domain (for harmonic motion). In the time domain the generalized aerodynamic
forces in the motion equations can be determined under harmonic assumption:
Q a = −ρVDq& − ρV 2 Bq + ρVD w w
where D and B, matrices of aerodynamic damping and stiffness, respectively, computed for specified Mach number and reduced
frequency; ρ , air density; V, true air speed; Dw, gust efficiency vector; and w - gust intensity.
The flutter problem is solved in the frequency domain. Exact values of the following flutter parameters are computed via root loci
versus flow speed (or relative density): flutter speed Vf, flutter frequency ωf , and flutter mode shape. Flutter speed Vf can be used as
objective functions or can be included in constraints at the structural optimization.
Aeroservoelasticity problems are analyzed in the frequency and time domains, but the structural optimization procedure does not
include the responses of these problems.
Two approaches are used to analyze unsteady load cases. The first approach is based on integration of differential equations
describing rigid-body motion and control system operation; elastic deformations are taken into account in quasi-steady
approximation. In the second approach the dynamic equations of elastic aircraft motion are integrated in generalized modal
coordinates. A form of the matrix equations Eq.(3) are presented above.
Airworthiness requirements for various maneuvers are put into the base of unsteady load cases. A possibility is foreseen to analyze
loads under arbitrary control influence (in this case control deflection is modeled by rectangular pulses), engine failure and discrete
wind gust. Aviation Regulations prescribe that dynamic strength of aircraft must be investigated with both discrete gust and
continuous turbulence model of gust. Discrete gust dynamic loads are treated analogously to quasi-steady loads in structural
optimization. But continuous turbulence loads can only be treated as root-mean-square values. Therefore, these loads are not

3
explicitly used in the structure optimization procedure; they are taken into account by comparing with other load cases for four
groups of parameters (depending on problem details): load factor at the center of gravity (and other typical locations), loads at joints
between structure units, distributions of bending and torsion moments and shear force, stress distribution over panels and beams.

3. Optimization methods
Largely the objective function in structural optimization is mass of structure. The inequality constraint functions involve structural
responses which can be computed by above described methods. The constraints on the following responses can be imposed in
optimization procedure: stresses, displacements, panel buckling, natural frequency, aeroelastic lift effectiveness, aileron
effectiveness, and critical flutter speed.
A lot of algorithms were developed for solution of the optimization problem. The complexity of this problem is due to: firstly, that
structural design problem has a large number of design variables and secondly, that the numerical search process for this problem is
iterative and requires a large number of structural analyses. Finally, it is necessary to include constraints from different disciplines
into the optimization process. Effective optimization methods were developed for some simple design problems. They are based on
using optimality criteria for the weight minimization problem with stress and displacement constraints. The obtained recurrence
relationships from these criteria are capable to get a design with tens thousands of variables close to optimal design for reasonable
computational time. Classical examples of such algorithms are the fully stressed design (FSD) algorithm and its modifications. To
take into account buckling constraints the criterion of equal stability for structural panels can be used for determination of reasonable
sizes of panel. According to the equal stability criterion the general buckling of panel occurs simultaneously with the buckling of
panel elements (stringers, skins between stringers). The implemented algorithms based on optimality criteria with stress,
displacement and panel buckling constraints are discussed in details in papers [7, 10, 11].
However, optimality criteria methods can not be generally used for the problems where equations of different physical phenomena
(disciplines) are solved. In this case the nonlinear programming methods can be used. The nonlinear programming problem is usually
solved by an iterative procedure:
x k +1 = x k + α k d k (4)
Here, k is an iteration number, d denotes the search direction vector, and α k is an optimum step along the direction d k , x k is a
k

value of design variable in k-th iteration. To define a search direction vector d k in Eq.(4), one should compute the gradients or so-
called sensitivities of constraints. The using methods of design sensitivity analysis are described in the paper [1].
Optimization module includes the following nonlinear programming algorithms based on different strategies of determination of the
search direction vector d k [8]: projection gradient method, sequential quadratic programming and modified Pshenichny method.

4. Numerical results
The numerical studies were carried out for design of two aircraft wing structures. In the first example we consider wing structures of
four-engines wide body airplane researched in the 3AS European project. The second example is a small-aspect-ratio wing of fighter.

4.1 Wing with AWTC

The active aeroelasticity concept, researching in the European project 3AS, is aimed at improving flight characteristics of aircraft and
is based on new approach to design of airplane. Unlike conventional approaches, in this approach the control surfaces are employed
to induce twist, causing the wing itself to produce control forces. In other words, there is no need in attempting to suppress undesired
aeroelastic impacts on the aerodynamic performance using additional structural stiffness, but the aerodynamic control surfaces, and
actuation systems can be designed such that the external aerodynamic forces, the internal structural stiffness characteristics and the
resulting aeroelastic effects can be exploited in a beneficial way to always adjust the flexible shape of the airframe to the optimum
aerodynamic conditions. Such aircraft wing tip controls are aileron-type controls that are placed in forward direction from leading
edge of a wing. The finite element schemes for both wind tunnel aeroelastic model and full-scale airplane were generated for
performing analytical investigations. In this paper we consider only the full-scale airplane models with different types and location of
AWTC and including/excluding of winglets. Six finite element models are presented in Fig. 2.

BL TA UWA

BLP TAP UWAP

Figure 2. Finite element models of different airplane configurations

4
The abbreviations in Fig. 2 have the following denotations: BL – baseline airplane with usual aileron control, BLP – baseline airplane
with winglets, TA – airplane with wing tip aileron, TAP – airplane with wing tip aileron plus winglets, UWA – airplane with under
wing aileron, UWAP – airplane with under wing aileron plus winglets.
For the determination of flight loads the aerodynamic and structural first-level model were created. Preliminary design analyses by
using the first-level model define four extreme load cases:
1) Maximum lift coefficient and maximum load factor at Mach number 0.37, dynamic pressure 9.57 kPa near ground;
2) Maximum load factor at cruise Mach number 0.84, dynamic pressure 17.0 kPa and altitude 8400 m;
3) Maximum load factor at dive speed with Mach number 0.9, dynamic pressure 22.5 kPa and altitude 7400 m;
4) Half of maximum load factor at Mach number 0.84, dynamic pressure 17.0 kPa and altitude 8400 m and deflection of the wing
control surfaces to provide roll rate of 10 degrees per second.
Initially the structural optimization of wing-box with stress constraints was carried out of all configurations for the loads obtained
without taking into consideration of structural elasticity. The location of design variables is shown in Fig. 3 by different colors. Each
of ten design variables includes skin thickness, areas of rod elements modeling stringers and areas of spars caps. The proportion
between skin thickness and areas of rod elements was defined from the panel buckling constraints and it was unchangeable in
optimization process.

Figure 3. Design variables

The distribution of skin thicknesses along wing span is shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 for airplanes with and without winglets
correspondingly. It can be seen that for the airplanes with AWTC skin thicknesses are slightly greater than for the baseline airplanes
in the root and middle parts of wing. Besides, the skin thicknesses in the tip part of the wings with AWTC are more sufficiently
higher in comparison with the baseline configurations. Therefore, from the viewpoint of strength constraints the baseline
configurations are preferable.

7.E-03 8.E-03

7.E-03
6.E-03

6.E-03
5.E-03
Thicknesses, м
Thicknesses, м

5.E-03

4.E-03
4.E-03

3.E-03
3.E-03
BLPl TAP UWAP Iinitial design
BL ТА UWA
2.E-03 2.E-03
z, м
z, м 1.E-03
1.E-03
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4. Skin thicknesses for wings without winglets Figure 5. Skin thicknesses for wings with winglets

The performed analyses of characteristics of static aeroelasticity showed that the baseline configurations have the aileron reversal
whereas the airplanes with AWTC have sufficient effectiveness on roll. It is obviously that optimized baseline configurations under
loads with account of structural elasticity have fewer thicknesses and moreover the aileron reversal takes place.
The optimization of the airplane with the tip aileron (TA) was carried by imposing only stress constraints for the loads on elastic
structure. The optimum weight of the wing panels of structure is about 30% less than the optimum one with “rigid” loads. Aeroelastic
analysis showed that the tip aileron effectiveness is sufficient for considered flight regimes. Also the structural optimization with
stress constraint and aileron effectiveness constraint was performed for baseline configuration without winglets under the loads on
elastic structure. The weight was only about 8% less than for the case of “rigid” loads. It is due to increase of thicknesses in root and
end part of the wing to compensate the violation of the aeroelastic constraints. The distribution of thicknesses for two configurations
is shown in Fig. 6.
Totally, the weight of wing panels for the wing with AWTC is slightly (about 4%) less than the weight of ones for the wing with
usual aileron. It is worth to note that additional advantage of AWTC is that the control surfaces placed in forward direction from the
wing leading edge can be used to reduce maneuver loads by their adaptive deflection (when the tip control is deflected proportionally
to the airplane angle of attack).

5
 5.E-03

4.E-03

Thickness, m

3.E-03

BL ТА
2.E-03

z, м

1.E-03
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 6. Skin thicknesses after stress/aeroelastic optimization

4.2 Swept wing optimization with aeroelastic constraints

An aerodynamic model of airplane is shown in Fig. 7. In addition to the fuselage and main wing part the model includes separate
aerodynamic segments of aileron and horizontal tail. The horizontal tail makes it possible to trim the pitching moment of the airplane
and the aileron serves to control the rolling moment. Both the wing and the horizontal tail have symmetrical airfoils.
The first level model includes (Fig. 8) structural boxes of the wing and horizontal tail which are modeled by elastic plates and the
fuselage which is modeled by a rigid beam (so the fuselage elasticity is not taken into consideration).
The horizontal tail skin thickness was equal to 2 mm and fixed in the optimization process. The structural box depth of horizontal tail
was constant along the chord and varied as a linear function (from 150 mm to 70 mm) in span-wise direction. The wing box consists
of 36 unstiffened panels (Fig. 9). Each panel thickness is an independent design variable. Thicknesses of upper and lower skins are
equal. Spars and ribs are not included in the model. The structure is entirely made of aluminum alloy whose characteristics are: a
Young’s modulus of 7200 kgf/mm2, Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 and mass density of 2.8x106 kg/mm3. The total mass of the airplane is 25
tons. The wing structural box was rigidly fixed at four points of the fuselage.

Figure 7. Aerodynamic model

The considered load case in this problem corresponds to aircraft a symmetric maneuver with the load factor nz=10.5 at Mach number
0.8 at altitude of 10,000 m. The von Mises stresses in wing skin were restricted by the allowable value of 40 kgf/mm2. The aileron
effectiveness constraint has the following relation:
(mδ )
ξi = xδ,el i ≥ ξ 0i (5)
( m x ,r ) i
where mxδ,el is the rolling moment derivative with respect to aileron deflection for elastic aircraft, mxδ,r is the same derivative for
rigid aircraft, and ξ0 is the allowable value. Aileron effectiveness constraints were considered for four flight regimes which

6
correspond to Mach numbers 0.6, 0.8, 1.2 and 1.5.

Aileron

root cross-section of wing-box

Figure 8. Structural model of aircraft

Figure 9. Location of panels in the wing box

Thus optimization problem consists in finding the minimum mass design that satisfies 4 aeroelasticity constraints and 36 wing skin
stress constraints. Constraints on minimum and maximum values of design variables were also imposed. The minimum thickness was
chosen to be 1 mm for all panels. The maximum thickness value was equal to 10 mm for panels from #1 to #18, 5 mm for panels
from #19 to #24, 3 mm for panels from #25 to #30 and 2 mm for panels from #31 to #36.
At the first stage optimization was performed under stress constraints only, using both the suquential quadratic programming
algorithm and the fully stressed design (FSD) algorithm. The violation of stress constraints should not be greater than 1%. It is worth
to note that the FSD structure in this case was very close to the minimum mass structure. The optimization results (case I) are shown
in the second column of Table 1.
Note that in the elements whose thicknesses were greater than the minimum value the stress constraints were active. Analysis of
aileron effectiveness ξ for this structure gives the following results: ξ1 =0.543, ξ 2 =0.507, ξ3 =0.487, ξ 4 =0.417.
Then, the structural optimization was performed with constraints Eq.(5) only, and the FSD thicknesses were considered as minimum
and initial values. The allowable value of ξ0 was chosen to be 0.5 for all constraints Eq.(5). Design variables for this case (II) are
shown in the third column of Table 1. The main part of structure has the same value as for preceding case. Thicknesses of panels #25,
#26, #28, #29, #31, #32 have changed, and the maximum value of thickness was reached in the first five of them. The fourth aileron
effectiveness constraint became active. The obtained structural mass was by 8 percent greater than in case I.

7
 Table 1. Design variables after optimization
Stress Aileron effectiveness Constraints on stress and
Panel #
constraints only constraints aileron effectiveness
1 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 7.09 7.09 7.87
3 8.19 8.19 7.81
4 1.85 1.85 1.00
5 7.55 7.55 9.56
6 5.87 5.87 4.09
7 3.06 3.06 1.35
8 7.56 7.56 10.0
9 4.15 4.15 2.11
10 4.16 4.16 2.83
11 7.09 7.09 9.96
12 2.90 2.90 1.09
13 4.83 4.83 4.37
14 6.11 6.11 8.17
15 1.93 1.93 1.00
16 4.90 4.90 5.18
17 4.84 4.84 5.77
18 1.22 1.22 1.00
19 4.31 4.31 4.72
20 3.39 3.39 3.29
21 1.00 1.00 1.00
22 3.17 3.17 3.69
23 1.99 1.99 1.36
24 1.00 1.00 1.00
25 1.85 3.00 3.00
26 1.00 3.00 3.00
27 1.00 1.00 1.00
28 1.00 3.00 3.00
29 1.00 3.00 3.00
30 1.00 1.00 1.00
31 1.00 2.00 2.00
32 1.00 1.16 1.13
33 1.00 1.00 1.00
34 1.00 1.00 1.00
35 1.00 1.00 1.00
36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mass, kg 205.46 221.90 221.62

Finally, structural optimization was carried out taking into consideration all 40 strength and aeroelasticity constraints. Design
variables for this case are shown in the forth column of Table 1. Although the thickness distribution differs from the preceding case
the optimum mass is almost the same. The aileron effectiveness constraint at Mach number 1.5 is also active. The solution process
for the swept wing example converged in 10 iterations as shown in Fig. 10. Iteration history for cases I and II is also shown in
Fig. 10.

0.7 450
0.6 400
Mass, kg

0.5 I case 350

Mass, ton

0.4 II case 300

0.3 III case
250
0.2
0.1 200
0 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Iteration number Aileron effectiveness

Figure 10. Iteration history for swept wing optimization

Figure 11. Optimal panel mass versus aileron
effectiveness

8
The influence of the aileron effectiveness constraint on the optimum mass was also studied by means of parametric analyses. As
shown in Fig. 11 the optimum mass is increased from 222 kg to 410 kg when ξ0 is increased from 0.5 to 0.676. Note that the aileron
effectiveness value is equal to 0.676 when all design variables get the maximum allowable values.

5. Conclusions
The two-level approach for structural optimization of aircraft lifting surfaces under stress and aeroelastic constraints was presented in
this paper. It was demonstrated on two examples of wings for civil and military aircraft. The constraints on aileron effectiveness play
a sufficient role in design of wing structure and they cause to add weight to compensate aeroelastic requirements. It is also shown
that using of non-traditional wing tip ailerons allows avoiding the weight increase which is due to aeroelasticity. Preliminary
researches show that adaptive deflections of AWTC proportional to the angle of attack would be desirable from a viewpoint of
improvement of aerodynamic characteristics. Additional investigations of such tip controls will be performed to learn the possibility
of maneuver load alleviation at their adaptive deflections.
Numerical optimization methods serve as valuable tool in design investigations of advanced airplanes because they help to
experienced designers and engineers to find needed structural design parameters satisfying to an objective and different
multidisciplinary constraints.

6. References

1. F.Z. Ishmuratov, V. V. Chedrik. ARGON code: structural aeroelastic analysis and optimization, Amsterdam, International Forum
on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics — IFASD-2003, 2003
2. V.G. Bun’kov. Flutter Analysis of Low-Aspect-Ratio Wing on High-speed Computer, Trudy TsAGI, 1964, No. 905. (in Russian).
3. O.C. Zienkiewicz. The Finite Element Method, London: McGraw-Hill, 1977.
4. D.J. Neill, E.H. Johnson, R. Canfield. ASTROS — a Multidisciplinary Automated Structural Design Tool. Proc. of the
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 28th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 1987, Part I, pp. 44-53
5. A. Morris, K. Gantois. Multi-disciplinary Design and Optimisation of a Large Scale Civil Aircraft Wing. Proc. of 21st ICAS
Conference, Melbourne, 1998, A98-31678, ICAS Paper-98-6,4,2
6. H. Miura. MSC/NASTRAN Handbook for Structural Optimization. The McNeal-Schwendler Corp., Los Angeles, Ca., 1989.
7. E.K. Lipin, V.V. Chedrik. Use of Optimality Criteria for Solving the Structural Optimization Problem with the Stress and
Displacement Constraints. Uchenyye Zapiski TsAGI, 1989, vol. 20(4): 73-83 (in Russian).
8. V.V. Chedrik, A.K. Nikiforov. Structural optimization methods in multidisciplinary design system, Rio de Janeiro, 6th World
Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2005.
9. D.D. Yevseyev. Computing Some Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Elastic Wing by Using the Influence Coefficients Method,
Uchenyye Zapiski TsAGI, 1978, vol. 12, No. 6, (in Russian).
10. D.D. Yevseyev, F.Z. Ishmuratov, V.V. Chedrik et al. Software Package ARGON for Aeroelasticity/Strength Design of Aircraft.
Uchenyye Zapiski TsAGI, 1991, vol. 22, No. 5, (in Russian).
11. E.K. Lipin, V.M. Frolov, V.V. Chedrik, A.N. Shanygin. An Algorithm with Compensation of Violated Constraints for Structural
Optimization under Strength Requirements. Uchenyye Zapiski TsAGI, 1988, v. 19(1): 58-66 (in Russian)