JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA [m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.

1 (1-13)
Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

An inverse design method with aerodynamic design optimization for

wing glove with hybrid laminar flow control
Yixiong Yang a , Junqiang Bai a,b,∗ , Li Li a , Tihao Yang a , Hui Wang a , Shiwei Ma a , Yu Zhang a
a
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, 710072, China
b
Unmanned System Research Institute, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, 710072, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The design of the hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC) system involves the comprehensive design of the
Received 18 May 2019 suction control and the profile, and it has become an urgent problem for a three-dimensional shape
Received in revised form 14 October 2019 design with the consideration of HLFC technology, especially in condition of the high Reynolds number
Accepted 16 October 2019
with the large sweep angle. In order to deal with this issue, this paper conducts an inverse design method
Available online xxxx
combining a design optimization oriented by pressure distribution. This methodology prescribes a target
Keywords: pressure distribution and then uses the optimization method to pursue the corresponding shape that
Hybrid laminar flow control matches the target pressure distribution. The optimization framework is mainly based on the particle
Aerodynamic shape optimization swarm optimization algorithm and the Kriging surrogate model. The studied model is a wing glove, and
Inverse design method the results show that the desired robust wing glove that meets the engineering requirements can be
Robust design efficiently obtained. The optimized wing glove has a long enough laminar zone with the help of suction
Surrogate model control, and it shows good robustness with the variation of sideslip angles and angles of attack.
© 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The transition research for aircrafts mainly focused on three
kinds of transition: attachment-line contamination, crossflow (CF)
instability and Tollmien-Schlichting (T-S) instability. The attach-
ment-line contamination is induced by the transport of the turbu-
lence from the fuselage or wind tunnel floor along the attachment-
line region. Limiting the sweep angle and curvature radius can
eliminate this kind of transition [1]. The CF instability and T-S in-
stability are started with the wave-like disturbances, which were
often discussed in the recent research through different methods
such as stability analysis [2]. The CF instability tends to occur in
the regions where the crossflow velocity develops rapidly, for in-
stance, around the leading edge of swept wings. The T-S instability
is also known as the streamwise instability, which is unstable in
decelerated flows. For modern typical transonic airliners, both the
crossflow (CF) instability and Tollmien-Schlichting (T-S) instabil-
ity have a decisive impact on maintaining the length of laminar
flow area because of its high wing sweep angles, Mach numbers
and Reynolds numbers at the state of cruise. Meanwhile, taking
the internal structure layout of the wing into consideration, hy-
brid laminar flow control (HLFC) technology has become one of the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: junqiang@nwpu.edu.cn (J. Bai).
most feasible methods to achieve the laminar flow concept for this
kind of aircraft [3,4]. The HLFC technology combines traditional
natural laminar flow [5,6] and laminar flow control technology. It
carries out the suction control of boundary layer only at the lead-
ing edge of the wing, and both the wing profile and the suction
system are designed simultaneously to delay transition. In recent
decades, a large number of flight tests and wind tunnel experi-
ments [7–9] were used to verify the feasibility of HLFC technology.
In the United States, some representative experiments were con-
ducted on the testbeds like B757 [10], JetStar [11], and B787 [4].
And in Europe, the representative researches included the experi-
ments based on A320 [12–15] and SAAB 2000 [16,17]. Up to now,
most of these experiments of the HLFC technology mainly focus
on the design of the suction devices, and successfully prove that
the suction devices can work well on the aircraft. However, there
are no enough studies about the design of the aerodynamic shape
with the HLFC concept. Since the HLFC system needs the compre-
hensive design of wing profiles and suction system, the design of
the shape is an indispensable aspect for HLFC technology as well.
For the shape design with laminar technology, the methodology
can be divided into two categories. The first one is based on the
direct shape optimization, and the objective of the optimization is
the drag coefficient or the transition position. For example, an op-
timization combined with the surrogate model was conducted by
Han et al. [18,19] to minimize the drag of the natural-laminar-flow
wing. Risse et al. [20] took a key step for the optimization with

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105493
1270-9638/© 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
2 Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Nomenclature
AoA angle of attack
Beta sideslip angle
c chord length
CF crossflow
Cp pressure coefficient
Cq strength of suction
Ma Mach number
N Smith-Van-Ingen N-factor
Ncri critical N-factor
p pressure
q variables of flow field
q variables of mean flow field
q disturbance variables

q parameters of disturbance variables
Rec chord Reynolds number
s suction velocity perpendicular to the surface
T temperature
the HLFC, who used a quasi-three-dimensional approach to opti-
mize HLFC airfoils. Currently, it is still a crucial challenge to carry
out direct shape design of three-dimensional (3-D) swept wings
with the HLFC technology operated in the high Reynold numbers,
which is the key of utility of HLFC technology. The difficulties are
mainly concluded from two perspectives. First, the computational
cost is extremely high. It is because that each design iteration in-
volves a 3-D flow field calculation, the analysis of T-S instabilities
and the analysis of CF instabilities. Second, the features of the re-
sulting pressure distribution may not be robust with the variation
of the flight conditions, which is not beneficial for suppressing T-S
instabilities and CF instabilities.
The other methodology is the inverse design method, which
prescribes a “target pressure distribution” and pursues the shape
to match the pressure distribution. The works can be seen in the
design of the natural-laminar-flow airfoils [21,22]. Green et al.
[21] employed the inverse design method in the design of the
natural-laminar-flow airfoils and found that the target-pressure-
N-factor relationship could be used to reduce the N-factors. And
Gopalarathnam et al. [22] demonstrated the power of modern in-
verse design techniques in generating a custom database of the
natural-laminar-flow airfoils. In addition, Belisle et al. [23] also
successfully applied the inverse design method to the design of
the airfoils of a laminar-flow wing glove, which is used to verify
passive laminar flow control. But few references discussed about
applying the inverse design method in the design of the shape
with the HLFC concept. In view of the difficulties faced in the di-
rect shape optimization, an inverse design method, which is based
on the prescribed pressure distribution, can be an efficient way
to obtain such a design that can suppress T-S instabilities and CF
instabilities on different flight conditions. With the help of the re-
searches about the HLFC airfoils [20], the pressure distribution can
be prescribed reasonably. After that, the optimization method and
the surrogate model is used to pursue the target pressure distri-
bution. However, the model combining the inverse design method
and the optimization oriented by pressure distribution is scarcely
reported.
In order to address the issue of 3-D aerodynamic shape design
with HLFC technology, this paper carry out a design framework
based on the inverse design method and the optimization oriented
by pressure distribution. In addition, the optimum result is used to
research the characteristics and robustness of the design with the
HLFC concept, especially the variation with the angles of attack
and the sideslip angles.
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.2 (1-13)
T-S Tollmien-Schlichting
T u∞ freestream turbulence intensity
U∞ freestream velocity
x/c chord length ratio
α wave number of the flow direction
β sideslip angle or wave number of the normal direction
ω circular frequency
ρ density
Subscripts
cri critical value
CF CF waves
tr transition
T-S T-S waves
u upper bound
l lower bound
The content of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes the problem formulation of the wing glove, HLFC sys-
tem, and target flight conditions. Section 3 gives the introduction
and validation of the numerical simulation that is used to evalu-
ate the performance of the wing glove with HLFC technology. The
numerical simulation couples full-aircraft CFD calculation based
on Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solver with the tran-
sition prediction methodology based on the eN method. Section 4
presents the design methodology and optimization framework. The
design methodology is based on the inverse design method and
prescribes the target pressure distribution firstly. In order to ob-
tain the corresponding shape, an optimization framework is built,
and the elements include improved particle swarm optimization
algorithm, radial basis function (RBF) interpolation based mesh de-
formation, extended free-form deformation (EFFD) technique, eN
method, RANS solver, and Kriging surrogate model. Section 5 de-
scribes the optimum result including the robustness with the vari-
ation of flight conditions. Section 6 gives the principal conclusions.
2. Problem statement: overview of the wing glove flight
experiment
The problem in this paper comes from an HLFC wing glove
flight experiment, which aims to validate the HLFC system in
the real flight condition and may be conducted in the future. At
present, the design is carried out with numerical tools. Through
the design of wing glove, the methods and features about the de-
sign of the shape with the HLFC concept can be summarized. Even
though the wing glove is a device only for flight tests, the real
wing share the same design methodology with the wing glove. The
wing glove can be designed into the desired shape based on the
specific goal of the experimental condition. Therefore, it is suitable
for the study of the HLFC technology. The application of the wing
glove can be find in Ref. [24] for flow control. The testbed aircraft
in this paper is a medium-sized commercial airliner, and the wing
glove is mounted on the vertical tail of the testbed aircraft as with
some of the experiments mentioned above [12,13].
Since the primary purpose of this flight experiment is to prove
the engineering feasibility and worth of the HLFC technology, the
wing glove must be well-designed so that long enough laminar
flow can be observed on it by applying the HLFC technology. In
other words, the transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow
should be delayed after the suction system is switched on, which
means that the length of laminar flow with HLFC technology is
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Fig. 1. The projected plan of the testbed aircraft and the simplified HLFC system.
Table 1
Target flight conditions.
Parameter Value
Mach number (Ma) 0.75
Rec for wing glove 38.1 × 106
Sideslip angle (deg) −2, −1, 0, 1, 2
Angle of attack (deg) 1, 2, 3
longer than the length of natural laminar flow in the same flight
state.
2.1. Testbed aircraft configuration, HLFC system and flight conditions
Fig. 1 shows the projected plan of testbed and its vertical tail
mounted with the wing glove and the simplified HLFC system. For
this testbed aircraft, its flight envelope effortlessly covers the flight
state of the experiment, which is around Mach number of 0.75
and height of 6500 m. The wing glove, as shown in the figure, is
located on the vertical fin. There are some benefits by placing the
wing glove on the vertical fin instead of the main wings. Firstly,
it is easier to install the wing glove on the vertical fin. The main
wings have the high lift device around the leading edge, which
increases the difficulties of refitting. Secondly, the vertical fin can
remain symmetrical by adding a symmetrical wing glove. On the
other hand, if the wing glove is mounted on one side of the main
wings, the left side and right side will show different aerodynamic
characteristics, making flight control hard. Lastly, the wing glove
on the vertical fin, unlike that on the main wing, will not decrease
the maximum lift coefficient during the takeoff and landing, which
is helpful to the safety of the experiment.
The HLFC suction system shown in the right side of Fig. 1 con-
tains 5 subsections: porous suction panel, stringers and chambers,
transfer pipe, suction pump, and exhaust pipe. When the suction
pump works, the air can pass through the small holes on the
porous suction panel and enter several chambers divided by the
stringers. The chambers have different metering holes to control
suction velocity. And multiple chambers can obtain the distribu-
tion of suction velocity varied with the chordwise position. (More
details about the profile of wing glove will be shown in Fig. 4.)
Then the transfer pipe takes the air from the chambers to the suc-
tion pump where the flow is accelerated. Through an exhaust pipe,
the exhaust gas is expelled to the atmosphere at the tail.
The target flight conditions in this experiment are shown below
in Table 1. The chord Reynolds number Rec = 38.1 × 106 based on
the mid-span chord of the wing glove is relatively high, and al-
most no laminar flow can be obtained on the wing glove without
HLFC technology. The angles of attack are set as 1, 2, 3 deg be-
cause the corresponding lift coefficient of the whole plane may be
floating among this range in the real flight. The range of sideslip
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.3 (1-13)
3
Fig. 2. Shape of wing glove. (For interpretation of the colors in the figures, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
angle is used to change the angles of attack in the view of the ver-
tical fin. The design of the final glove should be robust and achieve
longer laminar flow at the broad flight conditions to guarantee the
success of the experiment.
2.2. Wing glove configuration
On the testbed aircraft, the sweep angle of the original verti-
cal fin is 45 deg. In general, with the sweep angle increases, it’s
more difficult to suppress the CF instability. For such a big sweep
angle, it’s quite hard to maintain laminar flow on the fin because
of the fast-growing CF instability. As a result, the sweep angle of
the new configuration becomes 35 deg after the wing glove is in-
stalled as shown in Fig. 2. As the colors painted in Fig. 2, the wing
glove consists of the main test section and transitional section. The
main test section (red), where the tests and measurements are car-
ried out, is 1.1 meters in span. The part painted yellow is the
transitional section, which is designed for a continuous transition
between the main test section and the original fin and eliminat-
ing the possible flow separation. The orange line represents the
position of the rear spar. For the engineering constraint about the
structure, the area of wing glove should be at the front of the rear
spar.
The surface of the main test section is controlled by two de-
fined airfoil sections located at Z = 3.876 m and Z = 4.976 m,
diagrammed as the blue lines in Fig. 3. And several sections (red
lines) are selected to analyze the pressure distribution and transi-
tion position on the wing glove. The following information shows
how an optimization framework is constructed.
The section of the wing glove is shown in Fig. 4. The porous
suction panel with suction holes is located at the left leading edge
of vertical fin for x/c < 0.15. It is worth mentioned that the left
side of the vertical fin is the lee side when the sideslip angle is
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
4 Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Fig. 3. Defined airfoil sections and sections for analysis.
Fig. 4. Section of the wing glove and sketch map of suction system.
positive. It resembles that the upper side of the wing when the an-
gle of attack is positive. The analysis in this paper mainly focuses
on the suction side. As previously mentioned, there are chambers
and stringers inside the wing glove. In this design, the space be-
low the surface is divided into seven suction chambers by several
stringers. Different negative pressure can be set inside these cham-
bers to provide different strength of suction. It has to be noted that
the chamber 1 covers the leading edge and extend to the lower
surface a little, which is to ensure that the stagnation point stays
in the suction zone when the wing glove faces a positive sideslip
angle.
3. Full-aircraft CFD calculations and transition prediction
methodology
During the analysis of wing glove on the vertical tail, the CFD
calculations are performed with the full-aircraft configuration to
consider the presence of fuselage, wing, and vertical and horizon-
tal tails. The results of flow field are obtained by an in-house RANS
solver TeAM [25,26], which is developed from CFL3D [27]. TeAM is
a central-center and upwind-biased CFD code, and it supports the
multi-block structured patched and overset mesh, as well as par-
allel computing. Its output serves as the input data of transition
prediction methodology. In this research, the selected transition
prediction methodology is the eN method. The eN method can be
used to analyze both T-S and CF instability, and it has been widely
used in the engineering problems about swept wings [28,29].
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.4 (1-13)
3.1. The eN method for transition prediction with suction control
The eN transition prediction method mainly includes three
parts: boundary layer information solution, stability analysis, and
transition position judgment. In this paper, the boundary layer
equations for quasi-three-dimensional (such as two-dimensional
airfoil and swept wing with infinite span) are used to obtain pa-
rameters such as boundary layer velocity profile, temperature, den-
sity, as well as pressure and their first and second derivatives [30].
These parameters will be used as input to the stability analysis
method for stability determination.
Before the stability analysis, the criterion for attachment-line
contamination should be checked. If attachment-line contamina-
tion occurs at the leading edge, the whole surface will be turbulent
and no laminar area will exist at all. The attachment-line contam-
ination criterion is expressed as:
Reθ,AL = Reθ,AL,crit (1)
where Reθ,AL is the momentum Reynolds number, which can be
calculated from the boundary layer information. And the criterion
Reθ,AL,crit is set as 100 in this paper according the reference [1,29].
The general stability analysis methods mainly include Linear
Stability Theory (LST) and Linear or Nonlinear Parabolic Stability
Equations (LPSE or NPSE) [2,31]. This paper uses the linear stabil-
ity theory, which is more mature in the application of engineering
design. The flow field variable is generally defined as a stable flow
field plus an unsteady disturbance:
q(x, y , z, t ) = q( z) + q (x, y , t ) (2)
where q represents the velocity u, v, w, pressure p, density ρ
or temperature T . The first term in the equation represents the
variables of mean flow field and the second term is the disturbance
variables. The disturbance variables are generally expressed as:
q (x, y , t ) =
q( z)e i (α x+β y −ωt ) (3)
where  q( z) is only relevant to the normal variables. The symbol
α represents the wave number of the flow direction, β represents
the wave number of the normal direction, and ω represents the
circular frequency. Usually, α and β are real numbers, and ω is a
complex number. Since the amount of disturbance is small, the lin-
ear stability equation can be derived after the second-order distur-
bance is ignored. At the same time, this paper simplifies the linear
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA [m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.5 (1-13)
Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••••• 5

stability equation and adds the parallel flow hypothesis. The final
three-dimensional compressible LST equation can be expressed as:

d2 d

q + A (α , β)  q = ωC 
q + B (α , β) q (4)
dz2 dz
where  q represents the velocity ũ, ṽ, w̃, pressure p̃, density ρ̃
or temperature T̃ . The matrices A, B, and C are determined by
the parameters of the mean flow field and the parameters α and
β . The detailed parameters of the equation have been thoroughly
discussed in the work of Cebeci [2]. Solving this equation is an
eigenvalue problem, where the Rayleigh quotient method is carried
out in this paper [31].
The stability equation can be solved to obtain the growth rate
of disturbance with time ωi , which can yield the parameter αi
[32]. The eN method defines the amplification factor N along the
flow direction:

N= αi ds (5)
Fig. 5. Flow chart of the coupling between the eN method and RANS solver.
At present, there are different ways to integrate the N-factor. In
this paper, the method named NCF /NTS [2] is used to obtain the Table 2
amplification factors of the T-S waves and the CF standing waves The calculated conditions of NLF(2)-0415.
respectively. Only amplification factors cannot determine the posi- Reynolds numbers Ma Attack angle Turbulence
tion of the transition, and a transition criterion for N-factors should (million) (deg) intensity (%)
be introduced. In the eN method, the transition occurs when any 1.92 0.123 −4.0 0.05
T-S waves or CF waves reach the transition criterion. The transition 2.19 0.140 −4.0 0.05
2.37 0.151 −4.0 0.05
criterion for N-factors is generally determined by the conditions 2.73 0.174 −4.0 0.05
of the wind tunnel experiment or flight experiment [33]. And an 3.27 0.209 −4.0 0.05
empirical formula proposed by Mark [34] is often employed to es-
timate the transition criterion:
  where U ∞ is the freestream velocity. According to the equation,
T u ∞ (%) the absolute value of factor C q is relevant to the velocity perpen-
Ncri = −8.43 − 2.4ln (6) dicular to the suction surface. For this paper, the factor C q is the
100
only parameter to reflect the strength of suction. In general, the
where T u ∞ is the freestream turbulence intensity. C q is a negative value, which means the operating mode of the
In the HLFC technology, the suction control is achieved by pump system is suction instead of blowing gas. The range of C q
many discrete suction holes around the leading edge. However, in for HLFC is generally from −0.001 to −0.00005 and the higher ab-
present research about HLFC, the distribution of the suction is of- solute value of C q means more intense suction.
ten approximated to be continuous on the whole suction zone to
cut down the computational cost. The reason why the approxima- 3.2. Coupling of the eN method and RANS solver
tion can be made is that the distribution of suction holes has to
be dense enough to achieve a stable suction. In general, the spac- A loose coupling way is used in the coupling of the eN method
ing between the holes does not exceed 0.8 mm, the diameter of and RANS solver [36]. The process of calculation is illustrated in
the holes is less than 0.2 mm, and the direction of suction is per- the flowchart shown as Fig. 5. Firstly, a transition location is as-
pendicular to the surface. Since the primary goal of this paper is to sumed and RANS solver with the fixed transition mode is used to
analyze the delay of transition after HLFC technology is carried out, calculate the mean flow field. Secondly, the boundary layer solver
the flow characteristics near the hole is not the focus. Therefore, obtains the information of the boundary layer from the mean flow
the distribution of the suction is approximated to be continuous field, then, a new transition location is yielded through the eN
when the spacing and diameter of the holes are small enough. method with the consideration of suction distribution. After that,
Compared to the mean flow field, the suction velocity is tiny, the new mean flow field is calculated by RANS solver with the up-
and the suction has little influence on the pressure distribution dated transition location. This process iterates until the transition
[35]. In the calculation, the control of the suction can be described location and output of RANS solver are converged. Lastly, the con-
by modifying the boundary condition. Since the suction is perpen- verged result is taken as the final result.
dicular to the object plane, the boundary condition can be rewrit-
ten as 3.3. Validation of the solver

Dagenhart and Saric [37] have studied the transition on 45 deg

u (0) = 0, v (0) = s, w (0) = 0 (7)
swept wing that consists of an NLF(2)-0415 airfoil through the ex-
where u (0), v (0), w (0) are the time-averaged speeds along three periment. Here, this model is selected to examine the accuracy of
directions on the wall, and s is the suction velocity perpendicu- the coupling of eN method and RANS solver. The calculation con-
lar to the surface. Here, a suction coefficient C q is introduced to ditions are shown in Table 2. In the experiment, the turbulence is
represent the strength of suction as follows: 0.0005, and the transition criterion for N-factors of eN method can
be determined by the Mack formula [34]. Fig. 6 shows the tran-
v (0) s sition locations obtained from the experiment, the Langtry-Menter
Cq = = (8) γ − Re N
θ t transition model [38] and the e method. It can be seen
U∞ U∞
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
6 Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Fig. 6. Comparison of the transition position.
that the results of the eN method are in good agreement with
the experimental results, but the results of the γ − Re  θ t transi-
tion model are quite different from the experimental results. The
reason is that the CF waves are the significant factor that induces a

transition in the swept wing and the traditional γ − Re θ t transition
model cannot capture the transition caused by the CF instability.
The result at Re = 2.73 million is chosen to perform the transi-
tion mechanism analysis. Through the calculation of eN method, CF
and T-S waves can be obtained as shown in Fig. 7. The disturbance
wave amplification curves describe the development of amplifica-
tion exponents along with the chordwise direction for different
frequencies and wavelengths. Once any of the disturbance wave
amplification curves reach the transition criterion, the transition
occurs. Thus, the overall development of all amplification waves
can be represented by the envelope of them, which is plotted in
red in Fig. 7. It is easy to determine the cause of the transition
from the growth of disturbance wave amplification curves. Appar-
ently, for the condition with Re = 2.73 million, the CF waves reach
the criterion at about x/c = 0.48 and induce transition. This situa-
tion is called the transition induced by CF waves.
4. Design methodology and optimization framework
As stated in the introduction, the inverse design method can
play an important role for the aerodynamic shape design with
HLFC technology because it can save the computation cost and
tend to obtain a robust result. The inverse design method on the
basis of prescribed empirical pressure distribution on wing glove
includes two main steps. The first step in this method is to de-
velop adequate target pressure distribution. Then, the next step is
to optimize the shape of the wing glove to approach the target
pressure distribution. Consequently, this method is also called the
optimization oriented by pressure distribution.
Fig. 7. Disturbance waves amplification curves and the envelope with Reynolds number of 2.73 million.
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.6 (1-13)
Admittedly, it seems to be more straightforward that the opti-
mization is oriented by the transition position or the force coef-
ficient directly. However, during the optimization with automatic
transition prediction, the transition criterion leads to some un-
smooth gaps in the solution space of the force coefficient, because
the force coefficient of laminar flow and turbulent flow is vastly
different. Therefore, the optimization is easier to fall into a local
optimum if the objective of the optimization is oriented by the
force coefficient or the transition position. Moreover, the result-
ing pressure distribution may be too weird, which can not satisfy
the engineering requirement. So, the inverse design method and
the optimization oriented by pressure distribution are employed in
this paper instead of the optimization oriented by the force coeffi-
cient or the transition position. Here, the process will be described
next.
4.1. Prescribe the target pressure distribution
Determining the target pressure distribution is the key to em-
ploy this inverse design method. Similar methodologies have been
discussed by Belisle et al. [23]. For this wing glove, several aspects
need to be considered as follows:
1) The pressure distribution should be capable of suppress the
growth of CF instability and T-S instability. Actually, the input
of boundary layer stability calculation needs both pressure dis-
tribution and physical geometry. However, when the pressure
distribution is perturbed, its accuracy is generally still accept-
able without updating the physical geometry [23]. It means
that the influence of small changes in geometry is not domi-
nant in stability analysis. So the approach that only considers
pressure distribution is valid in the suppression of CF instabil-
ity and T-S instability.
2) The target pressure distribution is defined under a typical
flight condition, and the changes of pressure distribution with
the variation of sideslip angles and angles of attack should be
considered. For the wing glove on a vertical fin, the sideslip
angle in the view of the whole plane will have the dominant
effect on the pressure distribution of wing glove, just as the
angle of attack affect the pressure distribution of the main
wing. As for the angle of attack, it will change the sideslip an-
gle in the view of wing glove. These effects will be discussed
in the analysis of the final result.
3) Lastly, the target pressure distribution needs to be practical so
that there is a corresponding physical geometry in reality.
The parameters for the target pressure distribution shall be
representative of the whole target flight conditions, which can
be chosen as follows: Ma = 0.75, Rec = 3.81 × 106 , β = 1 deg,
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Fig. 8. Target pressure distribution for different sections.
AoA = 2 deg. In this paper, the strength of suction is set as
Cq = −7.5 × 10−4 in consideration of the large chord Reynolds
number and big sweep angle. According to the reference and engi-
neering experience, the absolute value of Cq is classified as a high
suction level. It should be noted that there will be few natural
laminar zones on the wing glove in such a high Reynolds number
and sweep angle, and the transition will occur close to the leading
edge. If enough laminar area is observed with the help of suction
control, the validity and practicability of HLFC technology can be
verified to some extent. As the critical N-factor, where the transi-
tion occurs in the eN method, the value is treated as Ncrit = 6.48.
After considering the multiple factors, the target pressure dis-
tribution for different sections is determined below in Fig. 8, which
conforms to the characteristics of HLFC pressure distribution. And
it should be noted that the target pressure distributions only cover
the front part of the suction side because this part is dominant
for maintaining laminar flow [39]. The target pressure distribution
resembles the typical HLFC pressure distribution described in the
references [20], which is more beneficial to suppress the growth
of both CF and T-S waves. For the front part of the suction side,
the characteristics of pressure distribution based on hybrid laminar
flow control technology can be summarized as follows. First, the
negative peak near the leading edge is relatively low. Then, there
is a short and small adverse pressure gradient after the negative
peak. Further then, there is a long steady favorable pressure gradi-
ent. These characteristics of pressure distribution are related to the
features of the growth of CF and T-S waves. In general, the favor-
able pressure gradient can suppress the T-S instability and enlarge
the CF instability. On the contrary, the adverse pressure gradient
can suppress the CF instability and enlarge the T-S instability. The
design of pressure distribution must balance the growth of both
CF waves and T-S waves. Fortunately, with the application of the
HLFC technology, the suction control at the x/c < 0.15 can weaken
the growth of CF and T-S waves simultaneously around the lead-
ing edge. For the pressure distribution around the leading edge,
the relatively low negative peak with a short and small adverse
pressure gradient are to avoid the fast growth of CF waves near
the leading edge because the CF instability is the strongest at the
leading edge. Behind the leading edge, the effect of CF instability
tend to become weak, and the growth of T-S waves becomes dom-
inant so there should be a long steady favorable pressure gradient
to suppress it.
4.2. Flow chart of the optimization
The next task is to optimize the shape of the wing glove based
on the target pressure distribution. And the mathematical model
of the optimization can be written as
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.7 (1-13)
7
Fig. 9. The FFD control frame and points.
 xu  
min C p ,result (x) − C p ,target (x) dx
xl
(9)
s.t. t i ≥ t i ,constraint
where C p ,result and C p ,target represents the result pressure distri-
bution and the target pressure distribution respectively; xl and xu
are the lower and upper bounds of the pressure distributions that
are going to be compared. The parameter t i represents the thick-
ness of mid-span section of wing glove at some specific chordwise
location while t i ,constraint represents the thickness of the original
fin at the same location. The constraint is a geometric constraint
used to avoid the drop of thickness around the important struc-
ture members, especially where the front spar stands. Even though
some parts of fin such as skins may be removed during the refit-
ting, the essential structures like front spar should be retained to
minimize the workload.
At the beginning of optimization, a parameterization method
must be selected to modify the shape of the wing glove. In this
paper, the parameterization method is based on the theory of
extended free-form deformation (EFFD) technique [40]. The FFD
method is a highly intuitive modeling technique, and its local de-
formation capability is excellent, which makes it accessible in the
optimization design of aircraft [41,42]. The FFD control frame and
points are shown in Fig. 9. The FFD frame consists of two sec-
tions that can modify two defined airfoil sections respectively. The
movement of control points is parallel to the y-axis. In order to
keep the wing glove and fin symmetric, the FFD frame is also
symmetric. And every pair of control points, which have the same
x coordinate and z coordinate, keep symmetric during the move-
ment. Each section consists of 10 pairs of control points, and the
rearmost pair keep fixed to avoid modifying the surface after the
wing glove. So the whole FFD control frame has 18 degrees of free-
dom.
Next, the mesh deformation module employs the radial basis
function (RBF) interpolation method [43] which is based on in-
terpolating the movement of boundary nodes to the whole mesh
through radial basis functions. For both 2-D and 3-D meshes, this
mesh deformation has good robustness and computational effi-
ciency.
For the optimization algorithm module, an improved particle
swarm optimization algorithm [44] is employed in it. This method
is an intelligent optimization algorithm based on swarm intelli-
gence. It has adequate global searching capability and convergence
rate. Moreover, for most intelligent algorithms, it is quite easy to
be integrated into the optimization framework.
At last, the CFD solver is the RANS solver coupled with the eN
method as mentioned earlier.
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA [m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.8 (1-13)
8 Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••

Fig. 10. Flow chart of the optimization in the second round.

Fig. 11. Testing results of the precision of trained surrogate model.

Fig. 10 displays the workflow of this optimization. Based on the
target pressure distribution, the following steps will be performed
to get the optimized wing glove.
1) Kriging surrogate model [45] is applied to accelerate this pro-
cess. Initially, 320 designs of experiments (DOE) are generated
by the Uniform Latin Hypercube method. After all of them
are calculated by RANS solver with parallel computing, 310 of
them are used to train the surrogate model, and the other 10
points are reserved for testing the precision of the trained sur-
rogate model. Two of testing results are illustrated in Fig. 11.
It can be seen that testing results prove that the results ob-
tained by surrogate model are very close to the results of
RANS solver. And the reason why the surrogate model have
such a high precision owes to the characteristic of local field.
Even though the flight condition is transonic, the local flow
around the vertical fin is still subsonic, which means there are
no apparent gaps like shock waves in the flow field. So the
surrogate model has the ability to predict the pressure distri-
butions well in such a subsonic flow field.
2) When the surrogate model is well-trained, the main optimiza-
tion loop could start. The initial sample points are also gen-
erated by the DOE method, which are regarded as the first
generation of the optimization.
3) The design variables of every sample points are entered into
the trained Kriging surrogate model. Then the corresponding
pressure distribution of wing glove is obtained in a short time.
4) The new pressure distribution is compared with the target
distribution, and the absolute value of the difference is cal-
culated. This value is set as the objective of optimization. And
then, the improved particle swarm optimization algorithm will
check those objective values and generate the design variables
of the next generation.
5) Steps 3 and 4 are repeated until the optimization reaches con-
vergence.
5. Wing glove design based on optimization oriented by pressure
distribution
5.1. The resulting defined airfoils of wing glove
The two defined airfoils of the resulting wing glove are shown
as the red lines in Fig. 12. The geometric constraints are plotted
as well. The orange dashed line represents the position of the rear
spar, and the blue dashed line is a constraint line, which is based
on the original shape of fin plus a specific clearance. The leading
edge radius is smaller, in order to reduce the negative peak near
the leading edge. In addition, the position of the maximum thick-
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA [m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.9 (1-13)
Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) •••••• 9

ness is close to the rear of the wing glove, which can extend the
favorable pressure gradient.
The performance of the new wing glove will be researched from
several aspects next including different sections, different sideslip
angles, different angles of attack and transition locations at full test
flight conditions.

5.2. Analysis of different sections at β = 1 deg and AoA = 2 deg

The check for attachment-line contamination criterion is ac-

Fig. 12. Comparison of two defined airfoils of wing glove in the two rounds (a:
Z = 3.876 m; b: Z = 4.976 m).
complished in the transition prediction firstly. The Reθ,AL at section
Z = 4 m is 98, which satisfies the criterion. Actually, the criterion
for attachment-line contamination is conservative [29]. All of the
transition predictions in this paper have checked the attachment-
line contamination criterion. In general, suppressing the CF insta-
bility and T-S instability is the significant part of the design, so the
next analysis will mainly focus on them.
The result of pressure distribution, defined target pressure dis-
tribution and transition position of each section is displayed in
Fig. 13. The corresponding amplification of CF waves and T-S waves

Fig. 13. Pressure distributions, target pressure distribution, transition position and amplification of CF and T-S waves of different sections at β = 1 deg and AoA = 2 deg.
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA [m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.10 (1-13)
10 Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••

Fig. 14. Transition line (sideslip angle β = 1 deg, angle of attack AoA = 2 deg). Fig. 15. Comparison of transition lines under different sideslip angles. (Angle of at-
tack AoA = 2 deg. Red: sideslip angle β = 0 deg. Blue: sideslip angle β = 1 deg.
Green: sideslip angle β = 2 deg.)
is presented aside. According to the comparison of pressure distri-
butions, the resulting pressure distributions are very close to their
targets, so they conform to the characteristics of typical HLFC pres-
sure distributions. On the suction side, their negative peak near
the leading edge is relatively low (about −0.2). After the peak,
there is a small adverse pressure gradient from x/c = 0.05 to
x/c = 0.1. Then, they show a favorable pressure gradient up to
roughly x/c = 0.45. When the position approaches the fairing at
the rear of the wing glove, the pressure recovers through a steep
adverse pressure gradient from about x/c = 0.45 to x/c = 0.6.
Fig. 14 shows the transition line of wing glove. As shown in it,
the transition locations change little with the Z -coordinate. Their
transition mechanism can be studied from the amplifications in
Fig. 13. From the pressure distribution, it can be seen that there
is little difference between the pressure distributions of section
Z = 4 m and section Z = 4.5 m. So their envelope curves of CF
waves and T-S waves are similar. At section Z = 4 m, CF waves and Fig. 16. Comparison of pressure distributions at Z = 4.5 m at different sideslip an-
gles. (Angle of attack AoA = 2 deg, sideslip angle β = 0, 1, 2 deg.)
T-S waves reach the N-factor criterion at x/c = 0.25 to x/c = 0.3
respectively so the transition is induced by CF instability. At sec-
tion Z = 4.5 m, CF waves reach the criterion at x/c = 0.25 while middle section based on Fig. 16 and Fig. 17. From the Fig. 16, the
T-S waves reach the criterion at x/c = 0.26. So this transition is change of pressure distribution with the growth of sideslip angle
also caused by CF instability. At section Z = 4.95 m, the adverse at the section Z = 4.5 m can be described as follows. The negative
pressure gradient around x/c = 0.1 of the suction side is steeper peak near the leading edge is higher, and the strength of the fol-
than those of the other two sections. As a result, its CF instability lowing adverse pressure gradient increases. Moreover, the strength
is suppressed successfully, but its T-S waves reach the criterion at of the favorable pressure gradient from x/c = 0.1 to x/c = 0.45 de-
x/c = 0.23. Thus, the transition is induced by T-S instability. It has creases a lot. At the same time, the corresponding change about
to be noted that both CF waves and T-S waves approach to limiting the CF and T-S waves can be observed from Fig. 17. The CF waves
N-factor criterion at most sections of wing glove. It means that the are weaker because the adverse pressure gradient after the nega-
length of the laminar area is already near the limit and it is hard tive peak is enhanced. But the growth of T-S waves becomes faster
to obtain a further improvement only through the refined design for the favorable pressure gradient from x/c = 0.1 to x/c = 0.45
about the shape of the wing glove. In short, the design of wing weaken apparently. On the contrary, the CF waves are stronger and
glove at this flight condition is close to the optimal solution. the T-S waves are weaker when the sideslip angle decreases. The
changes at other sections are not given here, but the situations re-
5.3. Analysis of different sideslip angles semble that at Z = 4.5 m.
In short, when the sideslip angle increases, the change of pres-
This section analyzes the performance and robustness of wing sure distribution will weaken the growth of CF waves but acceler-
glove when the positive sideslip angle varies. Fig. 15 displays ate the growth of T-S waves. As a result, the laminar area on the
the comparison of transition lines when the sideslip angles are wing glove will decrease because of the T-S instability.
−2, −1, 0, 1, 2 deg. Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 demonstrate the varia-
tion of pressure distributions and N-factors at the middle section 5.4. Analysis of different angles of attack
Z = 4.5 m. As the transition lines shown in Fig. 15, the laminar
area on the wing glove tends to decrease as the sideslip angle This part is about the performance and robustness of wing
rises. And the reasons can be discussed in the analysis of the single glove with the variation of angles of attack. Fig. 18 illustrates the
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Fig. 17. Comparison of the envelopes of disturbance wave amplification curves at Z = 4.5 m at different sideslip angles. (Angle of attack AoA = 2 deg, sideslip angle β = 0,
1, 2 deg.)
Fig. 18. Comparison of transition lines at different angles of attack. (Sideslip angle
β = 1 deg. Red: angle of attack AoA = 1 deg. Blue: angle of attack AoA = 2 deg.
Green: angle of attack AoA = 3 deg.)
change of transition lines at different angles of attack. It can be
seen that the laminar area decreases a little on the upper part of
the wing glove when the angle of attack increases. As shown in
Fig. 19, as the growth of angles of attack, the pressure distribution
near the leading edge hardly changes while the favorable pressure
gradient near x/c = 0.4 decreases. These changes are probably due
to the variation of the sweep angle in the view of the wing glove
and the impact from the horizontal tail. As a result, these changes
in pressure distribution have a direct influence on the correspond-
ing envelopes of disturbance wave amplification curves in Fig. 20.
It shows that the strength of CF waves remains almost unchanged
for the pressure distribution near the leading edge remaining un-
changeable and that of T-S waves increases because the favorable
pressure gradient near x/c = 0.4 weakens.
Thus, as the angle of attack increases, the change of pressure
distribution on wing glove will lead to faster growth of T-S waves
and decrease the laminar area. The influence of angle of attacks is
less evident than that of sideslip angles.
5.5. Analysis of transition locations on whole test flight conditions
Fig. 21 shows the transition locations of wing glove at whole
flight conditions including sideslip angles β = −2, −1, 0, 1, 2 deg
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.11 (1-13)
11
Fig. 19. Comparison of pressure distributions at Z = 4.5 m at different angles of
attack. (Sideslip angle β = 1 deg, angle of attack AoA = 1, 2, 3 deg.)
and angle of attack AoA = 1, 2, 3 deg. The abscissa of Fig. 21 is
the Z -coordinate of the sections, and the ordinate is the transition
locations of corresponding sections. Different line patterns repre-
sent the results of different angles of attack, and different colors
paint the results of different sideslip angles. Through the differ-
ence of line patterns and colors, it is obvious that the transition
locations mainly vary with the sideslip angles instead of angles of
attack. Furthermore, the transition locations of wing glove are all
within the range of x/c = 0.2 to x/c = 0.31 at whole flight con-
ditions, which means the wing glove has a good robustness. And
the good robustness guarantees that the laminar zone is stable and
easy to be observed.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, three-dimensional shape design in consideration
of HLFC technology is investigated. An in-house RANS solver cou-
pled with the eN method is employed to simulate the flow field
and predict the transition position accounting for both CF insta-
bility and T-S instability with suction control. The studied wing
glove has the sweep angles of 35 degrees and operates in the high
Reynolds number and the transonic region, which is close to the
cruise condition of modern transport aircraft, but it was rigorous
to maintain laminar flow. In order to get a design of the wing
glove with enough robust laminar zone, an inverse design method
is specifically adopted. After prescribing a target pressure distri-
bution, an optimization oriented by the pressure distribution was
carried out to obtain the resulting wing glove. The final design can
satisfy the engineering geometrical constraints and maintain lam-
inar zone on wide flight conditions. And the result demonstrates
that the inverse design method combining the optimization ori-
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
12 Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
Fig. 20. Comparison of the envelopes of disturbance wave amplification curves at Z = 4.5 m at different angles of attack. (Sideslip angle β = 1 deg, angle of attack AoA = 1,
2, 3 deg.)
Fig. 21. Transition locations at whole flight conditions.
ented by the pressure distribution can cope with the challenge of
the three-dimensional shape design in consideration of HLFC tech-
nology.
From the analysis of results, the characteristics of pressure dis-
tribution based on HLFC technology are summarized as follows.
The negative peak near the leading edge is relatively low; there
should be a short and small adverse pressure gradient after the
negative peak; a long steady favorable pressure gradient is fol-
lowed, and the pressure lastly recovers through a steep adverse
pressure gradient. When the sideslip angle (angle of attack in
the view of the wing glove) increases, the small adverse pressure
gradient enhances and the long steady favorable pressure gradi-
ent weakens, thereby yielding the weaker CF instability and the
stronger T-S instability, and vice versa. The angle of attack (sideslip
angle in the view of the wing glove) will affect the transition loca-
tions as well, but the influence of the angle of attack is less evident
than that of sideslip angle.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported under civil aircraft preliminary re-
search project in China.
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.12 (1-13)
References
[1] F. Moens, J. Perraud, A. Krumbein, T. Toulorge, P. Iannelli, P. Eliasson, A. Hanifi,
Transition prediction and impact on a three-dimensional high-lift-wing config-
uration, J. Aircr. 45 (2008), https://doi.org/10.2514/1.36238.
[2] D. Arnal, G. Casalis, Laminar-turbulent transition prediction in three-
dimensional flows, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 36 (2000) 173–191, https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0376-0421(00)00002-6.
[3] A. Abbas, J. de Vicente, E. Valero, Aerodynamic technologies to improve aircraft
performance, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 28 (2013) 100–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ast.2012.10.008.
[4] K.S.G. Krishnan, O. Bertram, O. Seibel, Review of hybrid laminar flow control
systems, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 93 (2017) 24–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.
2017.05.005.
[5] G. Schrauf, Status and perspectives of laminar flow, Aeronaut. J. 109 (2005)
639–644, https://doi.org/10.1017/S000192400000097X.
[6] J. Green, Laminar flow control – back to the future?, in: 38th Fluid Dyn. Conf.
Exhib., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina,
2008.
[7] A.L. Braslow, A history of suction-type laminar-flow control with emphasis on
flight research, in: NASA History Division, 1999.
[8] R.D. Joslin, Overview of Laminar Flow Control, NASA Technical Paper, 1998.
[9] P.J. Bobbitt, J.C. Ferris, W.D. Harvey, S.H. Goradia, Results for the Hybrid Lami-
nar Flow Control Experiment Conducted in the NASA Langley 8-Foot Transonic
Pressure Tunnel on a 7-Foot Chord Model, NASA Langley Research Center, 1992.
[10] F.S. Collier, An overview of recent subsonic laminar flow control flight experi-
ments, in: 23rd Fluid Dyn. Plasmadynamics, Lasers Conf., American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 1993.
[11] R.D. Wagner, D.V. Maddalon, D.F. Fisher, Laminar flow control leading-edge
systems in simulated airline service, J. Aircr. 27 (1990) 239–244, https://
doi.org/10.2514/3.45925.
[12] R. Henke, “A 320 HLF Fin” flight tests completed, Air Space Eur. 1 (1999) 76–79,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1290-0958(99)80019-7.
[13] T. Young, Investigations Into the Operational Effectiveness of Hybrid Laminar
Flow Control Aircraft, Cranfield University, 2002.
[14] S. Wang, H. Pfifer, P. Seiler, Robust synthesis for linear parameter varying sys-
tems using integral quadratic constraints, in: Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control.,
2015, Febru., 2014, pp. 4789–4794.
[15] M. Jabbal, S. Everett, G. Kalarikovilagam Srinivasan, S. Raghu, A comparative
study of hybrid flow control system architectures for an A320 aircraft, in: 8th
AIAA Flow Control Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Reston, Virginia, 2016.
[16] T. Young, B. Mahony, B. Humphreys, E. Totland, A. McClafferty, J. Corish, Dura-
bility of hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC) surfaces, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 7
(2003) 181–190, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1270-9638(03)00013-0.
[17] D. O’Donoghue, T. Young, J. Pembroke, T. O’Dwyer, An investigation of surfac-
tant and enzyme formulations for the alleviation of insect contamination on
Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) surfaces, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 6 (2002)
19–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1270-9638(01)01141-5.
[18] Z.-H. Han, J. Chen, Z. Zhu, W.-P. Song, Aerodynamic design of transonic natural-
laminar-flow (NLF) wing via surrogate-basedglobal optimization, in: 54th AIAA
Aerosp. Sci. Meet., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston,
Virginia, 2016, pp. 1–17.
[19] Z.-H. Han, J. Chen, K.-S. Zhang, Z.-M. Xu, Z. Zhu, W.-P. Song, Aerodynamic
shape optimization of natural-laminar-flow wing using surrogate-based ap-
proach, AIAA J. 56 (2018) 2579–2593, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J056661.
[20] K. Risse, F. Schueltke, E. Stumpf, G.H. Schrauf, Conceptual wing design method-
ology for aircraft with hybrid laminar flow control, in: 52nd Aerosp. Sci. Meet.,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2014.
JID:AESCTE AID:105493 /FLA
Y. Yang et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology ••• (••••) ••••••
[21] B.E. Green, J.L. Whitesides, R.L. Campbell, R.E. Mineck, Method for the con-
strained design of natural laminar flow airfoils, J. Aircr. 34 (1997) 706–712,
https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2248.
[22] A. Gopalarathnam, M. Selig, Low speed NLF airfoils – a case study in inverse
airfoil design, in: 37th Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., American Institute of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 1999, pp. 57–63.
[23] M. Belisle, M. Roberts, T. Williams, M. Tufts, A. Tucker, W. Saric, H. Reed, A
transonic laminar-flow wing glove flight experiment: overview and design opti-
mization, in: 30th AIAA Appl. Aerodyn. Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 2012.
[24] M. Roberts, H. Reed, W. Saric, A transonic laminar-flow wing glove flight ex-
periment: computational evaluation and linear stability, in: 30th AIAA Appl.
Aerodyn. Conf., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Vi-
rigina, 2012.
[25] F. Qu, D. Sun, G. Zuo, A study of upwind schemes on the laminar hypersonic
heating predictions, Acta Astronaut. 147 (2018) 412–420, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.actaastro.2018.03.046.
[26] J. Xu, Z. Fu, J. Bai, Y. Zhang, Z. Duan, Y. Zhang, Study of boundary layer tran-
sition on supercritical natural laminar flow wing at high Reynolds number
through wind tunnel experiment, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 80 (2018) 221–231,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.07.007.
[27] R.E. Bartels, C.L. Rumsey, R.T. Biedron, CFL3D Version 6.4 – General Usage and
Aeroelastic Analysis, NASA Tech. Memo., 2006.
[28] Y. Shi, R. Gross, C.A. Mader, J. Martins, Transition prediction in a rans solver
based on linear stability theory for complex three-dimensional configurations,
in: 2018 AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet., 2018, pp. 1–19.
[29] Y. Shi, T. Yang, J. Bai, L. Lu, H. Wang, Research of transition criterion for semi-
empirical prediction method at specified transonic regime, Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
88 (2019) 95–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.012.
[30] Y. Shi, J. Bai, J. Hua, T. Yang, Numerical analysis and optimization of boundary
layer suction on airfoils, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 28 (2015) 357–367, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cja.2015.02.011.
[31] M.S. Broadhurst, S.J. Sherwin, The parabolised stability equations for 3D-
flows: implementation and numerical stability, Appl. Numer. Math. 58 (2008)
1017–1029, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2007.04.016.
[32] M.P. Juniper, A. Hanifi, V. Theofilis, Modal stability theory lecture notes from
the FLOW-NORDITA summer school on advanced instability methods for com-
[m5G; v1.261; Prn:25/10/2019; 15:33] P.13 (1-13)
13
plex flows, Stockholm, Sweden, 2013, Appl. Mech. Rev. 66 (2014) 024804,
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026604.
[33] G. Schrauf, J. Perraud, D. Vitiello, F. Lam, Comparison of boundary-layer tran-
sition predictions using flight test data, J. Aircr. 35 (1998) 891–897, https://
doi.org/10.2514/2.2409.
[34] L.M. Mack, Boundary-Layer Linear Stability Theory, California Inst. of Tech., Jet
Propulsion Lab., Pasadena, 1984.
[35] Bin Guo, Junqiang Bai, Yayun Shi, Optimization design of hybird laminar flow
control airfoil using directly manipulated free-form deformation technique, in:
2017 8th Int. Conf. Mech. Intell. Manuf. Technol., IEEE, 2017, pp. 221–224.
[36] Y. Shi, T. Cao, T. Yang, J. Bai, F. Qu, Y. Yang, Estimation and analysis of hybrid
laminar flow control on a transonic experiment, AIAA J. (2019) 1–15, https://
doi.org/10.2514/1.J058266.
[37] R. Dagenhart, W.S. Saric, Crossflow Stability and Transition Experiments in
Swept-Wing Flow, NASA Langley Research Center, 1999.
[38] F.R. Menter, R.B. Langtry, S.R. Likki, Y.B. Suzen, P.G. Huang, S. Völker, A
correlation-based transition model using local variables: part I — model for-
mulation, in: Vol. 4, Turbo Expo 2004, ASME, 2004, pp. 57–67.
[39] K. Risse, Preliminary Overall Aircraft Design with Hybrid Laminar Flow Control,
2016.
[40] S. Coquillart, Extended free-form deformation: a sculpturing tool for 3D geo-
metric modeling, ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 24 (1990) 187–196, https://
doi.org/10.1145/97880.97900.
[41] J. Samareh, Aerodynamic shape optimization based on free-form deformation,
in: 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidiscip. Anal. Optim. Conf., American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virigina, 2004, pp. 1–12.
[42] X. He, J. Li, C.A. Mader, A. Yildirim, J.R.R.A. Martins, Robust aerodynamic shape
optimization—from a circle to an airfoil, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 87 (2019) 48–61,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.051.
[43] A. De Boer, M.S. Van der Schoot, H. Bijl, Mesh deformation based on radial
basis function interpolation, Comput. Struct. 85 (2007) 784–795.
[44] B. Chopard, M. Tomassini, Particle swarm optimization, in: Nat. Comput. Ser.,
2018, pp. 97–102.
[45] A. Bhosekar, M. Ierapetritou, Advances in surrogate based modeling, feasibility
analysis, and optimization: a review, Comput. Chem. Eng. 108 (2018) 250–267,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.09.017.