Tortora Param

Article
Airfoil Shape Morphing through a Novel Parameterization and

Fitting Optimization Method Based on Uniform Non-Rational
B-Spline Functions
Giancarlo Tortora 1, *, Antonio Concilio 2 and Rosario Pecora 3, *
1 Department of Mathematics, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Napoli, Italy

2 Italian Aerospace Research Centre—C.I.R.A., 81043 Capua, Italy
3 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Napoli, Italy
* Correspondence: giancarlo.tortora2@unina.it (G.T.); rosario.pecora@unina.it (R.P.)
Abstract: The aim of this work is to implement an innovative parameterization and fitting procedure
for the definition of a mathematical model useful to describe a wide range of airfoils. They are parti-
tioned into three sections: central box, leading edge, and trailing edge. Each section is mathematically
represented by two opposed, uniform, non-rational B-spline curves, describing the upper and lower
airfoil segments’ perimeter. A novel approach is used to ensure both the desired continuity between
two adjacent segments (up to 2nd derivatives) and sufficient model versatility and flexibility while
managing a limited number of parameters, defining tangent and curvature vectors as scale factor
variables. These parameters allow for a variable separation approach during the geometric fitting
procedure that can be carried out considering two nested optimization processes, one based on a
genetic algorithm and the other on a numerical gradient evaluation of the objective function. The
representation method has been verified against different airfoils, comparing the geometric and
aerodynamic properties of the input and model-based generated profile. To show the mathematical
model’s capabilities and possible applications, a comparison between existing and proposed airfoil
approximation methods has been provided together with examples of “global” and “local” morphing
and CFD analyses of the resulting airfoils.
Citation: Tortora, G.; Concilio, A.;
Pecora, R. Airfoil Shape Morphing
through a Novel Parameterization
Keywords: airfoil optimization; parameterization of the airfoil; morphing; genetic algorithm
and Fitting Optimization Method
Based on Uniform Non-Rational
B-Spline Functions. Designs 2023, 7,
28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
designs7010028 Parameterization of geometry is one of the essential requirements in shape optimiza-
Academic Editor: Hamid
tion, both for inverse design and direct numerical optimization [1]. The design of a new
Reza Karimi airfoil could require small changes to the initial geometry and/or the availability of a wider
range of new shapes. Numerous methods have been devised to numerically represent
Received: 14 December 2022 airfoil geometry [2]. One must keep in mind that in one-dimensional space, a design search
Revised: 9 January 2023
can be accomplished by spanning the q set of possible values assumed by the variable. If
Accepted: 13 January 2023
a k-dimensional space is considered, then a larger number of possible evaluations, in the
Published: 2 February 2023
order of qk , need to be taken in account. On the other hand, such a punctual parameteriza-
tion presents disadvantages due to a large number of parameters (up to an infinite number)
and geometric oscillations induced by a high number of degrees of freedom.
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
In selecting a geometrical representation for aerodynamic design, the first issue is to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. reduce the number of design variables as much as possible while maintaining the profile
This article is an open access article representation smoothness and the sufficient freedom and flexibility of the mathematical
distributed under the terms and model to represent a large class of airfoil sections [3].
conditions of the Creative Commons The existing parameterization methods can be regarded according to the geometri-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// cal extent of the influence of any design variable or considering the possible geometrical
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ interpretation of the defined parameters. The PARSEC, Bezier, and Bezier–PARSEC param-
4.0/). eterization methods have been recalled in the following.
Designs 2023, 7, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs7010028 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/designs

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 43
Designs
Designs 2023,
2023, 7, 7,
28x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 ofof3843
1.1. PARSEC Method

The PARSEC method uses eleven basic parameters to define the aerofoil shape as
1.1.
1.1.PARSEC
PARSECMethod
Method
shown in Figure 1. Various parameters have physical relevance for the aerodynamic flow,
and theyThe PARSEC
Theare:
PARSEC
leading method
edge uses
method useseleven
radius (rLE); basic
eleven basicparameters
upper maximum to
parameters todefine
definethe
thickness theaerofoil
aerofoil
location shape
(XUP shape
, ZUP), asas
shown
shown in
inFigure
Figure 1. 1.Various
Various parameters
parameters have
have physical
physical relevance
relevance
lower minimum thickness location (XLO, ZLO); upper and lower curvature (ZxxUP, ZxxLO);for
forthe
theaerodynamic
aerodynamic flow,
flow,
and
andthey
trailing theyare:
edge are:leading
leadingedge
coordinate (ZTEradius
edge ) radius(rLE ); );upper
(rLE
and direction (αTEmaximum
upper trailing thickness
);maximum thickness
edge location
wedge angle(X
location (β(X
UP ), Z
TEUP ZUP),),
,and
UP
lower
lower minimum
minimum
thickness (∆ZTE); thickness
thicknesslocation
location(X (X
LO ,
LO Z, Z
LO );
LO upper
); upper and lower
and lowercurvature
curvature(Z (Z
xxUP ,
xxUPZ , Z
xxLO ););
xxLO
trailing edge coordinate
trailing edge coordinate (Z (Z ) and direction
TETE) and direction (α (α ); trailing edge wedge angle
TETE); trailing edge wedge angle (β (β ) and
TETE) and
thickness
thickness(∆Z
(∆ZTETE););
Figure 1. Parsec method.
Figure
Figure
In 1.1.Parsec
Parseca
this method, method.
method.
linear combination of shape functions describes the aerofoil shape.
In this
In this method,
method, a n−1
a linearlinear combination
combination of shape
of shape functions
functions describes
describes the the aerofoil
aerofoil shape.
shape.
Zk = ∑6n=1 a n,k Xk 2 (1)
n−1
6
n−1 Zk = ∑n=1 an,k Xk 2 (1)
=∑ 6
a n,k Xk 2 as a function of (1)
The aZn kcan ben=1expressed the defined geometric parameters. The sub-
script The
k willantake
canvalues
be expressed
1 and 2 for as athe function
upper and of the
lower defined
surface, geometric
respectively.parameters.
In this way, The
The
subscript
using a can
thesekparameters, be expressed
will take values
n one can as
1 and a function
2 for the
control of
the maximumthe defined
upper andcurvature geometric
lower surface, on the parameters.
respectively. The
upper and lower sub-
In this
script
way,
surfaces kand
using will takeparameters,
these
their values 1 and
location. 2 for
one
However, can the upperthe
control
PARSEC and lower
maximum
does surface,
not provide respectively.
curvature on the
sufficient In this
upper
control way,
and
over
using
lower
the these
surfaces
trailing parameters,
edge and theirwhere
shape, one can
location. control
However,
important the
flow maximum
PARSEC
phenomena curvature
does not on thebecause
canprovide
occur, upper and
sufficient lower
itcontrol
fits a
surfaces
over the and
trailing their
edge location.
shape, However,
where PARSEC
important flow does
smooth curve between the maximum thickness point and the trailing edge, makinga not
phenomena provide
can sufficient
occur, control
because it over
fits
the trailing
smooth
changes curve edge
difficultbetween shape,
at the where
the maximum
trailing edge important
thickness
zone. flow
point phenomena
and the trailingcan occur, becausechanges
edge, making it fits a
difficult
smoothatcurve the trailing
between edgethe zone.
maximum thickness point and the trailing edge, making
changes
1.2. difficult at the trailing edge zone.
Bezier Parameterization
1.2. Bezier Parameterization
The airfoil consists of two curves, namely the camber line and thickness distribution.
1.2. The
Bezier Parameterization
airfoil consists of two curves, namely the camber line and thickness distribution.
To obtain the upper and lower boundaries of the aerofoil, we add and subtract the thick-
To obtain the upper
The airfoilto and lower
consists of two boundariesnamely of the aerofoil, we add and subtract the thickness
ness distribution and from the curves, the camber
camber line distribution, line and
respectively. thickness
A Bezier distribution.
curve is
distribution
To obtainwith to
the theand
upper from
and the camber line distribution, respectively. A Bezier curve is
controlled help of lower boundaries
its control points in ofathe aerofoil,
plane. we add
It passes and subtract
through initial andthe thick-
final
controlled with
ness distribution the help
to and of its
from control
the does points
camber in a plane. It passes through initial and final
control points, but the Bezier curve notline
need distribution,
to pass through respectively. A Bezier curve
each intermediate con- is
control points,
controlled withbutthethehelp
Bezier of curve
its does points
control not need in to
a pass through
plane. It passes each intermediate
through initial control
and final
trol point which defines the shape of the aerofoil.
point
controlwhich defines
points, but the shape
the Bezier of the
curve aerofoil.
doesbynot
An n-degree Bezier curve is defined (nneed to pass points.
+ 1) control throughAeach intermediate
three-degree Beziercon-
trolAn
curve pointn-degree
will havewhich four
Bezier curve
defines
control
is defined
thepoints
shape of the
and
by (n + 1) control points. A three-degree Bezier
aerofoil.
a shape as shown in Figure 2, depending on the
curve Anwilln-degree
have four control
Bezier points
curve and a shape
is defined by (n as + 1)shown
control inpoints.
Figure A 2, three-degree
depending on the
Bezier
position of control points.
curve will have four control points and a shape as shown in Figure 2, depending on the
Figure 2. Cubic Bezier curve (red), control polygon (green).

Figure 2. Cubic Bezier curve (red), control polygon (green).
The shape functions of Bezier curves are Bernstein polynomials. The shape function is
Figure
The 2.shape
Cubic Bezier curve (red), control
curvespolygon (green). polynomials. The shape function
denoted by Bni ,functions
n
where of Bezier are Bernstein
is denoted by Bi , where
n

−i i
The shape functions Bofni Bezier
= (1 − t)nare
curves t Bernstein
, i = 0, 1,polynomials.
2, 3; The shape function
(2)
i
is denoted by Bin , where
Designs 2023, 7, 28 3 of 38
n
Bin = ( ) (1 − t)n−i t i , i = 0,1,2,3; (2)
i

nn n!
and ( i ) ==i!(n−i)!
and n! is the binomial coefficient.
i!(n−i)!
is the binomial coefficient.
i
For
For aa Bezier
Bezier curve
curve having
having n
n== 3:
3:
B03 = (1 −3 t)3 ; B13 =3 3t(13 − t)2 ; B23 = 3𝑡 2 (1 − t) ; B23 = 𝑡 3 (3)
B0 = (1 − t) ; B1 = 3t(1 − t)2 ; B32 = 3t2 (1 − t); B32 = t3 (3)
The Bezier curve associated with the given control points can be expressed as:
The Bezier curve associated with the given control points can be expressed as:
𝐏(t) = ∑ni=0 𝐏i Bin (t) (4)
n
P(t) =of∑
As such, a Bezier parameterization P Bn ( t )
ani=airfoil
0 i i has
(4)
control points that are only indi-
rectly determined by the underlying aerodynamics.
As such, a Bezier parameterization of an airfoil has control points that are only indi-
rectly determinedParameterization
1.3. Bezier-Parsec by the underlying aerodynamics.
This methodParameterization
1.3. Bezier-Parsec combines Bezier and PARSEC parameterization techniques, drawing on
the advantages of both approaches.
This method combines ThePARSEC
Bezier and Bezier–PARSEC parameterization
parameterization techniques,uses PARSEC
drawing on
variables as parameters, which are used to define four separate Bezier
the advantages of both approaches. The Bezier–PARSEC parameterization uses PARSEC curves. These four
curves
variablesrepresent the leading
as parameters, whichandare
trailing
usededge of thefour
to define camber line and
separate thickness
Bezier curves.distribu-
These
tion. The Bezier–PARSEC parameterization uses second-order continuity
four curves represent the leading and trailing edge of the camber line and thickness to join the lead-
ing and trailing
distribution. Theedges. Bezier–PARSEC
Bezier–PARSEC parameterization
parameterization is denoted bycontinuity
uses second-order BP ijkl, where
to joini
and j represent the order of the leading and trailing edge of the thickness
the leading and trailing edges. Bezier–PARSEC parameterization is denoted by BP curve, and k and
ijkl,
lwhere
represent the order of the leading and trailing edges of the camber curve. Bezier–PAR-
i and j represent the order of the leading and trailing edge of the thickness curve,
SEC
and k parameterization
and l represent increases
the orderthe robustness
of the leadingand andconvergence
trailing edges speed forcamber
of the aerodynamic
curve.
optimization using genetic algorithms.
Bezier–PARSEC parameterization increases the robustness and convergence speed for
aerodynamic optimization using genetic algorithms.
1.4. BP 3333 Parameterization
1.4. BP
All3333
fourParameterization
curves of the Bezier–PARSEC Parameterization, i.e., leading and trailing
edgesAll
offour
the thickness curve
curves of the and leading and
Bezier–PARSEC trailing edgesi.e.,
Parameterization, of the camber
leading andcurve,
trailingare de-
edges
of the by
fined thickness curve and
polynomials leading
of the third and trailing
order. edges of the
Parametrically a camber curve,Bezier
third-degree are defined
curve by
is
polynomials
given by: of the third order. Parametrically a third-degree Bezier curve is given by:
3
x(u) = xx0 (1
(u)−=u)x0 +
(1 3x
− 1uu(1 u)2u+
)3 +−3x 3x u22(1 − u) + 2 x u
3
3
1 (1 −2u) + 3x2 u (13− u) + x3 u (5)
3 2 2 3
3
(u)−=u)y0+
y(u) = yy0 (1 −1uu(1
(13y ) +−3y 2
u)1 u+ −2uu) (1+−3yu)
(13y 2
2 u+(y13−
3
u u) + y3 u
where u
where u varies
varies from
from 00 to
to 1.
1. The
The BP
BP 3333
3333 parameterization
parameterization depends
depends on
on the
the 12
12 aerodynamic
aerodynamic
parameters shown in Figure 3. There are no free Bezier points in BP 3333.
parameters shown in Figure 3. There are no free Bezier points in BP 3333.
Figure 3. BP 3333 airfoil geometry and Bezier control points defined by twelve basic
Figure 3. BP 3333
aerodynamic airfoil geometry and Bezier control points defined by twelve basic aerodynamic
parameters.
parameters.
The control points are given by:
The control points are given by:
Designs 2023, 7, 28 4 of 38
Leading edge thickness curve
x0 = 0; x1 = 0; x2 = r t ; x3 = x t ;
2 (6)
y0 = 0; y1 = 3k t ( xt − rt ) /2 + yt ; y2 = yt ; y3 = y t ;
Trailing edge thickness curve

h i
x0 = xt ; x1 = 2xt − rt ; x2 = 1 + dzte − 3k t ( xt − rt )2 /2 + yt cot( β te ); x3 = 1 ;
(7)
y0 = y t ; y1 = y t ; y2 = 3k t ( xt − rt )/2 + yt ; y3 = dzte ;
Leading edge cambers curve

p
x0 = 0; x1 = rc cot(γle ); x2 = x c − 2(rc − yc )/3k c ; x3 = x c ;
(8)
y0 = 0; y1 = r c ; y2 = y c ; y3 = y c ;
Trailing edge camber curve

p
x0 = x c ; x1 = x c + 2(rc − yc )/3k c ; x2 = 1 + ( Zte − rc )cot(αle ); x3 = 1;
(9)
y0 = y c ; y1 = y c ; y2 = r c ; y3 = Zte ;
These two techniques combine the advantages of both methods. The BP 3333 technique
rapidly converges due to the smaller number of parameters involved. However, BP 3333
does not control the trailing edge in detail due to a smaller number of parameters. The BP
3434 technique (here not reported) overcomes the drawback of BP 3333, but convergence
speed reduces due to a more significant number of variables. High-speed digital computers
can compensate for the slow convergence rate of BP 3434. Hence, BP 3434 can be effectively
applied for the optimization of an airfoil.
In this work, a novel approach is presented for the airfoil parametrization. The
approach takes into account the currently available methodologies but, at the same time,
gets closer to real design applications and aircraft geometrical/functional configuration,
relying upon a mathematical model that:
• easily allows airfoil shape morphing for leading edge/trailing edge rotation (global
morphing) and skin deformation (local morphing).
• easily enables the identification of functional areas and their contribution evaluation
to the forces involved in the physical phenomena under analysis.
• easily allows the application of geometric constraints.
• involves a limited/reduced number of parameters for airfoil representation.
• is eligible/suitable for developing aerodynamic, structural, or FSI optimization design
processes on existing wing aircraft airfoils to evaluate the opportunity for morphing
technology implementation [4].
In the proposed methodology, the airfoil mathematical representation is not based on a
classical airfoil identification that includes the superposition of camber and thickness distri-
butions and does not focus on the classical engineering parameters as in the PARSEC airfoil
parameterization method. The 2D airfoil is partitioned in three sections [5]: central box,
leading and trailing edge. Each of these three main sections is mathematically represented
by two opposed, hand-side, uniform, non-rational B-spline curve segments describing
the upper and lower segments’ perimeter. The curves continuity between two connected
segments, belonging to two different sections, is ensured up to the 2nd derivatives. The
originality of the approach used for the parameters setting consists in ensuring both the
desired curve continuity and sufficient model freedom and flexibility with a limited num-
ber of variables, thanks to the introduction of tangent and curvature vectors scale factor
parameters allowing for:
• variables separation during the geometric fitting process.
• smooth modification of the geometry of curved segments’ edges.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 5 of 38
Relying upon variable separation, the geometric fitting procedure can be carried out
innovatively considering two nested optimization processes, the first based on a genetic
algorithm and the second based on numerical gradient evaluation of the objective function.
The airfoil representation method has been verified against different profiles, com-
paring the points and aerodynamic properties of the input profile and its model-based
generated airfoil. A comparison between the geometrical approximation performance
of the proposed method and the existing ones has been performed considering the pa-
rameterizations results reported in [2]. Each segment’s contribution to the aerodynamic
force has been evaluated. This contribution has been decomposed in the direction of the
asymptotic velocity and of its normal, to determine the lift and drag components for both
unmorphed and morphed shapes. Finally, an example of global and local morphing CFD
optimization process results has been provided to show possible applications of the airfoil
mathematical model.
2. Descriptions of the Methodology

The procedure defining the 2D airfoils mathematical model with a reduced number of
parameters is summarized in the flowchart described in Figure 4.
Figure 4. 2D airfoils mathematical model flowchart procedure.

Designs 2023, 7, 28 6 of 38
Each flowchart step will be described in detail in the subsections of this paragraph. The
first step considers the input of a 2D airfoil whose geometric perimeter is represented by
Cartesian coordinate pairs, detailed in Section 2.1. The second step deals with the partition
of the input airfoil into sections and again the partition of each section into segments, upper
and lower ones, presented in Section 2.2. In the third step, described in Section 2.3, each
single airfoil segment is mathematically represented by B-spline curves. The considered
curve parameters are the control points (CPs), whose number can be reduced with the
introduction of scale factor parameters (SFs). The fourth step considers how the geometric
boundary conditions have been applied at the extremity of each segment, in Section 2. The
fifth step describes the procedure to evaluate each segment parameter, valid for the entire
airfoil model representation, in Section 2.5.
The airfoil mathematical model and the aerodynamic analysis have been developed
considering the MATLAB R2022a update 3 [6], the open-source Xfoil 6.99 software [7], and
the Octave Nurbs package software [8]:
• MATLAB is the main software for implementing optimization algorithms and for
calling the CFD Xfoil 6.99 code inside the optimization loops.
• Xfoil 6.99 is the aerodynamics solver for evaluating the 2D airfoil aerodynamic properties.
The hardware used for all the performed simulations is an AMD 3.80 GHz and
16 GB RAM.
2.1. Input 2D Airfoil

The input airfoil is given by points in the 2D Cartesian coordinate system P(xi , yi ),
i = 1, . . . , n, representing the airfoil perimeter. The P(xi , yi ) coordinates are provided
counterclockwise, starting from the trailing edge and following the airfoil’s upper side,
then coming back to the trailing edge following the airfoil’s lower side. The input airfoil
points can be taken from different sources:
• from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dept. of Aerospace Engineering
website, in particular from the UIUC Airfoil Data Site website section [9,10];
• from the book “Theory of wing sections” [11];
• from the library of the Xfoil 6.99 software geometric tool [12].
Three airfoils have been chosen for verifying the mathematical model capability to
represent different airfoil geometries, starting from a symmetric one: NACA 0012, NACA
23012, and NREL’s S809. In addition, three airfoil geometries have been reduced with the
proposed method to perform a comparison with existing methods: RAE2822, NACA 0406,
NACA 0160.
2.2. Airfoil Partitioning

The airplane wing usually is characterized by three functional areas: the central
box (CB), which can be considered fixed without any morphing ability due to structural
constraints; the forward, leading edge (LE), and backward extremity, trailing edge (TE),
areas with geometric modification capabilities. It has been therefore decided to partition
the airfoil into three sections with the opportunity for the user to define the partition
intervals so that the morphing portion can increase or decrease due to design choices. In
the following, the LE, CB and TE have been defined by the chord percent partition points
at [0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0], but the user could modify these values if necessary:
• LE section starting from the airfoil point P(x, y) of minimum x coordinate up to the
30% of the airfoil chord: 0 ≤ x/c ≤ 0.3.
• CB section starting from 30% up to 70% of the airfoil chord: 0.3 ≤ x/c ≤ 0.70.
• TE section starting from 70% up to 100% of the airfoil chord: 0.70 ≤ x/c ≤ 1.
During the partition phase, if partition points are not already present among the input
airfoil data, they are included, and the closest points, within a Euclidean distance tolerance
of ±1 × 10−3 , are removed. Each zone is characterized by two curve segments: the upper
and the lower, for a total of six curve segments. The partition points identify the curve
Designs 2023, 7, 28 7 of 38
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEWsegments’ 7 of 43

extremities. The consecutive segments are connected at their extremity points,
here referred to as joints, shown in Figure 5.
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Partitioned
Partitioned NACA
NACA 0012
0012 airfoil,
airfoil, segments
segments represented
represented in different colors.
The output
The output of
of the
theairfoil
airfoilpartitioning
partitioning phase
phase consists
consists of
of the
the partition
partition ofofthe
theinput
inputairfoil
airfoil
Cartesian coordinates
Cartesian coordinates into
into66segments,
segments,each
eachwith
withtwo
twojoints, belonging
joints, belonging to 3todifferent sections.
3 different sec-
Table Table
tions. 1 describes the geometric
1 describes segment
the geometric topology
segment of the of
topology partitioned airfoil.airfoil.
the partitioned
Table 1. Partitioned airfoil topology.

Table
Preceding
Preceding Following
Following
Segment n◦
Segmentn° Joints
Joints
Segment
Segment Segment
Segment
11 66 22 1,2
1,2
22 11 33 2,3
2,3
3 2 4 3,4
3 2 4 3,4
4 3 5 4,5
45 34 56 4,5
5,6
56 45 61 5,6
6,7
6 5 1 6,7
2.3. Mathematical Airfoil Segments Representation
2.3. Mathematical Airfoil
For this work, Segments Representation
a parametric representation [13] of the curve segments was selected,
and,For this work,
without a parametric
loss of representation
generality, the u parameter[13] of thecan
domain curve
be segments was
considered selected,
normalized
and,
to [0 without
1]: loss of generality, the u parameter domain can be considered normalized to
[0 1]: C(u) = (x(u), y(u)) 0≤u≤1 (10)
with C(u) indicating aC(u) = (x(u),
uniform, y(u))
non-rational B-spline (UNRBS)0 [13].
≤u≤1 (10)
with
2.3.1.C(u) indicating a uniform, non-rational B-spline (UNRBS) [13].
UNRBS
The general definition of UNRBS curves is:
2.3.1. UNRBS
n
) = ∑ curves
The general definitionCof(uUNRBS Ni,p (is:
u)Pi
i=0
1 ≤u≤0 (11)
n
𝐂(u) = ∑ Ni,p (u) 𝐏i 1 ≤ u ≤0 (11)
 

 i=0 
U = {u0 , . . . , um } = 0, . . . , 0, up+1 , . . . , um−p−1 , 1, . . . , 1 where m = n + p + 1 (12)
| {z }
 | {z } 
p+1 p+1
{u }
𝐔 = 0 , . . . . , um = {0,⏟. . . ,0 , up+1 , . . . . , um−p−1 , 1,
⏟. . . ,1} where m = n + p + 1 (12)
where: Pi are the n control pointsp+1 (forming a control polygon); p+1 {Ni, p (u) } are the pth-degree
(order p + 1) B-spline basis functions in general defined on the non-periodic and nonuniform
where: Pi are the n control points (forming a control polygon); {Ni, p(u) } are the pth-degree
knot vector U whose parameter values u (u0 < u1 < . . . ui < 1) are called breakpoints. The
(order p + 1) B-spline basis functions in general defined on the non-periodic and nonuni-
segments, denoted by Ci (u), 1 ≤ i ≤ m, are constructed so that they join with some level of
form knot vector U whose parameter values u (u0 < u1 < ….ui < 1) are called breakpoints.
continuity not necessarily the same at every breakpoint.
The segments, denoted by Ci(u), 1 ≤ i ≤ m, are constructed so that they join with some level
The ith B-spline basis function of p-degree (order p + 1), denoted by Ni , p(u), is
of continuity not necessarily the same at every breakpoint.
defined asth
The i B-spline basis function of p-degree
1 if u(i)(order≤ u ≤p u+(1), denoted by Ni, p(u), is defined
i+1)
as N (i,0) = (13)
0 otherwise
1 if u(i) ≤ u ≤ u(i+1)
N(i,0) = { (13)
0 otherwise
Designs 2023, 7, 28 8 of 38
u − u(i) u(i+p+1) − u
N(i,p) = u − u(i) N(i,p−1) (u) + u(i+p+1) − u N(i+1,p−1) (u) (14)
N(i,p) = u(i+p) − uN (i)(i,p−1) (u) + u(i+p+1) − u(i+1)
N(i+1,p−1) (u) (14)
u(i+p) − u(i) u(i+p+1) − u(i+1)
TheThe
UNRBS
UNRBSisisaanon-rational pth-degreeB-spline
non-rational pth-degree B-spline curve
curve characterized
characterized by Uvector
by U knot knot vec-
tor break
breakpoints’
points’uniform
uniform distribution,
distribution, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 6. 6.
Figure
Figure 6. (b)
6. (b) Cubic
Cubic B-splinecurve
B-spline curveand
and related
related basis
basisfunctions
functions(a).(a).
The considered UNRBS is the cubic one, p = 3, and its mathematical representation is
The considered
defined by: UNRBS is the cubic one, p = 3, and its mathematical representation is
defined by: n
C(u) = ∑i=0 Ni,p (u)Pi 1 ≤ u ≤ 0 (15)
n  
𝐂(u) = ∑ Ni,p (u) 𝐏i  1 ≤ u ≤ 0  (15)
U = {u0i=0
, . . . , um } = 0, 0, 0, 0, u4 , . . . , um−4 , 1, 1, 1, 1 where m = n + 4 (16)
 | {z } | {z } 
3+1 3+1
𝐔 = {u0 , . . . . , um } = {0,0,0,0
⏟ , u4 ,1. .if. .u, (ui)m−4
≤ u, 1,1,1,1
⏟≤ u(i+}1)where m = n + 4 (16)

(i,0) =
N3+1 3+1
(17)
0 otherwise
1 if u =≤ uu≤−uu(i+1)
(i) u(i+2) − u
N(i,0) = { N(i,1(i)
)
u(i+1) − u(i)
N(i,0) (u) + N
u(i+2) − u(i+1) (i+1,0)
(u) (18) (17)
0 otherwise
u − u(i) u(i+3) − u
u(−
N u(i)
i,2) = N(i,1u) ((i+2)
u) +− u N(i+1,1) (u) (19)
N(i,1) = u(iN ) −(u)
+2(i,0) u(i)+ u(i+3)N−(i+1,0)
u(i+1(u)
) (18)
u(i+1) − u(i) u(i+2) − u(i+1)
where
u − uu(i)
(k) − u(k−1) = ∆u u= cos−t u k = 4 . . . m − 3
(i+3) (20)
N(i,2) = N(i,1) (u) + N(i+1,1) (u) (19)
u(i+2) − u(i) ∆uu(i+3)
= 1/− (mu(i+1)
− 1) (21)
where
u(k) − u(k−1) = Δ u = cost k = 4… m− 3 (20)
Δ u = 1/(m − 1) (21)
The uniform knot vector breakpoints distribution and the alternate segment para-
metric curve orientation (see Section 2.3.3) provide a sort of “symmetry” to the airfoil
mathematical model representation. This mathematical configuration provides a more
Designs 2023, 7, 28 9 of 38
The uniform knot vector breakpoints distribution and the alternate segment parametric
curve orientation (see Section 2.3.3) provide a sort of “symmetry” to the airfoil mathematical
model representation. This mathematical configuration provides a more regular curve
behavior at the neighbor segments’ point of connection, reducing the possible collapsing
and x-coordinate inversion of the control points during the geometry morphing.
2.3.2. Curve Derivatives in Parametric and Cartesian Formulation & SF Parameter

The 1st curve derivative in parametric (tangent vector) and Cartesian formulation can
be written as follows [14]:

0
0 0
0 0
dx dy
C (u) = Cx (u) , Cy (u) = x (u), y (u) = , ; (22)
du du
dy dy du y0 (u ) Cy0 (u)
y0 (x ) = = = 0 = 0 (23)
dx du dx x (u) Cx ( u )
Multiplying the C’(u) vector by a scale factor parameter (SF), the value of the 1st
derivative does not change:

0
h
0 0
i 0 0
dx dy
SF C (u) = SF Cx (u) , Cy (u) = SF x (u), y (u) = SF , ; (24)
du du
SF Cy0 (u)
y0 (x ) = = y(x). (25)
SF Cx0 (u)
The curve’s 2nd derivative in parametric (tangent vector) formulation can be
written as: " #
00
00 00 00 00
d2 x d2 y
C (u) = Cx (u) , Cy (u) = [x (u), y (u)] = , ; (26)
du du
Cy0 (u) 1 dCy0

! 00
2
Cy d 1
d y d dy du du d 1
y00 (x) = = = = + (27)
dx du du dx dx du Cx0 (u) Cx0 du C0 2 Cx du Cx0
00

x
Then, considering y’(x) as function of C’(u):
Cy − Cx Cy0 /Cx0
00 00 00 00
Cy − Cx y 0
y00 (x) = 2
= 2 (28)
Cx0 Cx0

Multiplying the curvature vector C”(u) by the scale factor parameter (SF) used for the
tangent vector C0 (u), but this time squared, the value of the 2nd derivative does not change:
" #
2 2
2 d x d y
2 00 2
00 00 2 00 00
SF C (u) = SF Cx (u) , Cy (u) = SF [x (u), y (u)] = SF , ; (29)
du du
Considering the scaled tangent vector SF C0 (u), it results:
Cy − Cx Cy0 /Cx0
00 00 00 00
00
SF2 Cy − SF2 Cx y0
y (x) = 2
= 2 = y00 (x) (30)
SF Cx0 Cx0

2.3.3. UNRBS Boundaries Control Points in Terms of C0 C” and SF

The 1st and 2nd vector derivatives at the extremities curve segment (u = 0, u = 1) can
be expressed in terms of the UNRBS parameters (control points Pi , breakpoints {ui }, p curve
degree):
p
C0 (0 ) = (P − P0 ); (31)
up+1 1
Designs 2023, 7, 28 10 of 38
p
C0 (1 ) = (Pn − Pn−1 ); (32)
1 − um−p−1
!
0 p(p − 1) p(p − 1) 1 1 p(p − 1)
C (0) = 2
P0 − − P1 + P2 ; (33)
up + 1 up + 1 up + 2 up + 1 up+1 up+2
!
p(p − 1) p(p − 1) 1 1 p(p − 1)
C00 (1) = 2 Pn − − Pn−1 + Pn−2 ; (34)
um − p − 1 um − p − 1 um − p − 2 um − p − 1 um−p−1 um−p−2
Given or assigned the:

• extremities of the curve segment coordinates P0 = P(x0 , y0 ) and Pn = P(xn ,yn )
• tangent vectors at the extremities of the curve segment C0 (0) and C0 (1)
• curvature vectors at the extremities of the curve segment C”(0) and C”(1)
It is possible to evaluate the pair coordinates of the P1 = P(x1 , y1 ) P2 = P(x2 , y2 ) and
Pn−1 = P(xn−1 , yn−1 )Pn−2 = P(xn−2 , yn2 ) control points in terms of SF parameter:
up+1
P1 = P0 + SF C0 (0); (35)
p

1 − um−p−1
Pn−1 = Pn − SF C0 (1); (36)
p
!
(p − 1) 1 1 up + 1 up + 2
P2 = − P0 − (p − 1) − P1 + SF C0 (0); (37)
up+1 up+2 up+1 p(p − 1)
!
p(p − 1) 1 1 um−p−1 um−p−2
Pn−2 =− Pn − (p − 1) − Pn−1 + SF C00 (1); (38)
um − p − 1 um−p−2 um−p−1 p(p − 1)
Introducing the SF parameter, it is possible to modify the P1 , Pn−1, and the P2

and Pn−2 control points’ position by varying the velocity and acceleration of the para-
metric curve segment at its extremities but keeping the same 1st and 2nd Cartesian
derivatives values.
2.3.4. Segment Parameters

The airfoil, as seen in Section 2.2, is partitioned into three areas: LE, CB, and TE. Each
area is delimited by two curve segments, the upper and lower, for a total of six segments.
A single airfoil segment is mathematically represented by a uniform B-spline curve defined
by the Control Points (CPs):
• boundary control points (BCps).
• interior control points (InCps).
The advantage of this approach is that free-form geometrical shapes can be represented
with fewer design variables compared to the direct use of pairs coordinates.
Each CP P(xi , yi ) is characterized by two parameters, its Cartesian coordinates.
Figure 7 shows an example of airfoil segment CPs distribution and the considered B-spline
u parameter orientation. Figure 8 shows the tangent curvature vectors at the segment
5 extremity points.
The advantage of this approach is that free-form geometrical shapes can be repre-
sented with fewer design variables compared to the direct use of pairs coordinates.
Each CP P (xi, yi) is characterized by two parameters, its Cartesian coordinates. Figure 7
shows an example of airfoil segment CPs distribution and the considered B-spline u pa-
Designs 2023, 7, 28 rameter orientation. Figure 8 shows the tangent curvature vectors at the segment115ofex-
38
tremity points.
Figure 7. Example of segments CPs distributions and parametric orientation, segments are repre-
sented in different colors.
Figure 7. Example of segments CPs distributions and parametric orientation, segments are repre-
sented in different colors.
Figure 8.
Figure Central Box
8. Central Box segment
segment55BCPs,
BCPs, InCPs
InCPs & C0(tangent),
& C′ (tangent),C′′(curvature)
C” (curvature)vectors
vectorswith
withblack
blackand
and
red colors
red colors respectively.
respectively.
The BCPs
The BCPs areare useful
useful to to define
define the
the position
position of of the
the segment
segment extremities
extremities and
and the
the related
related
tangent (C 0 ) and curvature (C”) vectors. The number of BCPs can vary on each segment
tangent (C′) and curvature (C′′) vectors. The number of BCPs can vary on each segment
extremityfrom
extremity from11up uptoto3 3depending
dependingonon thethe geometric
geometric condition
condition to be
to be imposed:
imposed: 1 BCP1 BCP
for
for C 0 continuity; 2 BCPs for C 1 continuity; 3 BCPs for C 2 continuity. The InCPs are all
C continuity; 2 BCPs for C continuity; 3 BCPs for C continuity. The InCPs are all the CPs
0 1 2
the CPs located between the two boundaries of CP groups. Tables
located between the two boundaries of CP groups. Tables 2 and 3 summarize, in segment- 2 and 3 summarize, in
segment-wise order, the number of parameters for C 0 and C2 segment boundary condition
wise order, the number of parameters for C and C segment boundary condition require-
0 2
requirements
ments related related to the
to the limit limitthis
cases; cases; this is
is done bydone by specifying
specifying the: the:
0 up to
•• boundary conditions
boundary conditionsassigned
assigned at the
at the extremities
extremities of segment:
of each each segment:
C 0 up toCC2 conti-
2
C continuity.
nuity.
•• required number
required number of
of BCPs
BCPs to
to satisfy
satisfy the
the boundary
boundary conditions.
conditions.
•• desired number
desired number of
of InCPs.
InCPs.
Table 2. Model parameters ensuring C0 continuity (more model flexibility).
Segment n° BC 0 int. BC 1
Tot. Seg.
Joint Continuity CPs CPs Joint Continuity CPs
Parameters
1 1 C0 0 1 2 C0 2 6
2 3 C0 2 1 2 C0 2 10
3 3 C0 2 1 4 C0 2 10
4 5 C0 2 1 4 C0 2 10
5 5 C0 2 1 6 C0 2 10
6 1 C0 0 1 6 C0 2 6
Partial sum 8 6 12
Designs 2023, 7, 28 12 of 38
Table 2. Model parameters ensuring C0 continuity (more model flexibility).
Segment n◦ BC 0 int. BC 1
Tot. Seg.
Parameters
1 1 C0 0 1 2 C0 2 6
2 3 C0 2 1 2 C0 2 10
3 3 C0 2 1 4 C0 2 10
4 5 C0 2 1 4 C0 2 10
5 5 C0 2 1 6 C0 2 10
6 1 C0 0 1 6 C0 2 6
Partial sum 8 6 12
Tot CPs 26
Tot parameters 52
Table 3. Model parameters ensuring C2 continuity (less model flexibility).
Tot.
Parameters
1 1 C0 0 1 2 C2 0 2
2 3 C2 0 1 2 C2 0 2
3 3 C2 0 1 4 C2 0 2
4 5 C2 0 1 4 C2 0 2
5 5 C2 0 1 6 C2 0 2
6 1 C0 0 1 6 C2 0 2
Partial sum 0 6 0
Tot CPs 6
Tot parameters 12
The positions of the extremity points of the segment curves were assigned during
the partition phase, so the BCPs at the segment extremities do not have to be considered
as variables. Table 2 shows that the required number of parameters for describing the
partitioned airfoil geometry, ensuring the C0 continuity condition between the segments, is
52. In this case, the mathematical model is more flexible but unable to resolve the 1st and
2nd derivative discontinuities at the segment joints. From Table 3, it is possible to see that
the number of parameters useful for describing the partitioned airfoil geometry, ensuring
the C2 continuity condition between the segments, is 12. In this case, the mathematical
model is less flexible.
By adjusting the parameters topology of each segment, it is possible to get a more or
less complex mathematical model between the two limiting cases and represent a wide
range of 2D airfoils for a design optimization process. The next subsection describes the
parameters topology considered in this document.
2.3.5. Segments Reduced Parameters

A way to reduce the number of parameters of the mathematical model while simulta-
neously preserving its capacity to ensure the desired curve continuity and to describe a
wide range of airfoil geometry families is to introduce the scale factor parameters (SFps).
The SFps are generally two for each segment, and one SFp for each extremity. By
varying the SFps, it is possible to modify the position of the BCPs but, at the same time, to
Designs 2023, 7, 28 13 of 38
keep the same values for 1st and 2nd Cartesian derivatives of the segment curve, shown
in Section 2.3.2 as Equations (25) and (30), and to satisfy the desired boundary conditions
at the segments’ extremities. In the following Table 4, each segment’s parameters and
boundary conditions are summarized for the reduced case.
The number of parameters has been reduced from 52 to 22, Table 4, no longer consid-
ering the BCPs parameters but considering the SFs parameters in their place. The upper
and lower SFs boundary limits have been evaluated by imposing the max min x coordinate
range for the segment BCPs. In the end, the airfoil is represented by 2 SFps for the segments
from 2 to 5, 1 SFp for segments 1 and 6, and the desired number of InCPs (minimum 1) for
each segment ((x, y) coordinates parameters).
Table 4. Model parameters ensuring C2 continuity (less model flexibility).
Tot.
Joint Continuity CPs SF CPs Joint Continuity CPs SF
Parameters
1 1 C0 0 0 1 2 C2 0 1 3
2 3 C2 0 1 1 2 C2 0 1 4
3 3 C2 0 1 1 4 C2 0 1 4
4 5 C2 0 1 1 4 C2 0 1 4
5 5 C2 0 1 1 6 C2 0 1 4
6 1 C0 0 0 1 6 C2 0 1 3
Partial sum 0 4 6 0 6
Tot parameters 22
Table 5 reports the established BCPs x coordinate extremities intervals in terms of

the percentage of the segment length and the related SFs upper and lower bounds for the
NACA 0012 airfoil.
Table 5. BCPs user-defined bounds & SF evaluated upper and lower bounds.
Seg. n◦ BC 0 BC 1
CP CP SF SF CP CP SF SF
Joint Joint
Xmin% Xmax% Lb Ub Xmin% Xmax% Lb Ub
1 1 - - - - 2 85 96 0.1549 0.4243
2 3 5 15 0.5819 1.6249 2 85 96 0.6282 1.8958
3 3 5 15 0.2335 0.6911 4 85 99 0.1958 1.0372
4 5 5 15 0.2747 0.8131 4 85 99 0.2303 0.9511
5 5 5 15 0.3141 0.9511 6 85 96 0.2909 0.8149
6 7 - - - - 6 85 96 0.1549 0.4243
Figure 9 shows an example of the results obtained for the left side SFps upper and
lower bounds of NACA 0012 segment 3 (upper LE segment).
Figure 10 shows the NACA 0012 segments’ CPs distribution (BCPs and InCPs), and
Table 6 the SFs values after an optimization cycle.
Table 5 reports the established BCPs x coordinate extremities intervals in terms of the
percentage of the segment length and the related SFs upper and lower bounds for the
NACA 0012 airfoil.
Table 5. BCPs user-defined bounds & SF evaluated upper and lower bounds.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 14 of 38
Seg. n° BC 0 BC 1
CP CP SF SF CP CP SF SF
Joint Joint
Xmin%
Table 6.Xmax% Lb evaluated
Segment-wise UbSFs. Xmin% Xmax% Lb Ub
1 1 - - - - 2 85 96 0.1549 0.4243
2 3 5 BC 0—SFs
15 0.5819 1.6249 2 85 BC
96 1—SF
0.6282 1.8958
Seg. n◦3 Joint
3 5 Lb 15 Value
0.2335 Ub
0.6911 4 Joint 85 Lb 99 Value
0.1958 1.0372Ub
1 4 51 5 - 15 0.2747 -
0.8131 4 2 85 0.1549
99 0.2574
0.2303 0.4243
0.9511
2 5 53 5 0.5819 15 1.3110
0.3141 1.6249
0.9511 6 2 85 0.6282
96 1.6527
0.2909 1.8958
0.8149
3 6 73 - 0.2335 - 0.6777- 0.6911
- 6 4 85 0.1958
96 0.8279
0.1549 1.0372
0.4243
4 5 0.2747 0.6193 0.8131 4 0.2303 0.5360 0.9511
Figure 9 shows an example of the results obtained for the left side SFps upper and
5 5 0.3141 0.9332 0.9511 6 0.2909 0.6846 0.8149
lower bounds of NACA 0012 segment 3 (upper LE segment).
6 7 - - 6 0.1549 0.2152 0.4243
Figure
Figure9.9.NACA
Figure NACA 0012
10 shows SFs
the
0012 SFs parameters
parameters lower
NACA lower
0012 and upper
segments’
and upper bounds
CPs
bounds seg.3
(upper(upper
distribution
seg.3 andLE,
LE,(BCPs and extremities
and InCPs),
extremities C’ andC’
(black
(black
Table 6 color),
color), C”
the SFsC’’(red
(red color)
color)
values vectors.
vectors.
after an optimization cycle.
Figure 10. Central NACA 0012 example of SF parameters numbers

numbers and
and values.
values.
2.4.
TableSegment Geometricevaluated
6. Segment-wise BoundarySFs.
Conditions
In Section 2.3.2, the 1st and 2nd Cartesian derivatives of the segment curve have been
BC 0—SFs BC 1—SF
expressed as a function of the parametric C0 and C” components; see Equations (23) and (28).
ToSeg. n° the
impose Joint
desired Lb Value
continuity boundaryUbcondition
Jointat the Lb
segmentValue Ubit is
extremities,
1 1 - - 2 0.1549 0.2574 0.4243
2 3 0.5819 1.3110 1.6249 2 0.6282 1.6527 1.8958
3 3 0.2335 0.6777 0.6911 4 0.1958 0.8279 1.0372
4 5 0.2747 0.6193 0.8131 4 0.2303 0.5360 0.9511
Designs 2023, 7, 28 15 of 38
necessary to evaluate the tangent C0 and curvature C” vectors from the available data while
taking into account the airfoil geometry partition topology, as shown in Table 1. To improve
the segment curves’ smoothness at joint points, the C0 and C” vectors at the extremities
of the curve segments were evaluated by interpolating the input segment data through a
B-spline interpolation routine and taking into account points from the neighbor segments.
A possible and currently implemented segment-wise strategy and priority sequence
for the evaluation of the parameter and the geometric boundary conditions assignment is
summarized in Table 7; even if the current choice of the parameter topology ensures the
evaluation of the variables independently from the segment-wise priority and makes the
same suitable for a parallel calculation.
Table 7. Segment-wise strategy boundary conditions implementations.
Tangent Curvature
Seg. Priority Joints Continuity Boundary Data
Numerical Evaluation
1 C0 Input Airfoil point -
1 2 Segment 2 Segments 1 & 2
2 C2 Tangent curvature vector B-spline interpolation
Segments 1 & 2
2 C2 Input Airfoil points
B-spline interpolation
2 1
Segments 2 & 3
Segment 2 Segments 2 & 3
3 3
Segments 3 & 4
4 4
Segments 4 & 5
5 1
Segments 5 & 6
6 2
7 C0 Input Airfoil points -
2.5. Segment Fitting Procedure for Reduced Parameters

The fitting process aims to find the optimum parameter values for each UNRBS curve
segment, minimizing the maximum Euclidean distances between the evaluated points and
the related airfoil data points [15–17]. The reference data used to evaluate the parameters
are the input airfoil points, segments-wise partitioned. The fitting process is composed of
two phases:
• 1st phase of pre-processing the airfoil data (Figure 11): this phase is characterized by
three steps:
1. C0 and C” vectors evaluation at each segment joint.
2. segments BCPs positioning in accordance with the C0 and C” vectors.
3. SFps upper and lower bounds evaluation.
Designs 2023, 7,
Designs 2023, 7, 28
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of
16 of 38
43
Figure 11.
Figure 11. Segment fitting
fitting process,
process, step1
step1 flowchart.
flowchart.
The
The CC′0 and C”C′′ vectors
vectors cancan be
be evaluated
evaluatedby byinterpolating,
interpolating,throughthroughaaB-spline
B-splineinterpola-
interpo-
tion routine,
lation routine,thethe
input segment
input segmentdata airfoil
data points
airfoil belonging
points belonging to thetoneighbor segments,
the neighbor thus
segments,
improving
thus improvingthe smoothness
the smoothness of theofcurves at joints.
the curves Then,Then,
at joints. the BCPs 2D space
the BCPs positioning
2D space position-is
evaluated according
ing is evaluated to Equations
according (35)–(38)
to Equations of Section
(35)– 2.3.3. 2.3.3.
(38) of Section
The segments
segments SFps SFpsupper
upperandandlowerlowerbounds
bounds areare evaluated
evaluated considering
considering thethe user-
user-de-
defined max/min x-coordinate range for the segment BCPs—see
fined max/min x-coordinate range for the segment BCPs—see the example in Section the example in Sec-
tion 2.3.5—, as shown in Table 5. Algorithm 1 represents the
2.3.5—, as shown in Table 5. Algorithm 1 represents the pseudocode of the airfoil pre- pseudocode of the airfoil
pre-processing
processing phase. phase.
Algorithm
Algorithm 11 [InitialAirfoil
[InitialAirfoilC0C’,C’’,SF_lb, SF_ub]=Airfoil_preprocessing
,C”,SF_lb, SF_ub]=Airfoil_preprocessing () ()
1 Variable_Declaration ( ) /* Airfoil global variable…..defi-
1 Variable_Declaration ( ) /* Airfoil global variable . . . definition*/
2
nition*/ File_Inizialization ( ) /* fine name definition */
3 2 File_Inizialization ()
Folder_Inizialization ( ) /* making working /* fine name*/definition */
folders
3 Folder_Inizialization ( ) ( ) /* x partitions, seg.s
Airfoil_Topology /* making working folders */
discretization
4 4 typology,
Airfoil_Topology ( ) fixed/free CPs, /* x partitions, seg.s discretiza-
tion x% seg. boundaries . . . definition */
5 Airfoil_Load() /* load target airfoil points, */
typology, fixed/free CPs,
6 Initial_Airfoil_PartitioningSeg( ) /* target airfoil partitioning */
7 x% seg. boundaries …definition */
Create_Initial_B-pline_curves ( ) /* create segment b-spline curves */
5 Airfoil_Load() [C’,C”]=Segments_Joints_dC_ddC ( ) /*evaluating C’ & /* C”
load target
vectors at air-
foil points,each */ joint from the target airfoil
8 6 points coordinates and apply
Initial_Airfoil_PartitioningSeg( ) /* target airfoil partitioning */
7 the same to the current( airfoil
Create_Initial_B-pline_curves ) /* create segment b-spline curves
b-spline segments */
*/
[SF_lb,SF_ub]=Segment_bounds ( ) /* given the x% seg. boundaries the
9 8 [C’,C’’]=Segments_Joints_dC_ddC ( ) are /*evaluating C’ & C’’ vectors at
SFs upper and lowerboundaries evaluated*/
10 each joint from the target airfoil
end Airfoil_preprocessing
points coordinates and apply
• 2nd phase thesegment
same to reduced
the currentparameters
airfoil evaluation (Figure 12): This step applies to all
the segments whose C’ and C” extremity vectors are already known and assigned. The
b-spline segments */
aim is to find the optimum segment UNRBS curve parameters that best fit the input
9 [SF_lb,SF_ub]=Segment_bounds ( ) /* given the x% seg. boundaries
segment airfoil points with the desired continuity boundary extremity conditions. Two
the SFs upper and lower
Designs 2023, 7, 28 17 of 38
nested optimization routines perform the parameter evaluations, an external and an

internal one, considering the reduced segment parameters as variables, namely the
SFs for the external routine, varying between the upper and lower bounds assessed in
step 1, and the InCPs for the internal one. More specifically,
• the external optimization cycle is based on a MATLAB genetic optimization function
gamultiobj [18–22] dedicated to the two SFps only with two objective functions:
obj1: sum((Euclidean distance between points). obj2: max(Euclidean distance between
points). The two SFs parameters affect the position of the BCPs that define the
lower and upper bounds of the interior CPs coordinates used for the inside
optimization cycle.
• the internal optimization cycle is based on MATLAB non-linear optimization fmin-
con [23–27] function involving the interior CPs parameters with: -objective function
obj: minimizing the max (Euclidean distance between points); -upper and lower
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW bounds: defined by the BCPs coordinates as a function of the SFps, output18ofofthe43
GA external cycle optimization.
Figure 12.
Figure Segment fitting
12. Segment fitting process,
process, step2
step2 flowchart.
flowchart.
Algorithms2,3
Algorithm 2–4andare4the
aresegment fittingfitting
the segment process step 2step2
process pseudocodes and the
pseudocodes andsetting of
the set-
MATLAB
ting externalexternal
of MATLAB gamultiobj, nested nested
gamultiobj, fmincon algorithms.
fmincon algorithms.
Alghoritm 2 [InitialAirfoil]=Airfoil_Fitting_process (InitialAirfoil , C’,C’’,SF_lb, SF_ub)
1 For each curve segment
2 [InitialAirfoil]=SegOptim_InCPs_SFs_nested_GA_Fmin(InitialAirfoil)
/* evaluation of segment SFps and InCPs
coordinates by:
- external gamultiobj
- nested fmincon
Designs 2023, 7, 28 18 of 38
Alghoritm 2 [InitialAirfoil]=Airfoil_Fitting_process (InitialAirfoil, C’,C”,SF_lb, SF_ub)

1 For each curve segment
[InitialAirfoil]=SegOptim_InCPs_SFs_nested_GA_Fmin(InitialAirfoil)
/* evaluation of segment SFps and InCPs
coordinates by:
2
- external gamultiobj
- nested fmincon
MATLAB algorithms */
3 SaveAirfoil (InitialAirfoil); /* save working InitialAirfoil variables*/
4 Endfor
5 end Airfoil_Fitting_process
Alghoritm 3 Matlab gamultiobj genetic algorithm settings

[f1 ,f2 ]= fit_fcn (Airfoil current segment) /*fitness function for evaluation
of two objective functions:
f1: max abs(Euclidean points distances);
1 f2 : sum abs(Euclidean points distances);
fit_fnc calls the MATLAB fmincon
algorithm*/
/
2 n_vars:= n_SFs /* number of segment curve SFs */
3 A = []; b = []; Aeq = [];beq = []; /* linear constrains */
n_seg=current segment number /* segment under fitting procedure*/
lbGa= SF_lb (n_seg); /*assign segment lower bound
4
ubGa= SF_ub(n_seg) and upper bound*/
[c,ceq]=nonlcon(Airfoil current segment) /*check for avoiding b-spline
5 segment curve x coordinates
inversion*/
6 n_generationsGA=1; population_n=50;
opt = optimoptions(@gamultiobj,’PlotFcn’,’gaplotpareto’,
‘MaxGenerations’,n_generationsGA,
‘PopulationSize’,population_n,
‘PopulationType’,’doubleVector’
7 [SFs_GA,fval_GA]=gamultiobj(fit_fcn,n_vars,A,b,Aeq,beq,lbGa,ubGa,nonlcon,opt)
AirfoilPoints(InitialAirfoil); /*update the segment curve geometry
8
properties and discretization*/
Alghoritm 4 MATLAB fmincon gradient based algorithm settings

[BCPs0,InCPS0]=B-spline_SegmentCurve_updating(InitialAirfoil,
1
C0 ,C”,SF_GA)
[y]=fit (InitialAirfoil) /* updating InCPsand B-spline cuve,
Evaluating objective function:
2
y=max(abs(Eucledian curve points
distance)) */
3 IntCps0 /* initial internal control points*/
4 A = []; b = []; Aeq = [];beq = [];
lb = flb (BCPs0); ub= flb (BCPs0) /* InCPs upper and lower bounds
5 evaluated as function of the defined
boundary control points BCPs0 */
[c,ceq]=nonlcon(Airfoil current segment) /*check for avoiding b-spline
6 segment curve x coordinates
inversion*/
7 opts = optimset(‘fmincon’, ‘TolFun ‘,1.e−12, FinDiffRelStep, 1.e−12);
8 [InCP_fmin,fval_fmin]=fmincon(fit, InCP 0,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,[],opts);
9
7 opts = optimset(‘fmincon’, ‘TolFun ‘,1.e−12, FinDiffRelStep, 1.e−12);
[InCP_fmin,fval_fmin]=fmincon(fit, InCP 0,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,[],opts);
8

Designs 2023, 7, 28 9 19 of 38
The reduced parameterization, as conceived, allows the parallelization of the single

The reduced parameterization, as conceived, allows the parallelization of the single
curve segment fitting process. Each segment fitting process is independent of the other
curve segment fitting process. Each segment fitting process is independent of the other
ones. In the following subsection, an example of the results of the segment 5 (lower CB)
ones. In the following subsection, an example of the results of the segment 5 (lower CB)
fitting process of the NACA 0012 airfoil is reported.
fitting process of the NACA 0012 airfoil is reported.
Segments55(CB
Segments (CBsection)
section)Fitting
FittingProcess
ProcessResults
Results
Segment55 belongs
Segment belongs toto the
the CB
CBofofthe
theairfoil.
airfoil.The
Thereduced SFps
reduced andand
SFps InCPs can be
InCPs caneval-
be
uated by applying steps 1 and 2 of the segment fitting process:
evaluated by applying steps 1 and 2 of the segment fitting process:
•• Thefirst
The firststep
stepfor
forevaluating
evaluatingthe theextremities
extremitiesboundary
boundaryconditions,
conditions,C’C’C”
C”vectors,
vectors,and
and
the SFps upper and lower
the SFps upper and lower bounds. bounds.
•• The Thesecond
secondstep
stepfor
forevaluating
evaluating44reduced
reducedparameters:
parameters:two
two(2)
(2)InCPs
InCPscoordinates
coordinatesand
and
two (2) SFps.
two (2) SFps.
Figures13
Figures 13 and
and 1414 show
show thethe NACA
NACA 0012
0012external
externalgenetic
geneticalgorithm
algorithmoptimization
optimization it-
eration of
iteration of the
the segment
segment 55 step
step 22 for
for the
the SFps
SFps (1
(1 generation
generation with
withaapopulation
populationofof50)
50)and
andthe
the
evaluatedSFps
evaluated SFpsoptimum
optimumvalues.
values.
Figure13.
Figure 13.NACA
NACA0012
0012step
step22external
externalOptimization
Optimizationcycle
cyclesegment
segment5.5.
Figure 14. NACA 0012 Scale factors external optimization cycle segment 5 results.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 20 of 38
Figure 14. NACA 0012 Scale factors external optimization cycle segment 5 results.
Figure 1515shows
Figure showsthe
theNACA
NACA 00120012step
step2 2inside
inside optimization
optimization algorithm
algorithm iterations
iterations and and
optimum
optimum InCP
InCPparameters
parameters of
of segment
segment 5,5,with
withthetheassociated
associated max
max geometrical
geometrical errorerror
mademade
on on
thethe same
same segmentshown
segment shown in Figure
Figure16.
16.

Figure 15.15.
Figure NACA 0012
NACA 0012step
step22 segment
segment 55fitting
fittingprocess:
process: (◦ ),(°),
theta
theta st, 2nd derivatives.
1st,12nd derivatives.
Figure
Figure 16.
16. NACA
NACA0012
0012step
step22 segment
segment55 CPs,
CPs, objective
objective function
function max
max Euclidean
Euclideandistance
distancebetween
between
curve and input points.
curve and input points.
3.3.Results
Results
Thefollowing
The followingSections
Sections3.1
3.1–3.3
up toshows a comparison
3.3 shows a comparison between the geometric
between and aero-
the geometric and
dynamic properties
aerodynamic of the
properties input
of the airfoil
input and
airfoil thethe
and airfoil
airfoilconstructed
constructed bybythe
themathematical
mathemati-
model
cal with
model reduced
with parameters:
reduced parameters: SFps andand
SFps InCPs.
InCPs.
For each comparison, there are four typologies
For each comparison, there are four typologies of of figures:
figures:
• •geometrical input
geometrical airfoil.
input airfoil.
• •maximum Euclidean distance
maximum Euclidean distance for each
forsegment betweenbetween
each segment the inputthe
airfoil
inputand evaluated
airfoil and
airfoil points.
evaluated airfoil points.
• the input airfoil aerodynamic properties compared with the evaluated airfoil
properties considering two different discretizations: the input airfoil and an aug-
mented one.
The analysis was performed on three airfoils to show the mathematical model’s ca-
pability to describe different 2D profile families. NACA 0012, NACA 23012, and NREL’s
Designs 2023, 7, 28 21 of 38
• the input airfoil aerodynamic properties compared with the evaluated airfoil properties
considering two different discretizations: the input airfoil and an augmented one.
The analysis was performed on three airfoils to show the mathematical model’s
capability to describe different 2D profile families. NACA 0012, NACA 23012, and NREL’s
S809 airfoils were considered to validate the mathematical model with reduced parameters.
The geometrical maximum Euclidean distance observed in all the analyses was of
the order O (10−4 ) and the aerodynamic properties of the evaluated airfoils with equal
and increased discretization have all the same qualitative and quantitative behavior of the
input airfoil aerodynamic properties. Table 8 reports the segment-wise and total timing
required to evaluate the parameterized airfoil by a sequential calculation. Table 9 reports
the segment-wise max Euclidean distance error and the sum of all absolute value Euclidian
distance errors for each segment, where: max stay for maximum, abs absolute functions,
and dy vertical abscissa difference.
Table 8. New mathematical model fitting process segment-wise computation time.
NACA 0012 NACA 23012 NREL’s S089

Seg. N◦
(hh:mm:ss) (hh:mm:ss) (hh:mm:ss)
1 00:09:26 00:08:54 00:07:56
2 00:16:01 00:14:05 00:07:53
3 00:14:22 00:13:38 00:14:07
4 00:14:25 00:06:30 00:15:13
5 00:15:14 00:16:00 00:13:51
6 00:08:24 00:09:35 00:10:40
Tot 01:17:52 01:08:42 01:09:40
Table 9. New mathematical model fitting process geometrical approximation.
NACA0012 NACA 23012 NREL’s S809

Seg. N◦
max(abs(dy)) sum(abs(dy)) max(abs(dy)) sum(abs(dy)) max(abs(dy)) sum(abs(dy))
1 4.81 × 10−5 0.00029 4.79 × 10−5 0.00030 0.00060 0.00349
2 1.22 × 10−5 0.00007 1.94 × 10−5 0.00014 0.00033 0.00174
3 8.16 × 10−5 0.00074 9.06 × 10−5 0.00095 0.00022 0.00184
4 0.00019 0.00182 0.00062 0.00642 0.00060 0.00559
5 0.00012 0.00083 0.00011 0.00080 0.00035 0.00155
6 4.68 × 10−5 0.00030 4.79 × 10−5 0.00031 0.00060 0.00299
Tot 0.00405 0.00892 0.0172
The last Section 3.4 suggests a comparison between the results of target airfoils’ ge-
ometrical approximation performed by the methods described in [2], and the one herein
proposed. The 2D profiles used for the comparison are the same as mentioned in the
reference article [2]: RAE2822, NACA 0406, and NACA 0610.
3.1. NACA 0012

Figures 17 and 18 show the target airfoil NACA 0012 and the segment-wise ge-
ometrical error (also reported in Table 9 column NACA 0012) between the input and
parametrized profile.
proposed. The 2D profiles used for the comparison are the same as mentioned in the ref-
erence article [2]: RAE2822, NACA 0406, and NACA 0610.
3.1. NACA 0012

Designs 2023, 7, 28
Figures 17 and 18 show the target airfoil NACA 0012 and the segment-wise geomet-
22 of 38
rical error (also reported in Table 9 column NACA 0012) between the input and para-
metrized profile.

Figure 17. NACA 0012 input airfoil.
Figure 18. NACA

Figure18. 0012input
NACA 0012 inputand
and evaluated
evaluated maximum
maximum Euclidean
Euclidean point point distance.
distance.
Figure 19 shows the comparison of the aerodynamic curves

𝑐𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐𝑙 (𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼)⁄𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) between the target NACA 0012 and parametrized
airfoil.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 23 of 38
Figure 18. NACA 0012 input and evaluated maximum Euclidean point distance.
Figure 19 shows Figure the 19 shows

comparison the
of the comparison
aerodynamic of the aerodynamic
curves cl (α), cl (cd )curves
c m ( c l ),
𝑐 (𝛼), 𝑐 (𝑐 ) 𝑐 (𝑐 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐 (𝛼) ⁄𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) between the target NACA 0012 and parametrized
E(α) = cl (α)/cd (α) between the target NACA 0012 and parametrized airfoil.
𝑙 𝑙 𝑑 𝑚 𝑙 𝑙
airfoil.
Designs
Designs 2023,
2023, 7,
7, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 25
25 of
of 43
43
Figure 19. Figure 19. airfoil,

NACA 0012 input airfoil, evaluated airfoil, evaluated airfoil increased discretization (140
Figure 19. NACA
NACA0012 0012 input
input airfoil, evaluated
evaluated airfoil, evaluated
airfoil, evaluated airfoil increased
airfoil increaseddiscretization
discretization(140
points) 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐𝑙 (𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼)⁄𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) comparison.
points)
(140 𝑐𝑙𝑙(𝛼),
points) cl (𝑐α𝑙𝑙(𝑐
), 𝑑𝑑cl)(𝑐c𝑚 (𝑐 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐 (𝛼)⁄𝑐𝑑)(𝛼)
d ) c𝑙𝑙m ( cl ), E ( α ) 𝑙𝑙= cl ( α𝑑
𝑚 /cd (comparison.
α) comparison.
3.2. NACA 23012
3.2.
3.2. NACA
NACA 23012
23012 Figures 20 and 21 show the target airfoil NACA 23012 and the segment-wise geomet-
Figures 20 and
Figures 20 and 21show
rical
21 show
error the
(also
the target
reported
target inairfoil
Table
airfoil 9 NACA
NACAcolumn 23012
NACA
23012 and
23012)
and the segment-wise
between ge-
the inputgeomet-
the segment-wise and para-
ometrical error metrized
(also profile.
reported in Table 9 column NACA 23012) between the input and
rical error (also reported in Table 9 column NACA 23012) between the input and para-
parametrized profile.
metrized profile.
Figure 20.
Figure 20. NACA
NACA 23012
23012 input
input airfoil.
airfoil.

𝑐𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐𝑙 (𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼)⁄𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) between the target NACA 23012 and para-
metrized airfoil.

𝑐𝑙𝑙(𝛼), 𝑐𝑙𝑙(𝑐𝑑𝑑) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐
𝑚 𝑙𝑙
), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐𝑙𝑙 (𝛼) ⁄ 𝑐𝑑𝑑
(𝛼) between the target NACA 23012 and para-
metrized airfoil.
7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 43
Designs 2023, 7, 28 24 of 38
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 22 shows the comparison of the aerodynamic curves cl (α), cl (cd ) 26cmof(c43
l ),
E(α) = cl (α)/cd (α) between the target NACA 23012 and parametrized airfoil.
Figure 22. NACA 23012 input airfoil, evaluated airfoil, evaluated airfoil increased discretization (140
points) 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐𝑙 (𝑐Figure 22.
𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐22.
Figure NACA
𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼)
NACA =23012 input
𝑐𝑙 (𝛼)
23012 ⁄inputairfoil,
𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) evaluated
comparison.
airfoil, airfoil,
evaluated evaluated
airfoil, airfoil
evaluated increased
airfoil discretization
increased (140
discretization
points) 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼),c 𝑐(𝑙α(𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼)⁄𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) comparison.
(140 points) l ), cl ( cd ) cm ( cl ), E ( α ) = cl ( α ) /cd ( α ) comparison.
3.3. NREL’s S809
3.3. NREL’s
3.3. NREL’s S809
Figures 23 and Figures
24 show23
Figures the
23and
target
and airfoil
2424show
showthethe
NLEL’s
target
target
S809 and
airfoil
airfoil
the
NLEL’s
NLEL’s
segment-wise
S809S809
and and
geomet-geomet-
the segment-wise
the segment-wise ge-
rical error (alsorical
reported
ometrical in Table
error error 9 column
(also reported
(also reported NLEL’s
in Table
in Table S809)
9 column
9 column between
NLEL’sNLEL’s the input
S809) S809) and
between
between para-
the input
the input and
and para-
metrized profile.parametrized
metrized profile.
profile.
Figure 23. NREL’s 809 input airfoil.

Figure 23. NREL’sFigure 23. NREL’s
809 input airfoil.809 input airfoil.
023, 7, x FOR PEER2023,
Designs REVIEW
7, 28 27 of 43 25 of 38
Figure 24. NREL’s 809 input and evaluated maximum Euclidean point distance.
Figure 24. NREL’sFigure
809 input and evaluated
24. NREL’s maximum
809 input Euclidean
and evaluated point distance.
maximum Euclidean point distance.
Figure 25𝑐𝑙 (𝛼),Figure
𝑐𝑙 (𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐25
shows (𝑐
𝑚 𝑙
shows
the ), 𝐸(𝛼) the
= 𝑐comparison
comparison
𝑙 (𝛼) ⁄ 𝑐𝑑 of
(𝛼) of the
the
between aerodynamic
aerodynamic
the target curves
NREL’s c
curves
809 and
l ( α ) , c ( c )
parametrized
l d c m ( c l ),
E𝑙 (),α𝐸(𝛼)
) = cl=(α𝑐)𝑙/c
𝑐𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐𝑙 (𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐airfoil. (𝛼)d (⁄α𝑐)𝑑 (𝛼)
between the target
between NREL’s
the target 809 and
NREL’s 809 parametrized airfoil.
and parametrized
airfoil.
Figure
Figure 25.
25. NREL’s
NREL’s809 809input
input airfoil, evaluated
airfoil, evaluatedairfoil, evaluated
airfoil, airfoil
evaluated increased
airfoil discretization
increased (140
discretization
Figure 25. NREL’spoints)
809 𝑐
input𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐 (𝑐
airfoil,
𝑙 𝑑 ) 𝑐 (𝑐
evaluated
𝑚 𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐
airfoil, (𝛼)⁄ 𝑐
evaluated
𝑙 𝑑 (𝛼)airfoil increased
comparison.
(140 points) cl (α), cl (cd ) cm (cl ), E(α) = cl (α)/cd (α) comparison. discretization (140
points) 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼), 𝑐𝑙 (𝑐𝑑 ) 𝑐𝑚 (𝑐𝑙 ), 𝐸(𝛼) = 𝑐𝑙 (𝛼)⁄𝑐𝑑 (𝛼) comparison.
3.4. Comparison between Existing Methods and the Proposed One
3.4. Comparison between Existing
These Methods
airfoils RAE2822,and the Proposed
NACA 0406,Oneand NACA 0610 have been represented by the
These airfoils RAE2822, NACA 0406,
new mathematical model and both the fitting process and NACAsegment-wise
0610 have been represented
computation byand
time the
These airfoils
new RAE2822,
mathematicalNACA 0406,
model and
and NACA
both the 0610
fitting have been
process represented
segment-wise by the
computation
geometrical approximation have been evaluated, Tables 10 and 11. Tables 12 and 13 show time and
new mathematical thatmodel
geometrical and bothmathematical
the fittinghave
approximation
the proposed process
beensegment-wise
model evaluated, computation
Tables
performs better 10 and
than time
the:11. and 12 and 13 show
Tables
geometrical approximation have been
that the proposed evaluated,model
mathematical Tablesperforms
10 and 11. Tables
better 12 the:
than and 13 show
• B-spline interpolation method for the considered number of parameters.
that the proposed mathematical
•Numerical
B-splinemodel performs
interpolation betterfor
method than
thethe:
considered number of parameters.
• basis functions and B-spline interpolation methods for the geometrical approxi-
• B-spline interpolation method for the considered number
mation, which is more accurate by a magnitude. of parameters.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 26 of 38
Table 10. New mathematical model fitting process segment-wise computation time.
RAE2822 NACA 0406 NACA 0610

Segment N◦
(hh:mm:ss) (hh:mm:ss) (hh:mm:ss)
1 00:04:09 00:12:57 00:16:40
2 00:13:46 00:04:12 00:04:02
3 00:06:58 00:12:34 00:13:57
4 00:20:14 00:03:39 00:09:03
5 00:21:53 00:19:47 00:18:38
6 00:04:40 00:13:12 00:13:04
Timing tot 01:11:40 01:06:21 01:15:24
Table 11. New mathematical model fitting process geometrical approximation.
RAE2822 NACA 0406 NACA 0610

Segment N◦
sum(abs(dy)) sum(abs(dy)) sum(abs(dy))
1 0.00210 0.00237 0.00267
2 0.00051 0.00435 0.00426
3 0.00234 0.00418 0.00102
4 0.00260 0.00322 0.00294
5 0.00136 0.00236 0.00137
6 0.00210 0.00096 0.00226
Tot 0.01101 0.01744 0.01452
Table 12. Summary of different parameter methods for airfoils.
Parameters Parameters
Method
Number Description
Numerical Basis Functions 5 Weights for the basis airfoil functions
B-spline interpolation 34 Point coordinates
Proposed method 22 SFs and point coordinates
Table 13. Best Approximation of target airfoils for different parameterizations.
Method RAE2822 NACA 0406 NACA 0610

Numerical Basis Functions 0.2217 0.0582 0.1595
B-spline interpolation 0.1552 0.0758 0.1993
Proposed method 0.0110 0.0174 0.0145
4. Discussion
The B-spline curve segments are the basic geometric element in the airfoil representa-
tion and, at the same time, they describe the fundamental airfoil functional areas: LE upper
and lower side, segments 3 and 4; CB upper and lower side, segment 2 and 5; TE upper and
lower side, segment 1 and 6. In an optimization design process, it is possible to modify the
shape of a single segment curve and/or more than one shape segment curve at a time, in
order to modify the desired functional areas (LE, CB, TE), appropriately. As a consequence,
in a design optimization process, it is useful to know the segment-wise aerodynamic force
contribution at every iteration. The followings figures and tables show examples of:
• two examples of segment-wise evaluation of pressure and skin friction forces and their
contribution to the airfoil lift and drag.
• “global morphing CFD optimization” and the next “local morphing CFD optimization” for
exploring a further improvement of the aerodynamic properties.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 • “global morphing CFD optimization” and the next “local morphing CFD optimiza-
27 of 38
tion” for exploring a further improvement of the aerodynamic properties.
The NACA 23012, generated by the mathematical model defined in this paper, was
considered for both the segment-wise aerodynamics properties evaluation and for an ex-
The NACA 23012, generated by the mathematical model defined in this paper, was
ample of an aerodynamics design optimization process.
considered for both the segment-wise aerodynamics properties evaluation and for an
example of4.1.
anNACA
aerodynamics design
23012 Segments optimization
Wise Aerodynamicsprocess.
Properties Evaluation
Figure
4.1. NACA 23012 26 shows
Segments theAerodynamics
Wise NACA 23012 Properties
airfoil withEvaluation
the stagnation, transition, and separa-
tion points, its Chebyshev segment discretization and pressure coefficient distribution at
FigureRe263.5
shows
× 106, the
𝛼 =NACA
4°. 23012 airfoil with the stagnation, transition, and separation
points, its Chebyshev segment discretization and pressure coefficient distribution at Re
3.5 × 106 , α = 4◦ .
Figure 26.
Figure 26. NACA NACA
23012 23012 airfoil—segment
airfoil—segment Chebyshev
Chebyshev discretization—Cp(x)
discretization—Cp(x) at Reat3.5
Re × × 610
3.510 , alfa4◦4°.
, 6alfa .
Figure 27 represents
Figure 27 represents the normal theand
normal and tangent
tangent vectors vectors to the and
to the airfoil airfoil anddecomposi-
their their decom-
tion in the position in the Vand
Vinf direction, inf direction,
the oneand the one
normal to normal to it; the pressure
it; the pressure forces,
forces, their their segment-
segment-wise
distribution,wise
anddistribution, and decomposition
decomposition along the Vinf along the Vinf direction,
direction, and the to
and the normal normal
it. Theto it. The
nor-
normal and tangent vectors and the curvilinear abscissa were used for the calculation of
Designs 2023, 7,mal
x FORand tangent vectors and the curvilinear abscissa were used for the calculation
PEER REVIEW 30 of of
43 the
the pressure forces.
pressure forces.
Figure 27. NACA 23012

Figure normal
27. NACA & tangent
23012 normal &vectors projection
tangent vectors along
projection thethe
along Vinf
Vinfdirection, and
direction, and thethe normal
normal
to Vinf, the segments-wise
to Vinf , the segments-wise contribution
contribution of pressure
of pressure forcesforces
alongalong
thethe and the
Vinf, and
Vinf, thenormal
normalto it.to it.
Figure 28 shows the airfoil friction forces, their segment-wise distribution, and their
projection along the Vinf direction, and the normal to it.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 28 of 38
Figure 28 shows the airfoil friction forces, their segment-wise distribution, and their
projection along the Vinf direction, and the normal to it.
Figure 28. 28.

Figure NACA 23012
NACA skin
23012 friction
skin frictionforces
forcesalong Vinf
along V and ⟂ V
inf and Vinf directions—segment-wise contri-
inf directions—segment-wise contribution.
bution.
Quantitative Xfoil polar results are reported in Figure 29. Table 14 contains the
Quantitative
segments Xfoil
lift (cl polar
i ) and results
friction (cfiare reported inInFigure
) coefficients. 29. Table
particular, 14 contains
the last one is splitthe into
seg- the
ments lift (cli) and
components, friction (cf
computed i) coefficients.
along In particular,
the Vinf direction and itsthenormal.
last oneNote
is split
thatinto
thethe com-
shape drag
ponents,
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW computed
(cdp ) is deduced along the difference
from the Vinf direction and its
between cdnormal.
and cdfNote(cdp that − cd
= cdthe shape 32 drag
f ) instead (cdbeing
of 43 of p)
calculated
is deduced fromviathe
surface pressure
difference integration
between cd anddue
cdto the
f (cd p =presence
cd − cdf) of numerical
instead noise.
of being calcu-
lated via surface pressure integration due to the presence of numerical noise.
NACA 23012 Xfoil × 10 6 ◦

Figure29.
Figure 29.NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.996.99
polarpolar results—Re
results—Re 3.5
3.5 × 10 6, alfa 4°. , alfa 4 .
Table 14. NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.99 aerodynamic results segment-wise distribution (Re = 3.5e 6, 𝛼 =
4°).
cl cd cdp
Xfoil output 0.5743 0.00601 0.00166
Designs 2023, 7, 28 29 of 38
Figure 29. NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.99 polar results—Re 3.5 × 10 , alfa 4°.
6
Table 14. NACA 23012

Table Xfoil 6.99 aerodynamic
14. NACA results
23012 Xfoil 6.99 segment-wise
aerodynamic distribution (Re
results segment-wise 𝛼 == 3.5 × 106 ,
= 3.5e 6,(Re
distribution
4°). ◦
α = 4 ).
cl clcd cd cdp cdp

Xfoil output Xfoil output 0.5743 0.00601
0.5743 0.00166
0.00601 0.00166
i cli i ⊥ Vinf
cficli cfi ⊥cfi || Vinf cfi || Vinf
Vinf
Segment 1
Segment 0.01261 −0.00014
0.0126 0.00068
−0.00014 0.00068
Segment 2
Segment 0.16972 −0.00024
0.1697 0.00161
−0.00024 0.00161
Segment 3
Segment 0.32183 0.00027
0.3218 0.00120
0.00027 0.00120
Segment 4
Segment 0.05924 −0.00013
0.0592 0.00045
−0.00013 0.00045
Segment 5
Segment −0.00735 −0.00001
−0.0073 0.00023
−0.00001 0.00023
Segment 6
Segment 0.01826 0.00001
0.0182 0.00018
0.00001 0.00018
Tot Tot 0.5742 −0.00024
0.5742 0.00435
−0.00024 0.00435
cl = Σ cli + Σ (cfi ⊥clV=infΣ) cli + Σ (cfi ⊥ Vinf ) 0.5740 0.5740
cdp = cd − Σ(cfi ||cdVpinf=)cd − Σ(cfi || V ) 0.00166 0.00166
inf
4.2. Morphed NACA

4.2.23012 Segment-Wise
Morphed NACA 23012Aerodynamic
Segment-Wise Properties
AerodynamicEvaluation
Properties Evaluation
Figure 30 shows Figure
the NACA 23012
30 shows theglobal
NACAmorphed geometry,
23012 global morphedobtained
geometry,by the LE by
obtained andthe LE and
TE rotation around the 0.3 and
TE rotation 0.7 the
around section middle
0.3 and points
0.7 section with the
middle stagnation,
points transition,transition,
with the stagnation,
and separation
and separation points, points, segments
its Chebyshev its Chebyshev segments discretization,
discretization, and its
and its pressure pressure coefficient
coefficient
6 ◦
distribution
distribution always always
for Re 3.5 × 106,for
𝛼 Re 4° × 10 , α = 4
= 3.5
Figure 30. Morphed NACA

Figure 30. 23012 airfoil—segment
Morphed Chebyshev discretization—Cp(x)
NACA 23012 airfoil—segment at Re 3.5 × at
Chebyshev discretization—Cp(x) 6, 3.5 × 106 ,
10Re
◦ ◦ ◦
and 𝛼 = 4°; 4° and −15°
and αrotations −15LErotations
at the
= 4 ; 4 and and TE,atrespectively
the LE and TE, respectively.
In Figure 31, the normal and tangent vectors to the airfoil and their components along
the Vinf direction and its normal; the pressure forces, their segment-wise distribution,
and decomposition along the Vinf direction, and the normal to it are represented. The
normal and tangent vectors and the curvilinear abscissa were used for the calculation of
the pressure forces.
In Figure 31, the normal and tangent vectors to the airfoil and their components along
the Vinf direction and its normal; the pressure forces, their segment-wise distribution, and
decomposition along the Vinf direction, and the normal to it are represented. The normal
Designs 2023, 7, 28 and tangent vectors and the curvilinear abscissa were used for the calculation 30of
of the
38 pres-
sure forces.
Figure 31. Morphed Figure

NACA31. Morphed NACA&23012
23012 normal normal
tangent & tangent
vectors vectorsalong
projection projection along
the V the V inf direction, and
inf direction, and
the normal to Vinf, segments-wise contribution of pressure forces along the Vinf and the normal to it.
the normal to Vinf , segments-wise contribution of pressure forces along the Vinf and the normal to it.
Figure 32 shows the segment distribution of the friction forces, their resultants, and
Figure 32 shows the segment distribution of the friction forces, their resultants, and
their decomposition along the Vinf direction and its normal. forces.
their decomposition along the Vinf direction and its normal. forces.
Quantitative Xfoil aerodynamic results are reported in Figure 33. Table 15 contains
the lift (cl) and friction (cf) coefficients, computed at each segment. In particular, the
last one is split into the contributions computed along the Vinf direction and its normal.
Note that, as before, the shape drag (cdp ) is deduced from the difference of cd and cdf
(cdp = cd − cdf ), instead of being calculated via surface pressure integration due to the
presence of numerical noise.
Table 15. NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.99 aerodynamic results segments wise distribution—Re 3.5 × 106 ,
α = 4◦ , LE (4◦ ) TE (−15◦ ).
. cl cd cdp
Xfoil output 1.5098 0.01724 0.01095
i cli cfi ⊥ Vinf cfi || Vinf
Segment 1 0.1106 −0.00023 0.00062
Segment 2 0.4239 −0.00031 0.00209
Segment 3 0.5472 0.00060 0.00246
Segment 4 0.1638 −0.00016 0.00036
Segment 5 0.1535 −0.00001 0.00019
Segment 6 0.1109 −0.00017 0.00069
Tot 1.5099 −0.00027 0.00640
cl = Σ cli + Σ (cfi ⊥ Vinf ) 1.5096
cdp = cd – Σ(cfi || Vinf ) 0.01084
Designs 2023, 7, 28 31 of 38
31 of 43
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW

FigureFigure 32. Morphed
32. Morphed NACANACA
23012 23012 segment-wise
segment-wise contribution
contribution of skinof skin friction
friction forcesValong
forces along Vinf and 35 of 4
inf and ⟂
A 23012 skin friction forces along VinfVand ⟂VVinf directions—segment-wise contri-
inf directions.
inf directions.
Quantitative Xfoil aerodynamic results are reported in Figure 33. Table 15 contains
ve Xfoil polar results are reportedthe in lift
Figure 29. Table
(cl) and 14 (cf)
friction contains the seg-computed at each segment. In particular, the last
coefficients,
nd friction (cfi) coefficients. In particular, the last one is split into the
one is split into the contributions computed com- along the Vinf direction and its normal. Note
uted along the Vinf direction and itsthat, as before, the shape drag (cdp) is(cd
normal. Note that the shape drag p)
deduced from the difference of cd and cdf (cdp = cd·−
m the difference between cd and cd cdff),(cd p = cd − cdf) instead of being calcu-
instead of being calculated via surface pressure integration due to the presence of
e pressure integration due to the numerical
presence ofnoise.numerical noise.
Figure 33. Morphed NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.99 polar results—Re 3.5 × 106 , α = 46◦ , LE (4◦ ) TE (−15◦ ).
Figure 33. Morphed NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.99 polar results—Re 3.5 × 10 , 𝛼 4°, LE (4°) TE (−15°).
Table 15. NACA 23012 Xfoil 6.99 aerodynamic results segments wise distribution—Re 3.5 × 106, 𝛼
4°, LE (4°) TE (−15°).
. cl cd cdp
Xfoil output 1.5098 0.01724 0.01095
i cli cfi ⊥ Vinf cfi || Vinf
Designs 2023, 7, 28 32 of 38
4.3. NACA 0012 CFD “Global & Local” Morphing CFD Design Optimization
The airfoil mathematical model allows easy global and local section/segment morph-
ing and is suitable for use in a design optimization process.
Global section morphing is intended as section rotation, obtained by acting on seg-
ments 1, 6, and their BCPs and InCPs parameters for TE rotation; segments 3, 4, and their
BCPs and InCPs parameters.
Local section morphing is intended as segment skin deformation obtained by acting
on SFps and InCPs parameters with a “limited variation” defined by the user.
We could consider an example of design optimization of a scaled NACA 23012 which
can be considered a root section of a rectangular wing useful for a wind tunnel test. The
airfoil was scaled by a scale factor of 9 taking into account the aircraft typology and test
chamber dimension. See Figure 34 for a detailed consideration of scale factor evaluation.
Figure 34. The scale factor for NACA 23012 airfoil.
Following
Figure thefactor
34. The scale procedure described
for NACA in Section 2.5, the parameterized airfoil of the
23012 airfoil.
scaled NACA 23012 was evaluated, as shown in Figure 35.
Following the procedure described in Section 2.5, the parameterized airfoil of the
scaled NACA 23012 was evaluated, as shown in Figure 35.
NACA 23012
Figure 35. NACA 23012input
inputairfoil,
airfoil,Mathematical
Mathematicalmodel
modeland
anddiscretization.
discretization.
The design
The design optimization
optimizationof ofthe
theparameterized
parameterizedairfoil
airfoilstarts
startsby
byconsidering
consideringthe theLELE and
and
TE global morphing and later on the local morphing with the skin deformation.
TE global morphing and later on the local morphing with the skin deformation.
By the
By the MATLAB,
MATLAB, gamultiobj
gamultiobjgenetic
geneticalgorithm,
algorithm,and
andCFDCFDXfoil
Xfoil6.99
6.99solver,
solver,a aPareto
Pareto
front of the following three objective functions was evaluated at = 4 ◦ , Re = 2.0394 × 10 6
∞
front of the following three objective functions was evaluated at 𝛼 = 4°, Re∞ = 2.0394 × 106
α
aerodynamic conditions:
aerodynamic conditions:
1 2 1 1 1 2 2
Obj.1: −𝛤 = − 𝑣∞ 𝑐𝑐1𝑙 Obj.2: | 𝑣∞ 𝑐𝑐𝑑 |2 Obj.3: | 𝑣1∞ 𝑐 𝑐 | (39)
Obj.1 : −Γ2= − v∞ ccl Obj.2 2 : v cc Obj.3 : 2 v2∞ c𝑚2 cm (39)
2 2 ∞ d 2
Designs 2023, 7, 28 33 of 38
The variables considered in the optimization design process are the LE and TE rotation
angles with the following lower and upper bound: LE [−20, 30], TE [−50, 20].
The gamultiobj options setting is options = optimoptions(@gamultiobj, ‘PlotFcn’,
‘gaplotpareto’, ‘PopulationSize’, 70, ‘MaxGenerations’,10, ‘PopulationType’, ‘doubleVec-
tor’), with a population size of 70 and 10 generations.
From the Pareto front output, it is possible to choose the airfoil characterized by a
compromise between the Obj.1, Obj.2, and Obj.3 values following the design requirements.
In the Pareto front, graphical output was also placed in the NACA 23012 position (red
marker). Table 16 reports the aerodynamic and geometric properties of the initial airfoil and
the chosen one from the Pareto front characterized by higher circulation and aerodynamic
efficiency, as shown in Figure 36.
Table 16. Initial and “global” morphed NCA 23012.
NACA 23012 NACA 23013

α = 4◦ , Re∞ = 2.0394 × 106
Initial Global Morphing
Obj.1 0.583 1.192
Obj.2 0.340 0.589
Obj.3 0.940 1.652
c 0.245 m 0.242 m
ccl 3.89 × 10−2 7.95 × 10−2
ccd 6.17 × 10−4 1.07 × 10−3
c2 c m 1.7 × 10−3 3.00 × 10−3
cl 0.1586 0.329
cd 2.52 × 10−3 4.42 × 10−3
cm 2.84 × 10−2 5.13 × 10−2
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW E = cl /cd 62.94 74.39 37 of 43
LE (◦ ) 0 8.08
TE (◦ ) 0 12.6
Figure 36. Objective functions Pareto front (left) (initial airfoil (redpoint)), airfoil global
morphing (right).
Figure 36. Objective functions Pareto front (left) (initial airfoil (redpoint)), airfoil global morphing
(right).
The aerodynamic improvement is achieved against an increase in aerodynamic drag
and moment.
The variables considered in the optimization design process are the LE and TE rota-
tion angles with the following lower and upper bound: LE [−20, 30], TE [−50, 20].
The gamultiobj options setting is options = optimoptions(@gamultiobj, ‘PlotFcn’,
‘gaplotpareto’, ‘PopulationSize’, 70, ‘MaxGenerations’,10, ‘PopulationType’, ‘doubleVec-
tor’), with a population size of 70 and 10 generations.
From the Pareto front output, it is possible to choose the airfoil characterized by a
compromise between the Obj.1, Obj.2, and Obj.3 values following the design require-
ments. In the Pareto front, graphical output was also placed in the NACA 23012 position
(red marker). Table 16 reports the aerodynamic and geometric properties of the initial
airfoil and the chosen one from the Pareto front characterized by higher circulation and
aerodynamic efficiency, as shown in Figure 36.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 34 of 38

After the LE and TE global morphing, the airfoil was optimized considering its
skin deformation always by the MATLAB gamultiobj genetic algorithm and CFD Xfoil
6.99 solver and for sections 1 and 3. In this case, the involved variables are the SFps ad the
solver and for sections 1 and 3. In this case, the involved variables are the SFps ad the
InCPs of the segments 1,3,4,6.
InCPs of the segments 1,3,4,6.
A Pareto front of the following three objective functions was evaluated at the same
A Pareto front of the following three objective functions was evaluated at the same
α = 4◦ , Re∞ = 2.0394 × 106 6 aerodynamic conditions:
𝛼 = 4°, Re∞ = 2.0394 × 10 aerodynamic conditions:
Obj.1 : (𝐸 GB−−𝐸E
( E𝐺𝐵 current ) k Obj.2 : ||𝑐
cm |k|𝑘2 : |Γcurrent
Obj.3Obj.3: − ΓGB
|𝛤𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 −𝛤|𝐺𝐵
k3|𝑘 (40)
Obj.1: 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 )𝑘11 Obj.2: 𝑚 2 3 (40)
where:k1𝒌𝟏==10;
where: 10;k2 𝒌=
𝟐 =
k3 𝒌=𝟑 100;
= 100;
E𝑬GB
𝑮𝑩 ==aerodynamic
aerodynamicefficiency
efficiencyresulting
resultingfrom
fromglobal
globalmorphing
morphingoptimization
optimization==74.39
74.39
E𝑬current
𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕= = aerodynamicefficiency
aerodynamic efficiencyofof the
the current
current airfoil
airfoil
Γ𝜞GB
𝑮𝑩 ==airfoil circulation resulting
airfoil circulation resulting from
from global
global morphing
morphing optimization
optimization== 1.192
1.192
Γ𝜞current
𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕= airfoil
= circulation
airfoil circulation of the
of current
the currentairfoil
airfoil
The
The third
third objective
objective function
function isis required
required because,
because, wewe are
arelooking
looking forfor an
anairfoil
airfoil with
with
improved
improvedefficiency
efficiencybut
butwith
withthe
thesame
samecirculation (toleranceofof11×× 10
circulation(tolerance 10−−33).).
The
Thethree
threeobjective
objectivefunctions
functions do do not
not consider
consider the
the airfoil
airfoil chord
chord because
because it it is
is constant.
constant.
After
Afterall,
all,there
thereisisno
noLELETETErotation.
rotation.
The
The gamultiobj
gamultiobj options
options setting
setting isisoptions
options==optimoptions(@gamultiobj,
optimoptions(@gamultiobj, ‘PlotFcn’, ‘PlotFcn’,
‘gaplotpareto’,
‘gaplotpareto’,‘PopulationSize’,
‘PopulationSize’, 600,600,
‘MaxGenerations’,20,
‘MaxGenerations’,20,‘PopulationType’,
‘PopulationType’,‘doubleVec-
‘dou-
tor’), with a population
bleVector’), size of 600
with a population sizeand 20 generations.
of 600 and 20 generations.
The
The segment-wise
segment-wise bounds
bounds of of skin
skin deformation
deformation areare defined
defined by by offsetting
offsetting thethe airfoil
airfoil
segment
segment perimeter. The internal (red curve) and external (black curve) offsets cancan
perimeter. The internal (red curve) and external (black curve) offsets be
be ad-
adjusted by the user, as shown in Figure 37. The morphed skin is constrained
justed by the user, as shown in Figure 37. The morphed skin is constrained inside these inside these
geometrical
geometricaloffset
offsetbounds.
bounds.
Figure 37.NACA
Figure37. NACA23012
23012skin
skindeformation
deformationsegments
segmentsbounds
boundsdefined
definedby
bythe
theuser.
user.
Figure
Figure3838represents
representsthethe
evaluated Pareto
evaluated frontfront
Pareto skin skin
optimization wherewhere
optimization the zero
thevalue
zero
on the obj.1 axis represents the equality of the aerodynamic efficiency between
value on the obj.1 axis represents the equality of the aerodynamic efficiency between the global
the
and skin-morphed
global airfoil. The
and skin-morphed obj.1The
airfoil. negative
obj.1 values
negativerepresent
values airfoils with
represent improved
airfoils withE.im-
Table
proved E. 17 reports the comparison between the aerodynamic/geometric properties of
the not-deformed NACA2312 and the global and local morphed one. The one with the
highest E value and a circulation close to the global morphed with a tolerance of 1 × 10−3
has been chosen for the skin-morphed airfoil.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 35 of 38
Table 17. Initial and “global” morphed NCA 23012.
NACA 23012 NACA 23013 NACA 23013

α = 4◦ , Re∞ = 2.0394 × 106
Initial Global Morphing Skin Morphing
c 0.245 m 0.242 m 0.242 m
ccl 3.89 × 10−2 7.95 × 10−2 7.98 × 10−2
ccd 6.17 × 10−4 1.07 × 10−3 1.07 × 10−3
c2 c m 1.7 × 10−3 3.00 × 10−3 3.03 × 10−3
cl 0.1586 0.329 0.330
cd 2.52 × 10−3 4.42 × 10−3 4.42 × 10−3
cm 2.84 × 10−2 5.13 × 10−2 5.17 × 10−2
Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW E = cl /cd 62.94 74.39 78.26 39
LE (◦ ) 0 8.08 8.08
TE (◦ ) 0 12.6 12.6
Figure 38. NACA 23012 Pareto front skin optimization (left), airfoil local morphing (right).
Figure 38. NACA 23012 Pareto front skin optimization (left), airfoil local morphing (right).
From Table 17, it is possible to assess the percentage increase in efficiency:
•
Table 17 reports the comparison between the aerodynamic/geometric properti
from NACA 23012 to global morphed airfoil: 18.19%
• the
fromnot-deformed
global morphedNACA2312 and
airfoil to skin the global
morphed: and local morphed one. The one with
4.47%
highest E value and a circulation close to the global morphed with a tolerance of 1 ×
This amounts to a total increase in aerodynamic efficiency of 22.66 %.
has been
Figure chosenthe
39 shows for the skin-morphed
geometry and pressureairfoil.
coefficient distribution both for the initial
From Table 17, it is possible
undeformed NACA 23012 airfoil and for its to morphed
assess the percentage
one increase
after the global in efficiency:
and local design
•
optimization process.
from NACA 23012 to global morphed airfoil: 18.19%
• from global morphed airfoil to skin morphed: 4.47%
This amounts to a total increase in aerodynamic efficiency of 22.66 %.
Table 17. Initial and ‘’global’’ morphed NCA 23012.
𝜶 = 4°, Re∞ = 2.0394 NACA 23012 NACA 23013 NACA 23013

×106 Initial Global Morphing Skin Morphing
c 0.245m 0.242m 0.242m
𝑐𝑐 3.89 × 10−2 7.95 × 10−2 7.98 × 10−2
Designs 2023, 7, 28 36 of 38
Figure39.
Figure 39.NACA
NACA 23012
23012 undeformed,
undeformed, global,
global, andmorphing
and local local morphing geometries
geometries and
and pressure pressure coeffi-
coefficients.
cients.
5. Conclusions
The results of the geometric and aerodynamic comparison, between the input air-
5. Conclusions
foils and related model-based generated airfoils, show the capabilities of the new airfoil
The results
mathematical of the
model, geometricby
characterized and aerodynamic
reduced segmentcomparison, between
parameters (SFps the input airfoils
and InCPs):
and
• related model-based generated airfoils, show the capabilities of the new airfoil math-
to represent geometrically a wide range of 2D profile families, with the Euclidean
ematical
pointsmodel, characterized
error distance by reduced
in the order of O (10−segment
4 ). parameters (SFps and InCPs):
• • generate
to to represent geometrically a equivalent
airfoils aerodynamically wide rangeto of
the2D profile
related families,
input with
2D profile the Euclid-
(both
qualitatively and quantitatively).
ean points error distance in the order of O (10 ).
−4
• to generate
Moreover, airfoils
due to the aerodynamically
presence equivalent
of the B-spline segment curvetoasthe related
a “basic input for
element” 2D profile
the airfoil geometric description,and
(both qualitatively it isquantitatively).
possible:
• to implement
Moreover, LEto
due and
theTE morphing
presence at both
of the local segment
B-spline and global levelsas(the
curve properties
a “basic element” for
of the airfoil mathematical model ensure that, for both the local and global morph-
the airfoil geometric description, it is possible:
ing, the desired continuity boundary conditions between the neighbor segments are
•
always tosatisfied);
implement LE and TE morphing at both local and global levels (the properties
• of geometrical
to apply the airfoil constraints,
mathematical model ensure
i.e., considering CB asthat, for bothsection;
a rigid/fixed the local and globa
• morphing,
to change the desired
the relative continuity
size of each boundary
section (LE, CB, andconditions between
TE) just acting on thethe
x/cneighbor
location of the partition points;
segments are always satisfied);
• • evaluate
to to applythe geometrical
contribution constraints,
of each segment/section to the
i.e., considering CBaerodynamic lift and
as a rigid/fixed section;
drag forces;
• to change the relative size of each section (LE, CB, and TE) just acting on the x/c
• to implement CFD, structural, and FSI design optimization processes, with the oppor-
location of the partition points;
tunity to adjust the parameter topology and airfoil model complexity according to the
• to evaluate
analyst’s needs. the contribution of each segment/section to the aerodynamic lift and
drag forces;
Moreover, taking into consideration the design optimization process:
• to implement CFD, structural, and FSI design optimization processes, with the
• Different strategies/framework can be implemented considering the opportunity to
opportunity to adjust the parameter topology and airfoil model complexity ac-
manage the variable Sfps and InCps separately.
• cording
The airfoil to the
design analyst’sprocess
optimization needs. could be implemented for defining a desired
elliptical
Moreover, span-wise
taking load
into on a LE, TE morphing
consideration rectangular
the design wing. process:
optimization
• Different strategies/framework can be implemented considering the oppor-
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.T., A.C and R.P.; methodology, G.T.; software, G.T.;
tunity to manage the variable Sfps and InCps separately.
validation G.T.; investigation G.T., A.C. and R.P.; data curation, G.T., A.C. and R.P.; writing—original
• The airfoil
draft preparation design optimization
G.T.; writing—review and editingprocess
G.T., A.C.could be supervision
and R.P.; implemented forA.C.
R.P and defining
All a de-
sired elliptical span-wise load on a LE, TE morphing
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. rectangular wing.
Author Contributions:
Funding: Conceptualization,
This research received G.T., A.C and R.P.;
no external funding. methodology, G.T.; software, G.T.
validation G.T.; investigation G.T., A.C. and R.P.; data curation, G.T., A.C. and R.P.; writing—orig
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
inal draft preparation G.T.; writing—review and editing G.T., A.C. and R.P.; supervision R.P and
A.C. All authors
Informed Consenthave read and
Statement: Notagreed to the published version of the manuscript
applicable.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Designs 2023, 7, 28 37 of 38
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
BCPs Boundary Control Points

C the segment vector-valued function of the u-independent variable
C0 the tangent vector-valued function of the u-independent variable
C” the curvature vector-valued function of the u-independent variable
CB Central Box
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CPs Control Points
E = cl /cd Aerodynamic efficiency
InCPs Interior Control Points
LE Leading-Edge
NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline
SF Scale Factor
SFps Scale Factor Parameters
TE Trailing-Edge
UNRBS Uniform Non-Rational B-spline
References
1. Salunke, N.P.; Juned Ahamad, R.A.; Channiwala, S.A. Airfoil Parameterization Techniques: A Review. Am. J. Mech. Eng. 2014, 2,
99–102. [CrossRef]
2. Song, W.; Keane, A.J. A Study of Shape Parameterisation Methods for Airfoil Optimisation. In Proceedings of the 10th
AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Albany, NY, USA, 30 August–1 September 2004.
[CrossRef]
3. Lépine, J.; Guibault, F.; Trépanier, J.-Y. Optimized Nonuniform Rational B-Spline Geometrica Representation for Aerodynamic
Design of Wings. AIAA J. 2001, 39, 2033–2041. [CrossRef]
4. Hilbig, R.; Szodruch, J. The Intelligent Wing—Aerodynamic Developments for Future Transport Aircraft. In Proceedings of the
27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA, 9–12 January 1989. [CrossRef]
5. Venkataraman, P. A new procedure for airfoil definition. In Proceedings of the 13th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, San
Diego, CA, USA, 19–22 June 1995; Volume 10. [CrossRef]
6. Documentation—MATLAB & Simulink—MathWorks Italia. Available online: https://it.mathworks.com/help/ (accessed on
3 March 2022).
7. Xfoil Subsonic Airfoil Development System. Available online: https://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/ (accessed on
8 June 2022).
8. Spink, M.; Claxton, D.; de Falco, C.; Vazquez, R. Nurbs 1.4.3. Collection of Routines for the Creation, and Manipulation of
Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS), Based on the NURBS Toolbox. 2021. Available online: https://gnu-octave.github.io/
packages/nurbs/ (accessed on 11 April 2022).
9. UIUC Applied Aerodynamics Group. Available online: https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ (accessed on 18 May 2022).
10. UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Available online: https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html (accessed on
18 May 2022).
11. Abbot, I.H.; Doenhoff, A.E.V. Theory of Wing Sections; Dover: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
12. Drela, M.; Youngren, H. xfoil_doc. 2001. Available online: http://web.mit.edu/aeroutil_v1.0/xfoil_doc.txt (accessed on
8 June 2022).
13. Piegel, L.; Tiller, W. The NURBS Books, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1997.
14. Buosi, D. Development of a Parametric Tool for Shape Manipulation and Fluid Dynamics Optimization of a UHBR Engine
Nacelle. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Padova, Padua, Italy, 2019.
15. Safari, A.; Lemu, H.G. Optimum NURBS curve fitting for geometry parameterization of gas turbine blades’ sections: Part
I—evolutionary optimization techniques, in ASME 2012. In Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress,
ASME, Houston, TX, USA, 9–15 November 2012; p. 7. [CrossRef]
16. Safari, A.; Lemu, H.G. Optimum NURBS curve fitting for geometry parameterization of gas turbine blades’ sections: Part II:
Swarm intelligence techniques, in ASME 2012. In Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition,
Houston, TX, USA, 9–15 November 2012; p. 6. [CrossRef]
Designs 2023, 7, 28 38 of 38
17. Safari, A.; Lemu, H.G.; Assadi, M.A.; Lemu, H.G.; Assadi, M. A novel combination of adaptive tools for turbomachinery airfoil
shape optimization using a real-coded genetic algorithm. In ASME Turbo Expo 2013, Proceedings of the Turbine Technical Conference
and Exposition, ASME, San Antonio, TX, USA, 3–7 June 2013; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
[CrossRef]
18. Deb, K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001.
19. Branke, J.; Deb, K.; Miettinen, K.; Słowìnskì, R. Multiobjective Optimization Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches; Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 2008.
20. Oyama, A.; Obayashi, S.; Nakahashi, K. Fractional factorial design of genetic coding for aerodynamic optimization. In Proceedings
of the 14th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Norfolk, VA, USA, 1–5 November 1999; Volume 11. [CrossRef]
21. Performing a Multiobjective Optimization Using the Genetic Algorithm. Available online: https://it.mathworks.com/help/
gads/gamultiobj-plot-vectorize.html (accessed on 22 March 2022).
22. Gamultiobj Find Pareto Front of Multiple Fitness Functions Using Genetic Algorithm. Available online: https://it.mathworks.
com/help/gads/gamultiobj.html (accessed on 24 March 2022).
23. Byrd, R.H.; Gilbert, J.C.; Nocedal, J. A trust region method based on interior point techniques for nonlinear programming. Math.
Program. 2000, 37, 149–185. [CrossRef]
24. Byrd, R.H.; Hribar, M.E.; Nocedal, J. An interior point algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. SIAM j. Optim. 1999, 24,
25. Coleman, T.F.; Li, Y. An Interior Trust Region Approach for Nonlinear Minimization Subject to Bounds. SIAM J. Optim. 1996, 24,
26. Fmincon Find Minimum of Constrained Nonlinear Multivariable Function. Available online: https://it.mathworks.com/help/
optim/ug/fmincon.html (accessed on 22 March 2022).
27. Constrained Nonlinear Optimization Algorithms. Available online: https://it.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/constrained-
nonlinear-optimization-algorithms.html (accessed on 22 March 2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tortora Param

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tortora Param

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Airfoil Shape Morphing through a Novel Parameterization and

1 Department of Mathematics, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Napoli, Italy

Designs 2023, 7, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs7010028 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/designs

1.1. PARSEC Method

Figure 1. Parsec method.

Figure 2. Cubic Bezier curve (red), control polygon (green).

Leading edge thickness curve

Trailing edge thickness curve

Leading edge cambers curve

Trailing edge camber curve

2. Descriptions of the Methodology

Figure 4. 2D airfoils mathematical model flowchart procedure.

2.1. Input 2D Airfoil

2.2. Airfoil Partitioning

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEWsegments’ 7 of 43

Table 1. Partitioned airfoil topology.

2.3.2. Curve Derivatives in Parametric and Cartesian Formulation & SF Parameter

Cy0 (u) 1 dCy0

Then, considering y’(x) as function of C’(u):

Considering the scaled tangent vector SF C0 (u), it results:

2.3.3. UNRBS Boundaries Control Points in Terms of C0 C” and SF

Given or assigned the:

Introducing the SF parameter, it is possible to modify the P1 , Pn−1, and the P2

2.3.4. Segment Parameters

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 43

Table 2. Model parameters ensuring C0 continuity (more model flexibility).

Table 2. Model parameters ensuring C0 continuity (more model flexibility).

Table 3. Model parameters ensuring C2 continuity (less model flexibility).

2.3.5. Segments Reduced Parameters

Table 4. Model parameters ensuring C2 continuity (less model flexibility).

Table 5 reports the established BCPs x coordinate extremities intervals in terms of

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 43

Figure 10. Central NACA 0012 example of SF parameters numbers

Table 7. Segment-wise strategy boundary conditions implementations.

2.5. Segment Fitting Procedure for Reduced Parameters

nested optimization routines perform the parameter evaluations, an external and an

Alghoritm 2 [InitialAirfoil]=Airfoil_Fitting_process (InitialAirfoil, C’,C”,SF_lb, SF_ub)

Alghoritm 3 Matlab gamultiobj genetic algorithm settings

Alghoritm 4 MATLAB fmincon gradient based algorithm settings

AirfoilPoints(InitialAirfoil); /*update the segment curve geometry

The reduced parameterization, as conceived, allows the parallelization of the single

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 43

Table 8. New mathematical model fitting process segment-wise computation time.

NACA 0012 NACA 23012 NREL’s S089

Table 9. New mathematical model fitting process geometrical approximation.

NACA0012 NACA 23012 NREL’s S809

3.1. NACA 0012

3.1. NACA 0012

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 43

Figure 17. NACA 0012 input airfoil.

Figure 18. NACA

Figure 19 shows the comparison of the aerodynamic curves

Figure 19 shows Figure the 19 shows

Designs 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 43

Figure 19. Figure 19. airfoil,

Figure 20. NACA 23012 input airfoil.

Figure 22 shows the comparison of the aerodynamic curves

Figure 22 shows the comparison of the aerodynamic curves

Figure 23. NREL’s 809 input airfoil.

RAE2822 NACA 0406 NACA 0610

Table 11. New mathematical model fitting process geometrical approximation.

RAE2822 NACA 0406 NACA 0610

Table 12. Summary of different parameter methods for airfoils.