LINKPING STUDIES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THESIS NO 1366

On Aircraft Conceptual Design

A Framework for Knowledge Based Engineering and Design Optimization
Kristian Amadori

DIVISION OF MACHINE DESIGN DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING LINKPINGS UNIVERSITET SE-581 83 LINKPING, SWEDEN LINKPING
2008

ISBN 978-91-7393-880-8 ISSN 0280-7971 Copyright May 2008 by Kristian Amadori Department of Management and Engineering Linkpings universitet SE-581 83 Linkping, Sweden Printed in Sweden by LiU-Tryck Linkping, 2008

ii

Abstract

HIS THESIS PRESENTS a design framework where analytical tools are linked together and operated from an efficient system level interface. The application field is aircraft conceptual design. Particular attention has been paid to CAD system integration and design optimization. Aircraft design is an inherently multidisciplinary process. The goal is to search for the design that, in the best of possible ways, fulfills the requirements. It is therefore desirable to be able to effectively investigate and analyze solutions from a variety of points of view, weighting together the results and gathering a general figure of merit. At the same time, increasing competition on a global market forces to shorten the design process and to reduce costs. Thus a system that allows a tight and efficient integration of different disciplines and improving data flow and storage plays a key role. Integrating a CAD system to the framework is of central relevance. The geometrical model includes most of the information; specific data, required to carry out particular analysis, can be extracted from it. This is possible adopting parametric associative models that are controlled from a spreadsheet user interface. Strategies for building CAD models with a very high degree of flexibility are presented. Not only the external shape can be changed, but also the internal structure can be completely modified. Structural elements can be added or removed, and their position and shaping changed. In this work the design of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is used as test case for comparing three different optimization algorithms. The presented framework is also used for automatically design Micro Aerial Vehicles, starting from a short list of requirements and ending with a physical prototype produced by a rapid prototyping machine.

iii

iv

Acknowledgements

HE WORK PRESENTED in this thesis was carried out at the Division of Machine Design at Linkpings universitet. There are several people I would like to express my sincere gratitude to. Firstly to my supervisor Prof. Petter Krus, Head of Division, for his support and guidance, and offering me the opportunity to join the research team at the division. Then to my co-supervisors Associate Professor Johan lvander, for helping me getting the project on track, and Dr. Christopher Jouannet, for the invaluable discussions that often use to end picturing future scenarios quite far outI would like to extend a big thank you to all members of our division and of our neighbor-division FluMeS for helping creating a stimulating atmosphere to work in. I would like to express my gratitude to ProViking and Nationellt Flygteknisk Forsknings Program (NFFP) for funding this project. Linkping, April 2008 Kristian Amadori

vi

Nomenclature

Notations
Symbol

B cd0 Cdi cf CL cL, cL,=0 Cm Cm, CR CT d D e E L R S Swet S.M. t V W0 x

LE eff eff, all

Description angle of attack semi wing span parasite drag coefficient induced drag coefficient skin friction coefficient lift coefficient lift coefficient as function of the angle of attack lift coefficient at zero angle of attack moment coefficient moment coefficient as function of the angle of attack root chord length tip chord length airfoil tail deflection angle aerodynamic drag force Osvalds Efficiency Factor endurance lift force range wing area wetted area Static Margin thickness to chord ratio flying speed maximum take-off weight generic design parameter vector that describes a concept leading edge sweep angle effective stress in the internal structure material effective stress in the internal structure material maximum allowed

vii

Abbreviations
CAD CFD MAV MDF MDS SOA SOAP UAV UDF WSDL Computer Aided Design Computational Fluid Dynamics Mini/Micro Aerial Vehicle CAD datums model CAD surfaces model Service Oriented Architecture Simple Object Access Protocol Unmanned Aerial Vehicle User Defined Feature Web Service Description Language

viii

Papers

T
[I]

HIS THESIS IS based on the following three appended papers, which will be referred to by their Roman numerals. The papers are printed in their originally published state except for some changes in format and the correction of some minor errata. In paper [I] and [II] the first author is the main author, responsible for the work presented, with additional support from other co-authors. In paper [III], the work has been divided between the two authors with additional support from the third. Amadori, K., Jouannet, C. and Krus, P., Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sep. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA Amadori, K., Jouannet, C. and Krus, P., A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design, June 2007, 25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Miami, FL, USA Amadori, K., Lundstrm, D. and Krus, P., Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation, Jan. 2008, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA

[II]

[III]

ix

The following publications are not appended to this thesis, but constitute an important part of the background. [IV] Amadori, K., Johansson, B. and Krus, P., Using CAD-Tools and Aerodynamic Codes in a Distributed Conceptual Design Framework, Jan. 2007, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA Jouannet, C., Lundstrm, D., Amadori, K. and Berry, P., Design of a Very Light Jet and a Dynamically Scaled Demonstrator, Jan. 2008, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA

[V]

Contents

1 2

Introduction........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Aim and Limitations ....................................................................................... 3 Aircraft Design Fundamentals............................................................................. 5 2.1 The Design Phases .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 (Traditional) Tools and Methods .................................................................... 7 Theory .................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Design Framework.......................................................................................... 9 3.1.1. CATIA and Parametrical Modeling...................................................... 12 3.1.2. Aerodynamic Code: PANAIR .............................................................. 14 3.1.3. Structural Analysis................................................................................ 15 3.2 Optimization ................................................................................................. 15 3.2.1. Fmincon ................................................................................................ 16 3.2.2. Complex................................................................................................ 16 3.2.3. Genetic Algorithm ................................................................................ 17 Proposed Conceptual Design Process................................................................ 19 4.1 Panel Code and Optimization Algorithms .................................................... 19 4.2 CAD Modeling.............................................................................................. 23 4.3 Design Optimization and Automation .......................................................... 27 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................... 31 Review of Papers ................................................................................................. 33 References............................................................................................................ 35

5 6 7

Appended Papers [I] Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization...39

xi

[II] [III]

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design.57 Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation.73

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4. Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6. Figure 4-7. Figure 4-8. Figure 4-9. Figure 4-10.

Table of disciplines versus fidelity according to Nickol [31].........................................2 Designers have different views of the same aircraft depending on their area of responsibility (adapted from Jouannet [19] ) ................................................................3 Design and manufacturing schedule (adapted from Jenkinson et al. [15]) ........................................................................................................................................6 Aircraft development process according to Brandt et al. [6].........................................7 The complete aircraft design framework......................................................................10 The framework interface is a simple spreadsheet ........................................................11 Relationships between elements in the CAD model......................................................12 Different levels of parametrization (adapted from Ledermann et al. [24]) ......................................................................................................................................13 Links between disciplines in the structural analysis ....................................................15 The complex algorithm reflects the worst point through the centroid of the remaining points............................................................................................................................17 Actual dataflow in the framework for testing PANAIR [I] ...........................................20 Design parameters defining the outer geometry of the aircraft. Not shown are the wing root and wing tip thicknesses .......................................................................................21 Design expanditures in an aircraft design project (Ledermann et al. [24]) ......................................................................................................................................23 General representation of a blunt base / round nose airfoil ........................................24 Parametric CAD model of an aircraft..........................................................................25 The structural elements are all instantiated from a general part using Functional Molded Parts (FMP) .....................................................................................................26 Two different approaches to topological optimization of strucutral elements: using FMPs (left) and using geometry discretization (right). .................................................27 MAV design automation [III]........................................................................................27 The automation design framework for MAVs................................................................28 The optimization process...............................................................................................29

xiii

List of Tables

Table 4-1.

Optimization results for the Complex and the Genetic Algorithms..............................22

xiv

1
Introduction

IRCRAFT ARE VERY complex products. Their design and development is an extremely challenging task that requires balancing together considerations from a variety of different disciplines. Aerodynamics, structures and weight, system choice and installation, production and cost, propulsion system, stability and control are only some of them. Moreover there may be conflicting aspects within one and the same discipline. For instance the requirements set on the wing by an aircraft that is required to fly at subsonic, transonic and supersonic speeds are very much different from each other. At the same time, the aircraft industry has experienced in the last decades an increasing competition that has forced manufacturer to review their processes and strategies in order to shorten the time-to-market for new aircraft [25], [39]. Even more, new challenges are offered by new and tougher environmental requirements that contribute to make the task even more complex. For instance, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) [1], responsible of the definition of a strategic research agenda for all aeronautical research programs in Europe, aims at reaching in year 2020 a reduction of CO2 by 50%, NOx by 80% and external noise by 50%. Moreover, as pointed out by Scott [40], during the fifties and sixties, the pace at which new aircraft appeared was very tight. Probably it did not take longer than a couple of years between new airplanes were introduced to active service. On the contrary, nowadays it can take as long as twenty to thirty years, or even more, before a model is retired and substituted. From an engineer perspective this means that if back then a designer was likely to experience and live through a number of different design projects, today he or she may not be involved in more than a single one! This means that even the depth and broadness of experience that designers are likely to gather during their professional career is very different. In such scenario, the availability of a framework where to store the companys know-how and that enlightened a clear design methodology, would be of sure help.

On Aircraft Conceptual Design

From a tools point of view it can be noted how a large number of them is usually used in a single project. To visually clarify this complexity Nickol [31] proposed a table that describes how for each discipline a different tool is adopted, but also that within the same discipline there might be an influence by the fidelity level required, which is related to the design stage (see Fig. 1-1). Since the table was limited to six fields (aerodynamics, structural analysis and weight estimations, noise, emissions, systems and controls and geometry generation), Price et al. [35] completed the table by including other disciplines, namely cost and manufacturing as disciplines to cope with, which also implies that even more tools are required. It is interesting to note that it appears to be gaps between the tools used at different fidelity levels and that there are no indications of aids of any kind that help to handle the information flowing across the disciplines. Jumping between these varieties of systems implies also an increased work load for the design team, which is required to control and verify the accordance of data from one level to another.

Figure 1-1.

Table of disciplines versus fidelity according to Nickol [31]

Therefore it would be of great help to have a framework available, where all the tools needed for the the different disciplines could be easily linked, enabling data to flow across them and towards increasing fidelity levels. There are commercial packages available that are developed for model integration. Among them MODELCENTER by Phoenix Integration [34] and iSIGHT by Engineous Software [8]. Compared with a selfdesigned integration framework ,they represent an increase in cost due to licences to be purchased, and they limiting the integration to the supported tools. On the other hand, an in-house framework, as the one presented in this thesis, requires time and resources to be developed. Thus it would be easier to proceed seamlessly along the design project, avoiding or greatly limiting to repeat the same tasks when moving from a discipline area or from a fidelity level to another. Off course it is also of highest importance that it should be simple to substitute any software as soon the necessity arose, without jeppardizing the overall functionalities.

Introduction 3

1.1 Aim and Limitations

With the present work the author intends to propose a novel strategy for the use of highend tools already from the initial early design stages and to evaluate to which extent the proposed ideas are feasible in a design task. In most cases the first steps in designing a new aircraft are dominated by the use of very simple low-fidelity empirical or statisticalbased models. The key idea is to try to find a way of anticipate the use of complex CAD systems and analytical tools already to the conceptual design phases without the burden of complex and time consuming repeated operations. In other terms, enabling the use of high fidelity systems, connected together in a flexible and user friendly architecture. This thesis presents a solution for allowing designers to maintain a comprehensive perspective of the aircraft during the conceptual phase, in order to avoid the view being dominated by one discipline only (Fig. 1-2).

Aerodynamics group

Propulsion group

Flight control systems group

Manufacturing group

Stealth group

Structure group

Figure 1-2. Designers have different views of the same aircraft depending on their area of responsibility (adapted from Jouannet [19] )

The presented work has to be seen as an effort to continue the research carried out at Linkpings universitet, aimed at developing modern and efficient system design tools [16]. The Modulith distributed framework which originates from this research has been adopted as a base upon which to continue building, and into which to plug in the wanted software.

On Aircraft Conceptual Design

Please note that, since the whole concept is still under development, the tools and systems presented shall not be thought to be ready for a broad industrial deployment or to be offered as a mature and finished product for commercial use.

2
Aircraft Design Fundamentals

CCORDING TO A LARGELY accepted process description [6], [15], [37], [42], aircraft design is usually described as sequence of three different phases: Conceptual Design Preliminary Design Detail Design

This is the same sequence that is generally adopted design theory [33], [44]. In this chapter a very brief description of the phases will be provided as a theoretical background, together with an overview of the traditional methods and tools that most often are adopted during each phase. To some extent, the three phases listed above can be coupled to the three fidelity levels introduced by Nickol in the table in the previous chapter. Figure 2-1 provides a possible graphical representation of the design process. Starting in the top left corner from the conceptual design phase, it can be seen how the phases succeed one another. It is worth noting that overlapping between different phases is possible in order to greatly shorten the time required to get the product on to the market. Also important to observe is how the cost increases drastically with time. It is clearly important to avoid large design changes in the later stages when the modification would impact on a very large number of components, the human resources involved are very large and parts have already started being manufactured.

On Aircraft Conceptual Design

Conceptual Phase Project Studies Start

Preliminary Design Phase Configuration Fixed Detail Design Phase Basis for Manufacturing Manufacturing

Cost Escalation

Testing

Figure 2-1.

Design and manufacturing schedule (adapted from Jenkinson et al. [15])

2.1 The Design Phases

Like basically any product, aircraft design originates from a set of requirements that will function as a guide during the whole process. Hereby is a very short description of the design phases, from a traditional point of view. The first step is the Conceptual Design Phase, which goal is to select one, or very few, workable concepts and optimize them as much as possible (Brandt et al. [6]). During this phase a large number of concepts are generated and evaluated against each other, in order to try to roughly define the main characteristics of the aircraft that better meets the requirements. The level of detail is on average approximate and the number of people involved is still limited. There can be quite a difference between the fidelity levels of the tools used in each discipline. The focus is at this stage to explore as many different solutions as possible and to narrow the number of feasible concepts to be taken into further analysis to one or very few layouts. It is important to reduce the number of layouts to keep, in order not to waste precious and expensive time and resources during the upcoming work. During this initial phase key decisions are to be made based on only limited information. Nevertheless their importance is huge since it is at this time the key features of a new aircraft are decided. Following is the Preliminary Design Phase where the selected concept(s) is(are) looked into more detail. At this point a much larger number of designers are involved and specialists start defining the characteristics of the aircraft. Detailed analysis and simulations are carried out to finely tune the geometries, while all sub-systems begin to be shaped. The aim of this phase is to completely define the aircraft that is going to be manufactured and to freeze its design. If the previous phase has been successful, only minor and very limited changes will be made at this stage to the layout of the aircraft. A

Aircraft Design Fundamentals 7 large amount of people are now allocated to the project. Specialists will carry out analysis and simulations of their respective systems and even some testing can start taking place. Also manufacturing and production planning will be carried out, starting from larger subassemblies. The final step of the design process is the Detail Design Phase during which all components and parts are defined in all their details. It during this phase that all (or at least most of it) manufacturing documentation is produced. The number of people involved in this phase can be extremely large and so are the costs. Only aircraft that have been decided to be produced reach this phase. The tools adopted during the detail design phase may not be very different, but they are of highest accuracy, in order to precisely define every single aspect of each system. Therefore careful simulations are performed also at this stage. Clearly it is now very hard to make important changes to the layout of the aircraft. If any mistake was made during the conceptual or preliminary design phase, the aircraft will have to either live with it or in the worst case force the project to be cancelled. As an example, the Fairchild T-46A trainer aircraft got cancelled among other reasons - after discovering a huge discrepancy in the predicted drag and the values measured during the test flight campaign, which negatively effected performances [10].

2.2 (Traditional) Tools and Methods

The type of tools that are used is strongly related to the phase of the design process (Fig. 2-2). Typically, the earlier in the design, the simpler the tools are. One of the main reasons is that in the beginning the number of persons involved and the resources available are very limited while the number of design concepts to evaluate is very large. Therefore it is imperative for the tools to furnish answers as quickly as possible.
Mis si o n Req ui re me n ts Co n ce p t u a l Desig n Pe rfo r ma nce & Cos t Goals

Wind Tu n nel Tes ti ng

P r eli mi n a r y Desig n

Co m p u t a t io n al Flo w Si m u l a t io n s

C A D / C AM

De t aile d Design & Ma n u f a c t u r i n g

Flig h t Tes ti n g

Co m p u t a t io n al Flo w Si m u l a t io ns

P ro d uc tion

Figure 2-2.

Aircraft development process according to Brandt et al. [6]

On Aircraft Conceptual Design

In general, early design analysis is dominated by very simple empirical, semiempirical or statistical models. Their strength is that they allows for quickly gathering significant information based on extremely limited input. On the other hand, these same models can not be very accurate and precise. Moreover, they can show large margin of error if trying to extrapolate answers that fall outside the validity range of the model. For instance, if using a statistical model to predict the aircraft weight, the result can be misleading if the model is used to calculate the weight for an aircraft that adopts new materials, or new manufacturing technologies or that has an unconventional geometrical layout that is not represented in the population upon which the model is based on. Computing power has become extremely affordable, and the trend is not going to change in the future. Already in 1997 Jameson [14] pointed out how times were mature enough for coupling CFD simulations with wind tunnel testing in order to cut time and costs for the design of new aircraft. He showed that the two methods effectively completed each other. Wind tunnel tests require expensive physical models whose manufacturing is very time-consuming. Once the model is ready though, several tests in different conditions can be quickly carried out. On the other hand, CFD simulations require long computing time, but there is almost no additional expense for changing the model. Thus they enable to effectively enlarge the design space. And indeed this thesis was confirmed in 2005 by Johnson et al. [17]. They presented a review of how CFD had been applied at Boeing Commercial Airplanes during the last thirty years. They showed that the number of wings tested in wind tunnels was drastically reduced every time a new CFD code was introduced, thus saving huge amounts of money. It is though very important to note that the same considerations can be made for other tools also. The argumentations just reported are true for the aerodynamic design of an aircraft, but many other fields and disciplines are equally important to successfully design an airplane. This thesis will present a framework through which keeping an overall system perspective on the aircraft, where not only one aspect at a time is analyzed. CAD systems that traditionally are introduced only at later stages can effectively be adopted from the very beginning. The geometrical model will grow in detail level as the project proceeds and will serve as a basis for all analysis to be performed: aerodynamics, structure, costs, manufacturing simulations, weight estimation, on-board systems packing and performance simulations, stability and control. The key issue is to determine how to efficiently couple all disciplines and to find a clever strategy for quickly and easily generating CAD models.

3
Theory

S PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, the design task requires using several different tools, which needs to be connected. In this work, a novel conceptual design framework has been studied. It originates and uses as a basis the Modelith framework developed within the research group [16]. The Modelith framework is based on so-called web services implemented in Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) which enables distribution and integration at the same time. SOA contains a set of standards for distributed computing developed by World Wide Web Consortium, where two standards are the major ones applicable in this work. The first is the Web Service Description Language (WSDL) [7] which defines the computational interface to the models. The second is the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) [4] which standardizes the messages sent between the distributed models. These standards and general technical aspects of the computational framework are described in more detail in [16] and [43].

3.1 Design Framework

During last years a research project at Linkping University has been aimed at developing a novel design framework to be used from the very beginning of the conceptual design phase of new aircraft (Johansson et al. [16], Amadori et al. [I]-[IV]). The framework is intended to be a multidisciplinary optimization tool for defining and refining aircraft designs, with respect to its aerodynamic, stability, weight, systems, stability and control. The presented design framework is also thought to meet requirements of modern complex product development. Many companies have design bureaus and production sites located all over the world and are tightly involved in several global partnerships, so that modules of the product are designed and manufactured at different locations. This is especially true in the aerospace and automotive industry where the end products are more or less assemblies of subsystems from different suppliers. This implies that todays

10 On Aircraft Conceptual Design product development is carried out in a distributed, collaborative and competitive fashion and this forms a rather complex environment for the employment of modeling and simulation technology. These aspects must therefore be supported by the modeling and simulation tools.
Evaluation

System Model
Wing Wing Performance Performance Propulsion Propulsion

Optimization
Structure Propulsion

Fuselage Fuselage

Aircraft Sizing Model

Electric Electric Power Power System System Stability & Stability & Control Control Actuation Actuation System System

Fuel System Fuel System

Aerodynamic Aerodynamics s

Figure 3-1.

The complete aircraft design framework

It is nowadays accepted among the research teams working in this field that the conceptual design phase could take advantage of a novel methodology that would not be based on empirical or semi-empirical equations to estimate e.g. weights, as the method presented by Ardema et al. [3], performances, costs and loads. It should instead relay on analytical models to a greater extent. Previous work carried out by the research group at Linkping University has, for instance, taken into consideration ways to determine the weight of aircraft concepts by means of CAD tools [18]. Using a parametric threedimensional model of the aircraft, it has been shown that the structural weight could be estimated with good precision while the high degree of parameterization ensures that the model can cover a wide range of concepts. Thanks to the experience gathered during the development of the framework, key requirements have been pinpointed. Among them, the models flexibility, reliability and robustness are of highest importance and have been key aspects during the development of each part of the framework modules. When compared with examples of similar applications that can be found in the literature, the presented work shows a much higher grade of design flexibility.

Theory 11 The interface between the framework and the designer shall be kept as simple and intuitive as possible. The focus during the conceptual design phase should be on the product to design and on designers creativity. Thus the tools used shall not steal attention being too complicated to use. The presented framework uses a simple spreadsheet created in Microsoft Excel, where all design parameters are entered and that helps gathering a full system perspective on the aircraft. Due to Excels high flexibility eventual customizations are simple to add. There is a huge variety of optimization algorithms available that can be used for i.e. design analysis and optimization. Moreover Excel incorporates all the application programming interfaces (API) required to directly link it to the CAD system (CATIA V5) to control the geometrical model. Another important strength of this type of interface is that no particular skills in the specific CAD system are required by the designers. All geometries are created, governed and modified through the interface in a fully automated manner. Also, gathering all results from the CAD model is done automatically by the system, so that all relevant data are clearly presented to the designer in the spreadsheet as soon as they are available. The figure below shows how the interface could look like for a wing design application.

Figure 3-2.

The framework interface is a simple spreadsheet

12 On Aircraft Conceptual Design

3.1.1. CATIA and Parametrical Modeling

The most important characteristic of the CAD model is to be highly flexible in order to be able to represent a variety of designs as large as possible. Secondly the model must be robust and reliable, since there will not be a specialist manually entering new parameters and supervising the update process. It is fundamental that the model does not produce mathematical errors within its whole allowed design range. In order to guarantee a high degree of flexibility and robustness, the CAD model must be built in a proper way. Figure 3-3 shows the relational links between the different elements of the model of a UAV. The input parameters govern directly the Datums Model (MDF) and the Surfaces Model (MDS). The MDF-model is a wireframe model where all reference planes and lines, needed to define the aircraft and its structure, are defined. It is important to notice that all the structure components in the CAD model depend on both the MDF-model and MDSmodel, that depend instead only on the top level input parameters. The MDS surfaces model contains all the external surfaces. The structure is obtained by instantiating a general structural element that is designed to adapt itself to a specified context, which is specified in the MDF-model and MDS-model. This general element is used for all the structure parts of the aircraft: frames, ribs and wing spars. The elements geometries are governed by individual parameters, allowing for optimization of the structural design, even at a component level.

Figure 3-3.

Relationships between elements in the CAD model

All geometries are created in an automated fashion in CATIA. Through the spreadsheet interface the designer decides the general dimension and shape of the aircraft and the number and position of all structural elements. Then the CAD model is updated to reflect the input in the spreadsheet. To achieve this level of automation the programming possibilities offered by CATIA V5 have been largely taken advantage of. The system allows using several layers of automation and parametrization [24]. With reference to Fig. 3-4 here next, following is a description of the different approaches, starting from the lowest level.

Theory 13

Script + UDF

Gen. Dyn. Objects UDFs Patterns Rules & Reactions

b h = 10 h b = 2*h

if shape = square h { h = 10, b = h } else { h = 10, b = 2*h }

Formulas
b

Parameters
20 10

h = 10 h b = 20

Fixed Models

Knowledge Based Design

Figure 3-4.

Different levels of parametrization (adapted from Ledermann et al. [24])

Fixed models are simply geometries where governing parameters or properties (for instance a thickness or a length) can be modified accessing the object containing the geometry and, searching through the object specifications, manually changing the value of the parameter of interest. Parameters of different kind can be adopted to define geometrical characteristics or properties, even outside the object or part. This allows changing the geometry without the need to actively access the object containing the geometry itself. Formulas are mathematical relations that link parameters together (for instance the length of an object that is required to be a given fraction of the objects volume). This feature is the first level that allows incorporating not visible knowledge into the model. Rules and reactions are more sophisticated ways to include knowledge into the model. Rules are a more general and powerful way to describe relations between all kind of parameters, properties and elements in an object. They are not limited to numerical parameters. Reactions, as the name suggests, allows defining how the model shall react to a given input (for instance a parameter or measure change). Reaction are trigged by the occurrence of a specified event, while rules are always are always active. Patterns are used to instantiate features that repeat themselves in the geometry. Key characteristic of a pattern is that the feature is repeated always in the exact same way and there is no chance to modify individually the elements in a pattern. Pattern can be dynamically operated via parameters.

14 On Aircraft Conceptual Design UDFs (user defined features) are generally described features that adapt to the context in which they are instantiated in the model. They allow each instance to be individually modified but are not dynamically governed. Generic Dynamic Objects are obtained adding scripts to UDFs. In this way UDFs become dynamically instantiated. Driven by scripts, even highly complex features can be automatically and dynamically instantiated in the wanted context and they can be given all the desired characteristics.

3.1.2. Aerodynamic Code: PANAIR

At the moment, the aerodynamic analysis tool adopted is a panel code, PANAIR [26] that was developed by The Boeing Company and NASA during the late seventies and early eighties to be able to model and simulate complete vehicle configurations. Panel codes are numerical schemes for solving (the Prandtl-Glauert equation) for linear, inviscid, irrotational flow about aircraft flying at subsonic or supersonic speeds (Erikson [9]). As pointed out by Amadori et. al. [I], panel codes are not as precise as modern CFDs can be, but they have other advantages. Considering that during a conceptual design phase, the aircraft geometry and its outer shape is not precisely defined and that the detail level is quite rough, it is clear that it can be unpractical and not justified to use tools that have a much higher accuracy. Moreover CFDs requires the space around the studied body to be accurately meshed, while for a panel code it is sufficient to approximate the aircrafts outer surfaces with proper rectangular panels. Therefore the meshing time required by a panel code is lower by several orders of magnitude, compared to a CFD code. It should be kept in mind that, in this framework, PANAIR is used mainly to compare the effectiveness of different concepts with each other, rather than to gather exact and absolute figures of their aerodynamic efficiency. When more powerful and faster computers will be available or if higher accuracy was required, PANAIR could be substituted with other solvers, thanks to the modular nature of the framework. The data that is gathered from the panel code analysis are the lift coefficient (cL), calculated using Trefftz plane analysis, the induced drag coefficient (cDi) and the pitching moment coefficient (cm) and thus the aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the airplane. The upper and lower surfaces of the wing are meshed with rectangular panels using an in-house developed meshing application. This application is based on a set of scriptprocedures that can be activated from the spreadsheet interface and that also handles all steps required for starting the aerodynamic analysis. The surfaces are at first split along the front and aft spars. This is done to simplify the aerodynamic loads retrieving operations. This is done because PANAIR presents results for each surface separately and then assembled for the whole aircraft. Since only the load-carrying structure is analyzed, the air loads coming from the forward and aft surfaces are then simply applied along the front and rear spars.

Theory 15
Design Parameters

External Aircraft Shape (CAD)

Aerodynamics (PANAIR)

Structure Optimization

FEM Analysis

Structural Layout

Optimization Algorithm

Figure 3-5.

Links between disciplines in the structural analysis

An advantage of using a tailor made meshing tool is that the coordinates for each one of the meshing nodes can be stored directly in the appropriate order for PANAIR to correctly interpret them. Thus data handling is in this way simplified and speeded up.

3.1.3. Structural Analysis

Having a detailed geometrical model of the aircraft and being able to run an aerodynamic analysis of it means that it is possible to perform a relatively accurate initial structural analysis as well, with only a relative additional cost or expense. The pressure distribution around the aircraft represents the load case to be considered. Since the pressure field will be varying accordingly to the deformations provoked in the structure, even some preliminary aeroelastic couplings can be studied already at this early design stage. Figure 3-5 shows the links between the different disciplines. The inner loop between Structural Layout and FEM Analysis is required if aeroelastic effects are to be taken into account. In other structure design studies [13], [27], [38], [39], [45], the structural layout has already been decided and frozen before the optimization can start. Then the system modifies thicknesses and maybe slightly moves the structural elements from their starting position. This work will instead demonstrate that it is possible to design concepts with a much higher degree of freedom, allowing also the number of elements to be varied. Therefore the kind of structural analysis will get close to a topological optimization of a much more general design. Thus it can be ensured that the solution obtained will be of a more general character.

3.2 Optimization
The optimization algorithms that are usually adopted in engineering type of problems can be divided into two main categories: gradient and non-gradient based algorithms. Gradient based algorithm computes the partial derivatives of the objective function in order to individuate the direction along which to move to reach an extremum. They can be of the first or second order depending on the order of the derivatives they require to

16 On Aircraft Conceptual Design calculate to define the search direction [32]. These algorithms are fast but usually not quite able to avoid stopping at local extrema, in case of non-convex functions. The other family of algorithms, the non-gradient based ones, as the name suggests, do not use gradients for searching for extremum in the objective function. This could represent an advantage in those optimization problems where the objective function is obtained from both simulation results and analytical calculation, thus making it hard to extract the derivatives [1]. The techniques involved in these algorithms are various. They can use Random Search, where the design space is searched randomly. An alternative is Hooke and Jeeves Method that is based on a sequence of exploratory and pattern moves [32] to explore the surroundings of a given point in the solution space. Other methods try to emulate natural or biological systems to try to reach to the objective functions extremum. To this category belong the Genetic Algorithms, the Ant Colony Optimization or the Swarm Optimization. Other algorithms are the Simplex Method [30], [41] and the Complex Method [5], [12] that use geometric shapes to decide the search direction starting from a given point in the space. Non-gradient based methods can be aggravated by heavier computational expenses required to reach to a solution, but are capable of handling also non-convex objective functions without ending up in a local optimum as a gradient method would do. Here below is a brief description of the algorithms that have been used in this work.

3.2.1. Fmincon
The method originates from Wilson in 1963 and was first implemented by Pschenichny (1970) and Han (1977). According to Onwubiko [32], the popularity of the method relays on its capability of finding the optimum solution starting from an arbitrary point in the design space. Moreover Fmincon requires less function evaluations compared with other algorithms suited for constrained optimization problems. Fmincon is an optimization algorithm that can be found in MatLabs Optimization Toolbox. Quoting the documentation accompanying the algorithm itself, it is a constrained nonlinear optimizer that uses the second order gradient method Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) to find a constrained minimum of a scalar function of several variables starting at an initial estimate.

3.2.2. Complex
The Complex method is a non-gradient optimization algorithm developed from the Simplex method, the main difference being that it uses more points during the search process. During its search, the Complex algorithm uses a set of m points, so that m n + 1 where n is the number of variables of the optimization problem. The initial set of points is randomly selected. Then, at each step, the Complex algorithm evaluates the objective function value at each point of the set and replaces the worst point by reflecting it through the centroid of the m - 1 remaining points (see Fig. 3-6).

Theory 17

Figure 3-6.

The complex algorithm reflects the worst point through the centroid of the remaining points

The Complex algorithm can also be tuned using the tolerance for function and parameters convergence. A modified version called Complex-RF [21] introduced also two more parameters, the so called forgetting factor and randomization factor. The latter parameters are used to increase the robustness of the method. The first one ensures that the older points in the complex are neglected, which is useful if the objective function changes over time. The randomization factor adds a random noise vector to the new point being calculated. Thus the algorithm is made less prone to prematurely collapse on local optima, at the expense of an increased time required to get to convergence.

3.2.3. Genetic Algorithm

Genetic algorithms are mathematical schemes that try to replicate the natural selection process to search the extremum of the objective function. Each possible solution or point in the n-dimensional design space is represented by an individual whose n genes correspond to the n design parameters. Genes can be coded as numbers, strings or bits, depending on the nature of the problem. To be able to carry out the optimization the algorithm requires a population of individuals to be initially defined. The idea is then to mate the best individual in the population generating new individuals that are hopefully even better than their parents. There are several mechanisms through which the mating can be performed, as well as there are different ways to eliminate the overflowing individuals from the population, whose size is kept constant through the optimization. It is even possible to define mutation factors that randomly change some genes during the creation of new individuals, which increases the algorithm robustness and capability of exploring the whole space searching for the true optimum. The strength of genetic algorithms is that they are able to locate the optimal solution even in problems that do not possess well-behaved objective functions. On the other hand they usually are computationally heavy, requiring to evaluate the objective function for each individual at every generation. Onwubiko [32] suggests population sizes between 20 and 100 individuals, depending on the number of optimization variables involved. Clearly, large population implies longer time to get to convergence, due to the larger number of objective function evaluations.

18 On Aircraft Conceptual Design

4
Proposed Conceptual Design Process

HIS CHAPTER DESCRIBES how the conceptual design framework has evolved to be used in several design projects, in order to test the validity of the tool itself as well as trying to verify its effectiveness in a given design task. As described in the previous chapter, the framework will include analysis tools to cover all the required disciplines that are involved during the conceptual design phase. It has also been described how the framework has been designed to guarantee flexibility and platform independence, so that tools can be linked and removed without harming the overall functionalities. With reference to the appended papers [I], [II], [III], in the following sections it will be explained how tools for aerodynamic analysis, optimization, geometry generation and structural analysis have been successively included and tested in the framework.

4.1 Panel Code and Optimization Algorithms

In order to be able to predict the aircrafts performances it is required to analyze its aerodynamics. As a very first step this means trying to estimate how much lift and drag its shape will generate when flying in different conditions. During the initial design phases designers have to cope with very basic issues regarding the aircrafts layout and shape, while more detailed investigations and fine tuning of details will be carried out only during later stages. Having this in mind, a high order panel code, PANAIR, was tested in the framework, coupled to a simple geometry generator written in MatLab (Fig. 4-1) [I]. The design and optimization for a specific mission of an unmanned aircraft was taken into consideration as a test case. The choice of a panel code was dictated by the need for reducing the time

20 On Aircraft Conceptual Design required to perform an analysis. It can be argued that CFD codes have much higher accuracy, but the time they required is at least an order of magnitude higher. Moreover they require the three-dimensional space around the aircraft to be accurately meshed, while a panel code only needs the wetted surface to be meshed. Moreover, panel codes are much more forgiving in terms of meshing accuracy.
Panair

InputPanair.m
Panair Input File

Aerodata

Actual parameters

Opt_Panair.m

Objective Function

Complexrf(parameters)

OptIndata.m

Figure 4-1.

Actual dataflow in the framework for testing PANAIR [I]

The aim was to test PANAIR and evaluate different optimization algorithms. Therefore all the other tools and disciplines required where simulated in the framework using simpler rules of thumb, empirical equations or statistically based formulas taken from the literature [6], [15], [37], [42]. Hence the scheme shown in Fig. 4-1 only marginally resembles what is pictured in Fig. 3-1 in Chapter 3. The biggest drawback of using a panel code is that it can not take into consideration viscous effects, but only information regarding the induced drag are given. That means that the other drag components need to be estimated in other ways. What has been done so far is to use well known approximated formulas, with inputs as precise as the tools adopted allows. For instance, the parasite drag is calculated as: C d 0 = c fe S wet S ref (4.1)

where cfe is an equivalent skin friction coefficient that can be found in tables as the one reported by Raymer [37]. If using precise CAD tools for representing the geometry of the aircraft, both Swet and Sref will be exactly known. Even with these drawbacks and even if other types of aerodynamic codes could produce more precise results, it must be remembered that the main goal is to test the use of an analytical tool for initial aerodynamic estimation rather than trying to find the tool that promises to achieve the best precision-to-performance ratio. Keeping this in mind, panel codes are perfectly suitable for the challenge. They are able to analyze virtually any type of three-dimensional geometry, they produce significant results and, very important, they are fast.

Proposed Conceptual Design Process 21 As stated above, the design of an unmanned flying wing aircraft was used as a test case for evaluating PANAIR and different optimization algorithms. Figure 4-2 shows the plan-form of the vehicle and the parameters used to describe it.

Figure 4-2.

Design parameters defining the outer geometry of the aircraft. Not shown are the wing root and wing tip thicknesses

The framework was then used to optimize the shape of the aircraft minimizing its maximum take-off weight needed for completing a given mission. The object function was written as following: W0 + PTC + P + PCm + Pfuel + PS B ObjFun = K1 + K2 W0,nom Bnom
1 2

(4.2)

The factors K1, K2, 1 and 2 are constants used to assign the wanted weight to the two terms of the equation. W0,nom and Bnom are the take-off weight and the span width of a nominal configuration used as reference. PTC, P, PCm, Pfuel, and PS are penalties that are used, together with constraints, to lead the optimizer away from unwanted configurations. PTC is aimed at ensuring that the considered configuration allows the engine and the payload bay to be fit inside the aircraft. P: in order to reduce drag and radar cross section, the angle of attack in cruise condition is linked to a penalty function that aims at positive and not too large values. PCm: one basic condition the aircraft should fulfil in order to be controllable is to have a negative slope of the pitching moment coefficient as function of the angle of attack, i.e. Cm, < 0. PCm has then been introduced to penalize layouts that do not satisfy this requirement. Pfuel penalizes configurations where the fuel tank size is not large enough to contain the fuel quantity required by the mission. PS takes into account the static margin of the aircraft. For an aircraft of this kind it is not desirable to have a too large static margin, because it would

22 On Aircraft Conceptual Design require large trim-deflections of the control surfaces. The aircraft could then result hardly controllable since the surfaces may not be able to be deflected enough before they reach the end position. Therefore it is usual to strive towards small static margins and then relay on the control system. The optimization problem was formulated as following: min ObjFun s.t. xmin x xmax R Rreq. E Ereq. (4.3)

eff eff ,all .

cm < 0

min < cruise < max

S .M .min < S . M . < S . M .max Three different optimization algorithms were tried: Fmincon, Complex and a Genetic Algorithm (GA). What resulted clearly from the test was that Fmincon, which is based on a gradient based method, was most often unsuccessful in solving the problem, stopping the optimization as soon as it reached to a local extremum of the solution space. The Complex algorithm and the GA were instead both able to correctly solve the optimization problem, but showing different performances. To evaluate the two algorithms performances a so called performance index was used [20], calculated as following:
f obj ,opt = Log 2 (1 Popt ) km

(4.4)

where Popt is the probability of finding the optimum and km is the number of iterations required. The results are summarized in the table below.
Parameter Complex GA

tR
20 %

tT

LE

CR

CT

B
5.99 m 6.00 m

2.56 2.20

WMTOW

fobj,opt

8.13 % 44.2 13.49 m 4.17 m

18,716 kg 5.610-4 18,656 kg 5.010-4

20 % 8.15 % 44.11 13.50 m 4.21 m

Table 4-1. Optimization results for the Complex and the Genetic Algorithms

As the table shows, the two algorithms showed almost the same performance index. The Complex-RF algorithm did find the correct solution one third of the times it was run, while the GA registered a hit rate of about 75%, but to do so it required three times as

Proposed Conceptual Design Process 23 many objective function evaluations when compared to the Complex-RF, which makes them roughly comparable.

4.2 CAD Modeling

In order to be able to achieve true multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization it is beneficial to use the same geometrical data as source for all disciplines involved [24]. This means that the CAD model assumes a very central role in the framework. Not only it has to contain all information that is required for all disciplines to carry out their analysis, but it also has to guarantee a degree of flexibility high enough to cover the widest possible range of different configurations. The cost and the time required to create a model with the characteristics described in section 3.1.1 is inevitably higher than for a conventional model. On the other hand, a parametric and associative model ensures that, within its validity range, all configurations and variants are covered and represented, so that the same model can be reused saving time and money. Ledermann et al. [24] presented a graph (reported herby in Fig. 4-3) that highlights these differences. It showed that, during the initial phases of the design of a new aircraft, a highly flexible parametric model will cost more, but that, as time goes on, the total cost becomes lower. This is also because in an aircraft design there are many repetitive features that such a model enables reusing instead of repeatedly recreating them. Moreover, the cost of a parametric model can be split over several projects, if its flexibility allows reusing it. The major problem is to identify the level of parametrization and automation that is required for a given project and that represent the right balance between built-in functionalities and cost.
Design Expanditures

Parametric Associative Design

Conventional Design

Feasibility Phase

Concept Phase

Design Phase

Production Phase

Figure 4-3.

Design expanditures in an aircraft design project (Ledermann et al.[24])

The CAD model created for the framework application was intended to meet five specific requirements: 1. to include the outer surfaces of a flying wing type of aircraft or of a wing of a conventional aircraft; 2. to include the main structural elements such as frames, ribs and spars; 3. to guarantee high flexibility so that both the external shape and the internal structure layout can be changed as wanted;

24 On Aircraft Conceptual Design 4. to be operated from an Excel spreadsheet so that no knowledge of the CAD system would be required by the designer; 5. to allow for design optimization and automation. The external surfaces were parametrized in the same way as in the test case described in the previous section. They are obtained sweeping a surface using the wing airfoil contours as profiles and the leading and trailing edge as guide lines. The choice of the airfoil mathematical representation is critical to ensure a wide range of usage. Therefore the wing profiles were using the formulation suggested by Kulfan and Bussoletti [22] (see also Fig. 4-4):

( )Upper = C ( ) Aui Si ( ) + Upper

i =1

( ) Lower
where: =

n = C ( ) Ali Si ( ) + Lower i =1

(4.5)

z is the non-dimensional airfoil ordinate; c z is the profile coordinate along the z-axis; x is the non-dimensional airfoil station; = c x is the profile coordinate along the x-axis; N C ( ) = N1 (1 ) 2 is the class function;
Si ( ) is the ith-term of the Bernstein polynomial of order n;

zuTE is the non-dimensional upper surface trailing edge thickness ratio; c zl Lower = TE is the non-dimensional lower surface trailing edge thickness ratio; c Ali, Aui, N1 and N2 are coefficients to be determined to obtain the wanted shape. Upper =

zuTE zlTE c
Figure 4-4. General representation of a blunt base / round nose airfoil

The strength of this formulation relies on its capability of representing any smooth airfoil with any required accuracy level. The smoothness is guaranteed by the formulation itself,

Proposed Conceptual Design Process 25 while the precision with which the airfoil is represented depends on the order of the Bernstein polynomial. It is also possible to represent with good precision even sharp-nose profiles, which is favorable when dealing with certain type of aircraft, that for instance have stealth requirements. The CAD model enabled to modify the position of every single structural element as well as the number of elements. If new elements need to be added, using general dynamic objects (described in section 3.1.1), the system instantiates the parts where specified. It is important to notice that during this operation all required links to the references objects in the model are established so that the hierarchical product structure is respected and maintained. This is mandatory in order to preserve the operability of the model and its level of flexibility. Moreover it ensures that, later on, each part of the model can be readily used during the upcoming preliminary and detail design phases, without needing to rebuild any object. Details can be added to each part of the product assembly, still maintaining the correct links to the references. Figure 4-4 shows the CAD model of the aircraft.

Figure 4-5.

Parametric CAD model of an aircraft

Represented are the external surfaces, the engine with its air intake and exhaust channels, and a tentative structure composed by upper and lower skins, fuselage frames and wing spars and ribs. All structural elements are characterized by a rectangular crosssection whose thickness can be individually varied through a specific parameter. The elements location and number are depending on the MDF-reference as previously explained in chapter 3. To simplify the aircraft structure modeling task, all structure elements are instantiated from the very same reference object using the so called Functional Molded Parts (FMP). FMP is a product available in CATIA V5 that was initially thought to ease molded, cast and forget parts. FMP features are history-free, meaning that the order in which operations are performed does not affect the end result. Instead they allow for functional specification of operations and references. An example will help to explain. Some of the elements require to be cut out to make room for the payload bay or the channel where to install the engine, air intake and exhaust. Using FMP they can be defined as protected volumes, meaning that an element is cut if it intersects one of the specified regions (Fig. 4-6). This way lot of time is saved, since it is not necessary to include any additional

26 On Aircraft Conceptual Design control on weather the protected regions are violated or not, nor is it necessary to design parameters-regulated cut outs in the structural elements. Of course, FMP allows for further detailing the parts if and when required.

Figure 4-6. The structural elements are all instantiated from a general part using Functional Molded Parts (FMP)

Acquiring the loads working on each part, a new local optimization could be started to distribute all reinforcements on the part. This would resemble a topological optimization of the structural element, not too different from the wing rib optimization presented by Maute et al. [28]. In their work, they discretized the rib using small pixels that the optimization algorithm could later keep or discard, in order to minimize the weight. Using FMPs, reinforcement ribs can be defined starting from a simple sketch that is superimposed on a given solid geometry. By using this type of approach, the optimization algorithm would be used to draw the sketch, by choosing the number, position and direction of each line that is then used as reference for the reinforcement ribs (Fig. 4-7). The same technique adopted for the rib and spars placement can be implemented to describe and optimize the reinforcement sketch. The result is an extremely flexible and robust model. Not only the outer shape can be modified as wished through a set of global parameters, but also its internal structure layout will follow accordingly, thanks to the hierarchical and associative nature of the model. All changes are trigged and governed by editing an Excel spreadsheet that is connected to the model. Therefore a designer does not require any knowledge of the CAD system to proficiently operate it and beneficiate of it. Least but not last, the use of a spreadsheet to control the geometry helps maintaining a broader system overview of the whole vehicle.

Proposed Conceptual Design Process 27

Rib Discretization

Reinforcement Sketch

Figure 4-7. Two different approaches to topological optimization of strucutral elements: using FMPs (left) and using geometry discretization (right).

4.3 Design Optimization and Automation

The techniques and methods described in the two previous sections were implemented in a design optimization study of a micro/mini aerial vehicle (MAV). Micro or mini aerial vehicles are characterized by being simple and inexpensive to build and, due to their small size, they need to be carefully optimized. They are also likely to be built in relatively small series and to be tailored for the sensors and equipment available at the time of deployment. Therefore "design and build on demand" is very attractive, where a modular concept with an automated design process is desirable: a scenario driven design, where the MAV quickly can be designed and built for a specific mission. A major part of the process is to create a design tool and optimization methodology for MAVs. Design automation is of general interest in aeronautics, and automated methods for coupling aerodynamic calculations, CAD modeling, FEM analysis, etc. are getting an increasing importance in the design of manned aircraft. Completely automating the design from concept to production is however still far from possible. MAVs on the other hand are small, simple to build, and requires relatively few components, which means that fully automated design becomes suddenly a viable and realistic option.

a.
Component List Component List

Design Requirements

b.

c.

Figure 4-8.

MAV design automation [III]

28 On Aircraft Conceptual Design The ideal design automation procedure is described in Fig. 4-7. Starting from a set of requirements, an automated design tool selects the optimal geometry for the aircraft, together with a complete list of off-the-shelf components (engine, servos, batteries, etc) and the control scheme for the flight control system. The aircraft is designed as a composite material shell, with two winglets for yaw stability and a nose installed propeller engine. The geometry output from the system is a full three-dimensional CAD model that can be readily be used for production, either for milling the molds or to be sent to a three-dimensional printing machine. The control system design has yet to be included in the framework. As for the previously illustrated studies, also in this application the aerodynamic analysis relies on PANAIR, which is linked though an Excel spreadsheet. There is also the possibility to use much simpler handbook formulas for aerodynamics evaluation. These equations are based on the lifting-line theory, and are therefore not able to take into consideration all the aspects that the panel code does (i.e. the influence of the wing profile). On the other hand they do not require the full geometry to be modeled in the CAD system, thus requiring much less time to execute an analysis. In the figure below it can be seen how the framework has been set up.
Spreadsheet model
Obj. function

Optimizer
Control variables

Weight wetted area etc.

Geometry parameters

cD, cm, cL

Geometry mesh

Parametric CAD model

Figure 4-9.

Aerodynamic model

The automation design framework for MAVs

The propulsion system consists of propeller, electric motor, PWM motor controller, and battery. Each component is modeled individually, and for each of them a large database has been created storing data from many off the shelf components used in hobby applications. To ensure a broad spectrum of possible designs the database contains as much as 130 motors, 15 motor controllers, 30 propellers and 30 batteries. The performance of the aircraft is calculated from the results of the CAD program weight predictions, the panel code aerodynamics calculations, and propulsion system modeling. Endurance, range, and climb are presented as a function of speed. Interesting parameters

Proposed Conceptual Design Process 29 such as efficiency of individual components, propeller rpm, motor current, etc. can also be plotted. An external genetic algorithm based optimizer is connected to the spreadsheet to optimize the design of the MAV. The design optimization has been divided into two successive parts. First the framework is run without invoking PANAIR and the CAD system for aerodynamics and geometry generation. This ensures much more rapid iterations at the cost of less accurate results. In this initial mode, a large number of parameters are involved in the optimization which comprises both the geometry layout of the aircraft as well as the selection of the propulsion system. When convergence is reached the system is restarted, this time involving both CATIA and PANAIR, using the optimum solution obtained as starting point. The propulsion system is frozen and the geometric design parameters are allowed to vary within a narrower range. In this second phase design parameters that could not be evaluated using the lifting-line theory can be included, such as the tip chord twist or the wing profile. If the result from the second optimization would not agree with the first one, the whole process is repeated until convergence between the results is reached. The process is illustrated in Fig. 4-9.
Optimization
Fast Simple geometric and aerodynamic model Fast System and performance models
Geometry (continuous)

Optimization
Expensive Complex geometric and aerodynamic model
Geometry (continuous)

Optimization
(If geometry changes significantly)

System Parameters (discrete and continuous)

System Parameters (discrete and continuous)

Fast System and performance models

Figure 4-10.

The optimization process

The test design cases considered to evaluate the process and the framework showed successful results. From a mere product point of view, suitable propulsion systems were chosen and the overall plan-forms generated give a god impression for the aircraft that were suggested by the system. The hierarchical associative CAD model structure that had been developed ensured that all configurations within the design range could be represented and generated without incurring in errors. Also the connections between the Excel spreadsheet and both CATIA and PANAIR worked as expected. The biggest issue here was related to time losses due to inefficiencies within CATIA V5 scripting mechanisms. The time required by CATIA to carry out operations described in VB scripts is always quite high, since scripts are not compiled before execution. For the framework here described it could take between 30 seconds and one minute to complete one iteration cycle during the optimization. The proposed process truly enables design automation of simpler aircraft such as MAVs. Trials have also been carried out to produce a flying prototype out of the CAD model coming from the framework at the end of the optimization using a 3D printing machine. The printer uses ABS material, depositing fused material in thin successive

30 On Aircraft Conceptual Design layers, as thin as 0,17 mm, which gives a quite good surface definition and smoothness [36]. The only operation left on the model once printed is eventually to quickly sand away small imperfections on the surface and to install the electronic components. The resulting aircraft is heavier than what could be achieved by using composite materials, but the practicality of the 3D printing method is unbeatable for this type of application. Using composite materials that require molds imply a much longer production time and a capital investment that may not be justified if the amount of aircraft to produce is small. For 3D printing, on the other hand, only acquiring a printer is needed to be able to produce an infinite number of different MAVs.

5
Discussion and Conclusions

ATIONALIZATION OF THE design process and introduction of multidisciplinary optimization are no novel topics in aircraft design. In the literature there are examples that can be tracked back to the early seventies [11], emphasizing how the need and the benefits have been known for a very long time. On the other hand, much fewer are the cases in which systems, techniques and tools have been used successful on a larger scale. It is not uncommon that limited and tailor made applications have been adopted, but rarely the same solution is suitable for different tasks, or different problems, or, even harder, different companies. The main reason for this being that in most cases these multidisciplinary optimizations cope with very specific applications, where different software are connected by means of non-standard interfaces, or where even inhouse codes are involved. The problem that is analyzed may also be very company related. What has been proposed in this thesis is a framework architecture that focuses on its flexibility of application. The main goal is not to provide with a commercial tool ready to be installed and use, but to present a roadmap and a description of how a multidisciplinary environment can be efficiently set up to solve design optimization problems. There are several commercial products that enable design process automation (MODELCENTER, iSIGHT,). These software will inevitably introduce compatibility limitations and increase license costs. The method proposed in this thesis is instead centered on Microsoft Excel, which is already widely available. The downside is the requirement for programming the connection between the spreadsheet and the modules used in the framework. To avoid continuing using semi-empirical or statistical equation during the conceptual phase of aircraft design it has been suggested to make a larger use of analytical tools. For the aerodynamics a high order panel code PANAIR has been successfully employed

32 On Aircraft Conceptual Design in an unmanned aircraft design optimization studies. PANAIR may not represent the state of the art for aerodynamic analysis, but it served the purpose of illustrating the process. Clearly any other panel code or CFD software could equally be used instead. At the same time three optimization algorithms were compared. Fmincon, a gradient based algorithm; Complex, an algorithm derived from the Simplex, is non-gradient based and a Genetic Algorithm (GA). Not surprisingly worse performances were showed by Fmincon that was not able to avoid the local extrema in the objective function, thus seldom reaching to the true optimal solution. Interestingly though, both the Complex algorithm and the GA showed the same performance index, which, in simple words, is a ratio between the number of function evaluations required to complete the optimization and the capability of the algorithm to find the optimal solution. The GA was able to produce the correct answer nearly every time, while the Complex only every third run, but at the cost of one third of the function evaluations required by the GA. It has been accurately researched how to proficiently include a high-end CAD system CATIA V5 during the initial geometry generation of the three-dimensional aircraft model. This is achieved by making a large use of the automation features that CATIA offers, mostly the User Defined Features (UDFs) together with scripts. UDFs ensures the context dependence of the automatically instantiated features, while scripts stand for the dynamic behavior of the whole system. The resulting model architecture has been verified in several cases; two among them were here discussed. First a UAV model that featured a customizable structure model, where not only the structural layout can be modified at will, but also all changes to the external shape of the aircraft will induce the structure to automatically adapt. Secondly a simpler model of a micro aerial vehicle (MAV) has been included in a design automation routine. Governed by an optimizer, an Excel spreadsheet controlled the CAD model so to keep the geometrical representation always up to date during the optimization. The resulting model has also been manufactured using 3D printing techniques, even more showing that it is indeed possible to go from requirements to finished product with one click. One important effect of the process described in this thesis is that it allows to hugely increasing the detail level during the conceptual design. The cost of adding details is only connected to the computing time required for solving the optimization problem. Considering how available computing power has evolved [23], it is only a matter of a few years before problems that today seem to large to be solved, become an easy task. From a design process perspective, this means that the border between conceptual and preliminary design is going to fade, and the two phases would collapse into one single, larger, more detailed and exhaustive phase. Hence the overall time span for a designing a completely new aircraft could also be reduced, as well as the decision making capability during the initial phases would be enhanced.

6
Review of Papers

N THIS SECTION the three appended papers in this thesis are briefly summarized.

Paper I:
Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization
This paper investigates the possibility of using a high order panel code (PANAIR) for aerodynamic evaluations during the conceptual design phase. The design framework, to which PANAIR is connected, employs Web Service technologies for enabling distribution of the different modules. As test case, the design optimization of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is carried out. Three different optimization algorithms (Fmincon, Complex RF and a Genetic Algorithm) are compared.

Paper II
A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design
A highly parameterized and associative CAD model is employed within a design framework being developed at Linkping University to store all geometrical data. The

34 On Aircraft Conceptual Design paper investigates how CAD can be included and efficiently connected to the framework, in a way that permits automatic design optimization. The framework connects together a high order panel code for aerodynamic analysis, a CAD system for geometry generation and a FEM environment for structural analysis. An aircraft wing box design is used as example.

Paper III
Distributed Framework Automation for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design

Micro Aerial Vehicles (MAVs) are very small aircraft whose dimensions are below 50 centimeters and 500 grams. They could be used to perform a huge variety of tasks, both civil and military, carrying different types of loads depending on the mission. The key idea of this paper is to enlighten how their design can be quickly and automatically tailored to a specific mission, rather than trying to design a vehicle serving as a platform for a larger set of missions. The design framework developed at the University is employed and its functionalities tested.

7
References

[1] [2] [3]

Advisory Coucil for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) website, www.acare4europe.com Andersson, J., Design Optimization, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2005 Ardema, M.D, Chambers, M.C., Patron, A.P., Hahn, A.S., Miura, H., Moore, M.D., Analytical Fuselage And Wing Weight Estimation Of Transport Aircraft, NASA TM 110392, May 1996 Box, D. et Al., Simple Object http://www.w3.org/TR/soap/, 2007 Access Protocol (SOAP) 1.1,

[4] [5] [6]

Box, M.J., A New Method of Constraint Optimization and a Comparison With Other Methods, Computer Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 42-52, 1965 Brandt, S.A., Stiles, R.J., Bertin, J.J., Whitford, R., Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective, AIAA Educational Series, Reston, VA, USA, 1997 Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G. and Weerawarana, S., Web Services Description Language (WSDL), http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.html, 2001 Engineous Software website, www.engineous.com Erikson, L.L., Panel Methods An Introduction, NASA Technical Paper 2995, 1990

[7] [8] [9]

36 On Aircraft Conceptual Design [10] [11] Fairchild T-46A trainer, http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/fairchil/t46a.htm Fulton, R.E., Sobieszczanski, J., Storaasli, O., Landrum, E.J., Application of Computer-Aided Aircraft Design in a Multidisciplinary Environment, 14th ASME and SAE Structures, Structural Dynamics and Material Conference, Mar. 1973, Williamsburg, VA, USA Guin, J.A., Modification of the Complex Method of Constraint Optimization, Computer Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 416-417, 1968 Iqbal, L.U., Sullivan, J.P., Application of an Integrated Approach to the UAV Conceptual Design, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2008, Reno, NV, USA Jameson, A., Re-Engineering the Design Process Through Computation, 35th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 1997, Reno, NV, USA Jenkinson, L.R., Simpkin, P., Rhodes, D., Civil Jet Aircraft Design, Butterworth-Heinemann Publications, Burlington, 1999 Johansson, B., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Distributed Aircraft Analysis Using Web Service Technology, World Aviation Congress & Exposition, Linkping, 2003 Johnson, F.T., Tinoco, E.N., Jong Yu, N., Thirty Years of Development and Application of CFD at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, Computers & Fluids, Elsevier Ltd., Vol. 34, Issue 10, pp. 1115-1151, Dec. 2005 Jouannet, C., Silva, S.E.R., Krus, P., Use of CAD for Weight Estimation in Aircraft Conceptual Design, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Aug. 2004, Yokohama, Japan Jouannet, C., Model Based Aircraft Design High Angle of Attack Aerodynamics and Weight Estimation Methods, Doctoral Thesis No. 968, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Division of Fluid and Mechanical Engineering Systems, Linkping universitet, Sweden, 2005 Krus, P., Andersson, J., An Information Theoretical Perspective On Design Optimization, Proceedings of 2004 DETC: Design Engineering Technical Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Krus, P., Andersson, J., Optimizing Optimization for Design Optimization, Proceedings of 2003 DETC ASME Design Automation Conference, Sept. 2003, Chicago, IL, USA

[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

37 [22] Kulfan, B.M., Bussoletti, J.E., Fundamental Parametric Geometry Representations for Aircraft Component Shapes, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept.2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA Kurzweil, R., The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Penguin Books Ltd, London, England, 2005 Ledermann, C., Hanske, C., Wenzel, J., Ermanni, P., Kelm, R., Associative Parametric CAE Methods in the Aircraft Pre-Design, Aerospace Science and Technology 9 (2005), pp. 641-651 Lovell, D.A., Crawford, C.A., Restrick, K.E., Recent Advances In Air-Vehicle Design Synthesis And Optimisation, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Aug. 2004, Yokohama, Japan Magnus, A.E. and Epton, M.A., PANAIR A Computer Program for Predicting Subsonic or Supersonic Linear Potential Flows About Arbitrary Configurations Using a Higher Order Panel Method, Vol. I, Theory Document, NASA CR-3251, 1980 Martins, J.R.R.A., Alonso, J.J., Reuther, J.J., Complete Configuration AeroStrucutral Optimization Using a Coupled Sensitivity Analysis Method, 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Sept. 2002, Altlanta, GA, USA Maute, K., Nikbay, M., Farhat, C., Conceptual Layout of Aeroelastic Wing Structures by Topology Optimization, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material Conference, Apr. 2002, Denver, CO, USA Moore, R., Murphy, A., Price, M., and Curran, R., Analysis Driven Design and Optimization for Aircraft Structures, 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material Conference, May 2006, Newport, Rhode Island, USA Nelder, J.A., Mead, R., A Simplex Method for Function Minimization, Computer Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 308-313, 1965 Nickol, C., Conceptual Design Shop, Presentation to Conceptual Aircraft Design Working Group (CADWG21), Sept. 2004. Onwubiko, C., Introduction to Engineering Design Optimization, PrenticeHall, Inc., 2000

[23] [24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30] [31] [32]

38 On Aircraft Conceptual Design [33] [34] [35] Pahl, G, Beitz, W, Engineering Design 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, London, 1999 Phoenix Integration website, www.phoenix-int.com Price, M., Mawhinney, P., Curran, R., Armstrong, C., Murphy, A., A Geometry Centered Process in Airframe Design, AIAA 5th Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Sept. 2005, Arlington, VA, USA PROTECH website: www.protech.se Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Second Edition, AIAA Educational Series, Reston, VA, USA, 1992 Ricci, S. and Terraneo, M., Application of MDO Techniques to the Preliminary Design of Morphed Aircraft, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept.2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA Rhl, P.J., Mavris, D.M., Schrage, D.P., Combined Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization of a High-Speed Civil Transport Wing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 1995. Scott, W.B., Industrys Loss Expertise Spurs Counterattack, Aerospace in Crisis, Aviation Week and Space Technologies, pp. 60-61, 13 March 2000 Spendley, W., Hext, G.R., Himsworth, F.R., Sequential Application of Simplex Design in Optimization and Evolutionary Operation, Technometrics, Vol. 4, pp. 441-462, 1962 Torenbeek, E., Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Delft University Press, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1982 Tsalgatidou A. and Pilioura T., "An Overview of Standards and Related Technology in Web Services", Distributed and Parallel Databases, 12, 2002 Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D., Product Design and Development 2nd Edition, Irwing McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2000 Zhang, Ke-shi, Han, Zhong-hua, Li, Wei-ji, Song, Wen-ping, Coupled Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization of a Subsonic-Transport Wing using Surrogate Model, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2008, Reno, NV, USA

[36] [37] [38]

[39]

[40] [41]

[42] [43] [44] [45]

Paper I
Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization
Kristian Amadori(1), Christopher Jouannet(2), Petter Krus(1)

(1) Department of Management and Engineering Division of MachineDesign (2) Department of Management and Engineering Division of Fluid and Mechanical Engineering Systems

Abstract
In this study the use of a high-order panel code within a framework for aircraft concept design is discussed. The framework is intended to be a multidisciplinary optimization tool to be adopted from the very beginning of the conceptual design phase in order to define and refine the aircraft design, with respect to its aerodynamic, stability and control, structure and basic aircraft systems. The presented work is aimed at developing a module for aerodynamic analysis of concepts as a basis for a direct search optimization of the concept layout. The design criterion, used in the example presented here, is to minimize the maximum take-off weight required to fulfil the mission. Classic and simple equations are used together with the data generated by the panel code solver to calculate the aircrafts performances. Weights are calculated by means of statistical group weight equations, but the weight could also be calculated from a CAD-model. The design of an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle is used as test case for three different optimization algorithms: one gradient method based (Fmincon), one non-gradient based (Complex) and one Genetic Algorithm (GA). Comparison of results and performances shows that the Genetic Algorithm is best fitted for the specific problem, having the by far best hit rate, even if it is at a cost of longer computing time. The Complex algorithm requires less iterations and is also able to find the optimum solution, but with a worse hit rate, while Fmincon can not reach to a global optimum. The suggested optimized configuration for the aircraft is very similar to the Boeing X-45C and Northrop Grumman X-47B.

40 On Aircraft Conceptual Design

This paper has been published as: Amadori, K., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sep. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 41

B C cd0 Cdi cf CL cL, cL,=0 Cm Cm, CR CT d D e E FF L R S Swet S.M. t V W0 WE Wf Wf,req Wf,t Wi WPL x

Nomenclature
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = angle of attack semi wing span specific fuel consumption parasite drag coefficient induced drag coefficient skin friction coefficient lift coefficient lift coefficient as function of the angle of attack lift coefficient at zero angle of attack moment coefficient moment coefficient as function of the angle of attack root chord length tip chord length airfoil tail deflection angle aerodynamic drag force Osvalds Efficiency Factor endurance form factor coefficient lift force range wing area wetted area Static Margin thickness to chord ratio flying speed maximum take-off weight aircraft empty weight fuel weight required fuel weight weight of fuel contained in the tanks weight of the fuel quantity at the end of mission segment i payload weight generic design parameter vector that describes a concept leading edge sweep angle wing twist effective stress in the internal structure material maximum allowed effective stress in the internal structure material

LE

eff eff, all

IRCRAFT manufacturers today face a variety of challenges. The most important being the stiffening competition that press down the price tag for each sold aircraft and reduces the profit margin14, and the risk that new subjects located in low-labour-cost countries rise on the market and offer competitive products at extremely low prices12. This means that there is a need to reduce the time-to-market for every new aircraft

I. Introduction

42 Paper I developed. To be able to do so, new and more efficient approaches to the design process are to be introduced. This is one of the reasons why design optimization has seen a growing interest in the recent years. In particular true Multi-Disciplinary Optimization (MDO) has a great potential. Moreover, constantly cheaper and more powerful computers, and the increasing computational capacity is greatly welcome for MDO applications.11 In particular the conceptual design phase could take advantage of a novel methodology, that would not be based on empirical or semi-empirical equations to estimate e.g. weights, performances, costs, and loads, but relay on analytical models to a greater extent. There are many examples of how MDO can be successfully adopted in the early development phases of new aircrafts.2,4,11,12,14,15 A field where it is felt that much work can still be done is in the flexibility of the optimization tools, in order not to have a tool that is tailor made for one specific type of aircraft only, but can be adopted on a range of types as wide as possible. With all this in mind, a novel design framework is being developed at Linkping University that aims at being flexible enough to permit the study of a variety of different types of airplanes and that includes modules that allows to optimize the design of all main sub-systems. The design framework being developed6 is intended to be a tool that permits the optimization of the design and layout of concepts during the conceptual design phase. As illustrated in Fig. 1 it comprises many modules that cover most aircrafts sub-functions and each one of them can be run independently or together with others. The different modules can range from being more elaborated, as the panel code used for the aerodynamics calculations, down to very simple handbook formulas. It is possible to develop a module alone and test it in the framework using very simple models for the other modules. The other modules will then work as support only, to close the design space. In this way the number of parameters to be optimized is greatly reduced as well as the time required to complete the optimization. For instance, as it will be shown in the presented study, running the aerodynamic calculations alone requires that the aircraft weight is calculated in order to complete the performance prediction. Not using the CAD modeling tool, the weight is estimated by means of approximate statistical group weight method13. The performance prediction can be carried out through simple sizing methods as the one described in Ref. 13 or by means of complete mission simulations. Once one module is ready and positively tested, it can be added to the framework and used together with all the others.

II. Design Framework

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 43

Structure Structure Calculations Calculations CAD Modeling CAD Modeling Weight Weight Estimate Estimate

x
Stability & Stability & Control Control

Objective Objective Function Function

Aerodynamic Aerodynamic Calculations Calculations

Performance Performance Prediction Prediction

Aircraft Aircraft Systems Systems

Figure 1. The design framework

III.

Aerodynamic Calculations Module Structure

The presented aerodynamic calculation module will be used within the previously discussed framework to analyze the aerodynamics of aircraft concepts. The module has not been integrated in the framework yet; therefore some parameters need to be calculated in more simple ways, as it will be described in the following paragraphs. The tool uses different computer applications that are linked together. In the following paragraphs it is illustrated how each application is used.

A. Aerodynamic Module Logical Layout

The aerodynamic module is governed by MatLab algorithms. Figure 2 shows how the different functions are linked together and how they interact. The main function Optindata.m is responsible for running the optimisation and is the function that decides which set of parameters are to be analyzed and that are sent to the function Opt_Panair.m, which is the one that acts as an interface between MatLab and PANAIR. The function Input_Panair.m creates the input text file with the proper 3,16 formatting that PANAIR requires to run an analysis of the present aircraft configuration. Once the analysis is completed and the result file is ready, Opt_Panair.m scans it and Figure 2. Logical links of MatLab functions retrieves the data needed for calculating the objective function value that is finally returned to function

44 Paper I Optindata.m. Opt_Panair.m is also the function where the weight estimation takes place. Using an approximate group weight method as described in Raymer13, the wing weight and the fuselage weight are calculated. The payload weight is constant as well as the weight of control and mission system hardware. According to Erikson L.3 panel methods are numerical schemes for solving (the Prandtl-Glauert equation) for linear, inviscid, irrotational flow about aircraft flying at subsonic or supersonic speeds. They are not as precise as modern CFDs can be, but they have other advantages, especially for applications like the one here presented. Considering that during a conceptual design phase the aircraft geometry and its outer shape is not precisely defined and that the detail level is quite rough, it is clear that it can be unpractical and not justified to adopt tools that have a much higher accuracy. Moreover CFDs requires the space around the studied body to be accurately meshed, while for a panel code it is sufficient to approximate the aircraft outer surfaces with proper rectangular panels. It should be kept in mind that in this framework PANAIR is used mainly to compare the effectiveness of different concepts with each other, rather than to gather exact and absolute figures of their aerodynamic efficiency. If much powerful and faster computers were available or if higher accuracy was required, PANAIR could be substituted with other solvers, thanks to the modular nature of the framework. The shape of the aircraft is parametrically described in the same way as presented by Jouannet et al.7. Figure 3 shows an example of an input model for PANAIR of a generic concept with its surfaces approximated with appropriate panels. Since PANAIR is able to analyze the same aircraft for different angles of attack, each concept is studied at two angles of attack, in order to determine the slope of the lift, drag and moment coefficient curve as function of . The output file produced by PANAIR contains a great amount of data among which only a small part needs to be Figure 3. PANAIR input model example retrieved. Namely they are: total lift coefficient, CL, for each -value considered; total induced drag coefficient, Cdi, for each -value considered; total moment coefficient, Cm, for each -value considered.

B. PAN AIR

In the following paragraph it will be discussed how these data are used to compute the objective function.

C. Weight and Performance Estimation

In order to calculate the weight required for the aircraft to be able to complete the mission, the Breguet equation13 has been used:

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 45

R= or in case of loiter:

V L Wi 1 ln C D Wi

(1)

E=

1 L Wi 1 ln C D Wi

(2)

The lift-to-drag ratio during cruise is calculated as following:

c + cL , =0 L CL qS = = L , D (Cdi + Cd 0 ) qS Cdi + Cd 0

(3)

where CL is directly obtained from PANAIR. The parasite drag coefficient Cd0 is calculated as following:

Cd 0 = c f ( FF )

S wet S

(4)

where cf is a skin friction coefficient, which value can be found in tables as the ones reported in Ref. 5 and Ref. 13. FF is a form factor that depends on the shape of the aircraft13. Osvalds Efficiency factor e is required to be able to calculate the induced drag coefficient. e is given by:

(c e=

L ,

+ cL, =0 )

Cdi AR

(5)

where AR is the aspect ratio. Please note that the parameter Cdi in equation (5) is the induced drag value specific for one angle of attack. Since PANAIR allows studying the same geometry at different angles of attack simultaneously, e can be calculated for each one of the -values considered and then calculate a mean value. The induced drag coefficient for the considered cruise condition is then obtained from the following equation: ( cL, + cL , =0 ) 2 Cdi = e AR (6)

Accordingly to Ref.13, engine dimensions and parameters have been scaled up or down using as scale factor the ratio between the required thrust and the actual thrust of the reference engine. For the present case there is a list of nine different engines to choose from. Given the required thrust, the engine that fits best is selected and thereafter geometrical dimensions, weight and specific fuel consumption are set.

46 Paper I An important constraint to the optimization is given by the limit stress requirements in the structure. Since the structure has to be resistant enough to withstand all the flying loads, this requirement avoids that the optimizer gives a solution where all thicknesses are at the minimum allowed value in order to reduce drag as much as possible. Since the CAD module that incorporates the finite element analysis was not used here, the structure calculation is merged with the weight estimation of wing and fuselage. The equations used for estimating the empty weights of wing and fuselage are obtained from statistical analysis of existing aircrafts13, so that the weight calculated comprises by itself the need for enough structural strength. W0 can be considered being the sum of the required fuel weight (Wf) that is calculated from the mission profile as a product of fractions of W013, the aircrafts empty weight (We), the payload weight (Wp), the engine weight (Weng) and the control system weight (WCTRL), as described by the following equation:

W0 = We + W f + W p + Weng + WCTRL

(6)

The framework described in Section II will comprise a module for control system design and optimization. So far it has not been included and therefore the weight of actuators, pipelines, reservoirs, tanks and other components has been included into the aircraft empty weight, while the computer hardware weight is the one labelled WCTRL, and it has been estimated by comparison with known flying aircrafts.

D. Optimizer
The data gathered from PANAIR are finally merged into an objective function (ObjFun) that expresses quantitatively the goodness of one given concept. The objective function takes into account both take-off weight of the aircraft and how close some of its predicted characteristics are to predefined wanted values, as in equation (7): W0 + PTC + P + PCm + Pfuel + PS B ObjFun = K1 + K2 W0,nom Bnom
1 2

(7)

The factors K1, K2, 1 and 2 are constants used to assign the wanted weight to the two terms of the equation. W0,nom and Bnom are the take-off weight and the span width of a nominal configuration used as reference. PTC, P, PCm, Pfuel, and PS are penalties that are used, together with constraints, to lead the optimizer away from unwanted configurations. The definition of the related penalty functions can be found in the following Section IIIE. In the considered mission there are only straight-line cruises and there is no account for manoeuvring performances. Thus the aim of the second term of the objective function is to award configurations with better rolling rate that is, in first approximation, inversely proportional to the span width. The optimization problem can be described as following:

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 47 min ObjFun s.t. xmin x xmax R Rreq. E Ereq. (8)

eff eff ,all .

cm < 0

min < cruise < max

S .M .min < S . M . < S . M .max Three different optimization algorithms have been used to solve the problem: Complex8-10, Fmincon and a Genetic Algorithm. Results are presented in Section V.

E. Penalty Functions
Some of the problem constraints have been implemented as penalties added to the objective function, so to lead the configuration of the aircraft towards the feasible regions of the design space. The penalty value increases rapidly as soon as the given limit value is passed. 1. Thickness-To-Chord Ratio Penalty (PTC) The first penalty function is aimed at ensuring that the considered configuration allows the engine and the payload bay to be fit inside the aircraft. The actual thickness at the centre line is calculated and compared to the height of the payload bay summed to the engine diameter. The penalty is then calculated as following:
Deng + H PB tR CR if Deng + H PB > tR CR PTC = K e if Deng + H PB tR CR PTC = 0

(9)

where Deng is the engine diameter, HPB is the height of the payload bay. 2. Angle Of Attack Penalty (P) In order to reduce drag and radar cross section, the angle of attack in cruise condition is preferred to be positive and not larger than few degrees. Therefore a penalty function has been implemented as following:
P = K1, e 1 (cruise max ) 2 ( min cruise ) P = K 2, e P = 0 if cruise > max if cruise < min = 0 if min < cruise < max

(10)

where K1,, K2,, 1 and 2 are constants used to give the wanted weight to the terms in the equations.

48 Paper I 3. Pitching Moment Penalty (PCm) One basic condition the aircraft should fulfil in order to be controllable is to have a negative slope of the pitching moment coefficient as function of the angle of attack, i.e. Cm, < 0. A function similar to the ones just described has then been introduced to penalize the layouts that do not satisfy this requirement. The function is as following: PCm = KCm eCm , PCm = 0 if Cm , 0 if Cm , < 0 (11)

As in the previous cases KCm is constant that allows trimming the effect of the penalty function. 4. Fuel Penalty (Pfuel) The goal of the optimization is to define an aircraft layout that is tailored for the specified mission. This means also that the amount of fuel that can be loaded equals the needed quantity. The maximum available fuel tanks volume is estimated considering the total internal volume between the payload bay, the outer wing inner rib, the front Figure 4. Fuel tank placement and rear wing spars (see Fig. 4). The actual volume that can be used is then reduced taking into account that the fuel mass should be equally distributed around the centre of gravity (CG). Since the wing becomes thinner as we move towards the trailing edge, the part of the tank in front of CG appears in Fig. 4 smaller than the one after CG. The penalty function has been implemented as follows:
W f , req W f ,t Pfuel = K1, fuel 1 + e W f ,req W f ,t W f , req 1 + e W f ,req Pfuel = K 2, fuel

if W f ,t < W f ,req (12) if W f ,t W f ,req

where K1,fuel and K2,fuel are two constants while Wf,req represents the fuel required to be able to fly the mission and Wf,t the maximum fuel quantity that can be loaded into the tanks.

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 49 5. Stability Penalty (PS) The last penalty function implemented takes into account the static margin of the aircraft. For an aircraft of this kind it is not desirable to have a too large static margin, because it would require large trim-deflections of the control surfaces. The aircraft could then result hardly controllable since the surfaces may not be able to be deflected enough before they reach the end position. Therefore it is usual to strive towards small static margins and then relay on the control system. The function used is once again similar to the previous ones: PS = K1,S e S . M . S . M . S . M . PS = K 2,S e if S . M . < 0 if S . M . 0

(13)

where K1,S and K2,S are two constants and S.M.* is the desired static margin value.

IV. Test Case: J-UCAS

The conceptual design of an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle has been chosen as test case for the presented design optimization tool.

A. Requirements
The aircraft to be designed have to respond to similar requirements as for the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) program. Briefly, this means that the airplane should be autonomous and capable of combat missions of varying nature, such as suppression of enemy defences, precision strike and surveillance and reconnaissance. The main performances required from the aircraft are listed below: Payload:2000 kg Combat Radius: 1300 nm Persistence: 1000mn with 2 hrs loiter Cruise Speed: 0.8 M Cruise Altitude: 35000 ft
Cruise 2 Loiter

Landing Cruise 1

Payload Drop The mission profile that has been taken into consideration is shown in Fig. 5. Slightly different missions Take Off can be obtained varying the cruise distances and the loiter endurance, Figure 5. The mission profile but always within the above specified criteria. Cruise 1 and Cruise 2 are considered to be covering the same distance and to be flown at the same height (35000 ft), the only difference being that the payload may only be transported along Cruise 1.

50 Paper I

B. Parametrization
The outer shape of the aircraft has been linked to the seven parameters in the following list and as illustrated in Fig. 6: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Root chord thickness, tR Tip chord thickness, tT Leading edge sweep, LE Root chord length, CR Tip chord length, CT Wing span, B Outer wing twist angle,

In the centre of the fuselage there shall be space for a payload bay, the dimensions of which are decided by the largest payload the aircraft should be able to carry. Figure 6. Design parameters defining the outer geometry This parametrization is similar to that adopted by Jouannet et al.7 In this way the aircraft is described in the same way within the whole framework, granting an easier sharing of information between the modules. The airfoil used all over the airplane is the NACA 4-Digits, but it could be replaced with any other type of airfoil. It is probably not very realistic to use this airfoil only, but having one constant profile type allows reducing significantly the number of parameters, and the modelling complexity. This type of airfoil is defined using three parameters: the maximum camber, the position of the maximum camber, and maximum thickness. In the test case only the thickness has been varied, keeping the camber values constant.

V. Results
As anticipated in Section III three different optimization algorithms have been tested. The optimizations have been carried out on a personal computer with one single processor AMD Athlon XP 2700+ and 1 GB of RAM. In the following sections the results obtained will be presented. The cycle time for the optimizations was between two and three seconds on the computer used and was mainly depending on the number of nodes used to approximate the airplanes geometry, as described in Section III. A good compromise between accuracy and computing time was found in 616 nodes and 460 panels.

A. Fmincon
Fmincon is an optimization algorithm that can be found in MatLabs Optimization Toolbox. Quoting the documentation accompanying the algorithm itself, it is a constrained nonlinear optimizer that uses the second order gradient method Sequential Quadratic Programming to find a constrained minimum of a scalar function of several variables starting at an initial estimate. The use of this algorithm has been unsuccessful for this application. Even though the time required for completing one optimization is usually relatively short, Fmincon seems

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 51 always to reach to a local optimum of the objective function that corresponds to aircraft layouts far worse than the ones obtained with the other algorithms. Moreover the result is strongly dependent of the starting configuration entered. It has been tried to use configurations (i.e. sets of parameters) only slightly different from one of the solutions obtained with Complex or GA optimizations, hoping that in those cases Fmincon would move towards these solutions, but again without success. Apparently the chosen objective function has many local optimum points that can not be considered as possible absolute optimum and the gradient method locks on them.

B. Complex
This is a non-gradient optimization algorithm developed from the Simplex method, the main difference being that it uses more points during the Nr. of Evaluations Nr. of Iterations Computing Time 1096 462 2636 s search process8. Detailed Min 1728 504 5068 s description of the Complex Max algorithm can be found in Table 1. Number of iterations and function evaluations for Ref. 8, 9 and 10. Complex optimizations. The Complex algorithm has given much better results than Fmincon, but at the cost of longer computing time that during the several tests was registered between 2636 and 5068 seconds, depending on the number of iterations and function evaluations required (see Table 1). The Complex algorithm 11 can be trimmed also tuning on the tolerance for function and 10 parameters convergence, as well as 9 the value of the so called forgetting factor and randomization factor 8 that in the presented test case have 7 not been modified from the suggested default value 0.3. On the 6 other hand different settings for the tolerance for parameters and 5 function convergence ware tried. 4 Considering that the presented 0 100 200 300 400 500 Function Evaluations framework is thought to be used during conceptual design phases, where different designs are only Figure 7. Evolution of the objective function value. The y-axis has a logarithmic scale for enhancing the roughly described it was felt that it differences in function values. did not make much sense tuning in the design parameter values by changing the third or fourth decimal. The requirement for the objective function convergence was instead much more stringent, since gradients were very small (Fig. 7). The figure shows that already after 300 iterations the Complex has reached close to the final configuration. The extension of the flat part of the curve depends on how the convergence requirements have been set. It was observed that even small changes in the
Objective Funtion Value

52 Paper I objective function value had remarkable effects on the maximum take-off weight. Thus the Complex was set to continue until the relative change in function value was less then 10-4. The convergence requirement for the parameters values was set instead to 510-3. Although performing much better than Fmincon, the Complex algorithm did not always reach to what is believed to be a possible absolute optimum. Among all the tests performed, the best parameters set hit rate was 17%. Figure 8 shows the suggested configuration while its parameter set is reported in Table 2; the calculated maximum take-off weight is 18,716 kg. It has anyway to be noted that, among all the solutions found by the Complex algorithm, the difference between the best and the worst configuration measured in maximum take-off weight is of less than 400 kg, from 18.7 tons to 19.1 tons.
Parameter Value tR 20 % tT 8.13 % 44.2

LE

CR 13.49 m

CT 4.17 m

B 5.99 m

2.56

Table 2. Design parameters of the suggested configuration using the Complex algorithm.
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -5 0 5 10 15 20 10 5 0 -5 -10

10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Figure 8. Suggested best configuration using the Complex algorithm.

C. Genetic Algorithm
The last optimization method tested is a genetic algorithm (GA). The basic idea of GAs is the mechanics of natural selection. Each optimization parameter, (xn), is coded into a gene as for example a real number or string of bits. The corresponding genes for all parameters, x1,.. xn, form a chromosome, which describes each individual. A chromosome could be an array of real numbers, a binary string, a list of components in a database, all

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 53 depending on the specific problem. Each individual represents a possible solution, and a set of individuals form a population. In a population, the fittest are selected for mating. Mating is performed by combining genes from different parents to produce a child, called a crossover. There is also a possibility that a mutation might occur which change the value of a gene randomly. Finally the children are inserted into the population to form a new generation. The procedure starts over again, thus representing an artificial Darwinian environment. The optimization continues until the population has converged or the maximum number of generations has been reached. The implemented GA uses real encoding, roulette wheel selection, extended intermediate recombination, mutation according to the breeder GA, linear fitness scaling and an elitist replacement strategy where the GGap percentage of the weakest individuals is replaced in each generation. The present GA used a population size of 40 individuals and was run for 100 generations with a crossover probability of 0.6 and a generation gap of 0.8. Compared to the other algorithms it registered the longest computing time due to the larger number of iterations and objective function evaluations required. The total computing time was around 2.5 hours that is in line with data from Table 1. On the other hand, using this genetic algorithm the hit rate rose to 75%. One criterion for comparing the Complex and GA could be to consider following performance index definition9:
f obj ,opt = Log 2 (1 Popt ) km

(14)

where Popt is the probability of finding the optmum and km is the number of iterations required. According to this definition the performance index of the GA is only three times better than the Complex algorithm. The difference is in fact not as big as it might seem at first. Figure 9 shows the best configuration obtained and Table 3 its design parameters. The calculated maximum take-off weight for this aircraft is 18,656 kg, which is almost exactly the same value obtained with the Complex algorithm. It should be remarked that all the configurations obtained with the genetic algorithm that seems to be absolute optima do not have the same calculated take-off weight: among all the tests carried out there is a variation of 0.95%. The objective function value diagram in Fig. 10 shows that there can be a big difference in the way the algorithm finds its way to the optimum. In both the cases the suggested configuration is exactly the same.
Parameter Value tR 20 % tT 8.15 %

LE
44.11

CR 13.50 m

CT 4.21 m

B 6.00 m

2.20

Table 3. Design parameters of the suggested best configuration using the genetic algorithm.

54 Paper I

10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 10 5 0 -5 -10

10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Figure 9. Suggested best configuration using the genetic algorithm.

1500 Best = 110.0285 5000 6000 Best = 109.4649

1000

4000

f(x)

f(x)
500 0 0 20 40 60 generation 80 100 120

3000

2000

1000

20

40

60 generation

80

100

120

Figure 10. Evolution of the objective function value for two different optimizations using the genetic algorithm.

VI.

Conclusion and Future Developments

A novel framework for aircraft conceptual design is being developed at Linkping University. Specifically this work illustrates how the aerodynamic analysis module is structured and how it can be linked to an optimization algorithm for analyzing different aircraft concepts in order to identify the one or ones that appear to be best suited to fulfill

Use of Panel Code Modeling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization 55 the specified mission. Three different optimization algorithms have been tested and their performances compared with each other, showing that gradient methods are not able to solve the present problem and that a non-gradient method algorithm is mandatory, in this case the Complex and a genetic algorithm. Results show that, even though the Complex algorithm is about two times faster on the single optimization, the genetic algorithm ensures a by far better hit rate (75% against 17%), which makes the genetic algorithm to be preferred. To validate the presented framework module the design of an unmanned aerial vehicle was considered. Its mission profile and requirements were very similar to the J-UCAS program. The configuration suggested by the optimization analysis is in fact very similar in size and weight to the Boeing X-45C and Northrop Grumman X-47B. The differences in shape between the presented layouts and the above mentioned aircrafts is due to the constraints specified in the parametrization of the model. The development of the framework is in full progress. A fully parametric three dimensional CAD model comprising structure and sub-systems is being created with CATIA V5 and it will be tried to use it for generating the input data for the aerodynamic analysis. Work is also carried out on improving the interface between user and framework. Finally other modules are being integrated in the framework and new ones are being developed.

Ardema, M.D, Chambers, M.C., Patron, A.P., Hahn, A.S., Miura, H., Moore, M.D., Analytical Fuselage And Wing Weight Estimation Of Transport Aircraft. NASA TM 110392, May 1996. 2 Dovi, A.R., Wrenn, G.A., Barthelemy, J.-F.M., Coen, P.G., Hall, L.E., Multidisciplinary Design Integration Methodology for a Supersonic Transport Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1995, pp. 290-296. 3 Erikson, L.L., Panel Methods An Introduction, NASA Technical Paper 2995, 1990 4 Goraj, Z., Frydrychewicz, A., Hermetz, J., Le Tallec, C., Hale UAV Platform Optimised for a Specialized 20-km Altitude Patrol Mission, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, WUT, Warsaw, 2004. 5 Jenkinson, L.R., Simpkin, P., Rhodes, D., Civil Jet Aircraft Design, ButterworthHeinemann Publications, 1999. 6 Johansson, B., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Distributed Aircraft Analysis Using Web Service Technology, World Aviation Congress & Exposition, Linkping, 2003. 7 Jouannet, C., Silva, S.E.R., Krus, P., Use Of CAD For Weight Estimation In Aircraft Conceptual Design, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2004. 8 Andersson, J., Design Optimization, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2005. 9 Krus, P., Andersson, J., An Information Theoretical Perspective On Design Optimization, Design Engineering Technical Conference, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2004. 10 Krus, P., Andersson, J., Optimizing Optimization for Design Optimization, ASME Design Automation Conference, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2003.

References

56 Paper I Lovell, D.A., Crawford, C.A., Restrick, K.E., Recent Advances In Air-Vehicle Design Synthesis And Optimisation, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Farnborough, UK, 2004. 12 Morris, A., Arendsen, P., LaRocca, G., Laban, M., Voss, R., Hnlinger, H., MOB A European Project on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Cranfield University, UK, 2004 13 Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Second Edition, AIAA Educational Series, 1992. 14 Rhl, P.J., Mavris, D.M., Schrage, D.P., Combined Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization of a High-Speed Civil Transport Wing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 1995. 15 Sevant, N.E., Bloor, M.I.G., Wilson, M.J., Cost Effective Multipoint Design of a Blended High-Speed Civil Transport, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1999, pp. 642650. 16 Towne, M.C., Strande, S.M., Erikson, L.L., Kroo, J.M., Enomoto, F.Y., Carmichael, R.L., McPherson, K.F., PAN AIR Modelling Studies, AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California, 1983.
11

Paper II
A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design
Kristian Amadori(1), Christopher Jouannet(2), Petter Krus(1)

(1) Department of Management and Engineering Division of Machine Design (2) Department of Management and Engineering Division of Fluid and Mechanical Engineering Systems

Abstract
Aircraft design is an inherently multidisciplinary activity that requires different models and tools for various aspects of the design. At Linkping University a novel design framework is being developed to support the initial conceptual design phase of a new aircraft. In this work main attention has been paid to wing design, with respect to aerodynamic efficiency and loads, and to structural analysis. By linking together various modules via a user-friendly interface based on a spreadsheet, the framework allows multidisciplinary analysis and optimizations to be carried out. This paper will present the framework, give an overview of its development status and give an indication on the future work.

58 Paper II

This paper has been published as: Amadori, K., Jouannet, C. and Krus, P., A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design, June 2007, 25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Miami, FL, USA

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 59

Nomenclature
CAD cL cdi cm MDF MDS SOA SOAP (t/c) WSDL = = = = = = = = = = Computer Aided Design Lift coefficient at given angle of attack Induced drag coefficient at given angle of attack Pitching moment coefficient at given angle of attack CAD Datums Model CAD Surfaces Model Service Oriented Architecture Simple Object Access Protocol Thickness-to-chord ratio Web Service Description Language

URING last years a research project at Linkping University has been aimed at developing a novel design framework to be used from the very beginning of the conceptual design phase of new aircraft1,2,3. The framework is intended to be a multidisciplinary optimization tool for defining and refining aircraft designs, with respect to its aerodynamic, stability, weight, stability and control. The conceptual design phase could take advantage of a novel methodology, that would not be based on empirical or semi-empirical equations to estimate e.g. weights4, performances, costs and loads, but relay on analytical models to a greater extent. The presented design framework is thought to meet also requirements of modern complex product development. Many companies are located all over the world and are tightly involved in several global partnerships, where modules of the product are designed and manufactured at different locations. This is especially true in the aerospace and automotive industry where the end products are more or less assemblies of subsystems from different suppliers. This implies that todays product development is carried out in a distributed, collaborative and competitive fashion and this forms a rather complex environment for the employment of modeling and simulation technology. These aspects must therefore be supported by the modeling and simulation tools. Previous work carried out by the research group at Linkping University has taken into consideration ways to determine the weight of aircraft concepts by means of CAD tools5. Using a parametric three dimensional model of the aircraft, it has been shown that the structural weight could be estimated with good precision while the high degree of parameterization ensures that the model can cover a wide range of concepts. Thanks to the experience gathered during the development of the framework, key requirements have been pinpointed. Among them, the models flexibility, reliability and robustness are of highest importance and have been key aspects during the development of each part of the framework modules. A wing design study was chosen as test case for the presented work. The wing comprises both the external surfaces to be aerodynamically analyzed and the wing-box design to be structurally analyzed. When compared with examples of similar applications that can be found in the litterature6,7, the presented work shows a much higher grade of design flexibility. In other wing structure design studies the designer is usually required to enter a structure layout before the optimization can start. Then the system modifies

I.

Introduction

60 Paper II thicknesses and maybe moves the structural elements from their starting position. This work will instead demonstrate that it is possible to design concepts with a much higher degree of freedom. The kind of structural analysis will get close to a topological optimization of a general wing design. Thus it can be ensured that the solution obtained will be of a more general character.

Figure 1. The complete aircraft design framework

II.

The Wing Design Framework

The part of the design framework here presented is intended to be a tool that permits to optimize the design of wings during the conceptual design phase. Several different aspects of the design and the wing plan-form can be controlled. This includes the wing profiles at the end of each wing section and the structural layout. The complete wing model will be explained in more detail in the following sections. As illustrated in Fig.1 the framework comprises many modules that can be run independently or together with others. When running each module alone it is possible to analyze the properties of one aspect at the time. The other modules will then work as support only; if needed they can be substituted by simpler equations that may be less precise, but faster. In this way the number of parameters to be optimized can be greatly reduced as well as the time required to complete the optimization. This modularity of the framework allows for starting using it even if not all of the modules are completely developed and ready to use. Only once one module is ready and validated it can be added to the framework and used together with all the others. The framework can and is intended to be used for full design optimization. Figure 2 shows how the modules involved in the wing optimization problem are linked to each other. The framework is built to allow for being distributed1,3,8. That means that any module can be placed on a dedicated computer and connected to all the others through the Internet. Connections are implemented using SOAP messages, as explained in Ref.1. In

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 61

this example, however, all framework modules are run on the same machine. The specifications are as follows: Dell Precision PW390 CPU : Intel CoreDuo E6600, 2.40 GHz 2Gb of RAM NVidia Quadro FX 3500 Windows XP 64bits
Optimization Algorithm
Design Parameters

CAD

Wing Geometry

The design parameters are input through a user-friendly Excel Pressure Deformed spreadsheet interface that is shown Distribution Geometry Mass in Fig.3. There are different areas Lift & Drag indicated by different colours, where Stresses FEM selected aspects of the wing design are governed. With reference to the figure below, the grey area (Wing Geometry Layout) includes the Figure 2. The wing design optimization framework parameters that determine the planform of each wing section and the parameters that specify the shape of the wing profiles; in the green one (Structural Layout) are the parameters that control type, number and

Panel Code

Figure 3. The Excel interface of the wing design framework

62 Paper II placement of the structural element; finally in the light blue area (Design Results) the results from the different modules are displayed. The framework can be used both for automatic optimization of a particular design as well as for exploring different design alternatives interactively. In the first case the spreadsheet is coupled with an optimization algorithm that acts on a set of input parameters or on all of them. Otherwise the designer is asked to enter by hand the parameter values and to start the analysis.

III. The Parametric CAD Model

The most important characteristic of the CAD model is to be highly flexible in order to be able to represent a variety of designs as large as possible. Secondly the model must be robust and reliable, since there will not be a specialist entering new parameters and supervising the update process. It is fundamental that the model does not produce mathematical errors within its whole allowed design range.

A. The Model Structure

In order to guarantee a high degree of flexibility and robustness, the CAD model must be built in a proper way. Figure 4 shows the relational links between the different elements of the model. The input parameters described above govern directly the Datums Model (MDF) and the Surfaces Model (MDS). The MDF-model is a wireframe model where all reference planes and lines, needed to define the wing Figure 4. Relational links between the different elements in and its structure, are defined. It is the CAD model important to notice that all the structure components in the CAD model depend on both the MDFmodel and MDS-model, that depend instead only on the top level input parameters. The MDS surfaces model contains all the external surfaces. The structure is obtained by instantiating a general structural element that is designed to adapt itself, given the following parameters that are specified in the Figure 5. The general structure element model

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 63

MDF-model and MDS-model (Fig.5): - The main direction along which to develop the structural element - Two lines defining the start and end point - Upper and lower surfaces between which the element is adapted This general element is used for all the structure parts of the wing: longerones and ribs. The element thicknesses are governed by individual parameters, allowing for optimization of the structural design.

B.

Wing Geometry Layout and Profiles

The wing is divided into three wing sections: - an inner wing section, supposed to be the part of the wing hidden inside the fuselage - a middle wing section - an outer wing section. It is of course possible to divide the wing into more sections, but in the present study it was decided to set the number to three. Figure 6 shows the wing sections and their input parameters. With these parameters the designer can set span, leading edge sweep, root chord length, tip chord length, dihedral angle and twist of each one of the three wing sections. In addition to the shape, dimension and position of each section, it is also possible to modify the wing profiles at the end of each of the sections through the Excel interface. They are defined using the formulation suggested by Kulfan and Bussoletti in Ref.9:

( )Upper = C ( ) Aui Si ( ) + Upper

i =1
n

( ) Lower
where: =

= C ( ) Ali Si ( ) + Lower i =1

(1)

z c

is the non-dimensional airfoil ordinate; is the profile coordinate along the z-axis;

x is the non-dimensional airfoil station; c x is the profile coordinate along the x-axis; N N1 C ( ) = (1 ) 2 is the class function;
Si ( ) is the ith-term of the Bernstein polynomial of order n;

Upper =

zuTE c

is the non-dimensional upper surface trailing edge thickness ratio;

64 Paper II

Lower =

zlTE c

is the non-dimensional lower surface trailing edge thickness

ratio; Ali, Aui, N1 and N2 are coefficients to be determined to obtain the wanted shape. To improve ease-of-use, in the CAD model the above formulation was reworked in order to allow the wing profiles being defined by more familiar inputs, rather than less practical coefficients. In addition to the root length, each wing profile needs four parameters to be set: - thickness-to-chord ratio (t/c) - relative position of (t/c)MAX - maximum camber - maximum camber relative chord position.

Figure 6. The wing is divided in three sections, each one defined by separate parameters

C. Wing Update Procedure

When new parameters have been entered and the designer or the optimization algorithm starts the update procedure, a set of controls and actions are automatically carried out. They are here briefly explained: 1. The system checks for any modifications in the wing plan-form, such as changed chord lengths, spans or wing profile settings. 2. Comparison between the old and new number of structural elements, to determine if parts are going to be deleted or added. 3. The start and end values for the already present ribs and spars are verified and updated if needed. 4. Thickness values for the already present ribs, spars and skins are verified and updated if needed. 5. Deletion or addition of new structural elements (ribs and spars). 6. Wing surface mesh update. 7. Mesh node coordinates are measured and stored. 8. PANAIR input file is written. 9. PANAIR aerodynamic analysis is started.

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 65

10. Results from PANAIR are retrieved from the output file. 11. FEM analysis model is updated with new structure mesh. 12. FEM analysis model is updated with new loads from aerodynamic analysis. 13. FEM analysis is started. 14. All relevant results are retrieved and presented in the Excel interface. The time required for all operation to be completed depends of course from how many of the above steps that are actually carried out and from how computationally heavy they are. For instance there is a big difference between adding one rib only, compared to adding ten of them; or if for one or for all the already present elements the thickness need to be modified. In Table 1 the time required to complete some typical operations are listed. Type of Operation Elapsed Time [sec] Change rib layout case 31 Change 1 parameter value 31 Change 5 parameter values 75 Add 1 structural element 19 Add 5 structural elements 30 Delete 1 structural element 20 Delete 5 structural elements 28 PANAIR analysis 13 FEM analysis ~780
Tabel 1. Time required for typical operations

IV. The Wing Structure Model

In the previous section it has been described how the structural elements are instantiated. Here, it will be discussed what the design possibilities are, how the wing structure can be specified and how it is meshed prior to the analysis to take place. The structure modeled in the CAD tool consists only of the elements within the wing load carrying structure, the so called wing-box. This is the part of the wing limited by the front and rear spars and by the root and tip ribs. The whole structure is governed by the parameters located in the green field in the spreadsheet. Here it is possible to set the number of ribs, the number of spars and the type of desired layout. As already explained, one fundamental requirement for the model was maximum flexibility. Therefore, to permit the widest range of arrangements, it was not desired to limit the ribs to start from the front spar and end on the rear one. By selecting the value of the parameter Rib Layout Case it was possible to choose from the four arrangements shown in Fig.7. Please note that the examples shown in the figure are obtained only by changing the value of the Rib Layout Case parameter.

66 Paper II
TIP CHORD FRONT SPAR REAR SPAR

ROOT CHORD

Case 0

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Figure 7. There are four different structural ribs layout arrangements. Changing only case it is possible to obtain different rib layouts.

Selecting for instance Case 0, the starting point for each rib will be the front spar, while the end-line will be composed by the union of the rear spar with the root and tip chords. If Case 1 is selected instead, the start-line will be given by the union between the root chord and the front spar and the end-line by the union of tip chord and rear spar. Similarly for Case 2 and Case 3. The start and end points are placed according to the values indicated in the Start and End columns in the green field of Fig.3. The numbers represents the relative distance from the line starting point, where zero gives the line starting point and one gives the end point. Each rib is then modeled having a simple rectangular cross-section. Thickness, starting and ending points are defined by individual parameters. The thickness is constant over the whole rib. Spars are defined in a similar way. The difference is only that there is the possibility to vary the thickness along the spars length. Three thicknesses are defined: one at each extreme and one at the borderline between middle and outer wing section. The skin panels are defined from the MDS-surfaces and inwards. The thickness in varying linearly along the wing sections, and can be explicitly selected at the end of the middle and outer wing section by modifying the parameter values in the corresponding spreadsheet interface fields. One engine is also mounted under the wing. It is attached to one rib that is fitted with appropriate attachments. The engine can be chosen from a list of ten different models, varying from the smaller FJ44-4A, mounted on Cessna Citation CJ4, up to the larger GP7000, installed on Airbus A380. At the moment, th engine selection can not be done through the spreadsheet interface, but requires the designer to actively modify one parameter in the CAD model itself. Changing the engine will also change the loads applied to the wing structure deriving from the engine weight and thrust. The whole wing-box structure is meshed using the internal CATIA module Advanced Meshing Tools. So far it has been possible to use only tetrahedral quadratic elements that tend to model structures to be stiffer than what they really should be. This shortcoming can be addressed by the adoption of flat panel elements.

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 67

The loads that are applied to the structure are retrieved from the output file produced by PANAIR. In the following section it will be explained how they are gathered and applied.

V. The Aerodynamic Model

At the moment, the aerodynamic analysis tool adopted is a panel code, PANAIR. Panel codes are numerical schemes for solving (the Prandtl-Glauert equation) for linear, inviscid, irrotational flow about aircraft flying at subsonic or supersonic speeds10. As pointed out by Amadori et. al.3, panel codes are not as precise as modern CFDs can be, but they have other advantages. Considering that during a conceptual design phase, the aircraft geometry and its outer shape is not precisely defined and that the detail level is quite rough, it is clear that it can be unpractical and not justified to use tools that have a much higher accuracy. Moreover CFDs requires the space around the studied body to be accurately meshed, while for a panel code it is sufficient to approximate the aircrafts outer surfaces with proper rectangular panels. Therefore the meshing time required by a panel code is lower by several orders of magnitude, compared to a CFD code. It should be kept in mind that, in this framework, PANAIR is used mainly to compare the effectiveness of different concepts with each other, rather than to gather exact and absolute figures of their aerodynamic efficiency. When much powerful and faster computers will be available or if higher accuracy was required, PANAIR could be substituted with other solvers, thanks to the modular nature of the framework. The data that is gathered from the panel code analysis are the wing lift coefficient (cL), its induced drag coefficient (cDi), calculated using Trefftz plane analysis, and the aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the wing. The upper and lower surfaces of the wing are meshed with rectangular panels using an inhouse developed meshing Figure 8. The surface division prior to meshing application. This application is based on a set of scriptprocedures that can be activated from the spreadsheet interface and that also handles all steps required for starting the aerodynamic analysis. The surfaces are at first split along the front and aft spars, as shown in Fig.8. This is done to simplify the aerodynamic loads retrieving operations. This is done because PANAIR presents results for each surface separately and then assembled for the whole aircraft. Since the wing-box only is structurally analyzed, the air loads coming from the forward and aft surfaces are then simply applied along the front and rear spars.

68 Paper II Another advantage of using a tailor made meshing tool is that the coordinates for each one of the meshing nodes can be stored directly in the appropriate order for PANAIR to correctly interpret them. Thus data handling is in this way simplified and speeded up.

Figure 9. Results from FEM analysis of the wing-box structure

VI. Optimization Problems

The presented models and framework can be used in different optimization scenarios, employing different optimization tools. As for implementing optimization functionality, the most obvious is to use optimization software available in the user application. For example, the commercial software Crystal Ball with the optimization toolbox OptQuest has been evaluated. OptQuest incorporates Metaheuristics to guide its search algorithm11. It is capable of handling a wide range of problems and is executed as an integrated module of Excel. Another plug-in Design Analysis tools has been developed at Linkping University which includes sensitivity analysis, functional correlation, and support for both establishing and to carry out design optimization, Krus12. This can also be used together with tools for statistical simulations for probabilistic design as in Mavris et al13. Excel also has support for using web service technology and in this way models published as web services on other geographic locations can be connected and used in the analysis and optimization. This has been done in other research projects carried out at Linkping University1-3,14. For optimization both the so-called Complex-RF method and genetic algorithms have been implemented and deployed. The Complex algorithm was originally presented by Box15, and is a non-gradient method which is appropriate for problems where the objective function is defined by results from various calculations or simulations and the derivative of the objective function cannot be defined. The algorithm was improved by Krus et. al.16 to increase the probability of reaching a global optimum and has been used very successfully over a wide range of problems and is characterized by simplicity and robustness. By choosing the appropriate set of optimization variables among all the parameters that can be governed through the Excel interface, a variety of engineering design problems could be solved. For instance one typical application could be to minimize the

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 69

wing weight and or drag, granting a given minimum lift force. The problem could be approached with a fixed number of spars and ribs or with a variable number of them. In the second case of course the solution would be more general, but at the cost of longer computing time. Also which geometry layout parameters to include in the optimization problem can be freely selected.

VII.

Conclusions and Future Work

In this paper a framework for wing design and optimization has been presented. It is one part of a complete aircraft design framework that is being developed at Linkping University. The whole framework is intended to cover all the diverse parts and systems that an aircraft can be divided into: fuselage, wing, propulsion systems, landing gears, subsystems, structures, and control system. The framework itself is innovative in several ways. First of all, the design tools are based on real models rather than historical data. Secondly, the modeling approach is an integration of several distributed domain specific models which increases the possibilities to gain more reliable design information early in the design process without revealing proprietary parts of the models. This is a very important aspect in real world design projects where several distributed participants must efficiently cooperate while protecting restricted sensitive data. The presented wing model is also innovative. It has been developed having its flexibility as a fundamental requirement. Not only does it permit to modify and optimize a given wing design and one specified load carrying structure, but it also allows to radically change the configuration and layout of the structure design. Not only the size and relative position of structure elements can be changed, but also their number. If one rib is not required it will be removed. This means that a more general design can be used for the optimization, while minimizing the designers work load, since he/she will not be asked to enter a qualified structural proposal prior to starting the optimization. Thus the resulting structural layout will not depend on how the wing-box is defined at the beginning of the optimization. In this sense the proposed framework will work similarly to a topology optimization tool. In order to verify the robustness and flexibility of the model a detailed analysis of the model has been carried out. Now tests with optimization problems of increasing complexity will follow. The tests will be used to verify both how precise results can be obtained and to evaluate the optimization performance. Even though if compared to simpler applications often used in conceptual design phases, the presented tool will clearly require longer computing time, the results obtained will be more detailed and reliable. The detail level of the obtained answers will also be far more exhaustive than with classic tools. Moreover, since all elements are from the start modeled with CATIA, most of the models can be directly reused in further design steps. All together this leads to reduced overall cost and time for a project. At the moment investigations are also done to verify the possibility to employ other aerodynamic codes, such as ZOONAIR, ALIS or CFD codes like Edge (FFA) that will offer increased accuracy and flexibility. Thanks to the modular structure of the framework, substituting one module is not compromising the functionality of the rest of them, which ensures to be able to always use the most profitable tools available.

70 Paper II

Johansson, B., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Distributed Aircraft Analysis Using Web Service Technology, World Aviation Congress & Exposition, Linkping, 2003. 2 Amadori, K., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Use of Panel Code Modelling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 3 Amadori, K., Johansson, B., Krus, P., Uing CAD Tools and Aerodynamic Codes in a Distributed Conceptual Design Framework, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2007, Reno, NV, USA 4 Ardema, M.D, Chambers, M.C., Patron, A.P., Hahn, A.S., Miura, H., Moore, M.D., Analytical Fuselage And Wing Weight Estimation Of Transport Aircraft, NASA TM 110392, May 1996. 5 Jouannet, C., Silva, S.E.R., Krus, P., Use of CAD for Weight Estimation in Aircraft Conceptual Design, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan, Sweden, 2004. 6 Ricci, S. and Terraneo, M., Application of MDO Techniques to the Preliminary Design of Morphed Aircraft, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept.2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 7 Moore, R., Murphy, A., Price, M., an dCurran, R., Analysis Driven Design and Optimization for Aircraft Structures, 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material Conference, 1-4 May 2006, Newport, Rhode Island, USA 8 Tsalgatidou A. and Pilioura T., "An Overview of Standards and Related Technology in Web Services", Distributed and Parallel Databases, 12, 2002. 9 Kulfan, B.M., Bussoletti, J.E., Fundamental Parametric Geometry Representations for Aircraft Component Shapes, AIAA 2006-6948, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept.2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 10 Erikson, L.L., Panel Methods An Introduction, NASA Technical Paper 2995, 1990 11 Glover, F., Kelly J.P., Laguna, M., New Advances and Applications of Combining Simulation and Optimization, Proceedings of the 1996 Winter Simulation Conference, Edited by J.M. Charnes, D.J. Morrice, D.T. Brunner, and J.J. Swain, pp144-152, 1996. 12 Krus P Aircraft System Optimization and Analysis for Traceability in Design.11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 13 Mavris, D.N., Bandte, O., Delaurentis, D.A Robust design simulation: A probabilistic approach to multidisciplinary design.. 1999 Journal of Aircraft 36 (1), pp. 298-307 14 Lundstrm, D., Krus, P., Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Optimization Using Mixed Discrete and Continuous Variables, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 15 Box M. J., A New Method of Constrained Optimization and a Comparison with other Methods, Computer Journal, 8:42-52, 1965.

References

A Framework for Aerodynamic and Structural Optimization in Conceptual Design 71

Krus P., Jansson A. and Palmberg J-O, Optimisation for Concept Selection in Hydraulic Systems, in Proceedings of 4th Bath International Fluid Power Workshop, Bath, UK, 1991.

16

72 Paper II

Paper III
Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation
Kristian Amadori(1), David Lundstrm(2), Petter Krus(1)

(1) Department of Management and Engineering Division of Machine Design (2) Department of Management and Engineering Division of Fluid and Mechanical Engineering Systems

Abstract
Micro or mini aerial vehicles are characterized by being simple and inexpensive to build, and due to their small size very important to optimize. They are also likely to be built in relatively small series and be tailored for the sensors and equipment available at the time of deployment. Therefore "design and build on demand" is very attractive, where a modular concept with a more or less automated design process is desirable. In this paper design automation of a Micro or Mini Aerial Vehicle (MAV) is demonstrated using a distributed design optimization framework that involves selections of components from a database of propulsion system equipment and geometrical shape optimization. The framework links together a CAD system, responsible for the aircraft shape generation, with a panel code for aerodynamic evaluations.

74 Paper III

This paper has been published as: Amadori, K., Lundstrm, D. and Krus, P., Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation, Jan. 2008, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 75

Nomenclature
Angle of attack Computer Aided Design Lift coefficient at given angle of attack Induced drag coefficient at given angle of attack Pitching moment coefficient at given angle of attack Chord length CAD datums model CAD surfaces model Service Oriented Architecture Simple Object Access Protocol Web Service Description Language

= CAD = = cL cdi = = cm c = MDF = MDS = SOA = SOAP = WSDL =

I. Introduction

HE term Micro Aerial Vehicle (MAV) was originally defined by American Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, to describe an aircraft with a physical size of lesser than 150mm. In laymans terms the description MAV is however used more loosely and a more general description is an aerial vehicle of dimensions lesser then 500mm. Within this paper this is the definition MAV is referring to. Micro Aerial Vehicles are getting increased interest from both military and civilian authorities. Research conducted during the last years has proven that fully autonomous MAVs flying in a real world environment (wind, rain etc) today are feasible. A commercial break through is likely not far away. At Linkping University work is being done to automate the design process of Micro Aerial Vehicles (MAVs). Scenario driven design is considered important where the MAV quickly can be designed and built for a specific scenario. A major part of the process is to create a design tool and optimization methodology for MAVs. Work on this is ongoing and in a previous paper by Lundstrm1, MAV design optimization was demonstrated using a Genetic Algorithm to configure an optimal propulsion system from a database of components, while simultaneously establishing the optimum geometrical plan form described by continuous parameters. In this work traditional models for aerodynamic calculations were used, such as skin friction corrected with form factor for parasite drag and lifting line equations for induced drag. No consideration was taken for airfoil shape, wing twist etc. Therefore as a next step the aerodynamic calculations has been improved. Amadori et al.2,3 have shown that panel code can be effectively used within distributed frameworks for design optimization, where they can be linked to parametric CAD models. In the present paper the discrete propulsion system modeling used in Ref.1 is combined with a parametric CAD model and a panel code for aerodynamic performance prediction, as shown in Figure 1.

76 Paper III

Spreadsheet model
Obj. function

Optimizer
Control variables

Weight wetted area etc.

Geometry parameters

cD, cm, cL

Geometry mesh

Parametric CAD model

Aerodynamic model

Figure 1. The design framework

A. Design Automation
Design automation is of general interest in aeronautics, and automated methods for coupling aerodynamic calculations, CAD modeling, FEM analysis etc are getting an increased usage in the design of manned aircraft, but primarily during the conceptual and preliminary design phases. Completely automating the design, from concept to production is, however, far from possible. MAVs on the other hand are small, simple to build, and requires relatively few components. This is an application where fully automated design has great potential. The ideal design automation procedure is described in Figure 2.

a
Compon ent List

Design Requirements

Figure 2. MAV design automation

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 77 From a mission scenario a design specification is created. This is information such as performance, payload requirements etc. A design tool, such as the presented design framework, then uses several coupled computer softwares, to generate the following. a. List of optimal propulsion system components. From a database of off the shelf components. b. A full CAD model that is used for production. Production may be accomplished in composite material, foam plastic, rapid prototyping etc. c. Control scheme for Flight control system. Basically the configuration software to upload in the intended autopilot. The current work focuses on task a. and b. while the control system optimization requires flight mechanical modeling and will be subject to future work. Imagine for instance a scenario requiring a high quality live video, thermal imaging, and high resolution photos for object identification or geo localization. All these sensors exist in sizes small enough to be carried on a MAV, but one MAV do not have the payload capability to carry all at once. Using multiple MAVs carrying different sensors is an attractive solution. Due to different weights and sizes of these sensors it may be difficult to design a MAV that can be adopted for each sensor while achieving proper stability and performance. This is an example where design automation could have a great impact. Design automation allows a much more flexible way of using MAVs for missions previously solved by larger more expensive UAVs. For different scenarios one can focus on what sensors to use rather then compromising on what sensors can be adapted to one existing platform.

II. Distributed Design Framework

The design framework presented in this work has been created from the experience gathered from the Modelith framework which was developed within the research group4. The Modelith framework is based on Web Service Technology and implements as socalled Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)5. This architecture is based a set of standards for distributed computing developed by World Wide Web Consortium which enables distribution and integration of tools at the same time. The interconnected modules communicate using standardized messages formatted according to the SOAP standard (Simple Object Access Protocol). These messages include the transmitted data and instructions for which method to invoke on the connected service. Each module is also described using WSDL (Web Service Description Language). This description provides enough information to automatically create the computational interface between the modules. Please refer to Ref.4 and Ref.5 for a more detailed and technical description.

A. Excel Spreadsheet
The base of the design framework is a user-friendly Excel spreadsheet. It serves as an input interface for the different design variables, and also links together the calculations between CAD software and the Panel Code. In Excel the calculations of the different propulsion system components are made. Excel then calls the CAD software for weight

78 Paper III calculations and the Panel Code for aerodynamic calculations. Lastly it calculates the MAV performance. The different parts of the excel program are shortly explained below. 1. Geometry In Excel there is a simple to use geometry input module which is used by the CAD program to update the parametric CAD model. In this module the MAV is defined as a tailless aircraft. The wing is defined by total area, aspect ratio, dihedral and twist angle. Two parameters are also controlling the curvature of the leading and trailing edges, allowing the wing to be shaped with a non trapezoidal contour. The wing profiles at the wing root and tip can be chosen from a catalog and are controlled through two dedicated parameters. The fuselage is completely blended with the wing and its size depends on the wing root length and thickness. It is however possible to specify the cross section size and length of the portion of the fuselage ahead of the wing. The fins are placed at the wing tips and their dimension is defined by a tail volume coefficient. Other parameters Figure 3. MAV Geometry that can be set are sweep and taper ratio, plus a coefficient that controls how the fins surface is distributed above and below the chord line. Figure 3 shows a principal sketch of a typical geometry created in the geometry module. The geometry includes also three different payload boxes and all control system equipment. Each component is represented as a rectangular box of given length, height, width and weight, all taken from a database included in the spreadsheet. It is then possible to review their placement in order to balance the aircraft and to verify that everything fits inside the outer surface. 2. Propulsion The propulsion system consists of propeller, electric motor, PWM motor controller, and battery (Fig. 4). Each component is modeled individually. The models used are briefly described below.

Po tot=b*d*

Figure 4. MAV propulsion system.

The propeller is modeled using blade element theory software by Hepperle7. The model gives an estimation of power coefficient Cp and thrust coefficient Ct as function of advance ratio v/nD. It requires geometric shape of the propeller together with information of its airfoil along the blade radius. Accordingly to Hepperle the accuracy of the model is

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 79 very god, when the power and thrust loading is relatively low, as in the case of MAV propellers. The motor is described by the motor constants Kv, I0 and Rm. This is data that is usually given by motor manufacturers. A model of an electric motor using these constants is shown in Figure 5. The electric motor has its rpm (n) proportional to motor EMF. Kv is the RPM proportionality constant. Losses in the motor are characterized by its internal resistance Rm and no load current I0.
Im + Um I0
emf

Rm I M

n = U emf K v P in = I m U m P out = I U emf Pout =

Figure 5. Model of electric motor.

(rpm) (W) (W) (W)

This is a well known motor model and as long as the motor constants are defined properly by the motor manufacturer, the accuracy of the model is very good for normal operating conditions. Modeling the losses in the motor controller is complex. The losses in the controller are depending of several factors. According to Lawrence8, the main controller losses for low inductance motors, such as the ones suitable for MAV:s, are due to the insufficient filtering of the PWM harmonics. Lawrence presents a mathematical model that uses the PWM frequency, power setting, and motor inductance to estimate these losses. This model has been implemented in the design tool. Battery is modeled using its capacity C, rated nominal voltage U, and internal resistance Rb. The total energy source (battery pack) consists of several battery cells coupled in series and/or in parallel. The weight of the battery pack is the number of cells multiplied by cell weight and with a correction for the weight of the material surrounding the cells. This is material such as cable, connector and plastic wrapping. For each component a large database has been created storing data from many off the shelf components used in hobby applications. To insure a broad spectrum of possible designs the database contains as much as 130motors, 15 motor controllers, 30 propellers and 30 batteries. 3. Weight and Aerodynamics The weight prediction is carried out with the parametric CAD model of the aircraft, while the aerodynamic performance calculation is done by a panel code. See more in the following paragraph. The panel code used is considering only inviscid flows hence not taking into account the viscosity effects. Skin friction drag is there fore calculated based on the wetted area from the CAD software. Prandtl and von Karman equations for turbulent boundary layer have been used (ref. 6). Hoerner6 equations have been used to correct skin friction for three-dimensional bodies. 4. Performance From the results of the CAD program weight predictions, the panel code aerodynamics calculations, and propulsion system modeling, the performance is calculated. As results

80 Paper III the endurance, range, and climb is presented as a function of speed. Interesting parameters such as efficiency of individual components, propeller rpm, motor current etc can also be plotted. Some examples of results obtained from the performance module are shown in Figure 6.
flight envelope 3,0 drag (N) 2,5 2,0 F (N) 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 0,00 T (N) v stall 50,0 45,0 40,0

Efficiency 100,0 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 % 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 v(m/s) 20,00 prop motor ESC batt tot 25,00

Endurance 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 5,00 10,00 15,00 v (m/s) 20,00 25,00 min

(a)
Figure 6. Results from modeling.

(b)

C. Parametric CAD Model

The design of a MAV is clearly less difficult than a conventional aircraft. Nevertheless some important features are required by the CAD model. First of all, the model should be highly flexible, so that the largest range of possible design variants can be represented. Secondly, it should comprise the internal systems that the aircraft will carry. Among these are payload equipment as well as control and powering devices. Given the very limited dimensions that characterize MAVs, it can be difficult to be able to fit all the needed systems, still meeting requirements for balance and control of the aircraft. Obviously it is a time consuming task to build a highly flexible, fully parametric CAD model. And of course each CAD model will have limits so that not all configurations can be represented through it. On the other hand each model can be stored in a library of sort, where each type of basic configuration can be selected through a given parameter. Each time a new CAD model is created it can be added to the library for future use. A CAD model of a generic MAV has been developed at Linkping University (Figure 7). The CAD tool used for the task is CATIA V5 R17. The parameters described in paragraph II.B.1, are used Figure 7. The parametric MAV CAD model

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 81 to determine the outer surfaces in this model. Then the internal systems and structural elements are placed within them. As previously explained the spreadsheet includes catalogues within which it is possible to choose the following components: Engine Speed regulator Receiver Servos Autopilot Camera Video link

Since the aircraft is of very simple nature and of a very small size, the structural requirements are quite simple. The aircraft is designed to be manufactured as an outer shell of glass or carbon fiber which is more than enough to withstand all aerodynamic loads. Nevertheless a simple structure composed by two spars made of polystyrene extending along the whole wing span is included. Their task is mainly to prevent the shell from buckling or collapsing inward when handling the aircraft, and at landing. From the CAD model it is possible to retrieve a precise measure of the aircraft weight9 and mass distribution that can be used for both performance prediction as well as flight simulations. Especially when compared to the previous method of calculating the expected total weight (see Ref.1), the use of a CAD model represents a further improvement. Finally, the outer surfaces of the MAV are discretized with a mesh, and the node coordinates are gathered to be sent to the panel code for aerodynamic analysis.

D. Panel Code
At the moment, the aerodynamic analysis tool adopted is a panel code, PANAIR. Panel codes are numerical schemes for solving (the Prandtl-Glauert equation) for linear, inviscid, irrotational flow about aircraft flying at subsonic or supersonic speeds10. As pointed out by Amadori et. al.2, panel codes are not as precise as modern CFDs can be, but they have other advantages. Considering that during a conceptual design phase, the aircraft geometry and its outer shape is not precisely defined and that the detail level is quite rough, it is clear that it can be unpractical and not justified to use tools that have a much higher accuracy. Moreover CFDs requires the space around the studied body to be accurately meshed, while for a panel code it is sufficient to approximate the aircrafts outer surfaces with proper rectangular panels. Therefore the meshing time required by a panel code is lower by several orders of magnitude, compared to a CFD code. When much powerful and faster computers will be available or if higher accuracy was required, PANAIR could be substituted with other solvers, thanks to the modular nature of the framework. The CAD model described here above is also responsible for generating a mesh of the surfaces of the aircraft. This is performed by an in-house tool developed at Linkping University. This grid is then used by the panel code algorithm to calculate basic aerodynamic coefficients for a given mission section. The parameters that are required for an analysis to be carried out are angle of attack, yaw angle, air speed and altitude.

82 Paper III Outputs of this module are lift coefficients cL and cL, induced drag coefficient cdi and pitching moment coefficients cm and cm. PANAIR returns also the pressure values and speed vectors in each node of the mesh that is input. The analysis of one given configuration is carried out in two steps (Figure 8). First PANAIR is run at two different and arbitrary angles of attack, i.e. 1 and 6 degrees. The only requirement here is that the angles must be within the linear range of the lift coefficient. The results from this analysis permit to retrieve the slope of the cL -curve as function of the angle of attack (cL). Given now the weight of the aircraft, its cruising speed and altitude, the cruising angle of attack cruise is calculated. Then PANAIR is run a second time at this specific angle of attack, in order to predict the induced drag coefficient (cdi-cruise) in cruise condition. Moreover, the knowledge of three cdi values enables to easily estimate the relationship between induced drag and angle of attack which is used for performance calculations other then at the cruise condition.
PANAIR run at 1 and 6 degrees cL cL, mg = cLSq cL = cL,a + cL,=0 PANAIR run at cL,cruise cDi() cDi,cruise

cL,cruise

Figure 8. Each configuration is analyzed in two steps.

E. Optimization Algorithm
Two different optimization algorithms can be used. First is a genetic algorithm that is programmed as a macro add-in for Microsoft Excel. This algorithm has already proven to be successful for MAV-design optimization1. A second possibility is to adopt the Complex-RD algorithm. It is a modified variant of the Complex algorithm11,12,13 that is capable of handling discrete variables together with continuous ones. So far only the genetic algorithm has been tested, while the Complex algorithm has only been plugged in into the framework but any optimization has not been carried out yet.

III.

Design Automation and Optimization

The design optimization task comprises two different aspects: the optimization of the aircraft shape and the optimization of the components of control and propulsion system. These can be run separately, in sequence or simultaneously. Every function evaluation becomes more time expensive when using CATIA and PANAIR to analyze the aircraft geometry and aerodynamics. Thus it is possible to select whether the framework should use them or not for computing weight, center of gravity location, lift and drag coefficients. Figure 5 shows the information flow within the framework. The scheme shows clearly where the new module has been inserted and how it now possible to choose between calculating weight and induced drag by means of CATIA and PANAIR or not.

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 83

Geometry Definition Propulsion System Definition

CATIA

Weight

PANAIR

Lifting-Line Theory Thrust

Induced Drag

Parasite Drag

Performance Prediction

Figure 9. Information flow within the framework.

Since each function evaluation involving the new module containing CATIA and PANAIR takes between 10 and 40 seconds, depending mostly on how many parameters are changed from the previous configuration, the design optimization has been divided into two successive parts. First the framework is run without invoking the new module. This ensures much more rapid iterations at the cost of less accurate results. In this initial mode, a large number of parameters are involved in the optimization which comprises both the geometry layout of the aircraft as well as the selection of the propulsion system. When convergence is reached the system is restarted, this time involving CATIA and PANAIR, using the optimum solution obtained as starting point. The propulsion system is frozen and the geometric design parameters are allowed to vary within a narrower range. In this second phase design parameters that could not be evaluated using the lifting-line theory can be included, such as the tip chord twist or the wing profile. If the result from the second optimization would not agree with the first one, the whole process is repeated until convergence between the results is reached. The process is illustrated in Figure 10.
Optimization Fast Simple geometric and aerodynamic model Fast System and performance models Geometry (continuous) System parameters (discrete and continuous) Optimization Expensive Complex geometric and aerodynamic model Geometry (continuous) System parameters (discrete and continuous) Optimization (If geometry changes significantly)

Fast System and performance models

Figure 10. Optimization procedure.

84 Paper III

IV.

Results

In order to test the design framework, design studies of three different MAVs were performed. The scenario is similar to what is described in the introduction, with three MAVs tailored for three different sensors. Each MAV is given different performance and payload requirements. The requirements are summarized in Table 1.
Design 1 Endurance (min) v cruise (m/s) v max (m/s) Payload (g) vstall (m/s) T/W Geometry limitation 30 25 36 gimbaled video camera (45g) 9,7 0,8 Span < 0,4 m Design 2 100 17 Thermal Eye, IR video (72g) 8,3 0,6 Span < 0,6 m Design 3 40 19 7 M-pix still picture camera (60g) 8,3 0,6 Span < 0,4 m

Table 1. MAV requirements.

Design 1 is specified as a high speed MAV with capability for surveillance of moving objects. It is designed around a small gimbaled video camera developed at Linkoping University, and is required to have a cruise capability of 90km/h (25m/s) for at least 30 min with the sub criterion to have a top speed of as much as 130km/h. This is in order to track for instance a moving car. Design 2 is specified for surveilling a large area over a longer period of time searching for warm objects using a thermal camera. The intended camera is an IR camera, ThermalEye 3600AS14, with a weight of 72g. On this MAV the cruise speed is set to 60 km/h (17m/s), and no specific condition is set for the top speed. The over all cruise endurance is set to 100min. In order to limit the physical size of the MAV a condition is set to keep the span smaller then 60cm Design 3 is required to carry a still picture digital camera of 7 mega pixels. Its intended to be used in collaboration with other MAVs. If an object is located using a conventional video camera or IR camera, the high resolution camera can be used to take a snapshot for accurate geo-localization with satellite images. It can also be used to build accurate maps for a region of interest. Endurance is set to 40 min and cruise speed is required to 70 km/h (19m/s). In all three cases a Micropilot MP202815 is intended as autopilot. This is equipment used in existing MAV:s at Linkping University and where compete system weight, size and power consumption is well known. For all three design studies the optimization was done in two steps as described in paragraph III. In the first step the genetic optimizer generally converged in about 30 min, and on that time several thousands of trials were completed. In the second step the CATIA model and PANAIR calculations were plugged in, and the genetic algorithm were used to fine-tune the geometry. For this optimization the parameter values were limited to stay relatively close to the previous step. It was found that at range of 15% from the values obtained during step nr 1 was suitable. The GA was then set to do 900

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 85 function evaluations and report the optimal configuration. With a population size of 20 individuals this represents 45 generations. Although this may not be a fully converged system it is well within the accuracy of the models, and spending more time to improve the optimum does not make sense. Another reason not to use more function evaluations is that a memory leak in CATIA slowly decreases the available memory to a point where the system finally crashes. During the optimization the objective was set to keep the weight as low as possible while having criterias, in the form of penalty functions, for endurance, stall speed, etc (as defined in Table 1). This insures to design the smallest possible MAV that fulfills the requirements. This is different from the optimization in ref 1, where the MAV endurance was optimized while keeping the geometrical size within restricted values. The result of the three design studies has been very successful. Suitable propulsion systems were chosen and the over all plan forms generated give a god impression. The objectives defined in Table 1 were all met. Agreement between lifting line theory and panel code is generally quite good. The design does not change much between step 1 and 2. In beginning the panel code had a tendency to reduce the wing sweep found in the first optimization. Since the winglets are mounted on the wing tips, and defined by tail volume coefficient, this lead to winglets of large area and height, but small cord. Apparently the optimizer found that the reduction in induced drag was grater then the increase of parasite drag, but the winglets generated would be fragile and not viable for practical use. To avoid this problem a penalty function was added that penalized the objective function if the winglet grew to much in height. Table 2 below summarizes the results of the 3 different designs.
Design 1 high speed
Weight Span Stall speed T/W ratio Enduranc e at cruise Max speed Motor Controller Battery Propeller 387 365 9,6 0,80 32,3 35,9 min m/s g mm m/s

Design 2 long endurance

616 595 8,2 0,78 101,1 27,2 min m/s g mm m/s

Design 3 general MAV

426 353 8,3 0,80 46,1 24,6 min m/s g mm m/s

Apache 20-34T YGE 8 Thunderpower 2000mAh 3s1p APC 6x6.9 (repitched 6x5.5)

Mfly 180-08-11 YGE8 Tanic 2200mAh 3s2p APC electric 6x4

Mfly 180-08-15 YGE 8 Thunderpower 2000mAh 3s1p APC electric 6x4

Table 2. Result from design optimization

86 Paper III It can be noted that a few propulsion system components was chosen for several of the designs. For instance all got the same controller. None of the designs got the same motor, but design 2 and 3 got the same propeller. That is a bit surprising, but is probably a fact of that the design space is discrete, and not enough propellers are available in the database. Design 1 and 3 also got the same batteries. This is a result of that particular battery having the highest energy density in the database and the optimizer tend to find the optimal components and fine tune the geometry to fit this system.

V. Future Development
The design framework is a helpful tool in MAV design, but there are two important issues, that for time constraints were not dealt with in this paper. That is to insure that during the optimization, the proper balance and size restrictions are met. The MAV must have large enough volume to accommodate its intended components, as well as balance with a proper stability margin. Controlling that a component fits can easily be done by measuring directly in the CAD model. If each component is defined with dimensions in the database, a script can be made that automatically controls if the component fits, by measuring the distance between the upper and lower wing surface in CATIA at each corner of the component. Ensuring that balance is achieved can then be done in two ways. The easiest method to implement is to manually place the components in a fixed pattern, and let the GA evolve the airframe around that pattern, with a penalty function if the balance criterion is not met. The other option is to have an inner loop that for each function evaluation seeks to adjust the component positions to where the balance criteria is met. The use of CATIA and PANAIR is of great help here as one tool gives the pitching moment and neutral point, and the other gives the center of gravity. As always when working with theoretical models, validation is needed before the result can be trusted. The PANAIR code was developed for larger manned aircraft and is not necessarily the ideal tool for MAV design. A correlation with wind tunnel data is needed. It should be clearly pointed out that this paper is demonstrating the possibilities when combining CAD with panel code in design automation. PANAIR could easily be replaced with a different code more suitable for the task. Preferably CFD should be used for aerodynamics calculations, but still that is far too computationally heavy to use in optimization. It would however be interesting to use CFD as a last step of the design automation to get a better view of the final aerodynamics.

Lundstrm, D., Krus, P., Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Optimization Using Mixed Discrete and Continuous Variables, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 2 Amadori, K., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Use of Panel Code Modelling in a Framework for Aircraft Concept Optimization, 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Sept. 2006, Portsmouth, VA, USA 3 Amadori, K., Johansson, B., Krus, P., Uing CAD Tools and Aerodynamic Codes in a Distributed Conceptual Design Framework, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan. 2007, Reno, NV, USA 4 Johansson, B., Jouannet, C., Krus, P., Distributed Aircraft Analysis Using Web Service Technology, World Aviation Congress & Exposition, Linkping, 2003.

References

Distributed Framework for Micro Aerial Vehicle Design Automation 87 Tsalgatidou A. and Pilioura T., "An Overview of Standards and Related Technology in Web Services", Distributed and Parallel Databases, 12, 2002. 6 F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag: Practical Information on Aerodynamic Drag and Hydrodynamic Resistance, Midland Park, N.J. 1965 7 M. Hepperle, Java Prop - propeller analysis, URL: www.mh-aerotools.de 8 D. Lawrence, K. Mohseni, Efficiency Analysis for Long-Duration Electric MAVs, AIAA Infotech Aerospace, Arlington, Virginia, September, 26-28, 2005, AIAA 20057090 9 Jouannet, C., Silva, S.E.R., Krus, P., Use Of CAD For Weight Estimation In Aircraft Conceptual Design, 24th International Congress Of The Aeronautical Sciences, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2004. 10 Erikson, L.L., Panel Methods An Introduction, NASA Technical Paper 2995, 1990 11 Andersson, J., Design Optimization, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden, 2005. 12 Krus, P., Andersson, J., An Information Theoretical Perspective On Design Optimization, Design Engineering Technical Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2004. 13 Krus, P., Andersson, J., Optimizing Optimization for Design Optimization, DETC03 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 2003. 14 www.thermal-eye.com 15 www.micropilot.com
5