8th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conference

Jia Xu, Ilan Kroo Aircraft Design Group Stanford University

Boeing Sugar Volt (Bradley and Droney, 2011)

Aerodynamic Features Very high span Natural laminar flow

Structural Enablers Active load alleviation Strut-braced wings

Assumed transition Reynolds number: 15-17 million

15-25% wing weight reduction from active load alleviation

Incorporate active load alleviation and natural laminar flow into conceptual design

Motivation Use active control to increase effective structural efficiency Invest structural savings to enable natural laminar flow

Natural Laminar Flow

Active Load Alleviation

Design Optimization Design Studies Conclusion

NLF can produce 5-12% fuel burn savings (Joslin 1998, Green 2008, Allison 2010) Performance subject to multidisciplinary tradeoffs Wing sweep is a critical trade at transonic speed

Suppress streamwise TollmienSchlichting (TS) instabilities

Balance TS, Cross Flow (CF) and attachment line instabilities

40 35 30 25

Active LFC

Sweep (Deg)

20 15 10 5

NLF Region

0
0 10 20 30 Transition Reynolds Number (Million) 40

Adopted from Rajnarayan and Sturdza (2011)

40 35 30 25

Active LFC

Sweep (Deg)

20 15 10 5

NLF Region

0
0 10 20 30 Transition Reynolds Number (Million) 40

40 35 30 25

Active LFC

Sweep (Deg)

20 15 10 5

NLF Region

0
0 10 20 30 Transition Reynolds Number (Million) 40

40 35 30 25

Active LFC

Sweep (Deg)

20 15 10 5

NLF Region

0
0 10 20 30 Transition Reynolds Number (Million) 40

Slow down
Potentially increased direct operating cost (DOC) Challenge for air traffic control (ATC)

Increase structural efficiency

Strut/truss braced wing (Gur et al., 2010) Active load alleviation

Natural Laminar Flow

Active Load Alleviation

Design Optimization Design Studies Conclusion

Reduce wing stresses under limit conditions Maneuver Load Alleviation (MLA)

Respond to commanded pseudo-static maneuvers

Gust Load Alleviation (GLA)

Respond to unanticipated atmospheric turbulence Performance limited by sensor and actuator bandwidths

Maneuver lift

Maneuver lift with MLA

1-Cosine gust (FAR Part 25)

3 gust encounter flight conditions 8 gust gradient lengths from 35 to 600 ft Simulations include both aircraft and wing structural dynamics

GLA system use control surface deflections to reduce dynamic stresses in gust encounters Dynamic control problem

Natural Laminar Flow

Active Load Alleviation

Design Optimization Design Studies Conclusion

Program for Aircraft Synthesis Studies (Kroo, 1992) Extended for aeroservoelastic design

Weissinger panel method with compressibility corrections to model loads and stability derivatives

Linear hexagonal wing box model for stress and loadbearing weight calculations
Aircraft dynamic simulation and FEM/modal solution of structure dynamic response Inverse wing design module with boundary layer solver and transition model

Weissinger method with compressibility corrections to model loads

Linear hexagonal wing box for stress and load-bearing weight calculations

Aircraft dynamic simulation and modal solution of dynamic structural response

Inverse wing design with integral boundary layer and transition model

Weissinger method with compressibility corrections to model loads

Linear hexagonal wing box for stress and load-bearing weight calculations

Aircraft dynamic simulation and modal solution of dynamic structural response

Inverse wing design with integral boundary layer and transition model

Weissinger method with compressibility corrections to model loads

Linear hexagonal wing box for stress and load-bearing weight calculations

Aircraft dynamic simulation and modal solution of dynamic structural response

Inverse wing design with integral boundary layer and transition model

Weissinger method with compressibility corrections to model loads

Linear hexagonal wing box for stress and load-bearing weight calculations

Aircraft dynamic simulation and modal solution of dynamic structural response

Inverse wing design with integral boundary layer and transition model

30 aerodynamic control points along the semi-span Static stress constraints:

Lumped mass FEM with linear modal decomposition Dynamic stress constraints:

MLA flap deflections are variables:

Proportional-derivative GLA control law Control gains are variables: Deflection and rate bounds

Method of critical sections Maximum lift constraints at control point span stations:

Thin, high span wing is prone to aileron reversal Aileron effectiveness constraint:

Strip method to integrate aileron-induced wing torsion

Define Cp distributions at exposed sections Exposed root section is forced to be turbulent Use sweep/taper theory to relate 2D to 3D pressure Similar to Campbell (1990) and Allison et al. (2010)

Cdc correlated to peak Mach number (Allison et al., 2010)

Solve airfoil geometry from Cp distribution Apply geometry constraints:

Integral boundary layer with compressibility corrections Transition location is posed as a design variable Predict transition using HR-x criteria (Wazzan, 1986) Cdp from the Squire-Young equation (Smith, 1980)

Gradient-based optimization

Motivated by the large number of design variables Cost estimated using an extended ATA method (Thomas, 1966; Liebeck et al. 1995 )

Objective

Aircraft and Mission (11)

Takeoff weight, engine thrust, tail area Initial and final cruise altitudes Takeoff and landing flap Trapezoidal wing area, sweep, AR, taper and root position Twist and wing box geometry at breakpoints Pressure distribution and x-transition at breakpoints

Wing Geometry (33)

Wing Inverse Design (40)

MLA (8)

MLA control surface deflections

GLA control channel gains

GLA (8)

Aircraft and Mission (31)

Range Balanced takeoff and landing field performance 2nd segment climb gradient Thrust margin for operational climb Trim, tail maximum lift Stability at all flight conditions Weight and load factor compatibility Landing gear geometry and load compatibility Aileron effectiveness Wing fuel volume

Stress and Maximum Lift (~50,000)

Wing maximum lift for all flight conditions Wing stresses in cruise, maneuver and gust

Inverse Design (40)

Wing box geometry compatibility Section Cl compatibility Recovery Mach number limits Transition location compatibility

Natural Laminar Flow Active Load Alleviation Design Optimization Design Studies Conclusion

Boeing 737-type aircraft

162 passengers (3-Class) Mach 0.78 2000-nm range Aluminum construction CFM56-7B class turbofan Field length (7800/5600 ft)

Turbulent Laminar

Wing sweep of up to 40 degrees Forced transition at 5% chord

Wing sweep restricted to less than 10 degrees Free transition on upper surface Forced transition on lower surface at 5% chord

Top surface produce most of the viscous drag Contaminants and slat gaps

Laminar No Alleviation

Turbulent

MLA

GLA

MLA+GLA

Laminar No Alleviation

Turbulent

MLA

GLA

MLA+GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Turbulent

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

Reference design at Mach 0.78

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Turbulent

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Turbulent Turbulent MLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Turbulent Turbulent MLA Turbulent GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Turbulent Turbulent MLA Turbulent GLA Turbulent MLA+ GLA

Laminar No Alleviation

Turbulent

MLA

GLA

MLA+GLA

Laminar No Alleviation

Turbulent

MLA

GLA

MLA+GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Laminar Laminar MLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Laminar Laminar MLA Laminar GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Laminar Laminar MLA Laminar GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

Laminar No Alleviation

Turbulent

MLA

GLA

MLA+GLA

Laminar No Alleviation

Turbulent

MLA

GLA

MLA+GLA

1.3 1.2
Relative Value

Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

1.3 1.2
Relative Value

Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight

-15%

-5%

Fuel Weight

Sea Level Thrust

L/ D

Cost

1.3 1.2
Relative Value

Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

Weight versus aerodynamics

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar Laminar MLA+ GLA

Up to 25 degrees of wing sweep Assume that crossflow can be stabilized with no adverse effect on T-S stability Optimistic model for 3-D NLF wing

1.04 1.02

Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Laminar MLA+ GLA Laminar 25 MLA+ GLA

Natural Laminar Flow

Active Load Alleviation

Design Optimization Design Studies

Conclusion

MLA and GLA are complementary

Turbulent MLA+GLA achieves 10% fuel reduction

Laminar MLA+GLA achieves 15% fuel reduction

The combination enables low-sweep NLF wings

Low-sweep MLA+GLA designs can serve as alternatives to crossflow-dominated NLF designs

Aerodynamics
Unsteady aerodynamics Flutter and its suppression

Control
Sensors Control power and control allocation

Allison, Eric. Kroo, I., Aircraft Conceptual Design with Laminar Flow, 2010 Ning, S. and Kroo, I., Multidisciplinary Considerations in the Design of Wings and Wing Tip Devices, Journal of Aircraft, 2010 Rajnarayan, D. Sturdza, P., Extensible Rapid Transition Prediction for Aircraft Conceptual Design. 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2011 Wakayama, S. and Kroo, I., Subsonic Wing Planform Design Using Multidisciplinary Optimization, Journal of Aircraft, 1995

Xu, J, Kroo. I., Aircraft Design with Maneuver and Gust Load Alleviation, 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2011

Laminar MLA+GLA MTOW (lb) SLS Thrust (lb) L/D Fuel Burn (lb) 150920

Laminar-25 MLA+GLA Delta 149140 -1.2%

18128 21 22169

18050 21 21915 4.82

-0.4% 0.5% -1.1% -0.8%

DOC (c/pax/nm) 4.86

1.3 1.2

Laminar Laminar 25

Relative Value

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

1.3 1.2

Laminar Laminar 25

Relative Value

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

Turbulent Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

Reduced t/c due to wing unsweep

Inboard t/c constrained by compressibility and NLF

Aeroelastic constraints increase outboard t/c

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0 5 10 15 Allowable Load Control Deflection (Deg)

Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0 10 20 30 40 Load Control Deflection Rate (Deg/ s)

Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number

Turbulent MLA+ GLA Laminar MLA+ GLA Laminar Bottom Surface

1.04 1.02
Relative Cost

1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 Cruise Mach Number
Laminar MLA+ GLA GLA with aileron

1.3 1.2
Relative Value

Turbulent MLA+ GLA Gate constrained

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

1.3 1.2
Relative Value

Laminar MLA+ GLA Gate constrained

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

1.3 1.2
Relative Value

Turbulent Gate constrained

1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Wing Weight Fuel Weight Sea Level Thrust L/ D Cost

Long wave gusts

High amplitudes Aircraft can rise with the gust

Short wave gusts

Low amplitudes Much faster than typical wing natural frequency Can rate-saturate control actuators