Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T13:38:49.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sequential use of conceptual MDO and panel sizing methods for aircraft wing design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

R. Butler ,
M. Lillico ,
J. R. Banerjee ,
M. H. Patel  and
G. T. S. Done
R. Butler
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath Bath, UK
M. Lillico
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath Bath, UK
J. R. Banerjee
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, City University, London, UK
M. H. Patel
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, City University, London, UK
G. T. S. Done
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, City University, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The optimisation results for composite and metallic versions of a regional aircraft wing are compared using the multidisciplinary optimisation (MDO) program CALFUNOPT. The program has been developed for the conceptual design stage and models the wing using just 11 beam elements. The wing has been optimised for three combinations of the following constraint cases: static strength; aeroelastic roll efficiency (represented by limiting the twist of the wing for an aileron loading) and aeroelastic divergence. As expected, comparison shows that the composite wing designs are significantly lighter than the metallic ones, due to the well-known tailoring of the composite material. However, the simple model reveals some insight that may be useful to the designer, and which could be lost within a more detailed finite element approach.

The upper-skin compression panels produced by the conceptual MDO program, for both versions of the wing, have then been optimised using the more detailed and accurate panel sizing tool VICONOPT, which takes buckling into account. Such optimisation increases the panel mass by 5-10% and also provides a suitable ratio of stiffener to skin area for use in the conceptual MDO model.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1026 , August 1999 , pp. 389 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1999 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lillico, M., Butler, R., Guo, S. and Banerjee, J.R. Aeroelastic optimisation of composite wings using the Dynamic Stiffness Method, Aero J, 1997,101, (1002), pp 77–86.Google Scholar
2. Butler, R., Hansson, E., Lillico, M. and van dalen, F. Comparison of MDO codes for use in conceptual and preliminary aircraft wing design, 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization Symposium, 1998, pp. 1164–1171.Google Scholar
3. Wilkinson, K., Markowitz, J., Lerner, E., George, D. and Batill, S.M. Fastop: a flutter and strength optimization program for lifting-surface structures, J Aircr, 1977,14, (6), pp 581–587.Google Scholar
4. Austin, F., Hadock, R., Hutching, D., Sharp, D., Tang, S., and Waters, S. Aeroelastic tailoring of advanced composite lifting surfaces in preliminary design, 17th AIAA/ASME/SAE Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 1976, pp 69–79.Google Scholar
5. Neill, D.J., Johnson, E.H., and Canfield, R. ASTROS — A multidisciplinary automated structural design tool, J Aircr, 1990, 27, (12), pp 1021–1027.Google Scholar
6. Bartholomew, P., and Wellen, W.K. Computer-aided optimisation of aircraft structures, J Aircr, 1990, 27, (12), pp 1079–1086.Google Scholar
7. Bråmå, T. The structural optimization system OPTSYS, International series of numerical mathematics, 1993, pp 187–206.Google Scholar
8. Cornuault, C., Petiau, C., Coiffier, B. and Paret, A. Structural optimisation of aircraft: practice and trends, 72nd Meeting of the AGARD structures and materials Panel, 1991, pp 14-1–14-11.Google Scholar
9. Butler, R. and Williams, F. W. Optimum design using VICONOPT, a buckling and strength constraint program for prismatic assemblies of anisotropic plates, Comp Stru, 1992,43, (4), pp 699–708.Google Scholar
10. Fransen, S.H.J.A. Conceptual design of a 70 passenger airliner propelled by fuel-efficient turbo-fan engines, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Memorandum M-725, March 1996.Google Scholar
11. Diederich, F.W. A simple approximate method for calculating spanwise lift distributions and aerodynamic influence coefficients at subsonic speeds, NACA TN-2751, 1952.Google Scholar
12. Van dalen, F. and Rothwell, A. ADAS structures Module; User's manual, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Memorandum M-709, May 1995.Google Scholar
13. Butler, R. Optimum design of composite stiffened wing panels — A parametric study, Aeronaut J, 1995, 99, (985), pp 169–177.Google Scholar
14. Shirk, M.H., Hertz, T.J. and Weisshaar, T.A. Aeroelastic tailoring —theory, practice and promise, J Aircr, 1986, 23, (1), pp 6–18.Google Scholar