完整参考内容star文章类优化mf01_10_fluid1.ppt

Transonic/Supersonic Multi-Objective Optimisation of X31 Wing Planform Transonic/Supersonic Multi-Objective Optimisation of X31 Wing Planform J.Grashof EADS-M, Aerodynamic Simulation, Ottobrunn, Germany (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, Military Aircraft) The present study has been carried out within the EU funded project AEROSHAPE and is presented with the agreement of the partners and the Commission. Contents X31 configuration, wing optimisation objectives Wing parameterisation, output quantities Computational grid, flow solver Multi-objective evolution methods MOGA and MMES modeFRONTIER process flow chart, RSM tests Optimisations by MMES, SMOGA and FMOGA Selected optima Conclusions Appendix: SCT study, handling of constraints X31 experimental fighter aircraft (USA/Germany) X31 Thrust vectoring X31 Example for high manoeuvre performance: the “Herbst curve” Two design points have been chosen. 1. Transonic case:M=0.7, H=6 km, cL=0.95 (reasonable sustained turning rate, i.e. n=3.5g with a stagnation pressure of q=16,197N/m2).This results in an angle-of-attack of a=17o, a value fixed for the transonic case. The flap deflection will be fixed at 0o. Objective: the lift force, i.e. cL? Areaorig, instead of cL. . Optimisation Objectives 2. Supersonic case:M=1.4, H=10 km, cL=0.07 (n=1g, q=36,363 N/m2). Objective: the lift force, i.e. cL? Areaorig, instead of cL. Lift achieved by both the wing incidence ? and the flap setting ? used for trimming in order to reach a moment coefficient of cM?0. Unrealistic planforms avoided for the present wing-alone case: cM -condition replaced by a weaker constraint (main trimming of the complete aircraft achieved by the canard not simulated at present). Reference axis for cM at center of gravity, i.e. 2.9m downstream of the wing apex. Additional objective: minimize the drag coefficient c D. Optimisation Objectives Parameterisation c = ED: 4.8 to 7.0 m, za: 1.20 to 3.63 m, dxbc = BC : 0.26