Affiliation:
1. Zienkiewicz Centre for Computational Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
2. Visual and Interactive Computing Group, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
3. Reaction Engines Ltd., Culham OX14 3DB, UK
Abstract
In this paper, an optimisation procedure is introduced that uses a significantly cheaper, and CFD-free, objective function for aerodynamic optimisation than conventional CFD-driven approaches. Despite the reduced computational cost, we show that this approach can still drive the optimisation scheme towards a design with a similar reduction in drag coefficient for wave drag-dominated problems. The approach used is ‘CFD-free’, i.e., it does not require any computational aerodynamic analysis. It can be applied to geometries discretised using meshes more conventionally used for ‘standard’ CFD-based optimisation approaches. The approach outlined in this paper makes use of the transonic area rule and its supersonic extension, exploiting a mesh-based parameterisation and mesh morphing methodology. The paper addresses the following question: ‘To what extent can an optimiser perform (wave) drag minimisation if using ‘area ruling’ alone as the objective (fitness) function measurement?’. A summary of the wave drag approximation in transonic and supersonic regimes is outlined along with the methodology for exploiting this theory on a typical CFD surface mesh to construct an objective function evaluation for a given geometry. The implementation is presented including notes on the considerations required to ensure stability, and error minimisation, of the numerical scheme. The paper concludes with the results from a number of (simple and complex geometry) examples of a drag-minimisation optimisation study and the results are compared with an approach using full-fidelity CFD simulation. The overall conclusions from this study suggest that the approach presented is capable of driving a geometry towards a similar shape to when using full-fidelity CFD at a significantly lower computational cost. However, it cannot account for any constraints, driven by other aerodynamic factors, that might be present within the problem.
Reference31 articles.
1. Jameson, A., and Vassberg, J. (2001, January 8–11). Computational fluid dynamics for aerodynamic design-Its current and future impact. Proceedings of the 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA.
2. Jameson, A. (September, January 30). Efficient aerodynamic shape optimization. Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Albany, NY, USA.
3. Aerodynamic shape optimization of a Reno race plane;Vassberg;Int. J. Veh. Des.,2002
4. Viscous single and multicomponent airfoil design with genetic algorithms;Quagliarella;Finite Elem. Anal. Des.,2001
5. A novel implementation of computational aerodynamic shape optimisation using modified cuckoo search;Naumann;Appl. Math. Modell.,2016