Airfoil Geometry Parameterization through

Shape Optimizer and Computational Fluid

Dynamics
Manas Khurana
The Sir Lawrence Wackett Aerospace Centre
RMIT University
Melbourne - Australia

46
th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit
7
th
10
th
January, 2008
Grand Sierra Resort Reno, Nevada
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Role of UAVs
Research Motivation & Goals
o Design of MM-UAV
o Current Design Status

Direct Numerical Optimization
Airfoil Geometry Shape Parameterisation
o Test Methodology & Results
Flow Solver
o Selection, Validation & Results Analysis
Optimization
o Airfoil Analysis

Summary / Conclusion
Questions
www.airliners.net
I-view: www.defense-update.com
Introduction
Multi-Mission UAVs
Cost Effective;
Designed for Single Missions;
Critical Issues and Challenges;
Demand to Address a Broader Customer Base;
Multi Mission UAV is a Promising Solution; and
Provide Greater Mission Effectiveness

Research Motivation & Goals
Project Goal - Design of a Multi-Mission UAV; and
Research Goal Intelligent Airfoil Optimisation
o Design Mission Segment Based Airfoil
o Morphing Airfoils
Pegasus: www.NorthropGrumman.com
X-45: www.Boeing.com
RMIT University: Preliminary RC-MM-UAV
Design Concept
Aerodynamic Optimisation
Design Methodology
Direct Numerical Optimisation
o Geometrical Parameterization Model;
and
o Validation of Flow Solver
Coupling of the two Methods
Swarm Intelligence Optimization

Neural Networks
DNO Computationally Demanding;
Development of an ANN within DNO;
and
Integrate Optimisation Algorithm within
the ANN Architecture
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Geometric Representation Technique Features
Key Requirements
Flexibility and Accuracy;
Cover Wide Design Window with Few
Variables;
Generate Smooth & Realistic Shapes;
Provide Independent Geometry Control;
Application of Constraints for Shape
Optimization; and
Computationally Efficient

Approaches
Discrete Approach;
Shape Transformations: Conformal
Mapping;
Polynomial Representations; and
Shape Functions added to Base-Line Profile
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Discrete Approach
x/c
y
/
c
Airfoil Shape Transformations
Conformal Mapping Approach
Computationally In-Expensive;
Joukowski & Krmn-Trefftz
Transformations;
Transformation from Complex to -Plane;
and
Five Shape Parameters
xc - Thickness
yc - Camber towards leading edge
xt - Thickness towards trailing edge
yt - Camber towards trailing edge
n - Trailing edge angle

Conformal Mapping Restrictions
Limited Design Window;
Divergent Trailing Edge Airfoils not
possible; and
Failure to Capture Optimal Solution
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Camber Variation
x/c
y
/
c
2
4
6
8
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Conformal Mapping Approach
Re(s)
I
m
(
s
)
z
z'
Airfoil
Airfoil Shape Functions
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Bernstein Polynomials
x
y
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Hicks-Henne Shape Functions
x
y
NACA 0015 Analytic Function

=
+ =
n
i
i i
Airfoil
Initial i
x f x y x y
1
) ( ) ( ) , (
Introduction
Analytical Approach;
Control over Design Variables;
Cover Large Design Window;
Linearly Added to a Baseline Shape;




Participating Coefficient act as Design
Variables (
i
); and
Optimization Study to Evaluate Parameters
Population & Shape Functions

=
+ =
n
i
i i
Airfoil
Initial i
x f x y x y
1
) ( ) ( ) , (
i

Optimization
Shape Function Convergence Criteria
Convergence Measure Requirements
Flexibility & Accuracy; and
Library of Target Airfoils

Geometrical Convergence Process
Specify Base & Target Airfoil;
Select Shape Function;
Model Upper & Lower Surfaces;
Design Variable Population Size (2:10);
Perturbation of Design Variables;
Record Fitness - Geometrical Difference
of Target and Approximated Section;


Aggregate of Total Fitness; and
Geometrical Fitness vs. Aerodynamic
Performance
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Comparison of Airfoil Shape Configuration for Geometrical Shape Parameterisation
x/c
y
/
c
Base: NACA 0015
Target 1: NASA LRN(1)-1007
Target 2: NASA LS(1)-0417Mod
Target 3: NASA NLF(1)-1015
0.58c
0.2c
0.45c
0.010c
Camber
Location
0.022 0.3c 17% Target 2: NASA LS(1)-0417Mod
0.06 0.4c 7% Target 1: NASA LRN(1)-1007
0 0.3c 12% Base: NACA 0012
0.4c
Thickness
Location
0.047
Max.
Camber
15% Target 3: NASA NLF(1)-1015
t/c Airfoil
0.58c
0.2c
0.45c
0.010c
Camber
Location
0.022 0.3c 17% Target 2: NASA LS(1)-0417Mod
0.06 0.4c 7% Target 1: NASA LRN(1)-1007
0 0.3c 12% Base: NACA 0012
0.4c
Thickness
Location
0.047
Max.
Camber
15% Target 3: NASA NLF(1)-1015
t/c Airfoil
] ) / ( ) / ( [
. arg min i approx i et t
c x f c x f abs f = A
Intelligent Search Agent Particle Swarm Optimization
Swarm Approach-
Models Natural Flocks and Movement
of Swarms;
Quick, Efficient and Simple
Implementation;
Ideal for Non-Convex Discontinuous
Problems;
Solution Governed by Position of
Particle within N-dimensional Space;
Each Particle Records Personal
Fitness p
best
;
Best Global Fitness g
best
;
Velocity & Position Updates based on
Global Search Pattern; and
Convergence Particles Unite at
Common Location
-J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle Swarm Optimization, presented
at IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, 1995.
Algorithm
1. Initialise Particle Swarm
2. Initialise Particle Velocities
3. Evaluate Fitness of Each Particle
4. Update according to:
i. Velocity Update
ii. Position Update
5. Repeat until Convergence Satisfied
Particle Swarm Optimization Set Up
PSO Structure / Inputs Definition
Velocity Update:


Position Update:

S
P
S
O

o 0.1-10% of
N
DIM


o c
1
= 2
o c
2
= 2

0.1-10% of N
DIM

| w Facilitates Global Search
+ w Facilitates Local Search
Determine pull of p
best
& g
best

c
1
Personal Experience
c
2
Swarm Experience
A
-
P
S
O

o 0.1-10% of N
DIM


Maximum Velocity
Inertia Weight (w):
o c
1
= 2
o c
2
= 2

Scaling Factors
Cognitive & Social
(c
1
& c
2
)
;
4 2
2
w
2

=
2 1
c c + = where
c +

=
ij ij
ij
best best
best ij
g p
p x
ij
ISA
|
.
|

\
|
+
=

ij
ISA ij
e
w
1
1
1 o
Standard vs. Adaptive PSO
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) k x P rand c k x P rand c k v w k v
i g i i i i
+ + = +
2 1
1
( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 + + = + k v k x k x
i i i
Particle Swarm Optimizer Search Agents
Particle Swarm Optimizer - Function Test
( ) | |

=
+
+ =
1
1
2 2
1
2
1 ) ( 100 ) (
n
i
i i i
x x x x f
n i x
i
,..., 2 , 1 , 100 100 = s s
0 ) ( ), 1 ,..., 1 (
* *
= = x f X
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10
-5
0
5
10
0
5
10
15
x 10
5
x
Rosenbrock Function
y
z
30 15 s s
i
x
Definition:


Search Domain:


Initialization Range:


Global Minima (Fitness):
Velocity Fitness Fitness
Low Velocity = Low Fitness
Particle Swarm Optimizer - Function Test
Definition:


Search Domain:


Initialization Range:


Global Minima (Fitness):
0 ) ( ), 1 ,..., 1 (
* *
= = x f X

=
=
n
i
i i
x x n x f
1
) sin ( 9829 . 418 ) (
n i x
i
,..., 2 , 1 , 500 500 = s s
500 250 s s
i
x
Velocity Fitness Fitness
Low Velocity = Low Fitness
Shape Parameterization Results
Summary of Results
Measure of Geometrical Difference
Hicks-Henne Most Favorable
Legendre Polynomials
Computationally Not Viable
Aerodynamic Coefficients
Convergence

1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Shape Function
C
o
s
t
Magnitude of Cost Function
Bernstein
Hicks-Henne
Legendre
NACA
Wagner
Geometrical Convergence Plots /
Animations

s

Hicks-Henne Geometrical
Convergence

s Bernstein Geometrical
Convergence
Aerodynamic Convergence Plots /
Animations

s

Hicks-Henne Aerodynamic
Convergence

s Bernstein Aerodynamic
Convergence
Shape Functions Limitations
Polynomial Function Limitation
Local Shape Information;
No Direct Geometry Relationship;
NURBS Require Many Control Points; and
Lead to Undulating Curves
PARSEC Airfoil Representation-
6
th
Order Polynomial;




Eleven Variables
Equations Developed as a Function of
Airfoil Geometry; and
Direct Geometry Relationship
-H. Sobieczky, Parametric Airfoil and Wings, in: Notes on Numerical
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 68, pp. 71-88, 1998
1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Shape Functions
F
i
t
n
e
s
s

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Bernstein
Hicks-Henne
PARSEC
Legendre
NACA
Wagner
Fitness Magnitude of Shape Functions
2
1
6
1
=
=

=
n
n
n PARSEC
X a Z
PARSEC Airfoils
PARSEC Aerodynamic Convergence
Convergence to Target Lift Curve Slope Convergence to Target Drag Polar
Convergence to Target Moment Convergence to Target L/D
-5 0 5 10 15 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
o()
C
L
Target
Hicks-Henne
PARSEC
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
C
D
C
L
Target
Hicks-Henne
PARSEC
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.11
-0.1
-0.09
-0.08
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
o()
C
M
Target
Hicks-Henne
PARSEC
-5 0 5 10 15 20
0
50
100
150
o()
L
/
D
Target
Hicks-Henne
PARSEC
PARSEC Design Variables Definition
Effect of Y
UP
on PARSEC Airfoil Aerodynamics
Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient Moment Coefficient Lift-to-Drag Ratio
Effect of Y
UP
on PARSEC Airfoil Geometry
Y
UP

Nose Radius
t/c Camber
Low Y
UP
= Good C
D
Performance
Shape Function Modifications
Airfoil Surface Bumps-
Aerodynamic Performance Improvements;
Rough Airfoils Outperform Smooth Sections at Low R
e
;
Control Flow Separation;
Passive & Active Methods for Bypass Transition;
Reduction in Turbulence Intensity; and
Bumps Delay Separation Point

Shape Functions - Further Developments
Local Curvature Control;
Roughness in Line with Boundary Layer Height; and
Control over Non-Linear Flow Features
Airfoil Surface Bumps to Assist Flow Reattachment-
-Source: A. Santhanakrishnan and J. Jacob, Effect of Regular Surface
Perturbations on Flow Over an Airfoil, - University of Kentucky, AIAA-2005-5145
Ideal Surface-
Bumpy Surface-
Flow Solver Computational Fluid Dynamics
Laminar Turbulent
6,000 Maximum Iteration Count
1.0 x 10
-6
Residual Solution Convergence
0.32 Flow Mach Number
Turbulence Intensity = 0.5%; Viscosity Ratio = 5
Turbulence Intensity = 2%; Viscosity Ratio = 20
Boundary Conditions:
Inlet
Pressure Outlet
Air as an Ideal Gas Flow Medium
6.0 x 10
6
Reynolds Number
k-e & SA Turbulence Modeling
Viscous Model
Second Order Upwind Discretization Scheme
1.055 Wall Cell Intervals
96,000 Total Mesh Size (approx.)
Segregated Implicit Formulation of RANS
Energy Equations also Solved
Solver
~1 Wall y
+
Range (approx.)
80 Circumferential Lines
100 Radial Lines
2D Structured C-Type Mesh
6,000 Maximum Iteration Count
1.0 x 10
-6
Residual Solution Convergence
0.32 Flow Mach Number
Turbulence Intensity = 0.5%; Viscosity Ratio = 5
Turbulence Intensity = 2%; Viscosity Ratio = 20
Boundary Conditions:
Inlet
Pressure Outlet
Air as an Ideal Gas Flow Medium
6.0 x 10
6
Reynolds Number
k-e & SA Turbulence Modeling
Viscous Model
Second Order Upwind Discretization Scheme
1.055 Wall Cell Intervals
96,000 Total Mesh Size (approx.)
Segregated Implicit Formulation of RANS
Energy Equations also Solved
Solver
~1 Wall y
+
Range (approx.)
80 Circumferential Lines
100 Radial Lines
2D Structured C-Type Mesh
Flow Solver Validation Case 1: NASA LS(1)0417 Mod
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Fixed Boundary Layer Transition: Lift Curve Slope
o()
C
L
Exp
CFD
0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Fixed Boundary Layer Transition: Drag Polar
C
D
C
L
Exp
CFD
Validation Data
C
P
Agreement at AOA 10;
Lift & Drag Convergence over Linear
AOA;
Lift ~ 2% ; Drag ~ 5%;
Solution Divergence at Stall; and
Fluid Separation Zone Effectively
Captures Boundary Layer Transition
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Fixed Transition C
P
Distribution Comparison: Re=6.0e6, Mach=0.32
x/c
C
P
Exp
CFD
Flow Solver Validation Case 2: NACA 0012
Validation Data
C
P
Agreement at AOA 11;
Lift & Drag Convergence over Linear
AOA;
Lift ~ 5% ; Drag ~ 7%;
Solution Divergence at Stall; and
Fluid Separation Zone Effectively
Captures Boundary Layer Transition
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
NACA 0012 - Fixed Boundary Layer Transition Lift Curve Slope
o()
C
L


Exp.
CFD
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
x/c
C
P
NACA 0012 - Fixed Boundary Layer Transition C
P
Distribution: Re = 6.0e6, Mach 0.35


Exp.
CFD
0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02 0.022
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
NACA 0012 - Fixed Boundary Layer Transition Drag Polar
C
D
C
L
Exp.
CFD
Sample Optimization Run
Objective Function
o = 2
C
L
= 0.40
Minimize C
D

Optimizer Inputs Final Solution
Swarm Size = 20 Particles
r
LE
= [0.001 , 0.04] 0.0368
Y
TE
= [-0.02 , 0.02] 0.0127
T
eg
= [-2.0 , -25] -19.5
T
EW
= [3.0 , 40.0] 29.10
X
UP
= [0.30 , 0.60] 0.4581
Y
UP
= [0.07 , 0.12] 0.0926
Y
XXU
= [-1.0 , 0.2] -0.2791
X
L
= [0.20 , 0.60] 0.5120
Y
L
= [-0.12 , -0.07] -0.1083
Y
XXL
= [0.2 , 1.20] 0.6949

Results
t/c = 20%
C
L
= 0.4057
C
D
= 0.0069
Total Iterations = 29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
Optimization History Plot
Optimization History Plot
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Airfoil Optimization
x/c
y
/
c
Final Airfoil Shape
Aerodynamic Coefficient Database Artificial Neural Networks
Artificial Neural Networks Airfoil Training Database
Geometrical Inputs;
Aerodynamic Coefficient/s Output/s
-
;
Set-up of Transfer Function within the Hidden Layer; and
Output RMS Evaluation
Coefficient of Lift NN Structure Coefficient of Drag NN Structure Coefficient of Moment NN Structure
-R. Greenman and K. Roth Minimizing Computational Data Requirements for Multi-Element Airfoils
Using Neural Networks, in: Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 777-784 September-October 1999
Coupling of ANN & Swarm Algorithm
Conclusion
Geometry Parameterisation Method
Six Shape Functions Tested;
Particle Swarm Optimizer Validated / Utilized;
SOMs for Design Variable Definition; and
PARSEC Method for Shape Representation

Flow Solver
RANS Solver with Structured C-Grid;
Transition Points Integrated;
Acceptable Solution Agreement; and
Transition Modeling and DES for High-Lift
Flows

Airfoil Optimization
Direct PSO Computationally Demanding; and
ANN to Reduce Computational Data
www.cosmosmagazine.com www.mathworks.com
Acknowledgements
Viscovery Software GmbH
[http://www.viscovery.net/]
Mr. Bernhard Kuchinka
Kindly provided a trial copy of Viscovery SOMine