Interactive Inverse Design Optimization of Fuselage Shape for Low-Boom Supersonic Concepts

Li, Wu; Shields, Elwood; Le, Daniel

doi:10.2514/6.2008-136

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mixed-fidelity design process is a refinement of the low-fidelity low-boom design process, which is described in reference [1], by including automated CFD analysis. The details for the automated CFD analysis process can be found in reference [2].…”

Section: Mixed-fidelity Low-boom Fuselage Shaping Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mixed-fidelity approach is based on two recent advances in supersonic concept design and analysis capabilities: the inverse design optimization of low-boom supersonic concepts with smoothest fuselage shape modifications [1] and the integration of automated CFD analysis in conceptual design of supersonic aircraft [2]. The first capability allows one to reshape the fuselage smoothly to obtain a configuration with an A e distribution that matches a low-boom target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Automated CFD analysis allows a low-boom concept that has been designed by using low-fidelity analyses to be refined by revealing the additional characteristics in the A e distribution that could not be detected by the low-fidelity analyses. The mixed-fidelity approach integrates the CFD A e analysis into the fuselage shaping process that is documented in reference [1] to refine the low-fidelity design so that the CFD A e distribution of the refined design is closer to a low-boom target A e . Several refinement steps may be necessary to obtain a configuration with a CFD A e distribution that is as close to the low-boom target A e as possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Shields

Geiselhart

2011

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents a mixed-fidelity approach for the design of low-boom supersonic aircraft as a viable approach for designing a practical low-boom supersonic configuration. A low-boom configuration that is based on low-fidelity analysis is used as the baseline. Tail lift is included to help tailor the aft portion of the ground signature. A comparison of low-and high-fidelity analysis results demonstrates the necessity of using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis in a low-boom supersonic configuration design process. The fuselage shape is modified iteratively to obtain a configuration with a CFD equivalent-area distribution that matches a predetermined low-boom target distribution. The mixed-fidelity approach can easily refine the low-fidelity low-boom baseline into a low-boom configuration with the use of CFD equivalent-area analysis. The ground signature of the final configuration is calculated by using a state-of-the-art CFD-based boom analysis method that generates accurate midfield pressure distributions for propagation to the ground with ray tracing. The ground signature that is propagated from a midfield pressure distribution has a shaped ramp front, which is similar to the ground signature that is propagated from the CFD equivalent-area distribution. This result confirms the validity of the low-boom supersonic configuration design by matching a low-boom equivalent-area target, which is easier to accomplish than matching a low-boom midfield pressure target. * NomenclatureA e = equivalent area dp/p = (the calculated pressure -the ambient pressure)/(the ambient pressure)

show abstract

Section: Mixed-fidelity Low-boom Fuselage Shaping Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Shields

Geiselhart

2011

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To track the design progress, we used "B" to indicate the fuselage/pod shaping by BOSS 4 and "D" to indicate the DOE runs. With this labeling system, D3B7 is the configuration that was obtained from the third DOE run of B7, while B7 is the configuration that was obtained from the seventh fuselage/pod shaping iteration of the baseline configuration.…”

Section: Matching Reversed Equivalent Area To a Target For Low-bomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See Ref. 4 for a survey and Refs. 5-10 for some recent advances on the development of low-boom design methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inverse Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Concepts Using Reversed Equivalent-Area Targets

Rallabhandi

2014

Journal of Aircraft

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A promising path for developing a low-boom configuration is a multifidelity approach that (1) starts from a low-fidelity low-boom design, (2) refines the low-fidelity design with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) equivalent-area (A e ) analysis, and (3) improves the design with sonic-boom analysis by using CFD off-body pressure distributions. The focus of this paper is on the third step of this approach, in which the design is improved with sonicboom analysis through the use of CFD calculations. A new inverse design process for offbody pressure tailoring is formulated and demonstrated with a low-boom supersonic configuration that was developed by using the mixed-fidelity design method with CFD A e analysis. The new inverse design process uses the reverse propagation of the pressure distribution (dp/p) from a mid-field location to a near-field location, converts the near-field dp/p into an equivalent-area distribution, generates a low-boom target for the reversed equivalent area (A e,r ) of the configuration, and modifies the configuration to minimize the differences between the configuration's A e,r and the low-boom target. The new inverse design process is used to modify a supersonic demonstrator concept for a cruise Mach number of 1.6 and a cruise weight of 30,000 lb. The modified configuration has a fully shaped ground signature that has a perceived loudness (PLdB) value of 78.5, while the original configuration has a partially shaped aft signature with a PLdB of 82.3. Nomenclature

show abstract

Aeronautics and astronautics: Recent progress and future trends

Martínez‐Val

Pérez

2009

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aeronautics and astronautics are two closely related disciplines, sometimes found under the joint term aerospace, that have progressed at a formidable pace during the 20th century. Their impact on society is overwhelming. For example, the aeroplane, the core of aeronautics, has been identified as one of the three major inventions of that century. On its turn, satellites have paved the way for modern globalization. Major drivers leading this progress have changed from the classical motto ‘higher, further, faster’ to the current ‘more affordable, cleaner, quieter’, but safety has always been kept the undisputed number one. The underlying key factors for progress have been and still are excellence and co-operation. Both aeronautics and astronautics are multidisciplinary in nature and, accordingly, this review summarizes relevant advances and trends in pertinent fields: aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, and so on. All these fields are still very healthy and the 21st century will witness again a new era of astonishing aerospace developments.

show abstract

Interactive Inverse Design Optimization of Fuselage Shape for Low-Boom Supersonic Concepts

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Mixed-Fidelity Approach for Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft

Inverse Design of Low-Boom Supersonic Concepts Using Reversed Equivalent-Area Targets

Aeronautics and astronautics: Recent progress and future trends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About