Ames Optimized TCA Configuration
Configuration design at Ames was carried out with the SYN87-SB (single block) Euler code using a 193 x 49 x 65 C-H grid. The Euler solver is coupled to the constrained (NPSOL) and the unconstrained (QNMDIF) optimization packages. Since the single block grid is able to model only wing-body configurations, the nacelle/diverter effects were included in the optimization process by SYN87's option to superimpose the nacelle/diverter interference pressures on the wing. These interference pressures were calculated using the AIRPLANE code. AIRPLANE is an Euler solver that uses a unstructured tetrahedral mesh and is capable of computations about arbitrary complete configurations. In addition, the buoyancy effects of the nacelle/diverters were also included in the design process by imposing the pressure field obtained during the design process onto the triangulated surfaces of the nacelle/diverter mesh generated by AIRPLANE. The interference pressures and nacelle buoyancy effects are added to the final forces after each flow field calculation. Full details of the (recently enhanced) ghost nacelle capability are given in a related talk. The pseudo nacelle corrections were greatly improved during this design cycle. During the Ref H and Cycle 1 design activities, the nacelles were only translated and pitched. In the cycle 2 design effort the nacelles can translate vertically, and pitch to accommodate the changes in the lower surface geometry. The diverter heights (between their leading and trailing edges) were modified during design as the shape of the lower wing changed, with the drag of the diverter changing accordingly. Both adjoint and finite difference gradients were used during optimization. The adjoint-based gradients were found to give good direction in the design space for configurations near the starting point, but as the design approached a minimum, the finite difference gradients were found to be more accurate. Use of finite difference gradients was limited by the CPU time limit available on the Cray machines. A typical optimization run using finite difference gradients can use only 30 to 40 design variables and one optimization iteration within the 8 hour queue limit for the chosen grid size and convergence level. The efficiency afforded by the adjoint method allowed for 50-120 design variables and 5-10 optimization iterations in the 8 hour queue. Geometric perturbations to the wing and fuselage were made using the Hicks/Henne (HH) shape functions. The HH functions were distributed uniformly along the chords of the wing defining sections and lofted linearly. During single-surface design, constraints on thickness and volume at selected wing stations were imposed. Both fuselage camber and cross-sectional area distributions were permitted to change during design. The major disadvantage to the use of these functions is the inherent surface waviness produced by repeated use of such functions. Many smoothing operations were required following optimization runs to produce a configuration with reasonable smoothness. Wagner functions were also used on the wing sections but were never used on the fuselage. The Wagner functions are a family of increasingly oscillatory functions that have also been used extensively in airfoil design. The leading and trailing edge regions of the wing were designed by use of polynomial and monomial functions respectively. Twist was attempted but was abandoned because of little performance improvement available from changing the baseline twist.