| Summary: | With the optimisation of fixed aerodynamic shapes reaching its limits,
the active flow control concept increasingly attracts attention of both
academia and industry. Adaptive wing technology, and shape morphing
airfoils in particular, represents a promising way forward. The
aerodynamic performance of the morphing profiles is an important
issue affecting the overall aerodynamic performance of an adaptive
wing.
A new concept of active flow, the Active Camber concept has been
investigated. The actuator is integrated into the aerofoil and aerofoil
morphing is realized via camber deformation. In order to identify
the most aerodynamically efficient designs, an optimisation study has
been performed using high resolution methods in conjunction with a
two equation eddy viscosity model.
Several different types of previously proposed compressible filters, including
monotone upstream-centered schemes for conservation laws
(MUSCL) and weighted essential non-oscillatory (WENO) filters, are
incorporated and investigated in the present research. The newly
developed CFD solver is validated and the effect that high resolution
methods have on turbulent flow simulations is highlighted. The outermost
goal is the development of a robust high resolution CFD method
that will efficiently and accurately simulate various phenomena, such
as shock/boundary layer interaction, flow separation and turbulence
and thus provide the numerical framework for analysis and aerodynamic
aerofoil design.
With respect to the latter a multi-objective integrated design system
(MOBID) has been developed that incorporates the CFD solver and
a state-of-the-art heuristic optimisation algorithm, along with an efficient
parametrization technique and a fast and robust method of
propagating geometric displacements. The methodologies in the MOBID
system resulted in the identification of the design vectors that
revealed aerodynamic performance gains over the datum aerofoil design.
The Pareto front provided a clear picture of the achievable
trade-offs between the competing objectives.
Furthermore, the implementation of different numerical schemes led to
significant differences in the optimised airfoil shape, thus highlighting
the need for high-resolution methods in aerodynamic optimisation.
|
|---|
