Advertisement

Progresses in Fluid-Structure Interaction and Structural Optimization Numerical Tools Within the EU CS RIBES Project

  • Marco Evangelos Biancolini
  • Ubaldo Cella
  • Corrado Groth
  • Andrea Chiappa
  • Francesco Giorgetti
  • Fabrizio Nicolosi
Chapter
Part of the Computational Methods in Applied Sciences book series (COMPUTMETHODS, volume 49)

Abstract

The capability to reduce the structural weight of aircrafts, and consequently the fuel consumption, is related to the accuracy of numerical tools and to the efficiency of design methodologies available. In particular, the capability to model the interaction of the several mechanisms involved in physics phenomena represents a key point in the development of engineering design tools. Typical examples are FSI (Fluid-Structure Interaction) analyses in which the capability to properly capture the behaviour of aeroelastic phenomena is crucial. Furthermore, the enhancement of environments able to include structural shape optimizations represents a significant step forward in the development of greener aircrafts. The objectives of the EU RIBES (Radial basis functions at fluid Interface Boundaries to Envelope flow results for advanced Structural analysis) project was to reduce the uncertainness in CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)-CSM (Computational Structural Mechanics) aeroelastic analysis numerical methodologies, enhancing the coupling between fluid-dynamic and structural solvers, to improve the confidence on their accuracy and to progress in the development of structural optimization tools. At this aim, the project was focused on the development of an accurate load mapping procedure, on the implementation of an innovative workflow for structural shape optimization and on experimental validation of FSI (Fluid-Structure Interaction) methodologies. Radial Basis Functions (RBF) supply the mathematical foundation for the first two topics. This paper summarizes the results achieved by the project, describes the developed optimization tool and details the experimental campaign conducted to generate a database of measurements on a typical realistic aeronautical wing structure.

Keywords

Structural optimisation Mesh morphing Radial basis functions Load mapping Fluid-Structure interaction Wind tunnel tests 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The RIBES project was funded by the European Union within the 7th Framework aeronautics programme JTI-CS-GRA (Joint Technology Initiatives—Clean Sky—Green Regional Aircraft) under Grant Agreement no. 632556.

References

  1. Babuska I-M, Melenk J-M (1997) The partition of unity method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 40(4):727–758MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballmann J (2008) Experimental analysis of high Reynolds number structural dynamics in ETW. In: 46th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, number AIAA 2008-841, Reno, Nevada (US), 7–10 Jan 2008Google Scholar
  3. Biancolini ME (2012) Mesh morphing and smoothing by means of radial basis functions (RBF): a practical example using fluent and RBF Morph. Handbook of research on computational science and engineering: theory and practice, IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
  4. Biancolini ME, Salvini P (2012) Radial basis functions for the image analysis of deformations. In: Computational modelling of objects represented in images: fundamentals, methods and applications III proceedings of the international symposium. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 361–365Google Scholar
  5. Biancolini ME, Cella U, Groth C, Genta M (2016) Static aeroelastic analysis of an aircraft wind-tunnel model by means of modal RBF mesh updating. ASCE’s J Aerosp Eng 29(6)Google Scholar
  6. Buhmann M-D (2004) Radial basis functions: theory and implementations. Cambridge monographs on applied and computational mathematics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Casciola G, Lazzaro D, Montefusco LB, Morigi S (2006) Shape preserving surface reconstruction using locally anisotropic radial basis function interpolants. Comput Math Appl 51(8):1185–1198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2006.04.002MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cella U Setup and validation of high fidelity aeroelastic analysis methods based on RBF mesh morphing. PhD thesis, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, cycle XXIX, AA 2015/16Google Scholar
  9. Cella U, Biancolini ME (2012) Aeroelastic analysis of aircraft wind-tunnel model coupling structural and fluid dynamic codes. AIAA J Aircr 49(2):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cella U, Biancolini ME, Groth C, Chiappa A, Beltramme D (2015) Development and validation of numerical tools for FSI analysis and structural optimization: the EU RIBES project status. In: AIAS 44th National Congress, 2–5 Sept 2015, Messina, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  11. De Boer A, van der Schoot MS, Bijl H (2007) Mesh deformation based on radial basis function interpolation. Comput Struct 85(11–14):784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fasshauer GE (1999) Solving differential equations with radial basis functions: multilevel methods and smoothing. Adv Comput Math 11:139–159MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiao X, Heath M-T (2004) Common-refinement-based data transfer between non-matching meshes in multiphysics simulations. Int J Numer Meth Eng 61(14):2402–2427MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multi Optim 23(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Masud A, Bhanabhagvanwala M, Khurram RA (2007) An adaptive mesh rezoning scheme for moving boundary flows and fluid-structure interaction. Comput Fluids 36(1):77–91MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Sederberg TW, Parry SR (1986) Free-form deformation of solid geometric models. In: Evans DC and Athay RJ (eds) 13th conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques. New York, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  18. Zadeh L-A (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Evangelos Biancolini
    • 1
  • Ubaldo Cella
    • 1
    • 2
  • Corrado Groth
    • 1
  • Andrea Chiappa
    • 1
  • Francesco Giorgetti
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Nicolosi
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Design MethodsMessinaItaly
  3. 3.University of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations