Advertisement

Path Optimization of Dual Airfoils Flapping in a Biplane Configuration with RSM in a Parallel Computing Environment

  • Mustafa Kaya
  • Ismail H. Tuncer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 74)

Abstract

The path of dual airfoils in a biplane configuration undergoing a combined, non–sinusoidal pitching and plunging motion is optimized for maximum thrust and/or propulsive efficiency. The non–sinusoidal, periodic flapping motion is described using Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS). The Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is employed for the optimization of NURBS parameters in a parallel computing environment. A gradient based optimization algorithm, steepest ascent method is started from the optimum point of response surfaces. Unsteady, low speed laminar flows are also computed in parallel using a Navier-Stokes solver based on domain decomposition. It is shown that the parallel optimization process with RSM suggests a quick and accurate initial guess for a gradient based optimization algorithm.

Keywords

Response Surface Methodology Path Optimization Wall Clock Time Steep Ascent Maximum Thrust 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T.J. Mueller (editor), Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicles, AIAA Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol 195, Reston, VA, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Shyy, M. Berg and D. Lyungvist, ”Flapping and Flexible Wings for Biological and Micro Air Vehicles”, Pergamon Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol 35, p: 455-505, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I.H. Tuncer and M. Kaya, ”Optimization of Flapping Airfoils For Maximum Thrust and Propulsive Efficiency”, AIAA Journal, Vol 43, p: 2329-2341, Nov 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Kaya and I.H. Tuncer, ”Path Optimization of Flapping Airfoils Based on NURBS”, Proceedings of Parallel CFD 2006 Conference, Busan, Korea, May 15-18, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roux, W.J., Stander, N. and Haftka, R.T., Response Surface Approximations for Structural Optimization, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 42, 1998, pp. 517-534.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. H. Van Campen, R. Nagtegaal and A. J. G. Schoofs, Approximation methods in structural optimization using experimental designs for for multiple responses, in H. Eschenauer, J. Koski and A. Osyczka (eds.), Multicriteria Design Optimization, Springer, Berlin, 1990, pp. 205-228.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Box, G. E. P. and Behnken, D. W., Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables, Technometrics, Vol. 2, pp. 455475.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Kaya, I.H. Tuncer, K.D. Jones and M.F. Platzer, ”Optimization of Flapping Motion of Airfoils in Biplane Configuration for Maximum Thrust and/or Efficiency”, AIAA Paper, No 2007-0484, Jan 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Piegl and W. Tiller, The NURBS Book, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I.H. Tuncer, ”A 2-D Unsteady Navier-Stokes Solution Method with Moving Overset Grids”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, March 1997, pp. 471-476.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations