Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paerosci

Modeling and simulating aircraft stability and controlThe SimSAC project

Arthur Rizzi
Dept. of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm 10044, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o
Available online 26 October 2011 Keywords: Aircraft design Aerodynamics Flight dynamics Flight control CFD Simulation

abstract
This paper overviews the SimSAC Project, Simulating Aircraft Stability And Control Characteristics for Use in Conceptual Design. It reports on the three major tasks: development of design software, validating the software on benchmark tests and applying the software to design exercises. CEASIOM, the Computerized Environment for Aircraft Synthesis and Integrated Optimization Methods, is a framework tool that integrates discipline-specic tools for conceptual design. At this early stage of the design it is very useful to be able to predict the ying and handling qualities of this design. In order to do this, the aerodynamic database needs to be computed for the conguration being studied, which then has to be coupled to the stability and control tools to carry out the analysis. The benchmarks for validation are the F12 windtunnel model of a generic long-range airliner and the TCR windtunnel model of a sonic-cruise passenger transport concept. The design, simulate and evaluate (DSE) exercise demonstrates how the software works as a design tool. The exercise begins with a design specication and uses conventional design methods to prescribe a baseline conguration. Then CEASIOM improves upon this baseline by analyzing its ying and handling qualities. Six such exercises are presented. & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 1.1. The aircraft design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 1.2. Conceptual design for stability and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 CEASIOM software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 2.1. ACBuilder-sumo module to dene conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 2.2. NeoCASS module for aero-structural sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 2.3. AMB-CFD module for aerodynamic table construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 2.4. S&C analyzer/assessor modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 Benchmarks to validate CEASIOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 3.1. DLR-F12 windtunnel model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 3.2. SimSAC-TCR wind-tunnel model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 Design, simulate and evaluate exercisesgallery of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 4.1. Flying aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 4.1.1. Ranger 2000 trainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 4.1.2. B-747 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 4.2. Existing congurations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 4.2.1. Alenia ERC-SMJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 4.2.2. Dassault SEJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 4.3. New designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 4.3.1. GAV asymmetric Z-wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 4.3.2. SAAB TCR TransCruiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588

2.

3.

4.

5.

E-mail address: rizzi@kth.se 0376-0421/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.08.004

574

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Nomenclature Symbols CL Cm F I Kn L M1 m M q S ue xcg U V lift coefcient pitching moment coefcient forces acting on aircraft moments of inertia static margin Euler angle rates Mach number mass aerodynamic moments pitch rate (rad/s) surface Area elevator control signal X-location of center of gravity horizontal velocity velocity of aircraft

e w

elevator wing

Abbreviations AC aerodynamic center ACBulder aircraft builder AMB aerodynamic model builder B-747 Boeing wide-body airliner CAD computer aided design CG center of gravity CEASIOM computerized environment for aircraft synthesis and integrated optimization methods CFD computational uid dynamics DSE design simulate evaluate FCS ight control system FHQ ying handling qualities GAV general aviation vehicle MAC mean aerodynamic chord MTOW mean take-off weight NeoCASS next generation conceptual aero-structural sizing suite Ranger 2000 EADS military trainer aircraft SAS stability augmented system SDSA simulation and dynamic stability analysis SMJ Alenia 70-seat regional commuter jet concept SEJ supersonic executive jet SimSAC simulating aircraft stability and control characteristics S&C stability and control TCR Transonic Cruiser VLM vortex lattice method WB weights and balances WT wind tunnel Z-wing asymmetric wing planform

Greek letters

a
b d

te
H

angle of attack side slip angle control surface deection elevator actuator lag time aircraft orientation angle rotation rate of aircraft

Subscripts c c c chord length canard cruise

1. Introduction 1.1. The aircraft design process The design of aircraft is an extremely interdisciplinary activity produced by simultaneous consideration of complex, tightly coupled systems, functions and requirements. The design task is to achieve an optimal integration of all components into an efcient, robust and reliable aircraft with high performance that can be manufactured with low technical and nancial risks, and has an affordable cost taking in consideration the whole lifetime of the aircraft. The aircraft design process (see Fig. 1(a)) is in general divided into three phases, which tend to overlap in a staggered fashion. In the conceptual design phase the aircraft is dened at a system level. Many variants are studied, and the design selected is the one that best fulls the specications of the market or a customer. This design then becomes a project and is studied further. In the preliminary design phase, the tentatively selected concept is rened until feasibility is established, i.e. extensive array of design sensitivities are generated, design margins, etc. About two-thirds of the way through this phase, the concept is frozen and no major changes are expected thereafter unless serious problems arise. The nal phase is the detailed design phase in which details of the product are elaborated, optimizations are made and data sets are generated. A large variety of tools are used in each phase of the design process, including empirical/handbook methods, wind tunnel testing,

ight-testing and numerical simulation and optimization tools including NavierStokes solution methods. In general, low-delity tools are supposed to be used in the conceptual design phase where many alternatives need to be analyzed in a short period, while high-delity tools are used in the other design phases since the concept evolves to an acceptable level of maturity. The term delity refers here to the representation of the aircraft geometry (and/or structure, where applicable) and of the physical modeling that determines the aircraft behavior and performance (aerodynamic stability and control and loads data bases). Today this is the existing practice for developing a new aircraft. SimSAC focuses on the modeling and simulation aspects in the design stages in the circle in Fig. 1(a), namely in conceptual design and the downselecting of congurations for project studies in preliminary design. The reason that SimSAC focuses mainly on the conceptual design process is that 80% of the life-cycle cost of an aircraft is incurred by decisions taken during the conceptual design phase, see Fig. 1(b). Mistakes here must be avoided because they are very costly to remedy later and delay acceptance. Matters involving the interaction of aerodynamics with structures and controls are particularly prone to errors due to the low delity of the analysis methods traditionally used. 1.2. Conceptual design for stability and control Present trends in aircraft design toward augmented-stability and expanded ight envelopes call for an accurate description of

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

575

Fig. 1. SimSAC design: (a) aircraft design process from conceptual design to manufacturing and testing. SimSAC focuses on the Conceptual-to-Project phases in the circle; (b) contemporary product development contrasted against Virtual Aircraft approach.

Fig. 2. Two design loops in the conceptual design phase process and the down-select to project study in preliminary design. CEASIOM focuses in particular on the S&C, structural-aeroelastic and performance characteristics of the aircraft (after an illustration by Daniel Raymer).

the ight-dynamic behavior of the aircraft in order to properly design the ight control system (FCS). Hence there is a need to increase knowledge about stability and control (S&C) as early as possible in the aircraft development process in order to be Firsttime-right with the FCS design architecture. The review paper by Vos et al. [1] describes these ideas in terms of the Virtual Aircraft and explains much of the background motivation for our work here. Fig. 2 spells out the details in the early design steps in the circle shown in Fig. 1(a) for the denition of the virtual aeroservo-elastic aircraft. It illustrates two design loops in the

conceptual design phase that follow the rst-guess sizing (usually done by a spread-sheet) to obtain the initial layout of the conguration. The rst one, the pre-design loop, is aimed at establishing a very quick (time-scale can be from one to a few weeks) yet technically consistent sized conguration with a predicted performance. The second one, the concept-design loop, is a protracted and labor intensive effort involving more advanced rst-order trade studies to produce a renement in dening the minimum goals of a candidate project. At the end of the conceptual design phase all the design layouts will have been analyzed, and the best one, or possibly two designs will be

576

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

down-selected to the preliminary design phase. During the preliminary denition, project design is still undergoing a somewhat uid process and indeed warrants some element of generalisttype thinking, but the minimum goals of the project have already been established during the conceptual denition phase and the aim is to meet these targets using methods with higher order than those used during the conceptual denition phase. The rst stages of the design process of a new aircraft are related to the sizing of the main components. The designer refers to some stability and control characteristics as a guidance of the design process. Up to now, the aerodynamic data considered in these early design steps were mostly based on tabulated data, issued from previous experience and/or semi-empirical approaches. Although satisfactory when determining some high level parameters (e.g. areas and planforms of lifting surfaces), such simplied approaches can lead to errors in the sizing process, especially when used in nal conceptual design steps (e.g. sizing or allocation of control surfaces), and do not offer sufcient delity. For example errors can be due to Reynolds number effects, conguration sensitivities, dynamic motion effects and related issues, and such errors generally can be detected only with a signicant increase in the delity of the aerodynamic data base, for instance with wind-tunnel data or even ight test data. The later in the design process the error identied, the higher the cost of its correction. Traditionally, wind-tunnel measurements are used to ll lookup tables of forces and moments over the ight envelope but wind-tunnel models become available only later in the design cycle (see Fig. 3). To date, most engineering tools for aircraft design rely on handbook methods or linear uid mechanics assumptions. The latter methods provide low-cost reliable aerodata that as long as it is a conventional conguration the aircraft remains well within the limits of its ight envelope. However, current trends in aircraft design toward unconventional designs with augmented-stability and expanded ight envelopes require an accurate description of the non-linear ight-dynamic behavior of the aircraft. The obvious option is to use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) early in the design cycle to predict the aerodata, as indicated in Fig. 3. Thus, an increase in the delity level of the aerodynamic database is needed at all the steps of the design process: this is one of the main objectives of the SimSAC project

(Simulating Aircraft Stability And Control Characteristics for Use in Conceptual Design). This FP6 European project gathers a total of 17 partners and is coordinated by KTH (A. Rizzi) (www. simsacdesign.eu). This paper surveys the three main areas of project activities:

 construction of a new tool, called CEASIOM, dedicated to the  

conceptual and preliminary design and analysis of xed-wing aircrafts, assessment and improvement of existing CFD tools for predicting the stability and control dynamic derivatives, application of the CEASIOM software to two clean-sheet design studies; a near-sonic large transport aircraft (TCR) and an unconventional Z-wing general aviation conguration (GAV); in addition existing designs are studied further, such as the Alenia regional commuter jet SMJ and the Dassault supersonic executive jet SEJ, and lastly real aircraft, Ranger 2000 military trainer and the B-747 are evaluated.

CEASIOM is meant to support engineers in the conceptual design process of the aircraft, with emphasis on the improved prediction of stability and control properties achieved by higherdelity methods than found in contemporary aircraft design tools. Moreover CEASIOM integrates into one application the main design disciplines, aerodynamics, structures and ight dynamics, impacting on the aircrafts performance. It is thus a tri-disciplinary analysis brought to bear on the design of the aero-servoelastic aircraft. CEASIOM does not however carry out the entire conceptual design process indicated in Figs. 2 and 3. It requires as input an initial layout as the baseline conguration sized to the mission prole (output of pre-design loop O(10) parameters). Then it renes this design (in concept-design loop O(100) parameters) and outputs it as the revised layout for consideration in the down-select process (say O(1000) parameters). In doing all this, CEASIOM, through its simulation modules, generates signicant knowledge about the design and thereby increases its delity. The information generated is sufcient input to a six Degrees of Freedom engineering ight simulator. It is also sufcient to construct a suitable wind-tunnel model, comparable in quality to the one used in the traditional approach to S&C design. In fact the design exercise TCR spans all these steps, starting with a baseline input and rening it all the way to ight simulation, WT model construction, testing and comparisonverication of the entire SimSAC concept.

2. CEASIOM software CEASIOM is a framework tool that integrates discipline-specic tools like CAD and mesh generation, CFD, stability and control analysis and structural analysis, all for the purpose of aircraft conceptual design [2]. The ight-dynamic equations for aircraft motion begin with Newtons Second Law and lead to the non-linear inertial expressions for translation, rotation and kinematical relationships, written in symbolic form: _ x mV Faero Fthrust Fgravity Translation : mV _ x Ix Maero Rotation : Ix _ L Kinematics : H

Fig. 3. With initial sizing as input CEASIOM advances the design to delity of wind-tunnel model by high-delity simulation (top) to enrich design parameters by two orders magnitude (bottom).

where F denotes aerodynamic (aero), propulsion (thrust) and gravity forces; M denotes aerodynamic (aero) moments; V represents the velocity of the aircraft and x its rotation rate; m denotes its mass and I moments of inertia; H is its orientation angle and L the Euler angle rates. The coupled expressions in Eq. (1) yield a system of ordinary differential equations that determine the instantaneous motion of a rigid aircraft. The aircraft is free to

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

577

move under the inuence of the aerodynamic forces and moments while the instantaneous state of the ow eld surrounding the aircraft is inuenced by its prior states. CEASIOM addresses the task of solving Eq. (1). The classical approach to analyzing system (1) is to linearize it through a perturbation analysis that effectively decouples the system. This approach yields the so-called stability and control parameters to characterize aircraft ight dynamics upon which a large knowledge base has been built to help designers do their work. The system is de-coupled by a local linearization procedure where the forces and moments are expanded in a Taylor series yielding the static and dynamic stability derivatives, exemplied by the time dependent pitching moment:

3.

4.

5. The task then is to compute these derivatives by CFD and use them for solving Eqs. (1), the S&C task. Dynamic stability parameters (derivatives), in particular, provide information about the stiffness and damping attributes of the dynamic system. For example, the so-called damping derivative characterizes the variation of forces and moments with respect to angular rates. The S&C module in CEASIOM analyzes and evaluates the dynamical system (1) for suitable ight handling qualities using such parameters. Showing aspects of its functionality, process and dataow, Fig. 4 presents an overview of how the CEASIOM software goes about solving Eq. (1). Signicant features are developed and integrated in CEASIOM as modules: 1. Geometry module Geo-sumo A customized geometry construction system to dene the aircraft conguration coupled to surface and volume grid generators; Port to CAD via IGES. 2. Aerodynamic module AMB-CFD A replacement of and complement to current handbook aerodynamic methods with new adaptable-delity modules referred to as (a) Tier I, (b) Tier I and (c) Tier II: a. Steady and unsteady TORNADO vortex-lattice code (VLM) for low-speed aerodynamics and aero-elasticity.

6.

b. Inviscid Edge CFD code for high-speed aerodynamics and aero-elasticity. c. RANS (Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes) ow simulator for high-delity analysis of extreme ight conditions. Stability and Control module S&C A simulation and dynamic stability and control analyzer and ying-quality assessor. Six Degrees of Freedom test ight simulation, performance prediction, including human pilot model, Stability Augmentation System (SAS) and a LQR based ight control system (FCS), or J2 Universal Tool-Kit, the commercially available industrial grade engineering analysis tool for assessment and visualization of aircraft in ight. (see www.j2aircraft.com). Aeroelastic module NeoCASS Quasi-analytical structural analysis methods that support aero-elastic problem formulation and solution. Flight Control System design module FCSDT A designer toolkit for ight control-law formulation, simulation and technical decision support, permitting ight control system design philosophy and architecture to be coupled early in the conceptual design phase. Decision Support System module DSS An explicit DSS functionality, including issues such as fault tolerance and failure tree analysis.

2.1. ACBuilder-sumo module to dene conguration The task is to build a tabular model for the aerodynamic forces and moments on the airframe by simulation. The geometry should be represented in a way to be parameterized by a small number, say O(100), of parameters with intuitive interpretation. Fig. 5(b) presents an overview of the main components in ACBuilder-sumo and their functionality [7]. ACBuilder provides basic parametrization, which sumo then enhances to produce surface and volume grids for Euler simulation as well as a bone de IGES le that is meshable (watertight). The meshable model can subsequently be used directly as input by the Tier I or II solvers of the Aerodynamic module AMB-CFD. The tools for managing the geometry modeling are described below with comments on the workow, in particular on the

Fig. 4. CEASIOM Software for analyzing Eq. (1): core modules ACBuilder-sumo, AMB-CFD, NeoCASS and S&C (SDSA, J2 and FCSDT) in the CEASIOM software.

578

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Fig. 5. Shape Denition Module ACBuilder-sumo. (a) ACBuilder visual feedback. (b) ACBuilder-sumo software chain: from sketch to CFD grids.

degree of automation achievable while preserving the engineers accountability for the quality of the data compiled. The challenge is to approach automatic volume mesh generation for Tier I , with geometries including control surface deections. The geo.xml le denes the geometry with sufcient details for the Tier I computations. The lifting surfaces are assembled from quadrilateral planforms, twist, dihedral, etc., and airfoil denitions. Body, booms, cockpits, etc. are described by only a few key parameters, for the VLM the slender body approximation provides a rough estimate of the body inuence on the downwash on lifting surfaces. Control surface deections are simple because the lifting surfaces are modeled as lamina, and can be effected by actually changing the geometry or by just manipulating surface normals in the numerical ow tangency conditions. The geo.xml le is edited by the ACBuilder GUI, which gives visual feed-back of not only external geometry as needed for aerodynamics but also data necessary for weights and balance estimates. In addition to geo.xml, VLM requires a few solver parameters, such as lattice densities, wake relaxation scheme, etc. These parameters can easily be set by the engineer and have default values based on past experience. Panel methods and Euler simulations require much higher delity geometry, in particular a closed surface, smooth enough to support a surface grid with proper renements at critical places like leading and trailing wing edges, wing tips, etc. But also the surfaces on body (booms, fairings, etc.) must be well-rounded not to create spurious pressure peaks or troughs. The sumo package builds an aircraft model from a set of closed spline surfaces and provides a proper GUI for designing the shapes from cross sections and control points. Sumo calculates the intersections and can perform local smoothings and closure of features such as un-closed wing tips, as necessary, to make a single closed surface. It can proceed to generate a triangular surface mesh with density controlled by radii of curvature, etc., from a small set of user parameters. The geo.xmlsumo interface provides most of the data necessary, but user interaction is required when the xml geometry is inadequate. Typically, components such as vertical and horizontal tails and the rear fuselage may not intersect properly; sumo will then attempt repair with default parameter settings and issue error messages; the response called for is to change the geometry using ACBuilder. Control surface deections can be done by actual geometry deformation before mesh generation, or by manipulation of surface normals. The surface deformation currently lls the gaps that are created; details of multi-element high-lift systems are not supported.

The step from surface mesh to volume mesh is taken by the TetGen package, which needs only a few user parameters to ll the volume between exterior of aircraft and the far-eld sphere by a tetrahedral mesh. The quality of the surface mesh is crucial. Inadequate surface meshes are often caused by surface irregularities, and call for geometry repair by the engineer. The Tier II geometry models require high-quality surfaces with all relevant details. Such high-quality geometry models can be created by sumo and sent as IGES le to fully-edged mesh generator systems such as ICEM/CFD. A CAD model often exists for existing aircraft, and data may be available for validation experiments and modication exercises. The approximation of a given CAD geometry by the geo.xml format is not a well-dened task and currently must be done manually by the engineer, by extracting cross sections, etc., as native sumo input, or with even more radical shape approximation, by adapting the O(100) parameters of geo.xml to the best t. 2.2. NeoCASS module for aero-structural sizing The NeoCASS (Next generation Aero Structural Sizing) module combines state of the art computational, analytical and semiempirical methods to tackle all the aspects of the aerostructural analysis of a design layout at the conceptual design stage [8]. It gives a global understanding of the problem at hand without neglecting any aspect of it: aerodynamic, structural and aeroelastic analysis from low to high speed regimes, buffet onset, divergence, utter analysis and determination of trimmed condition and stability derivatives both for rigid and deformable aircraft. Similar to the aerodynamic module, structural models of increasing accuracy and computational cost provide consistent structural representation of the aircraft from the early conceptual denition until the late detailed denition (see Fig. 6). Preliminary analysis is focused on determining and representing a reasonable structural/nonstructural mass and stiffness distribution, which satises strength, stiffness and stability requirements. A few structural elements capable of giving equivalent structural behavior are available, such as a linear equivalent plate and a linear/nonlinear equivalent beam to introduce geometry nonlinear effects. These models lead to low-order algebraic problems, keeping the computational cost very low and allowing several congurations to be examined quickly. Two classic lifting surface methods are implemented. The Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) is used for subsonic steady aerodynamic and aeroelastic calculations, and the Doublet Lattice Method (DLM) for subsonic utter analysis and prediction of

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

579

Cn

C nb _ C b _ CYb _ C Xa _ C Za _ C ma _ (c) Unsteady coefcients table Mach

x x x x

Cn

x x x

x x x x

x x x

CY

x x x x

CY

Fig. 6. Architecture, function and process of NeoCASS.

Cm

harmonic stability derivatives. For higher delity and higher Mach number CEASIOM uses the inviscid version of the CFD code Edge. Aero-elastic analyses and control surface deections are carried out by the transpiration boundary-condition method, which accounts for structural motion and deformation by specifying the velocity direction at the wall. This method avoids complex and time-consuming remeshing as well as sliding mesh techniques and the meshing of narrow gaps. Flutter analyses are carried out by Reduced-Order Models (ROM) constructed by the DLM and Edge solvers. Indeed, the aerodynamic ROM is determined through a numerical perturbation to the system starting from an equilibrium condition. The determination of the trimmed steady state of the aircraft ying a frozen manoeuvre is an important sub-problem in most analyses, to determine pressureload distribution and structural deections/twists and to assess utter instability. With non-linear models an iterative process is required to determine this condition. NeoCASS uses a Jacobian-Free NewtonKrylov (JFNK) method, which does not need the Jacobian of the system. Coupling of structural and aerodynamic models is accomplished by a meshless radial basis function scheme, which allows any combination of them. With the structural model so specied, the aeroelastic stability coefcients, the so-called eta values can be determined. 2.3. AMB-CFD module for aerodynamic table construction

x x x x

Cm

x x x

x x x

CD

x x x x

CD

CL

x x x x

CL

x x x

x x x

da

dr

A prerequisite for realistic prediction of the S&C behavior and sizing of the FCS is the availability of complete and accurate aerodata (i.e. the S&C database). The aerodata is represented by an multidimensional array of dimensionless coefcients of aerodynamic forces and moments, stored as a function of the state vector and control-surface deections. The aerodynamic tables in AMB-CFD have the following format for the stability coefcients, for the control coefcients and for the unsteady coefcients, where a is the angle of attack, M is the Mach number and b the side slip angle, q, p and r are the three rotations in pitch, roll and yaw. The three control surfaces that can be deected are the elevator (de ), the rudder (dr ) and the aileron (da ). The Table 1 is linearized and build up from 7 three-dimensional tables with a, M and a third parameter (b, q, p and r, de , dr or da ). The coefcients must be computed for each of these three parameters throughout the ight envelope, hence the computational cost is problematic, particularly if done by brute force: a calculation for every entry in table. The total entries can number in tens of thousands, or even more in late design stages. Fortunately methods are available that can reduce the computational cost. There are essentially three issues, see Fig. 7(a).

de

Beta

(a) Stability coefcients table Alpha Mach

(b) Control coefcients table Alpha Mach

Table 1 Format tables in SDSA.

x x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x

580

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Fig. 7. AMB-CFD and S&C Modules: (a) architecture of the Aerodynamic Dataset Generator AMB-CFD; (b) SDSA structure and functionality.

Firstly, a spectrum of computational tools available, from RANS to potential ow models and semi-empirical methods. Each of the tools has a range of validity which can be exploited to keep the computational cost down. For the preliminary design of the aircraft and its FCS and as long as the ight attitude remains well within the limits of the ight envelope in the range of low-speed aerodynamics, Tier I computational methods can provide the aerodata. For a rened design of the FCS or for ight attitudes close to the border of the ight envelope, the linear or inviscid methods used in the Tier I tools fail to predict the proper aerodynamic behavior and also Tier II RANS methods will be used selectively. Then results from all these different sources, with low delity/low-cost data indicating trends and a small number of high-delity/high-cost simulations correcting the values, can be fused into a single database [16]. Secondly, mesh-free interpolation methods can signicantly reduce the number of data points which actually need to be computed to ll the table. Some studies [1517] of using kriging for the generation of aerodynamic data have been published using the software package DACE (Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments), a Matlab toolbox for working with kriging approximations to computer models. Here the states of the aircraft are set to be the input and the aerodynamic coefcients are set to be the response of the computer model. The aim is to use this approximation model as a surrogate for the computer model. Thirdly, the identication of parameter regions where the aerodynamics is nonlinear, and hence where Tier II delity is needed, is a sampling problem. Therefore the AMB-CFD module develops with these three elements [6]. The Tier II CFD tools are currently loosely coupled to CEASIOM because users are mainly interested in coupling their own RANS CFD tools. However, standard interfaces and le formats are dened in CEASIOM to which different RANS solvers have been coupled with MATLAB and Python scripts to perform sequences of runs and collect results. 2.4. S&C analyzer/assessor modules CEASIOM offers its user three distinct modules: SDSA, J2 and FCSDT for analyzing and assessing the ight characteristics of the design conguration, i.e. they solve 1rewritten here symbolically, as part of their ight simulator ds A 1 F g F a F t dt where s fu, v, w, p, q, r g 3 2

and F a has been determined by AMB-CFD and F g by NeoCASS-WB. The stability analysis requires deriving the linear set of equations by calculation of the Jacobian B for the dened state of the ight; A ds Bs dt 4

where ( ) @ F i, j B @sj Now the eigenvalue problem can be formulated as A

1

BIls 0

The solution of the eigenvalue problem gives directly the frequency and damping coefcients. The eigenvector problem is also solved to identify the motion modes. Solving the nonlinear equation system for the equilibrium state F s, t 0 7

determines the trim conditions. The SDSA module (Simulation and Dynamic Stability Analyzer) provides the following functionalities [9]: 1. Stability analysis: a. eigenvalue analysis of linearized model, b. time history identication (nonlinear model). 2. Six Degrees of Freedom ight simulation: a. test ights, including trim response, b. turbulence. 3. Flight Control System: a. human pilot model, b. stability augmentation system, c. FCS based on Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) theory. 4. Performance prediction 5. Miscellaneous (data review, results review, cross plots, etc.) Fig. 7(b) illustrates the structure and functionality of this module. SDSA solves the nonlinear model of the aircraft motion Eq. (1) for all its functions. For the eigenvalue analysis, the model is linearized numerically around the equilibrium (trim) point. Eigenvalue and eigenvector analyses allow automatic recognition of the typical modes of motion and their parameters. The ight simulation module can be used to perform test ights and record ight parameters in real-time. The recorded data can be used for identication of the typical modes of motions and their parameters (period, damping coefcient, phase shift). The stability analysis results are presented as gures of merits based on JAR/ FAR, ICAO and MIL regulations. The SDSA embedded ight control

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

581

system allows a pilot in the loop, and SAS and FCS based on a LQR approach. The LQR-FCS module allows computing and saving control matrices for simulations over the whole envelope. In this way, SDSA includes the FCS for stability characteristics and inight simulation for the closed loop case. The performance option is designed to compute basic performance parameters: ight envelope (Vmin and Vmax versus altitude of ight), selected manoeuvres (e.g. regular turn), range and endurance characteristics. For all mentioned functionalities the starting point is the computation of the trimmed state with sufcient initial conditions. The test ight settings include initial state, disturbances, and single/double step controls. SDSA is a stand-alone application integrated into CEASIOM. As a module of CEASIOM, it receives all the necessary data (aerodynamics, mass, inertia, available thrust), when available, without special prompting. The necessary data can be delivered to SDSA as an XML le or as a set of plain text les. The second option is useful e.g. for experimental data. The data set contains aerodynamic coefcients or/and stability derivatives tables, mass and inertia data, propulsion data, control derivatives and reference dimensions. The control and propulsion data can be completed and edited using special options of SDSA. SDSA accepts aerodynamic data as tables of stability derivatives as a function of angle of attack and Mach number. SDSA also accepts as a multidimensional array of force and moment coefcients versus six state parameters (angle of attack, Mach number, sideslip angle and rotational velocity components). A similar array is dened for control derivatives and stability derivatives versus selected accelerations (i.e. alpha dot derivatives). All aerodynamic data (derivatives) can be reviewed and are checked by comparison with typical values (Fig. 8). The functionalies of the J2 and FCSDT modules are similar to SDSA. Commercially available, J2 is a stand-alone system that has been coupled to CEASIOM, see www.j2aircraft.com for further details about J2. The Flight Control System design module FCSDT is a designer toolkit for ight control-law formulation, simulation and technical decision support. The companion paper [23] in this issue describes this module in more detail.

conguration. It has one control surface for longitudinal control, an all-moving canard. 3.1. DLR-F12 windtunnel model The DLR-F12 model used is a typical geometry of a generic transport aircraft and was constructed specically for dynamic tests. Such a model must meet different design criteria than conventional wind tunnel models. The mass of a dynamic windtunnel model as well as its moments of inertia must be as low as possible to achieve a favorable ratio between the aerodynamic forces of interest and the additional acting forces from mass. On the other hand, the elastic deformation has to be as small as possible. Furthermore, the rst Eigenfrequency of the model should be one order of magnitude above the excitation frequency, at least 15 Hz, to avoid the excitation of the models higher harmonics. The best material to meet all these requirements proves to be carbon bre reinforced plastic (CFRP). Using CFRPSandwich structure as is used in building full-size gliders, the DLR-F12 model has a weight of 12 kg. The model was manufactured by the DLR plastics workshop in Braunschweig. In order to evaluate the inuence of individual components of the tested airplane congurations, such as winglets, vertical or horizontal stabilizers, nacelles, on the dynamic derivatives the models are designed in a modular way so that every component of interest can be added to the model. The DLR-F12 model not only allow the measurement of unsteady forces and moments but also unsteady pressure distributions using pressure taps at specic chordwise stations on the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. A variety of computed aerodynamic coefcients versus angle of attack are compared with the experimental data in Fig. 9. The lift coefcient is well predicted by CFD tools with a lift overestimation by Euler methods for the highest angles of attack. A shift in the pitching moment of about 0.03 exists between experimental and computational data and is likely to come from the model support effect (ventral sting), not taken into account in the computations. As far as the VLM tools are concerned, the discrepancy of the results is large, probably coming from differences in the geometries and/or meshes. This benchmark case is in the linear range of the ight envelope 51 r a r 81. 3.2. SimSAC-TCR wind-tunnel model

3. Benchmarks to validate CEASIOM Two benchmarks [5] have been used in SimSAC to validate CEASIOM. The rst is DLRs wind-tunnel model F12, a generic long-range airliner. The model has no dened control surfaces. The second one, the TCR TransCruiser, originates from one of the SimSACs DSE exercises which designed, built and tested the nal

A wind-tunnel model, without engines, of the TCR-C15 canard conguration, the nal design of the DSE-TCR exercise, has been built by Politecnico di Milano and the model has been tested in the TsAGI T103 wind tunnel at a speed of 40 m/s. This is the wind

Fig. 8. Windtunnel measurements of F12. (a) DLR-F12 model on the MPM, (b) axis-system for force coefcients.

582

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Fig. 9. Evolution of lift and pitching moment coefcients with angle of attack.

Fig. 10. Comparison of computed normal force and pitch moment with data measured in the TsAGI windtunnel. (a) Breakpoints in normal and moment curves. (b) Model in TsAGI tunnel.

tunnel of continuous type of action with open working section (elliptical cross section of 2.33 4.0 m). The static test in the wind tunnel campaign includes a variation of pitch and slide-slip angles from 101 to 401 with step of 21 and of the canard deection angle of incidence from 151 to 151 with a step of 51. The campaign also includes dynamic tests of low and high amplitude oscillations for pitch, roll and yaw at selected frequencies. The length of the model is 1.5 m, which corresponds to a scaling factor of 1:40 to the real aircraft. The wind tunnel campaign will be reported in a separate publication [5]. A variety of computed aerodynamic coefcients versus angle of attack is compared with the experimental data in Fig. 10. Compared to the F-12 case, the ight envelope here is larger, 51 r a r 81, and includes the nonlinear range. The pitch moment versus a curve can be called piece-wise linear, with several break-points between linear sections. The ight control system must take these break-points into account, and so they must be represented in the computed aero-

database of coefcients and derivatives. This topic has been investigated by Eliasson et al. [12] and they give a ow-physics explanation for these breakpoints along with the computational requirements to resolve them.

4. Design, simulate and evaluate exercisesgallery of results A major undertaking in SimSAC is the design, simulate and evaluate (DSE) exercise. The endeavor begins with a design specication and uses conventional design methods to prescribe a baseline conguration. Then CEASIOM improves upon this baseline by analyzing its ying and handling qualities. This section presents a gallery of results for the DSE exercises. Three different types of exercises were undertaken. The rst one studied real aircraft in order to bring in very practical aspects, e.g. loss of the aircraft during ight. The second one applied

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

583

CEASIOM to existing congurations that are still on the developers drawing boards. The third one presents clean-sheet designs resulting from CEASIOM where the specications were drawn up in SimSAC. 4.1. Flying aircraft 4.1.1. Ranger 2000 trainer The Ranger 2000 aircraft, Fig. 11, is a mid-wing, tandem seat military training aircraft with a turbofan engine. The wing and fuselage are manufactured of composite material and the empennage is a metal T-tail design. The control surfaces are manually operated elevator and rudder, hydraulically assisted ailerons, a belly mounted speed-brake and electrically operated split aps [9]. One issue that was discovered with the Ranger 2000 was the rudder free effects at low altitude and low speed with the Speed Brake out when the aircraft was hit by a lateral gust. This was discovered through the aircraft crashing on approach. As such the question was asked as to whether the crash could be modeled in the J2 module ight simulator Fig. 11(c). Taking the original model and adding a slight modication to help to drive the rudder through the aircraft sideslip, a new

manoeuvre was created where the aircraft was hit by a lateral gust that caused an initial yaw rate disturbance, and the rudder was left to be deected by the ensuing sideslip. From the results shown above, it can be seen in Fig. 11(d) that the Yaw Rate never manages to damp out despite the oscillations of the Rudder and the Sideslip (increasing in magnitude each oscillation). The result is that the aircraft rolls inverted and continually loses altitude. The end result is a crash. The same manoeuvre was also attempted at a higher speed to see if speed had any effect. What was discovered was that increasing the speed on the aircraft resulted in a stable reaction. 4.1.2. B-747 The goal here is to analyze a real aircraft, with realistic control surfaces and channels (Fig. 12). The aircraft analyzed is the B-747, a widebody commercial airliner, with all the control surfaces modeled in CEASIOM [13]. The control system consists of Krueger aps, a movable stabilizer with four elevator segments for longitudinal control, ve spoiler panels, an inboard aileron and an outboard aileron for lateral control and a two-segment rudder for directional control. Several Stability and Control qualities are analyzed, from simple

Fig. 11. Overview of DSE results for Ranger 2000. (a) Ranger 2000 Military Training Aircraft. (b) Pressure computed on the surface. (c) Ranger crash studied in J2 ight simulator. (d) Rudder deection & yaw rate time histories from ight simulator.

584

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Fig. 12. The B-747-100 airliner modeled in CEASIOM with Edge Euler solution, M 1 0:8, a 11, rudder deection dr 101. (a) Control surfaces: stabilizer, inboard and outboard ailerons, and two-segment rudder. (b) Pressure coefcient. (c) Short period characteristics predicted in SDSA.

trim calculations over control law design to complete nonlinear simulations. For the next step in the delity staircase CEASIOM uses CFD calculations in Euler mode, on grids adapted to geometric features only. The sumo surface modeler constructs a water-tight solid model from the individual surfaces which describe the aircraft components. A triangular surface mesh is generated on the outer surface of the solid, controlled by geometric properties such as curvature of the surface. A tetrahedral grid suitable for Euler ow models is subsequently generated by the TetGen software [20]. For RANS modeling it may be desirable to resolve the trailing edges of lifting surfaces properly. But for inviscid ow models and CFD ow solvers in Euler mode, sharp trailing edges are appropriate, so in the interest of grid economy, sumo knows about sharp trailing edges of lifting surfaces. A detailed RANS model requires resolution of the opening gaps and exposed edges of a deected control device. For potential-ow modeling, CEASIOM/sumo provides data for a transpiration-law model where the mesh is left undisturbed and only the surface normals are rotated. The sumo-generated surface mesh on the tail are shown in Fig. 12(a). The surface mesh does not conform to hinge lines, but it knows which surface elements are affected by the deection, and those are colored. The pressure eld computed in the Edge Euler-simulation for straight and level M 1 0:8 ight with angle of attack a 11 after a 101 rudder deection is shown in Fig. 12(b). Fig. 12(c) presents the shortperiod analysis by SDSA illustrated against the ICAO recommendations for undamped natural frequency. 4.2. Existing congurations The objective of the task was to analyze the characteristics of several aircraft congurations, existing on the companys drawing boards, making use of the CEASIOM tools. The baseline conguration was then modied/optimized in order to make an improvement to their S&C characteristics, as determined by CEASIOM [14]. The congurations under study were 1. Alenia Executive/Regional Commuter (SMJ), analyzed by Alenia Aeronautica 2. Dassault supersonic executive jet (SEJ), analyzed by Dassault Aviation 4.2.1. Alenia ERC-SMJ Alenia analyzed the 70-seat Regional Commuter SMJ conguration, especially as weight and S&C characteristics are concerned. Some deciencies were found in S&C properties that

have been corrected by appropriate congurational changes. SDSA analysis indicated non-optimal performance of the baseline conguration with respect to Dutch Roll and elevator deection. At higher speed and altitude the aircraft is not compliant with JAR 23 rules for Dutch Roll characteristics. Another problem found was the elevator deections required for trim were too high and also the originally designed horizontal tail presented problems. This analysis suggested changing some details in the conguration in order to improve the S&C characteristics, namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. vary vary vary vary wing dihedral angle; wing position; the horizontal tail dihedral angle; incidence of the horizontal tail.

Several different congurations, with variations of the above parameters, have been dened and analyzed, and the optimized layout found featuring the best S&C characteristics. The dened changes are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. reduced wing dihedral from 7.251 to 3.01; wing position moved ahead, 2% of fuselage length; reduced horizontal tail dihedral from 6.01 to 01; increased incidence of horizontal tail from 01 to 31.

The new conguration is presented in Fig. 13. 4.2.2. Dassault SEJ The Supersonic Executive Jet SEJ is a prototype proposed by Dassault Aviation for a civil supersonic jet (Fig. 14). It is part of the HISAC project (www.hisacproject.com), which aims at establishing the technical feasibility of an environmentally compliant small size supersonic transport aircraft. Objectives mainly deal with reduction of the external noise and NOx emissions and range at least transatlantic. SEJ is the low noise conguration, which is based on the following design drivers:

      

delta wing and nose canard; three high by-pass ratio CVC engines; main landing gears attached on the wing structure; a vertical n attached on the rear fuselage; design cruise speed M 1.6 and the cruise altitude 14,600 m; nominal payload: eight passengers; approximate take-off weight: 50,200 kg.

The aerodynamic coefcients in low speed have been calculated using the Tier I method Tornado v.135 (VLM). Using the aerodata

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

585

Fig. 13. Comparison of optimized and baseline congurations obtained with CEASIOM for SMJ. (a) SMJ modeled in CEASIOM. (b) Plan view. (c) Front view.

Fig. 14. CEASIOM analysis of the existing SEJ congurationlow speed. (a) SEJ layout (left) and modeled in ACBuilder (right). (b) SDSA predicted angle of attack for trim. (c) SDSA predicted elevator deection for trim. (d) SDSA predicted phugoid characteristics against ICAO recommendations.

obtained, the stability and control module SDSA calculates the trim characteristics (Fig. 14(b) and (c)). The baseline conguration has been developed by Dassault using in-house methods (Fig. 14(a)). Ailerons and rudder are used together for lateral control. Flaps and slats are used as high-lift devices. Fig. 14(b) and (c) presents the longitudinal trim analysis results from SDSA. Notice that the static margin is negative ( 5.5% for a 01), which means that the aircraft is unstable. Today, y-by-wire systems allow such a conguration (although the authorities do not yet) and increase aircraft performance. This value ts quite well with the Dassault predicted one. Some conclusions can be drawn from the results. For maximum approach speed (TAS 80 m/s), angle of attack at landing is a little bit too high and exceeds the tolerance (151), which may disturb pilot visibility. However elevator deection angle is within the tolerance d motion interval. Fig. 14(d) shows that dynamic stability for Phugo is satised.

Z-wing design comparable in size and mission to the Eclipse 500. The TCR TransCruiser is a sonic airliner of 200 passengers.

4.3. New designs Two clean-sheet designs originating in the SimSAC project are presented. The GAV is a very light jet with a novel asymmetric

4.3.1. GAV asymmetric Z-wing The objectives of this DSE exercise were to design an unconventional (Z-conguration) general aviation aircraft and to explore what type of manual ight-control system would be required to make it y [10]. The Z-conguration has one side of the main wing moved back to the empennage position giving it a Z looking layout from top view. It is done to be able to generate direct lift. But this conguration poses some interesting lateral/directional ying characteristics. Thus it is a good exercise to quantify the added-value of the enhanced S&C analyzer/assessor for predicting FHQs. The starting point is the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet, a conventional T-tail conguration. It carries 6 PAX with a 1300-mile range at 370 kt max speed (Fig. 15(a)). The idea is to use CEASIOM to determine whether drag savings can be achieved through unconventional design, and to propose a controller to handle its coupled modes of motion. The Tier 1 work carried out for the Z-wing has started investigating some of the peculiarities of asymmetric aircraft,

586

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

Fig. 15. Stabilizing the asymmetric Z-wing conguration GAV. (a) Eclipse 500. (b) Eclipse 500 modeled in ACBuilder. (c) Plan view of Eclipse morphing to GAV. (d) Eulercomputed surface pressure on GAV. (e) Pitch, roll and yaw response to aperon doublet input.

including its aerodynamic characteristics, the multiple trim settings and the strong coupling between longitudinal and lateral motions. The conguration analyzed was designed to be statically unstable longitudinally, which needed to be accounted for by the control system (Fig. 15(c)). Two control techniques were used to design controllers for the Z-wing aircraft. The rst uses eigenstructure assignment to design a state-feedback controller to stabilize and decouple the aircrafts motions. A simulation of a stabilized non-linear model of the aircraft showed that applying a pulse doublet to the aperons resulted primarily in a rolling motion, with the pitching motion being smaller in magnitude (Fig. 15(d) and (e)). Using Eigenstructure Assignment to design a state feedback controller it was possible to signicantly decouple the modes with comparatively low gains of 1.08 or less. Potential benets of the Z-conguration include a reduction in drag due to absence of horizontal tail.

redesign to a canard conguration was undertaken. This resulted in an all moving canard conguration. As discussed in Section 3.2, a wind tunnel TCR model without engines was designed and built by Politecnico di Milano. The model specications were dened in accordance with the dynamic testing in the T103 wind tunnel in TsAGI. A 1:40 scale, ability to receive an internal balance, weight constraint, interface with the wind tunnel were the main constraints put on the model design. The main geometrical parameters of the TCR model are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. reference area: S 0:3056 m2 ; wing span: b 1.12 m; mean aerodynamic chord: c 0.2943 m; position of the center of gravity from the fuselage apex: xCG 0:87475 m.

4.3.2. SAAB TCR TransCruiser The objective of this DSE was to stress the CEASIOM software in the nonlinear transonic ight regime [11]. Thus the specication called for a 200 passenger airliner cruising at M 1 0:97 and high altitude. The baseline conguration that SAAB proposed using its in-house design methods consisted of a conventional mid-to-low-winged T-tail conguration with two wing mounted engines. Ailerons and rudder are used together with an all-moving horizontal tail for control. Flaps and slats are used as high-lift devices. The landing gear is a conventional tri-cycle type where the main gears are mounted in the wing. This baseline has been analyzed and improved using the CEASIOM software. Poor trim characteristics as well as a T-tail prone to utter were identied as problems on the original conguration. Thus, a

The most interesting quantity for the stability and control is the pitching moment. The experimental results show that there are two breaks in the pitch moment curve (Fig. 16). The rst break occurs at about a 81 and results in an increased slope of the curve. The second break occurs at about a 201 where the pitch moment suddenly drops and then continues to grow again with about the same slope. The VLM TORNADO does not pick up the rst break and change of slope in the pitch moment. The Edge Euler results predict a change of slope but at a too high incidence. The NSMB Euler results predict the rst break very well, which probably indicates that the Edge grid is not sufciently resolved. All RANS Tier II results predict this phenomenon well. The RANS results differ in the vicinity of the second break though. Edge does not predict the break at all, NSMB seems to predict it a bit early. The best experimental agreement is obtained from the PMB calculations. Figure also displays the x-component of the

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

587

Fig. 16. Integrated normal force CN (top-left) and pitch moment Cm (top-right) from RANS solutions by NSMB/CFS and EDGE/FOI for TCR TransCruiser; bottom: surface skin-friction (x-component) distribution from NSMB, blue denotes reversed ow, M 1 0:115, b 01, d 01. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 17. Nonlinear stability analysis in SDSA ight simulator, response to wind gust.

skin-friction distribution from EDGE in which a blue color denotes negative values and ow separation. The ow separation on the canard starts at its tip and leading edge and the separated area grows with the increasing incidence. The onset of separation occurs at an angle of attack where the normal force stops to grow, at about a 221. There is a massive separation at a 261. The main wing has mostly attached ow except for a small spot at inboard span that reduces in size with increasing angle of attack. There is a small leading edge separation at the outer part of the wing that seems fairly constant with the angle of attack.

All of these Tier-II CFD results were put into the aerodynamic database and analyzed in SDSA for its S&C characteristics. The ight simulator in SDSA was used to check the stability of the TCR ying in trimmed transonic cruise and then subjected to a wind gust of large amplitude that alters its angle of attack by 31. Fig. 17 shows the ight simulation of the TCR. With stick xed and no augmentation the TCR responds by pitching up somewhat, but the time histories of the oscillations in y and a do not damp out, instead they grow and the aircraft departs from controlled ighta nonlinear instability that must be handled. Adding

588

A. Rizzi / Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47 (2011) 573588

stability augmentation to the ight control produces the time histories shown in right half of Fig. 17 that shows with augmented stability the oscillations in y and a are now damped and the TCR is stable to this nonlinear disturbance.

5. Concluding remarks The paper has surveyed developments in the SimSAC Project and the achievements reached at its termination. The CEASIOM software enables the S&C analysis of the aerodynamic dataset generated using the full range of its adaptive-delity modules for geometry, aero-structural sizing and CFD tools appropriate for both low-speed and high-speed ights. The stability-analysis results obtained from its S&C modules offer an assessment of the computational methods ability to compute the stability coefcients and derivatives to sufcient accuracy for conceptual design. Six such DSE exercises have demonstrated the functionality and utility of CEASIOM as a tool for aircraft conceptual design. While the four individual modules within CEASIOM may not represent any major advancement in their respective discipline, it is the chaining of these modules into an integrated design system of adaptable delity that is the new and signicant contribution of CEASIOM. The SimSAC Project is now terminated, but the CEASIOM software lives on. The software developers and stake-holders are determined to continue developing and testing CEASIOM through a coupled community-of-users approach that welcomes outsiders to pitch in. More information is given on the website www.ceasiom.com where even data like the TCR benchmark is planned to be uploaded. So come join us for an exciting future.

[6] Da Ronch A, Ghoreyshi M, Badcock KJ. Generation of aerodynamic tables for ight dynamics using computational uid dynamics. Progress in Aerospace Science, this issue [see also AIAA Paper No. 2010-8239]. [7] Oppelstrup J, Eller D, Tomac MM, Rizzi A. From geometry to CFD gridsan automated approach for conceptual design. In: Special session AIAA AFM conference, Toronto, 2010. [8] Ricci S, Cavagna L, Travaglini L. NeoCASS: an integrated tool for structural sizing, aeroelastic analysis and MDO at conceptual design level. In: Special session AIAA AFM conference, Toronto, 2010. [9] Goetzendorf-Grabowski T, Mieszalski D, Marcinkiewicz, E. Stability analysis in conceptual design using SDSA tool. In: Special session AIAA AFM conference, Toronto, 2010. [10] Richardson TS, McFarlane C, Beaverstock C, Isikveren A. Comparison of conventional and Z-wing VLJ designs using CEASIOM. In: Special session AIAA AFM conference, Toronto, 2010. [11] Rizzi A, Eliasson P, Goetzendorf-Grabowski T, Vos JB, Zhang M, Richardson T. Design of a canard congured transcruiser using CEASIOM. Progress in Aerospace Science, doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.08.011. This issue. [12] Eliasson P, Vos J, Da Ronch A, Zhang M, Rizzi A. Virtual aircraft design of transcruisercomputing break points in pitch moment curve. In: AIAA2010-4366, 2010. [13] Da Ronch A, McFarlane C, Beaverstock C, Oppelstrup J, Zhang M, Rizzi A. Benchmarking CEASIOM software to predict ight control and ying qualities of the B-747. In: Proceedings of 27th congress of the international council of the aeronautical sciences. ICAS 2010-5.10.1, 2010. [14] Larsson R. Final reporting of WP6. SimSAC deliverable report D6.4-8. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology; 2010. [15] Tang CY, Gee K, Lawrence S. Generation of aerodynamic data using a design of experiment and data fusion approach. In: 43rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Reno, NV, AIAA-2005-1137, 2005. [16] Ghoreyshi M, Badcock KJ, Woodgate M. Integration of multi-delity methods for generating an aerodynamic model for ight simulation. In: 46th aerospace sciences meeting, Reno, NV, AIAA-2008-197, 2008. [17] Laurenceau J, Sagaut P. Building efcient response surfaces of aerodynamic functions with kriging and cokriging. AIAA Journal 2008;46(2):498507. [20] Si H, Gaertner K. Meshing piecewise linear complexes by constrained Delaunay tetrahedralizations. In: Proceedings of 14th international meshing roundtable, September 2005. p. 14763 /http://tetgen.berlios.de/S. [23] Richardson T, Beaverstock C, Lowenberg M. Flight control system case analysis of the 747 using CEASIOM. Progress in Aerospace Science, this issue.

Acknowledgments The nancial support by the European Commission through co-funding of the FP6 project SimSAC is gratefully acknowledged. Dr. Stefan Hitzel of EADS-MAS graciously provided the Ranger 2000 data in accessible form. References
[1] Vos JB, Rizzi A, Darracq D, Hirschel EH. NavierStokes solvers in European aircraft design. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 2002;38. [2] von Kaenel R, Rizzi A, Oppelstrup J, Goetzendorf-Grabowski T, Ghoreyshi M, Cavagna L, et al. CEASIOM: simulating stability & control with CFD/CSM in aircraft conceptual design, Paper 061. In: 26th Intl Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Anchorage, Alaska, September 2008. [5] Mialon B, Khrabov A, Da Ronch A, Badcock K, Cavagna L, Eliasson P, et al. Validation of numerical prediction of dynamic derivatives: the DLR-F12 and the transcruiser test cases. Progress in Aerospace Science, doi:10.1016/ j.paerosci.2011.08.010. This issue.

Further reading
[1] Isikveren A. Quasi-analytical modeling and optimisation techniques for transport aircraft design. Doctoral thesis report 2002-13. Stockholm: Department of Aeronautics, Royal Institute of Technology; 2002. [2] Raymer DP. Aircraft design: a conceptual approach.4th ed Reston, VA: AIAA Education Series; 2006. [3] Goetzendorf-Grabowski T. Inuence of stability derivatives on a quality of simulation (supersonic ow). Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 1994;32(4):77391. Warsaw. [4] Eller D. Mesh generation using sumo and tetgen. SimSAC Delivery report 2.3-5. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology; 2010. [5] DASA-TN-R-R-002-M-0011RANGER 2000 FR06/RP01 aerodynamic dataset release 1.1, 1994. [6] Goetzendorf-Grabowski T, Vos JB, Sanchi S, Molitor P, Tomac M, Rizzi A. Coupling adaptive-delity CFD with S&C analysis to predict ying qualities. In: AIAA Paper 2009-3630, 2009.