Incorporation of Physics-Based Controllability Analysis in Aircraft
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INCORPORATION OF PHYSICS-BASED CONTROLLABILITY ANALYSIS IN AIRCRAFT MULTI-FIDELITY MADO FRAMEWORK Dissertation Submitted to The School of Engineering of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering By Christopher Meckstroth, M.S. Dayton, Ohio December 2019 INCORPORATION OF PHYSICS-BASED CONTROLLABILITY ANALYSIS IN AIRCRAFT MULTI-FIDELITY MADO FRAMEWORK Name: Meckstroth, Christopher Michael APPROVED BY: _________________________________ ________________________________ Raúl Ordóñez, Ph.D. Raymond Kolonay, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Chairman Committee Member Associate Professor Director Electrical and Computer Engineering Multidisciplinary Science and University of Dayton Technology Center AFRL/RQVC _________________________________ ________________________________ Eric Balster, Ph.D. Keigo Hirakawa, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member Associate Professor Associate Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Dayton University of Dayton _________________________________ ________________________________ Robert J. Wilkens, Ph.D., P.E. Eddy M. Rojas, Ph.D., M.A., P.E. Associate Dean for Research and Innovation Dean, School of Engineering Professor School of Engineering ii ABSTRACT INCORPORATION OF PHYSICS-BASED CONTROLLABILITY ANALYSIS IN AIRCRAFT MULTI-FIDELITY MADO FRAMEWORK Name: Meckstroth, Christopher Michael University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Raúl Ordóñez A method is presented to incorporate physics-based controllability assessment in an aircraft Multi-disciplinary Analysis and Design Optimization environment with a target fidelity representing the traditional preliminary aircraft design phase. This method was designed with specific intended application to innovative vehicle concepts such as the Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle, a tailless fighter-type aircraft which requires the use of innovative control effectors to achieve yaw control requirements. Typically, the layout of an aircraft is determined primarily through empirical design methods with minimal physical evaluation influencing the shape. As a result, the evaluation of new technologies such as these innovative control effectors in the past has been limited to placement and testing of them within existing free real estate on an otherwise complete vehicle design. The hypothesis of this dissertation is that inclusion of such technology in earliest stages of the design process has a greater chance of leading to optimal benefit and potentially a closed design for a tailless fighter-type aircraft. However, incorporation of technology that does not have a strong statistical basis through prior work requires some form of physical analysis to be performed in the design iteration. An aerodynamic study was performed to determine the optimal combination of fidelity and computation time for analyzing these types of configurations for the controls analysis in the MADO environment, resulting in the use of a multi-fidelity approach to aerodynamic analysis. This iii approach in turn requires a multi-fidelity, parameterized geometric model of the aircraft with automated generation of analysis mesh. In traditional aircraft design, the disciplines involved are isolated from each other in a linear manner such that one finishes prior to another beginning. Multidisciplinary approaches attempt to merge these. However, in open literature the fidelity level of various disciplines tends to have an inverse relationship. For example, the most complicated controllers explored in MADO tend to use the lowest fidelity aerodynamics and those that use higher fidelity aerodynamics tend to incorporate only a basic controllability assessment if any at all. In fact, this is the first known aircraft MADO effort to incorporate at least preliminary design levels of fidelity into both the aerodynamics and controls disciplines simultaneously. The approach of this dissertation was to test the implications of this by executing the MADO framework with both the low-fidelity aerodynamics and the multi-fidelity aerodynamics approach that is tailored to the controllability method desired. Using only the low-fidelity aerodynamics, the MADO result led to an infeasible aircraft configuration. However, the multi- fidelity approach resulted in an aircraft configuration markedly similar to previous real-life designs and with computed controllability in both the pitch and yaw axes optimized to be slightly above input design requirements. iv Dedicated to my father, Steve Meckstroth, whose mantra of “get good grades, go to college, and get good job” resonated with me from a young age and has led to my continued success in all three of these endeavors. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not be possible without the support of the University of Dayton Research Institute in allowing me to pursue this effort in parallel to my professional research duties. I would like thank my advisor, Dr. Raúl Ordóñez for accepting me as a student and being patient with me as progress on this work was often slow. I want to thank Dr. Raymond Kolonay for his support and guidance throughout this process and for pushing me to continue and ultimately finish when my motivation was at the lowest points. I would also to thank my other committee members, Dr. Eric Balster and Keigo Hirakawa for their time and effort in reviewing my work and providing their feedback. To my wife, Manda, thank you for your continued encouragement throughout these past few years. I could not have finished this without your dedication in taking care of our three children, Jackson, Corwin, and Alivia, allowing me to focus on this work. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... xvii LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................. xviii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Background and Problem Statement ................................................................................ 5 2.2 Aircraft Multidisciplinary Design Optimization .............................................................. 7 2.3 Controls in Conceptual Design and Preliminary Design ................................................. 9 2.4 The Control Configured Vehicle (CCV) ........................................................................ 11 2.5 Aeroservoelasticity ........................................................................................................ 14 2.6 Controls in MADO ........................................................................................................ 15 CHAPTER III CONTROL POWER REQUIRED METHODS ................................................... 19 3.1 Controllability Requirements Definition ....................................................................... 20 3.2 Control Power Required Background ............................................................................ 24 3.3 Linearized Aircraft Model ............................................................................................. 26 3.4 Control Power Required ................................................................................................ 29 3.5 Longitudinal CPR .......................................................................................................... 31 3.5.1 Takeoff Rotation .................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2 Trim CPR ............................................................................................................... 32 3.5.3 Roll Coordination ................................................................................................... 32 vii 3.5.4 Longitudinal Dynamic Response - Short Period .................................................... 33 3.6 Lateral-Directional CPR ................................................................................................ 39 3.6.1 Roll Performance ................................................................................................... 39 3.6.2 Yaw CPR for Roll Initiation .................................................................................. 41 3.6.3 Yaw CPR for Roll Coordination ............................................................................ 42 3.6.4 Crosswind CPR ...................................................................................................... 42 3.6.5 Lateral-Directional Dynamic Response - Dutch Roll ............................................ 43 3.7 Control Power Required Application ............................................................................. 47 3.7.1 Numerical Example ............................................................................................... 53 3.7.2 Control Power Available