Evolutionary Optimization of a Morphing Wing with Wind Tunnel Hardware-in-the-Loop

Active wing morphing is a fertile technology in the realm of unmanned and micro air vehicles: low flight loads and flexible wing materials allow substantial deformation with relatively low actuation power. Proper shape management of these wings for maximum performance is challenging: numerical optimization methods may struggle to accurately predict the three-dimensional flow separation, transition, and reattachment expected at the low operating Reynolds numbers. Conventional experimental optimization techniques (a response surface fit through a designed experiment) may be unable to represent the discontinuous objective functions commonly seen in aerodynamic applications, and the number of function evaluations can become overwhelming with high-fidelity actuation mechanisms. This paper outlines an effective experimental technique for optimizing a morphing airfoil: a genetic algorithm with wind tunnel hardware (strain gage sting balance) in the loop. Optimal wing shapes are found to maximize the measured lift or efficiency through a sweep of angles of attack, for a wing with a single actuation point (camber control) and two actuation points (camber and reflex control). Aerodynamic and electrical hysteresis limits the repeatability of sting balance measurements, complicating the convergence of the genetic algorithm, but not preventing adequate location of optimal designs.

[1]  R. M. Hicks,et al.  An assessment of airfoil design by numerical optimization , 1974 .

[2]  Ely S. Levinsky,et al.  TESTS OF AN IMPROVED, COMPUTER-CONTROLLED, SELF-OPTIMIZING, VARIABLE-GEOMETRY WING , 1982 .

[3]  M. Drela XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils , 1989 .

[4]  John B. Davidson,et al.  FLIGHT DYNAMIC SIMULATION ASSESSMENT OF A MORPHABLE HYPER-ELLIPTIC CAMBERED SPAN WINGED CONFIGURATION , 2003 .

[5]  R. Haftka,et al.  Elements of Structural Optimization , 1984 .

[6]  Oskar von Stryk,et al.  Hardware-in-the-Loop Optimization of the Walking Speed of a Humanoid Robot , 2006 .

[7]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evaluating Multi-criteria Evolutionary Algorithms for Airfoil Optimisation , 2002, PPSN.

[8]  Fujun Peng,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF ACTIVE SHAPE CONTROL OF MEMBRANE STRUCTURES USING GENETIC ALGORITHM , 2004 .

[9]  Clayton C. Bohn,et al.  Dynamic antifouling structures and actuators using EAP composites , 2004 .

[10]  A. Lyrintzis,et al.  Aerodynamic optimization of a morphing airfoil using energy as an objective , 2007 .

[11]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Comparison of Optimization Algorithms for Aerodynamic Shape Design , 1996 .

[12]  H. P. Haney,et al.  Application of numerical optimization to the design of wings with specified pressure distributions , 1980 .

[13]  T. Mueller The influence of laminar separation and transition on low Reynolds number airfoil hysteresis , 1984 .

[14]  W. H. Peters,et al.  Application of an optimized digital correlation method to planar deformation analysis , 1986, Image Vis. Comput..

[15]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Shape Optimization of a Membrane Wing for Micro Air Vehicles , 2003 .

[16]  John Yen,et al.  Design and Implementation of a Shape Memory Alloy Actuated Reconfigurable Airfoil , 2003 .

[17]  Jason D. Lohn,et al.  Toward evolved flight , 2005, GECCO '05.

[18]  Daniel J. Inman,et al.  Morphing wing aerodynamic control via macro-fiber-composite actuators in an unmanned aircraft , 2007 .

[19]  Mujahid Abdulrahim,et al.  Flight Characteristics of Shaping the Membrane Wing of a Micro Air Vehicle , 2005 .

[20]  Ashok Gopalarathnam,et al.  Low-Speed Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoils: Case Study in Inverse Airfoil Design , 2001 .