CFDthesis

Optimization of Airship Envelope Shape using
Computational Fluid Dynamics
M. Tech Dessertation
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
by
Tushar S. Kanikdale
(02301018)
Under the guidance of

Prof. A. G. Marathe
Department of Aerospace Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
June 2004
Dissertation Approval Sheet
Dissertation entitled “Optimization of Airship Envelope Shape using Computa-

tional Fluid Dynamics”, submitted by Tushar S. Kanikdale (Roll No. 02301018) is
approved for the degree of Master of Technology.
Guide Co- Guide
Examiners
(Internal)
(External)
Chairman
Date:
i
Acknowledgement
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude towards my project guide Prof. A. G.
Marathe and co-guide Prof. R.K.Pant for showing the way and guiding me constantly at
all stages, while working on this project. Infact the sound understanding of the problems
and clearer communucation of ideas and sugestions by them can said to have done much
of this project work.
I also extend my sincere thanks to my colleague Mr. Piyush Tagde for giving me his
precious time to accomplish the optimization through DACE.
I personally feel grateful to Ms. Preeti Khot and Charu Patil for developing the GUI
relevant to the present work to assist and partially automate the entire optimization process
loop.
Tushar S. Kanikdale
(02301018)
June. 2004
ii
Abstract
This work aims at the arriving at the optimum shape of an airship envelope of fixed vol-
ume from aerodynamic and structural considerations, using the concept of multi-disciplinary
design optimization. The multi-disciplinary nature of the problem is discussed and the cor-
responding objective functions and the constraints are elucidated. The strategies adopted
are described along with the shape generation algorithm. Fluent CFD code has been used
for computational experimentation in conjunction with SIMANN, simulated annealing
code for optimization. The low fidelity model available in the literature was found to give
large deviations from the physical value of envelope drag. The mathematical model for
envelope drag estimation has been developed based on the detail study of results obtained
through CFD experimentation. It was observed that the shape optimized for minimum drag
shows a significant improvement over a reference GNVR shape. The multi-disciplinary
nature of the problem is addressed by devising a composite objective function and corre-
sponding results are presented.
Keywords: airship envelope shape, optimization, CFD, simulated annealing, mathemti-
cal models
iii
Contents
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Objective and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Multi-Disciplinary Aspects 4
2.1 Multi- Disciplinary Optimization Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Influence of Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Strategy for Solving Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Description of Available Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 CFD Tool Validation and Primary Strategy Adopted 11

3.1 Flow Analyzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Validation of Fluent using GNVR Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Shape Generation using Basic Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4 Response Surface for CDV using DACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 Slapping Technique for CFD Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 Results using DACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Improved Shape Generation Algorithm 21

4.1 Better Shape Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.1 Equations Governing Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.2 Design Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
iv
4.1.3 Validation of Shape Generation Program for Min. Surface Area . . 23
5 Simulated Annealing Optimization Method 25

5.1 SIMANN optimizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Evaluation of Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.1 Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3 Ranges for Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1 Modified Design Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6 Results and Discussion 32

6.1 Results with Low fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.1.1 Verification using Fluent Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2 Intermediate Fidelity Model for CDV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.3 Results with Intermediate Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3.1 Verification using Fluent Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.3.2 Result for Variable Length Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.4 Further Improvement in the CDV Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4.1 Validation of Improved Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.5 Results with Improved Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.5.1 CDV as Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.5.2 Verification using Fluent Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.5.3 Surface Area as Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.6 Multi-Disciplinary Optimization using Composite Objective Function . . . 45
7 Summary and Conclusion 47
References 51
v
List of Figures
1.1 Airship Free Body Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Multi Disciplinary Aspects of Airship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Strategy to Solve Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Local and Global Optima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 GNVR Envelope Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.2 Structured Grid around GNVR body in Semicircular Domain . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Comparison using C p Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4 The NPL Low Drag Airship Body Shape [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5 Generalized Airship Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6 Output of ’Shape Generation Code with Basic Shapes’ . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.7 Response Surface for CDV using DACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.8 Optimized Shape (DACE) Vs GNVR Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1 Improved Configuration for Envelope Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.2 Various Shapes Possible with Improved Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 Comparison of Min. Area Shape with GNVR shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1 Optimization Algorithm using Simulate Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.2 Variation in CDV with Thickness Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1 Comparison showing Optimized Shape for CDV and GNVR shape . . . . . 33
6.2 CDV Vs Surface Area for Fixed Thickness Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.3 CDV Vs (Xymax %/l) for Fixed Thickness Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.4 Optimized Shape with Improved Fidelity Model for CDV Vs GNVR Shape . 36
6.5 Optimized Shapes for CDV with Fixed and Variable Length Configurations . 37
6.6 Variation of Parameter β with Thickness Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.7 Variation of CD α with α . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
vi
6.8 Variation of Coefficient A and B with d l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.9 Comparison Showing Optimized Shapes for Fixed and Variable Length
Configurations Vs GNVR Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.10 Optimized Shapes for ’S’ with Fixed and Variable Length Configurations
Vs GNVR Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.11 Comparison Showing Optimized Shape with Composite Obj. Function Vs
GNVR Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
vii
List of Tables
3.1 Input Parameters in Fluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 Under-relaxation Parameters Specified to Fluent Code . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 Fluent Code Steady State Soln. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1 Ranges for Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.1 Comparison of Optimized Shape for CDV and GNVR Shape using Low
Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.2 Comparison between the Results Predicted by Low Fidelity and Fluent code 33
6.4 Comparison Showing the Results Predicted by Intermediate and High Fi-
delity Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.5 Comparison Showing the Results Predicted by Improved Fidelity and Flu-
ent Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.7 Comparison Showing the Results Predicted by Improved and Fluent code . 43
6.8 Comparison for Min.’S’ Shapes for Fixed and Variable Length Configura-
tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.9 Multi-Disciplinary Optimization using Composite Objective Function . . . 46
viii
Nomenclature
a Major radius of ellipse (A-B) in figure3.5
b Minor radius of ellipse (A-B) in figure3.5
CD Coefficient of drag
CDV Volumetric coefficient of drag
Cp Coefficient of pressure
d Maximum diameter of envelope
fb Bending stress in membrane
fh Hoop stress
g Acceleration due to gravity
I Membrane second moment of inertia
L Lift
l Length of envelope
M bending moment
p internal pressue of airship
N Number of grid points
R Radius of leading spherical envelope cap
R1 Major Radius of second ellipse (B-C) in figure 3.5
R2 Minor Radius of second ellipse (B-C) in figure 3.5
Re Reynold’s number
r radius at at any cross-section of airship
S Total surface area
T Thrust
t Thickness of airship membrane
V Free stream velocity
w1 w2 w3 Weight functions
W0 Total weight of airship
x1 X-coordinate of the start point of spline-I
x2 X-coordinate of the start point of spline-II
x3 X-coordinate of the end point of spline-II
Xymax X-coordinate of the position of maximum diameter x2
y1 Y-coordinate of the start point of spline-I
y2 Y-coordinate of the start point of spline-II
y3 Y-coordinate of the end point of spline-II
ix
Symbols
ρa Density of air
ρhe Density of helium
σmax Maximum hoop stress per unit thickness
Acronym
DACE Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments
SPACE Stochastic Process Analysis for Computer Experiments
x
Chapter 1
Introduction
An airship is a lighter than air vehicle which produces the significant lift due aerostatic
effect or buoyancy force. It differs from the conventional aircraft in terms of lift producing
mechanism, and thereby derive its associated features. The potential of the airship can be
realized in terms of less fuel consumption, high endurance, and ability to hover. There
performance is curtailed due to low speed operation, high sensitivity to wind gusts, lower
payload capacity, and operataion at relatively lower altitude due to density gradient.
The envelope, which generates lift, is the most important component of an airship. The
envelope volume is determined from the required payload and maximum operating altitude,
whereas the shape is usually decided from aerodynamic considerations, i.e. minimum drag.
This work aims at the arriving at the optimum shape of an airship envelope of fixed volume
from aerodynamic and structural considerations, using the concept of multi-disciplinary
design optimization. The aerodynamic considerations are reflected through minimum vol-
umetric drag coefficient, whereas the structural considerations are brought in through min-
imum surface area and hoop stress, both of which directly result in lowest envelope weight.
The manufacturing constraints are implicitly taken care, in the form of lowest rate of change
of curvature of the envelope along the length.
1.1 Background
The airship is a air vehicle which usually operates at lower altitude and lower speed not
beyond 180 Km/hr. The free body diagram of airship moving in air is shown in Fig.1.1
The airship is comprised of a bare hull along with the control surfaces and lower portion
gondola attached to it. It is filled by a lighter than air gas which is generally Hydrogen or
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
Bouyant Force
Helium (He) Drag

Air Free Stream
Weight
Thrust Gondola
Figure 1.1: Airship Free Body Diagram
Helium, and hence get the lift due to Archemedes principle where net lift produced by the
airship is given by
L V ρa ρg g W0 (1.1)
The use of Helium as a lighter gas is preferred as Hydrogen is highly inflammable

whereas He is inert. Sometimes cheap gases like Methane and hot air are also used but at
the cost of net lift. Generally airships are propelled by the propeller powered by low power
I.C. engines, installed in gondola. When moving in air it experiences the net drag as a result
of skin friction and pressure drag. The airships are generally axissymetric [12] hence the
major source of drag is due to skin friction drag in horizontal flight. The contribution by
pressure drag becomes significant at higher angles of attack.
1.2 Motivation
Airships are currently used for various applications like transport over inhospitable regions,
advertisement, survillieance, tourism, and many more. Though airship operation seems to
be simpler, its complete design requires the balance between the aerodynamic, structures
and fabrication aspects as improvement in one discipline may impair the performance in
other. As compared to conventional aircraft, airship design demands less design variables,
it is always practicable and effective to implement the design conceived through multi
disciplinary optimization (MDO) where participating disciplines would be mainly aerody-
namics, structures and manufacturing. Because of simplicity in operation and body config-
uration airship can actually be built at the local place at a very cheap price. Small airships
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3
can easily be manufactured meant for survilience or advertisement. There design can be
conceived after preliminary analysis and thumb rules. D.Howe [1] has examined the feasi-
bility of large freight airships in terms of low operating cost, lower structural weight and
minimum fuel consumption at design speed. To built such large airship to carry passenger
or heavy payload, it requires the study of various aspects of airship and there interactions
to achieve risk less and efficient flight.
1.3 Objective and Scope

The objective of the current project is to decide the aerodynamic shape of the airship en-
velope which will satisfy the specifications and requirements posed by various disciplines
which directly affects the airship performance. Once the strategy to optimize the shape has
been decided, it can be extended for any type of airship i.e. rigid or non-rigid, small size or
large size etc. The project work can also be helpful for designing secondary systems e.g.
mooring system for airships. As the airship is inherently a streamline body, the optimiza-
tion algorithm used will be helpful to design similar kind of streamline bodies like aerofoils
which find extensive use in aerospace applications.
The various aspects involved in the respective discipline which directly affect the vehi-
cle performance, are highlighted in the next chapter.
Chapter 2
Multi-Disciplinary Aspects
This chapter addresses the multi-disciplinary nature of the problem and the influence of
each discipline on the envelope shape design. The basic strategy to attempt the MDO prob-
lem has been discussed. The description of tools required has been outlined.
2.1 Multi- Disciplinary Optimization Problem

The three disciplines namely aerodynamics,structures and manufacturing directly influ-
ences the airship design with their own constraints and requirements. The aerodynamics of
airship has been studied by many authors and based on experimental observations empirical
relation for CD has been proposed. It is shown that coefficient of drag CD for axisymmetric
streamline bodies is a function of thickness ratio (d / l) [2]. Using the empirical correla-
tions given by Khory and Gillett [3] it is observed that, for the bodies with d l 0 23 ,
an increase in maximum diameter reduces the total drag, but induces higher hoop stress .
This illustrates one of the possible interactions among various disciplines which have to be
handled during the optimization process.
Fig.2.1 shows how these disciplines affect the airship design or specifically aerody-
namic shape and gives a fair idea as to how the design should march for the given ob-
jective function for the given specifications and constraints like max payload, max speed,
weight,length etc. All the constraints in the problem along with the given objective function
can be satisfied largely by the aerodynamic shape of an airship envelope.
4
CHAPTER 2. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ASPECTS 5
STRUCTURES
MIN. MIN
HOOP STRESS BENDING STRESS
(Wc)
CD MIN AIRSHIP FABRICATION
AERODYNAMICS MAX PAYLOAD,MAX VELOCITY, MANUFACTURING
(Wa) EASINESS
MAX LENGTH ETC.. (Wb)
FINAL DESIGN
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
F=FaWa+FbWb+FcWc
Figure 2.1: Multi Disciplinary Aspects of Airship
2.1.1 Influence of Disciplines

The shape of an airship is largely driven by the requirements and constraints posed by three
disciplines mainly aerodynamics,structures, and manufacturing. The nature of influence of
each discipline on envelope shape is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Aerodynamics : Aerodynamics concern always demands the lowest drag to minimize
the propulsive thrust requirement. The shape with less surface area would offer less skin
friction drag whereas avoiding flow seperation through shape geometry reduced the pres-
sure drag. In case of aerostats, along with minimum drag, minimum lift (Cl ) is required
as lift decides the tension induced in the tethered ropes. The thereotical method to study
the aerodynamics of airship is given by Jones et.al [12]. The airship drag depends upon
thickness ratio d l as per the empirical formula proposed by Hoerner[2] and is depicted
in Eqn.2.1.
CD 1
3 2 d l
3 2
7 d l 3
(2.1)
Since the thrust required for the airship is dictated by the total drag ,it is preferable to
take drag as a objective function than CD . Hence the coefficient of drag based on volu-
metric area (CDV ) which gives direct indication of drag, is adopted as one of the objective
functions. This volumetric coefficient of drag (CDV ) can be converted to coefficient of drag
based on surface area using the transformation
Volume 2 3
CDV
CD (2.2)
S
Structures : From structures point of view the aerodynamic shape should give mini-
mum bending and hoop stresses. Bending stress is the function of length and can be calcu-
lated using the formula given by Khoury and Gillett [3] as
fb 1 t M r t I
T p π r2 2 π r (2.3)
while hoop stress due to internal pressure is calculated as
p d
fh (2.4)
2 t
Hess [4] has elucidated the actual structural design of airship along with the various
structural configurations. Here it can be said that for the same max. diameter, increase
in length improves the aerodynamic performance but impairs the structural aspects of an
airship.
Manufacturing : The manufacturing of the airship should be as easy as possible.
Conventionally the airships are manufactured by stitching together number of petals made
up of fabric. The fabrication easiness can be expressed mathematically using rate of change
of curvature of the envelope shape and hence in turn poses the additional constraints.
The multi-disciplinary nature of the problem involves more than one objective functions
each corresponding to the participating disciplines. In order to attempt such MDO problem
the two usual approaches followed are
- Solve the optimization problem for the primary objective function and include addi-
tional objective functions in the form of constraints posed by rest of the disciplines.
- Construct the composite objective function which will have the weighted combination
of all the objective functions. The weight-age are usually assigned based on the require-
ments and past experience. Fig.2.1 further clarifies the idea.
2.1.2 Problem Formulation

The specific problem aims at developing a general tool to optimize the envelope shape
of envelope for the individual objective functions or their weighted combinations as per
the design requirements. Equality constraints of fixed volume (1000 m3 ) and fixed length
(26.7 m) are imposed. The constraint on envelope volume represents the fixed payload
and fixed length constraint has arisen due to the stability requirement where the envelope
length has strong influence over the control surface area. The total drag, envelope weight
and maximum stress induced in the membrane are considered as three possible objective
functions. To address the multi-disciplinary nature of the problem a composite objective
function is defined as follows
Fcomp w1 CDV
w2 S
w3 σmax (2.5)
The design vector XD is a set of design variables which completely defines the aerody-
namic shape and hence the objective function. The solution of the optimization problem is
the design vector XD for which given objective function gets minimized or maximized as
per the requirements.
2.2 Strategy for Solving Problem

The basic strategy to attempt the problem would be to use the optimizer in conjunction with
the ’shape generation routine’ which will generate a shape and calculate the corresponding
objective function for the specified design vector XD .
CFD code is the primary candidates to evaluate the flow related objective functions par-
ticularly drag. The use of full fledged CFD codes render the optimization process highly
time intensive hence the approach needs the primary focus towards less costlier drag esti-
mation of envelope shape. Fig. 2.2 provides the basic approach for optimization when CDV
is considered as objective function alone. Sophia et. al [5] has optimized for aerodynamic
shape in the similar fashion except the shape was generated using CAD software PRO-E.
2.2.1 Description of Available Tools

Flow Analyzer : The flow analyzer could be Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) soft-
ware or self-written CFD code for the relevant application. The commercial CFD soft-
wares has to be first validated for the present case to ensure that the correct physics has
been captured. Moreover the correct equations governing the fluid dynamics are required
to be solved depending upon the operating conditions. This suggests the proper selection of
solver i.e. inviscid, laminar, K-ε, S-A etc. Since airship moves with lower speed, flow can
be considered as incompressible. Hence source panel method can be used as a low fidelity
analysis. Although it is faster, it may give the unrealistic results as it assumes the flow to
be inviscid.
DESIGN VECTOR
XD
SHAPE GENERATION
CODE
OPTIMIZER
MODIFIED SHAPE
FLOW ANALYZER GRID GENERATOR
Figure 2.2: Strategy to Solve Problem
The Optimizer : The optimization techniques can be broadly distinguished based on

whether the solution obtained is local optimum or global optimum. Fig 2.3 shows the graph
of objective function versus design variable. This is the case of one dimensional optimiza-
tion problem as the dimension of design vector (XD ) is one. As seen in Fig.2.3 points D and
E are the global optima, point B represents local minima, whereas points A and C are local
maxima.
The optimization methods which gives the global optima are typically
Simulated Annealing.
Genetic Algorithm.
These methods are always used where the design vector size is large and approximate
location or region of design space where global optima lies is not known. These methods
always gives the global optimum but are highly time intensive.
The optimization methods which gives local optima are basically calculus or gradient
POINT D − GLOBAL MINIMA
POINT E − GLOBAL MAXIMA
POINTS B − LOCAL MINIMA
POINT A,C − LOCAL MAXIMA

OBJ. FUNCTION ( Z )
E
A
DESIGN VARIABLE (X )
Figure 2.3: Local and Global Optima
based methods. The basic algorithm of calculus based method for a minimization problem
is given as follows
1. Find the gradient at the current point. Gradient gives the direction of maximum
change of the objective function, in the design space.
2. Move a small distance in the direction of negative gradient to get the next design
vector
3. Evaluate objective function and gradient for new design vector.
4. If the current objective function becomes gre greater than previous, stop. Otherwise
go to step no.2.
Furthermore there are direct and indirect methods to handle constrained optimization
problems depending upon whether the constraints are treated explicitly or not. Steepest
descent method is one of the widely accepted methods as stated by Arora [6]. Gradient or
calculus based methods does not ensure the global optima and are used where the region in
the design space where global optima is expected, is known for sure. These methods gives
the results quickly and hence computationally less time intensive.
The actual tool selected for flow analysis and its validation is discussed in the next
chapter. The primary approach followed to attempt the problem has also been presented.
Chapter 3
CFD Tool Validation and Primary

Strategy Adopted
This chapter discusses the tools selected for flow analysis for the concerned problem of
aerodynamic shape optimization. The results to validate the CFD software are presented.
The initial strategy adopted to attempt the problem using DACE has also been discussed.
3.1 Flow Analyzer

Fluent 6.1 has been selected as flow analysis tool for the present study. Fluent is the CFD
software product developed by Fluent Inc.(USA). The package offers flow and heat transfer
modeling software suited to a wide range of applications. Many researchers have used the
Fluent package to validate for the given application. Just to mention Z. Pateka and L. Sm-
rcek [7] have validated Fluent code for determining aerodynamic characteristics of aircraft
surfaces. Rachid Younsi et.al [8] have also validated Fluent code using the experimental
data for the flow over NACA 4415 airfoil as a cross-section of wind turbine blade.
Gambit is another commercial software developed by Fluent Inc. It is complimentary
to main Fluent CFD code to generate the grid in the computational domain. Structured and
unstructured grids can be generated over the complex bodies and domains.
A reference shape called GNVR shape has been used to validate the Fluent code. More-
over the aerodynamic characteristics of the optimal envelope shape obtained are compared
to that of GNVR shape. The GNVR shape is a combination of ellipse, circle and parabola
as shown in Fig.3.1. The GNVR shape is named after Prof. G.N.V.Rao from IISc Banglore,
who has conceptualized this shape. The total volume for GNVR shape as a body of revolu-
11
CHAPTER 3. CFD TOOL VALIDATION AND PRIMARY STRATEGY ADOPTED 12
tion is found to be 1000 m3 . Past studies [9] indicated that this shape corresponds to least
volumetric coefficient of drag CDV under the given operating conditions. One of the aims
of this work is to confirm this and to obtain a better shape if possible.
Figure 3.1: GNVR Envelope Shape
3.2 Validation of Fluent using GNVR Data

To analyze the flow field over GNVR body, an axisymmetric structured grid was built
around the upper half of the body in the semicircular computational domain using Gambit
as shown in Fig. 3.2.
The solver selected is axisymmetric segregated implicit in conjunction with S-A tur-
bulence model. The flow boundary conditions and other input parameters specified are
depicted in Table3.1. The required boundary condition parameters i.e. pressure, tempera-
ture and density are obtained using Standard International Atmosphere, corresponding to
altitude of 1.2 Km. The Sutherland formula was selected for viscosity variation with tem-
perature.
The SIMPLE method of pressure-velocity coupling has been used along-with the first
order upwind scheme. The under-relaxation parameters specified are given in Table 3.2
Figure 3.2: Structured Grid around GNVR body in Semicircular Domain
Table 3.1: Input Parameters in Fluent
Parameters Numerical Values

M∞ 0.15
P∞ (Pa) 87514
T∞ (K) 280.3
α (deg) 0
CP (J/kg-k) 1006.43
k 0.0242
Convergence Criterion 1E-05
Fluent code required around 2.5 hrs to reach to steady state solution on a standard
Pentium III (650 Hz) machine. The coefficient of pressure (C p ) distribution over the air-
ship envelope surface is compared with reference values for GNVR shape calculated using
source panel method by Narayana [9] and is shown in Fig. 3.3. The source panel method
uses the potential theory and is used for incompressible and inviscid fluids. The details of
this method are given by Anderson [10]. The values closely match except near the trailing
edge because of the flow seperation. The influence of computational domain size has also
been studied and it is found that the solution obtained with semicircular computational do-
Table 3.2: Under-relaxation Parameters Specified to Fluent Code
Pressure 0.3
Density 1.0
Body Forces 1.0
Momentum 0.7
Modi f ied 0.8
turbulent viscosity
Turbulent viscosity 1.0
Energy 0.8
main with 10l radius exactly matches with that of 5l computational domain size. To study
the effect of turbulence model standard k-ε model is used in place of S-A model. It is found
that C p distribution for both the models matches with each other. S-A model has been pre-
ferred which many a times results in the computational economy being a one equation
model [11].
1
"Fluent Code"
"Source Panel Method"
0.8
0.6

0.4
Cp
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/l
Figure 3.3: Comparison using C p Distribution
Table 3.3 provides the other relevant information regarding the Fluent code steady state
solution.
Table 3.3: Fluent Code Steady State Soln. Parameters
Parameters Numerical Values

Volume m3 1000
d l 0.160
S (m2 ) 573.1
Cd 4.5758E-03
CDV 2.622E-02
Cl 0
Wallyplus 37.12
3.3 Shape Generation using Basic Shapes

The National Physical Laboratory in England suggested a low drag shape for an airship
hull as shown in Fig. 3.4. The front part is an ellipse as in GNVR shape, and the rear part
2 2 2 2
x y x y
2 + 2 =1
2 + 2 =1
a b 2a b
B
b
C
A O
a
Figure 3.4: The NPL Low Drag Airship Body Shape [3]
is again an ellipse only. In order to take the advantage of both NPL and GNVR shape a
generalized shape is defined and is shown in Fig.3.5.
2 2 2 2
x y x (y−yo) 2
2 + 2 =1 + =1 y = c (xe+xp−x)
a b R1 2 R2 2
B
b C
A O (0,0) D
xp
a xe
Total length l = (a + xe + xp)
Figure 3.5: Generalized Airship Geometry
Design Vector Description
The portion from point A to B is ellipse, B to C ellipse and C to D is parabola.The equation

governing the geometry are as follows:
Ellipse (A - B) :
x2 y2

1 (3.1)
a2 b2
Ellipse (B - C) :
x2 y y0 2

1 (3.2)
R21 R22
Parabola (C - D) :
y2 c xe
x p x (3.3)
The number of design variables could be a b R1 R2 y0 xe ye x p c but the actual

number of design variables to control the shape are dictated by certain geometric condi-
tions and constraints, as follows
Volume of body of revolution = 1000 m3
Total length l = a
xe
x p = 26.8 m
Curve should be continuous at points B which implies
Slope at point B due to ellipse (A - B) = Slope at point B due to ellipse (B - C). Since
slope at point B is zero fixed by ellipse (A - B). It reduced to the simple condition as
R1 b
y0
Again to maintain the continuity, slope at point C due to ellipse (B - C) = Slope at
point C due to parabola (C - D).
Coordinates of point C xe ye should satisfy the equation of ellipse (B-C) and parabola.
Mathematically it implies
x2e ye y0 2

1
R21 R22
y2e c xe
x p x
With the six above mentioned condition, out of nine unknowns the design variables
to dictate the shape becomes three. Moreover it was observed that the value of maximum
diameter b gets fixed because of geometric and specified constraints. Hence the size of the
design vector reduced to two . The two parameters selected were R1 Xe , for convenience.
The FORTRAN code was written to generate the geometry for the input of design vector
XD R1 Xe . The output of the program for various design vectors is shown in Fig.3.6
3.4 Response Surface for CDV using DACE

Many times the physical experiments are replaced by computer experiments and simulation
from economy, time and risk point of view. The results of such experiments are usually the
data showing variation in one or more output variables with certain input variables. Design
30 "coordinates21.out" u 1:2
"coordinates22.out" u 1:2
25 "coordinates26.out" u 1:2
20
15
10
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3.6: Output of ’Shape Generation Code with Basic Shapes’
and Analysis of Computer Experiments (DACE) is a technique used typically for problems
with multidimensional space to predict the response of a dependent variables as a func-
tion of a independent design variables (or design vector XD ). The philosophy of DACE
lies in the fact that there is absolutely no change in the output with the given input for
computer experiments. Whereas there exists the error in the results obtained through the
physical experiment if repeated for the same input. The same fact is used by Response
Surface Methodology (RSM) allowing error at certain points in the response surface fit.
DACE ensures zero error at every point and thus differs from conventional Response Sur-
face Methodology.
Since the design vector size is small for the configuration with primary shapes, it be-
came economical to use the surrogate model technique like DACE.. The design space is
descretized using Orthogonal Latin Square method and the actual values for CDV corre-
sponding to the design points are calculated using Fluent code. The ranges for design vari-
ables are selected such that the entire design space lies in feasible region. In the current
optimization problem DACE has been used to obtain the response surface for CDV . Mathe-
matically the surface represents the relation of CD with design vector XD (Xe ,R1 ) expressed
as
CD = F(XD )
3.4.1 Slapping Technique for CFD Solution

DACE requires CDV value or the flow field data for the sufficient number of airship bod-
ies with varying envelope shape. Though the shapes are geometrically different, they are
more or less similar with small perturbation. Hence once the steady state solution for the
reference body is achieved, it can be taken as initial guess for the another body for which
solution is required. This technique is termed as slapping technique and is used for the
current problem. It is observed that the time required for steady state solution for the same
grid and boundary conditions has reduced saving up to 40% of computational time per
geometry.
3.5 Results using DACE

Fig.3.7 shows the response surface obtained for CDV and its various views. ”SPACE” is
the optimization software which uses the DACE philosophy to find the optima using the
simplex method. SPACE has been used to optimize for minimum CDV and it was found that
the shape corresponding to minimum CDV mmatches closely to GNVR shape as shown in
Fig.3.8. The design vector XD ccorresponding to optimum shape comes out to be (48.05 ,
3.54).
Figure 3.7: Response Surface for CDV using DACE

Figure 3.8: Optimized Shape (DACE) Vs GNVR Shape
Thus the generalized geometry composed of standard shapes like ellipse and parabola
results in GNVR shape as an optimum shape for minimum CDV . To explore the possibil-
ity of better shapes in terms of aerodynamics and other considerations like weight,stress,
it is needed to construct more generalized geometry. Hence the cubic splines along with
parabola and sphere were used to define a generalized configuration of the shape. The cor-
responding equations governing the shape in the form of geometrical requirements and
constraints are discussed in the next chapter.
Chapter 4
Improved Shape Generation Algorithm
This chapter presents the description of better shape configuration, conceived to explore
the possibility of better shapes. The geometric elements constituting the complete envelope
shape are described along-with the governing equations. The validation of shape generation
program is discussed for the case of feasible minimum area shape.
4.1 Better Shape Configuration

The improved generalized geometry for envelope shape is shown in Fig.4.1. The provision
for the spherical portion at the leading edge is required to account for the frontal spherical
cap which has provision for mooring mast. The trailing portion of the envelope shape is
parabola to ensure the smooth flow. Two cubic splines have been fitted in series in between
the spherical portion and the parabola. Since the airship body is considered to be the body of
revolution, the complete analysis was done for the axisymmetric case. The FORTRAN code
was developed to generate the shape for the specified design vector and the corresponding
objective functions. The code is called as shape generation program for reference.
4.1.1 Equations Governing Shape

The governing equations for indivisual component of the geometry are listed below with
reference to the origin at the leading edge of the envelope.
Sphere (Circle in 2-D)
y2 2xR x2 (4.1)
Spline I
y a1 x3
b1 x2
c1 x
d1 (4.2)
21
CHAPTER 4. IMPROVED SHAPE GENERATION ALGORITHM 22
Figure 4.1: Improved Configuration for Envelope Shape
Spline II
y a2 x3
b2 x2
c2 x
d2 (4.3)
Parabola
y2 an l x (4.4)
4.1.2 Design Vector

The total number of unknowns as seen from the equations are eleven , namely
(R,a1 ,b1 ,c1 ,d1 ,a2 ,b2 ,c2 ,d2 ,an ,l). The size of the design vector can be found out after specify-
ing constraints in the form of boundary conditions for the governing equations. The various
constraints and conditions imposed on the geometry are as follows
1. Volume of airship = 1000 m3
2. Slope continuity at point (x1 ,y1 )
5. Slope at point (x2 ,y2 ) = 0

The size of the design vector must be 6 to find out 11 unknowns for 5 given conditions.
The design vector for the concerned problem is selected as
XD = (x1 , y2 , x2 , x3 , y3 , l)
The linear equations were solved using Gauss Jordan method and the nonlinear equation
for volume is coupled using the technique of successive approximation. The various shapes
possible corresponding to the specified design vector are shown in Fig.4.2.
The convex envelope shapes are discarded by forcing negative radius of curvature ,
since the shapes with convexcity particularly at the trailing portion would suffer from heavy
pressure drag and such shapes are also considered to have greater penalty in terms of manu-
facturing. Moreover the low fidelity empirical formulae for CDV is applicable for streamline
bodies only. Mathematically the criterion imposed can be stated as
d 2y
dx2
0 (4.5)
Figure 4.2: Various Shapes Possible with Improved Configuration
4.1.3 Validation of Shape Generation Program for Min. Surface Area

The shape generation program accepts the design vector XD and calculates the correspond-
ing shape coordinates along-with the relevant objective functions. The program has been
tested for the case of minimum surface area as objective function where the constraint on
the length was completely relaxed to see whether the resulted shape lies closer to sphere of
volume 1000 m3 . Fig. 4.3 compares the resulted shape with the GNVR shape. The surface
area found to be 494.5m2 whereas the sphere having the same volume has surface area
value 483.6m2
Figure 4.3: Comparison of Min. Area Shape with GNVR shape
The shape cannot be a perfect sphere because of enforcement of parabolic portion at

the trailing edge of the envelope.
Simulated annealing optimization technique has been adopted for the current six dimen-
sional design vector optimization problem. Simulated annealing is a versatile technique of
optimization and results in the global optimum in the design space. The description of
simulated annealing code SIMANN along-with the required models and design vector are
discussed in the next chapter.
Chapter 5
Simulated Annealing Optimization

Method
This chapter outlines the basic SA algorithm and its application for the present problem.
The various models required by the optimizer to estimate the objective functions have been
described. The modified design vector description along with design variables ranges is
presented
5.1 SIMANN optimizer

The SIMANN SA code developed by Goffe et al. [14] based on the methodology proposed
by Corana et al [15] for objective functions involving continuous variables is employed
for optimization in the present study. Simulated annealing uses the analogy of annealing
process in metallurgy where the material is allowed to cool gradually to relieve the stresses
by establishing the equilibrium state. As the temperature of the material falls down, the
molecules rearrange themselves to constitute the minimum energy state and eventually as
the temperature approaches a very low value ,the lowest energy state or equilibrium state is
achieved. The probability that at the given temperature the redistribution of the molecules
achieves the lower energy state is given by Boltzman’s probability distribution as
Prob E exp E kT (5.1)
From the equation it can be said that as the temperature comes down the probability
that the higher energy state is achieved decreases.
The analogy of annealing process can be extended to optimization method where the
25
CHAPTER 5. SIMULATED ANNEALING OPTIMIZATION METHOD 26
design variables are analogous to the molecules and the combination of the design variable
gives the minimum energy state i.e the minimum objective function point as the temperature
gradually falls down. The available simulated annealing code SIMANN was incorporated
with improved shape generation program. The information flow for the resulting code is
shown in Fig.5.1 in the form of block diagram for the case of minimization of objective
function.
Figure 5.1: Optimization Algorithm using Simulate Annealing
The SIMANN main program supplies design vector XD to subroutine user which is
’shape generation program’ in the present application which accepts XD and estimate the
objective function as output. If this objective function is less than the previous one then it is
certainly accepted but if it is more, then the probability of its acceptance is decide using the
criterion developed by Metropolis et al. [16] which incorporates the Boltzman’s probabil-
ity distribution formula. A separate random number generation subroutine is required for
Metropolis criterion. In each iteration of the main program the objective function is eval-
uated for (n*ns*nt) times. Each design variable is perturbed for ’ns’ times with small step
size and corresponding to perturbed design vector the objective function is evaluated. This
cycle is repeated for ’nt’times constituting the outermost loop. Since ’n’ is the number of
design variables, the total number of function evaluations become (n*ns*nt) per iteration.
The temperature gets subsequently reduced after each iteration.
A very high acceptance rate implies that the function domain is not being fully ex-
plored,while a very low acceptance rate means that the new trial points are being generated
too far away from the current optimum. Both of these imply that the algorithm is not pro-
gressing efficiently and involves wasting of computational effort. Since the probability of
acceptance of higher energy state point is high at higher temperatures, during the process
some uphill moves are also permitted. This feature renders simulated annealing the ability
to find the global optima.
During the iterations the information for optimal value is stored and once the same
optimal values is reached within numerical convergence the program is terminated. In the
current program the process terminates when same optimal value is reached twice. If con-
vergence criterion is not meet then the program terminates when the maximum number of
evaluations exceeds the specified value.
As with all general purpose optimization methods, some control parameters in SIMANN
had to be ”tuned” to suit the objective function, and to ensure that the optimizer performs
efficiently. A bad choice for these parameters can make the algorithm extremely inefficient
and may even result in failure to arrive at the global optimum. The eight such parameters
in SIMANN are Tinit , vi , NS , ci , NT , rt , Neps and eps. Values of 1.0, 20, 30, 0.85,2.0, 2
are assigned for vi , NS , ci , NT , rt , Neps respectively, as recommended by Corana et al [15],
and based on previous experience. The most suitable values of the remaining 3 parameters
viz. Tinit , are determined by numerical experimentation. For instance, Tinit is determined
as 15000 by trial runs, and eps is assigned a value 1.0E-5 for CDV and 1.0 for ’S’. A higher
penalty is forced on the objective function for the undesired shapes resulted through the
shape generation algorithm. Being the problem is of multi disciplinary optimization type,
various objective functions defined are as follows
Coefficient of drag based on volumetric area (CDV )
Total surface area (S)
Maximum hoop stress in the envelope material (σ )
Combination of CD S, and σ with the specified weight-age values.
5.2 Evaluation of Objective Functions

The optimization process using high fidelity models becomes highly time intensive. In the
present approach instead of directly using high fidelity analysis to evaluate the objective
functions, low fidelity models suggested in the literature have been incorporated with the
optimizer.
5.2.1 Model Description

CDV being a flow parameter needs to be evaluated using flow analysis or CFD tool. But
evaluation of CDV using CFD tool Fluent requires around 2.50 hours on a standard Pentium
III (650 MHz) machine, thus linking the CFD tool with the optimizer renders the process
highly time intensive. Hence it was decided to prefer a low fidelity model for estimating
the value of CDV . Same thing is true regarding the estimation for maximum stress since the
high fidelity tool like Finite Element Method is not economical.
Volumetric Coefficient of Drag ( CDV )
Khoury and Gillete [3] have given the formula for CDV as a function of thickness ratio d l
for the streamline bodies of revolution and is depicted in Eqn.5.2
0 172 l d
1 3 0 252 d l
12 1 032 d l
27
CDV 1 6 (5.2)
Re
Variation of CDV with d l is shown Fig.5.2. It can be seen that CDV value initially
decreases, and then monotonically increases with thickness ratio. The minimum CDV is
observed near thickness ratio 0.23.
The total drag on airship also depends upon cross-flow. Jones et.al.[12] has given the
correlation for drag in terms of axial and cross-flow drag coefficients. The effect of cross-
flow is however neglected in the present work.
Total Surface Area ( S )
Total surface area has been considered as one of the objective functions as it gives the direct
indication of the envelope weight. Total surface area for the envelope shape is estimated
analytically as the equations governing the shape are known.
Figure 5.2: Variation in CDV with Thickness Ratio
Maximum Hoop Stress per Unit Thickness (σmax )
The maximum hoop stress per unit thickness is given by Eq. 5.3 and is depends mainly upon
differential aerodynamic and internal pressure with respect to the ambient pressure and
variation in hydrostatic pressure as depicted in Eq.5.4. Pant and gawale [13] have provided
a procedure for estimation of total internal pressure. The aerodynamic pressure arises due
to the motion of the body. The internal pressure inside the envelope is generally taken 15%
more than the dynamic pressure to ensure that the shape of the envelope is maintained dur-
ing forward motion. The value for coefficient of pressure C p required for ∆P aerodynamic
calculation is generally taken as 0.33 as suggested by Khoury and Gillett[3]. The differen-
tial aerodynamic and internal pressure are calculated using Eq.5.5 and Eq.5.6 respectively.
∆Pd
σmax (5.3)
2
ρa ρhe gd
∆p ∆P aerodynamic
∆P internal
(5.4)
2
Where
∆P aerodynamic 1 2ρaV 2C p (5.5)
∆P internal 1 15 1 2ρaV 2 (5.6)

5.3 Ranges for Design Variables

The primary function of the optimizer is to find the optima in the specified design space.
The design space is defined by specifying the ranges for design variables which can be
determined by looking at the constraints and special geometrical requirements. It is required
that all the design variables should be independent of each other. The design space need
to be determined appropriately so that better results are achieved with less computational
time.
5.3.1 Modified Design Vector

The design vector defining the complete shape geometry is given as XD = x1 y2 x2 x3 y3 l
It can be noted that x2 and x3 are not independent variables since for every geometry, fol-
lowing obvious conditions has to be satisfied
x2 x1 (5.7)
x3 x2 (5.8)
Hence the design vector was modified by replacing x2 and x3 by δ1 and δ2 such that
x2 x1
δ1 (5.9)
x3 x2
δ2 (5.10)
Thus the modified design vector becomes XD = (x1 , y2 , δ1 , δ2 ,y3 , l). Since many con-
straints are being handled implicitly by shape generation program, the ranges for design
variables are identified such that resulted shape lies in the feasible region. The constraint
of constant length is taken care by assigning a small range to length. The design variables
are normalized between (0 - 1) using the respective ranges . The ranges assigned to various
design variables are specified in the Table 5.1
The results obtained using the optimizer are discussed in the next chapter. The opti-
mized shapes for various objective functions, along with the comparison with reference
GNVR shape are also presented.
Table 5.1: Ranges for Design Variables
Design Variable Range

x1 0.05 - 2.0
y2 0.5 - 5.0
δ1 0.5 - 16.0
δ2 0.5 - 21.0
y3 0.3 - 1.6
l 26.6 - 26.7
Chapter 6
Results and Discussion
This chapter discuss the results obtained using simulated annealing code SIMANN used
in conjunction with available and developed models particularly for CDV . The basis and
need for development the model for CDV has been emphasized. The results obtained with
existing and developed models are presented and discussed in details.
6.1 Results with Low fidelity

The low fidelity formula for estimating CDV as given by Eqn.5.2 has been incorporated
with the SIMANN optimizer. The optimized shape resulted for CDV as objective function
is compared with GNVR shape as shown in Fig. 6.1. Table 6.1 shows the comparison of
various parameters for optimized and GNVR shape. The marginal improvement of 1.3% is
observed in drag or CDV with low fidelity analysis. The shape offers marginal improvement
in surface area with higher penalty on stress. The thickness ratio for the optimized shape is
greater than that of GNVR shape resulting in lesser drag as seen from Eq.5.2.
Table 6.1: Comparison of Optimized Shape for CDV and GNVR Shape using Low Fidelity
GNVR Shape Optimized Shape % Improvement

Thickness Ratio (d / l) 0.160 0.178 -
CDV (Obj. Function) 1.6902E-02 1.6678E-02 1.3%
Surface Area (m2 ) 573.1 560 2.3 %
σmax (N m) 4457 4924 -10.5 %
32
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33
Figure 6.1: Comparison showing Optimized Shape for CDV and GNVR shape
6.1.1 Verification using Fluent Results

It is needed to estimate the actual CDV with high fidelity analysis to verify the practical
applicability of the results obtained using the low fidelity model. The shape resulted from
optimizer for minimum CDV is tested using CFD code Fluent with the similar grid and
boundary conditions as that of GNVR shape. The comparison for optimized body with
GNVR shape for low and high fidelity analysis is presented in Table 6.2 . It can be seen
that the drag for optimized shape is 27% greater than GNVR hull shape as obtained using
Fluent code which is in complete contrast to the results predicted by low fidelity model.
Table 6.2: Comparison between the Results Predicted by Low Fidelity and Fluent code
Model GNVR Shape Optimized Shape % Improvement

CDV 1.6902E-02 1.6689E-02 1.3 %
Low Fidelity
CDV 2.622E-02 3.338E-02 -27.0 %
Fluent Code
6.2 Intermediate Fidelity Model for CDV

The results presented in Table 6.2 prompts to improve the low fidelity model for estimat-
ing CDV . The large variation in predicted value of CDV is considered due to the pressure
drag. Lutz et.al [17] has reported that the total drag for airship like bodies is a function of
position of maximum diameter and surface area. The position of maximum diameter along
the length of the hull decides the pressure drag whereas the surface area mainly contribute
to skin friction drag. This fact helps to understand that for a body having fixed thickness
ratio d l , total drag can vary appreciably if either the position of maximum diameter or
surface area changes.
The variation of CDV with surface area is studied using data obtained through the Fluent
code for the bodies having same thickness ratio as that of GNVR shape. Fig.6.2 shows the
variation of CDV with the surface area. It can be observed that with the change in the surface
area by 4.5% CDV value changes by 2.5%. Moreover the graph largely follows the linear
nature.
0.018
"cftsa.plot"
0.016
0.014
0.012
CDV
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
570 575 580 585 590 595 600
S
Figure 6.2: CDV Vs Surface Area for Fixed Thickness Ratio
Similar study is made to see the effect of position of maximum diameter on volumetric
coefficient of drag CDV . Figure 6.3 shows the variation of CDV with respect to (Xymax l ).
It is seen from the graph that as (Xymax l ) value increases CDV decreases as a consequence
of reduced pressure drag. 80% variation in (Xymax l) causes CDV to vary by 42%. So the
sensitivity of CDV with respect to surface area and (Xymax l ) is nearly same.
Though for the same thickness ratio surface area and (Xymax l ) seem to affect CDV value
equally, it can be argued that with the increase in maximum diameter for the same length,
will induce more pressure drag as the projected area increases in proportion to d 2 . Moreover
the absolute variation in CDV for the shape configuration with constant (d l) considered is
5.5
"Xymax.plot"
4.5
CDV
4
3.5
2.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Xymax / l (%)
Figure 6.3: CDV Vs (Xymax %/l) for Fixed Thickness Ratio
very high (80%) for the variation in the parameter (Xymax l). Since the original expression
for CDV is not very much able to take the effect of pressure drag, current low fidelity model
for CDV is updated using CDV variation with (Xymax l). To retain the feature of original
equation, the difference between CDV obtained using Fluent code and that using original
low fidelity analysis is considered for curve fitting. A third degree polynomial is fitted by
the least square method. The new expression arrived for CDV is presented in the form of
Eqn.6.1 where CDV is calculated using Eqn.5.2
CDV mod CDV

37 54X
3

61 55X
2
32 568X
6 6033 E 02 (6.1)
Where X = (Xymax l)
6.3 Results with Intermediate Fidelity

The optimizer is incorporated with intermediate CDV model given by Eqn. 6.1and result is
obtained for CDV as objective function. Figure 6.4 compares the resulted shape with GNVR
shape. It can be seen that the configuration for optimized envelope shape is appreciably
closer to GNVR shape. Comparison in terms of numerical values for various objective
function is shown in table 6.3.
6.3.1 Verification using Fluent Code

Table 6.4 compares the results using intermediate fidelity to that obtained using Fluent
code. The intermediate fidelity analysis gives the idea of aerodynamically better shape than
GNVR as seen in table 6.3, whereas the same is contradicted by the results predicted by
Fluent code showing increase in the drag by 11.5% for optimized body as compared to
GNVR body. Referring to Table 6.2 again, it can inferred that the results using intermedi-
ate fidelity are better than low fidelity since the actual drag for the optimized body resulted
using former is 12.5% less than that predicted with latter. To model the physics more ac-
curately sufficiently large experimental data is required to be obtained for the bodies with
varying thickness ratios.
Figure 6.4: Optimized Shape with Improved Fidelity Model for CDV Vs GNVR Shape
Table 6.3: Results with Improved Fidelity

Thickness Ratio (d / l) 0.16 0.1807
CDV (Obj. Function) 2.702E-02 2.6619E-02 1.5%
Intermediate Fidelity
Surface Area (m2 ) 573.1 557.4 2.7%
σmax (N m) 4457 4903 -10.0 %
Table 6.4: Comparison Showing the Results Predicted by Intermediate and High Fidelity
Models
Model GNVR Shape Optimized Shape % Improvement

CDV 2.702E-02 2.6619E-02 1.5 %
Intermediate Fidelity
CDV 2.622E-02 2.922E-02 -11.5 %
Fluent Code
6.3.2 Result for Variable Length Configuration

The length of the envelope so far was constrained to remain fixed. To explore the possibility
of other aerodynamically better shape, the fixed length constraint was relaxed and length
was allowed to vary between 25.0 - 30.0 m. The optimized shape for CDV is compared
with that resulted for fixed length and is shown in Fig. 6.5. It is interesting to note that
the optimized shape with fixed length and variable length configuration matches closely to
each other. Thus minimum drag shape has the same length as that of GNVR shape with the
condition of fixed volume as the main constraint.
Figure 6.5: Optimized Shapes for CDV with Fixed and Variable Length Configurations
6.4 Further Improvement in the CDV Model

The intermediate fidelity model is found to be inadequate when applied to the shapes with
thickness ratios different from GNVR shape. The main idea of further improving the in-
termediate fidelity model for CDV is to closely examine the various feasible shapes spread
across the entire design space and determining the dominant geometric parameters which
directly influence the aerodynamic characteristics of an envelope. In the present study, sim-
ilar approach is adopted where sufficient number of experiments were conducted using
Fluent code for family of shapes corresponding to one thickness ratio.The length was al-
lowed to vary between 25m to 30m . The shapes were found to lie between the thickness
ratio 0.14 to 0.21. The detail study of these shapes has resulted in three geometric parame-
ters other than Xymax to predict CDV for the given envelope shape. The concerned geometric
parameters has been named as α1 , α2 , α3 and are described below
α1 =
d
l Xymax
α2 = 0 9ll Ndy dx

∑lx

∑0 1l dy dx
α3 = x 0l N
These three parameters and Xymax are combined together to arrive at a single geometric
parameter ’α’ given as
β
α α1 α2 α3 Xymax (6.2)
The slope (dy dx) for the concerned shape configuration at x 0 and x l are thereot-
ically infinite and is taken care numerically by omitting the point on leading and trailing
edge in the calculations of the parameters α2 and α3 . The actual computation of the slopes
starts at a distance of the order of 0.05 away from both the edges. N indicates the number
of grid points considered across the initial 10% length for α1 estimation and trailing 90%
length for α2 estimation. The parameter β is calculated as a function of thickness ratio.
It becomes clear from the observed variation of β with d l shown in Fig. 6.6, that the
curve follows the linear nature from d l - 0.16 onwards and is essentially invariant below
this threshold. The second or higher degree fit for β to account for all the points would
result in appreciably higher error particularly for the shapes with lower thickness ratios in
this case. In the present approach β has been estimated conditionally as

214 d l 31 26 β 3
β (6.3)
3 Otherwise
14
12
10
8
β
6
0
0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22
(d / l)
Figure 6.6: Variation of Parameter β with Thickness Ratio
The conditional estimation along with the linear fit depicted in Eqn.6.3 improves the
accuracy by inducing the lower order errors in the curve fit model.
The coefficient of drag based on surface area CD has been used in the model rather than
CDV as a consequence of smoother variation of CD with α. Figure 6.7 shows the variation
of CD with α for various thickness ratios. Similar graphs have been resulted for rest of
the thickness ratios. The linear fit for these graphs has resulted in R2 value between (0.95-
0.997) showing a maximum error of 4.5% in the design space considered.
CD A α
B E 04 (6.4)
The coefficients A and B are again obtained as the functions of thickness ratio. Figure
6.8 shows the variation of A and B with thickness ratio respectively. The similar approach
as that for variable β has been adopted for conditional estimation of coefficient ’A’ and is
given by Eq.6.5. The coefficient ’B’ is estimated using linear equation given in the form of
Eq.6.6 as also obvious from Fig.6.8.

12 02 d l
2 068 A 0
A (6.5)
0 Otherwise
B 342 9 d l 13 50 (6.6)
The required objective function CDV can readily be estimated from CD using Eq.2.2
0.0047 0.0062
0.006
0.0046
0.0058
0.0045 0.0056

0.0054
0.0044
CDα
CDα
0.0052
0.0043
0.005
0.0042 0.0048
0.0046
0.0041
0.0044
0.004 0.0042
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
α α
(a) (b)
0.0066 0.0058
0.0064
0.0057
0.0062
0.006 0.0056
0.0058
0.0056 0.0055
CDα
CDα
0.0054
0.0054
0.0052
0.005 0.0053
0.0048
0.0052
0.0046
0.0044 0.0051
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
α α
(c) (d)
Figure 6.7: Variation of CD α with α
6.4.1 Validation of Improved Fidelity

Among the various feasible shapes which were excluded during the experimentation with
Fluent code, some of the shapes were used to validate the improved fidelity model. The
shapes are predominantly distinguished by the parameter Xymax . Table 6.5 shows the com-
parison between predicted value of CD by improved model and that by Fluent code. It can
be observed that absolute percentage error is high for shapes with higher thickness ratios
and is well within 5%. The linear nature of Eq. 6.4 confirms the numerical errors of lower
order in the estimated CD value.
0.4 60
0.35
55
0.3
50
0.25

Coeff A
Coeff B
0.2 45
0.15
40
0.1
35
0.05
0 30
0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22
(d / l) (d / l)
(a) Variation of Coeff. ’A’ with d l (b) Variation of Coeff. ’B’ with d l
Figure 6.8: Variation of Coefficient A and B with d l
Table 6.5: Comparison Showing the Results Predicted by Improved Fidelity and Fluent
Code
Shape d l Xymax Improved Fidelity Fluent code % Error

No. CD CD
1 0.142 13.6 2.317E-02 2.357E-02 1.7%
2 0.140 10.55 2.343E-02 2.436E-02 3.8%
3 0.151 10.05 2.595E-02 2.655E-03 2.2%
4 0.155 15.65 2.585E-02 2.606E-02 0.8%
5 0.146 17.00 2.497E-02 2.485E-02 0.5%
6 0.163 16.55 3.018E-02 3.018E-02 0.0%
7 0.164 16.0 2.723E-02 2.669E-02 2.0%
8 0.172 15.8 2.893E-02 2.865E-02 1.0%
9 0.175 8.85 3.012E-02 3.097E-02 2.5%
10 0.185 8.85 3.055E-02 2.958E-02 3.3%
11 0.183 10.0 3.057E-02 2.977E-02 2.7%
12 0.190 12.8 3.264E-02 3.151E-02 3.6%
13 0.196 9.0 3.438E-02 3.290E-02 4.5%
14 0.197 12.9 3.166E-02 3.082E-02 2.7%
6.5 Results with Improved Fidelity

The improved fidelity model is integrated with the SIMANN optimizer and results were
obtained for the cases of fixed length and variable envelope length configurations with CDV
and surface area as the objective function.
6.5.1 CDV as Objective Function

In the first case the length is constrained to have the same length as GNVR shape i.e. 26.77
m with 0.5% tolerance on either side to avoid the numerical discrepancies. In the later case
the length was allowed to vary between (25 - 30)m. Figure 6.9 shows the resulted shapes
in comparison with GNVR shape. Table 6.6 compares the resulted shapes for both the
cases with GNVR shape in terms of relevant objective functions. Optimized shape for fixed
length configuration shows little improvement in CDV and surface area with lower penalty
on σmax . The results with variable length configuration are remarkable showing around
16% improvement in CDV with smaller variation in the surface area and σmax value.
Figure 6.9: Comparison Showing Optimized Shapes for Fixed and Variable Length Con-
figurations Vs GNVR Shape
6.5.2 Verification using Fluent Code

Table 6.7 compares the CDV values predicted using improved fidelity model with Fluent
code. The CDV value for fixed length configuration is observed to be appreciably close to
Fluent code value. The resulted optimized shape shows a slight improvement in CDV bbut
on the conrary Fluent code predicts a little higher drag than GNVR shape for the same
shape. The improvement over GNVR shape given by improved fidelity and Fluent code is
Table 6.6: Results with Improved Fidelity
GNVR Optimized shape Imprmnt Optimized shape Imprmnt

shape (Fixed length) (%) (Variable length) (%)
Thic. ratio d l 0.16 0.1669 - 0.1415 -
CDV (Obj. Fucn.) 2.686E-02 2.665E-02 0.8% 2.233E-02 16.3%
Improved Fidelity
Surface Area (m2 ) 573.1 568.3 0.8% 593.6 -3.6%
σmax (N m) 4457 4525 -1.5 % 4309 3.3%
small and hence can be attributed to the numerical error arising out of computations and
approximation through curve fitting. This fact can be made use of to infer that the resulted
shape is the optimized shape for the fixed length configuration. This can be further backed
by observing Fig. 4.1 that the exact GNVR shape is not possible with considered shape
configuration.
Table 6.7: Comparison Showing the Results Predicted by Improved and Fluent code
Model GNVR Optimized shape Imprmnt Optimized shape Imprmnt

shape (Fixed length) (%) (Variable length) (%)
CDV 2.686E-02 2.665E-02 0.8 % 2.233E-02 16.3%
Improved Fidelity
CDV 2.622E-02 2.655E-02 -1.3 % 2.310E-02 11.8%
Fluent code
CDV value predicted using improved fidelity for variable length configuration differs by
3.5 % to that resulted using Fluent code as seen in Table 6.7. The shape shows significant
improvement in the drag of around 16% as predicted by the improved fidelity where the
actual improvement was observed to be around 12% using Fluent code. This proves at
first hand the superiority of the currently developed model compared to earlier two models
discussed in this report.
6.5.3 Surface Area as Objective Function

The similar experiment is carried out with surface area as objective function for the cases
of fixed and variable length, the resulted shapes produced by optimizer are compared to
the GNVR shape. From Fig. 6.10, it can be inferred that the configuration prefers to have
minimum length for minimum surface area. Table 6.8 shows the comparison with respect
to all the objective functions.
Figure 6.10: Optimized Shapes for ’S’ with Fixed and Variable Length Configurations Vs
GNVR Shape
Table 6.8: Comparison for Min.’S’ Shapes for Fixed and Variable Length Configurations
GNVR Optmzd shape % Imprmt Optmzd shape % Imprmt

shape (Fixed length) over GNVR (Variable length) over GNVR
d l 0.16 0.1821 - 0.1981 -
CDV 2.686E-02 2.718E-02 -1.2% 3.620E-02 -21.4%
Imprvd Model
S (m2 ) 573.1 555.1 3.2% 545.9 4.7%
(Obj. Fucn.)
σmax (N m) 4457 4931 -10.6% 5042 -13.12%
6.6 Multi-Disciplinary Optimization using Composite Ob-

jective Function
The cases studied so far were pertaining to single objective function. To appreciate the
multi-disciplinary aspect of optimization a composite objective functions comprising of
CDV ’S’ and σmax has been devised where the indivisual objective function has been nor-
malized using the respective values corresponding to GNVR shape. The objective function
is represented as follows
CDV S σmax
Fcomp w1 !
w2 #
w3 ! (6.7)
CDV GNV R " S GNV R " σmax GNV R "
Where w1 ,w2 and w3 are weight functions. For the present case all the weight functions
have been assigned a value unity. Figure 6.11 shows the optimal shape and GNVR shape.
The numerical values of three objective functions are presented and compared to GNVR
shape in Table 6.9.
Figure 6.11: Comparison Showing Optimized Shape with Composite Obj. Function Vs
GNVR Shape
The actual CDV value predicted by Fluent code is found to be closer to that predicted
using improved fidelity model proving the reliability of the result presented in Table 6.9 to
an appreciable extent. The resulted shape can be considered as the optimized shape for the
constraint of fixed volume and manufacturability avoiding convex shapes directly in the
Table 6.9: Multi-Disciplinary Optimization using Composite Objective Function

d l 0.160 0.140 -
CDV 2.686E-02 2.260E-02 15.8 %
’S’(m2 ) 573.1 598.7 -4.5%
σmax (N m) 4457 4262 4.4 %
Fcomp 3.0 2.8 6.7%
shape generation algorithm. The value for composite objective function was found to be
slightly lower than that of GNVR shape.
Chapter 7
Summary and Conclusion
An airship is a lighter than air vehicle which obtains its lift due to buoyancy. The airship
has its own areas of research and applications. Since airship requires less number of param-
eters for design, it is advisable to design the airship using the concept of multi-disciplinary
optimization. The participating disciplines would be mainly aerodynamics, structures, and
manufacturing.
The three disciplines influences the airship design with their own constraints and re-
quirements. The aerodynamics of airship has been studied by many authors and based on
experimental observations empirical relation for coefficient of drag CD has been proposed.
It is shown that CD for axisymmetric streamline bodies is a function of thickness ratio (d /
l). As reported in the literature ,for the same maximum diameter of envelope an increase in
length improves the aerodynamic performance of airship but impairs the structural aspects.
This illustrates one of the possible interaction among various disciplines which has to be
handled during the optimization process. Most of the constraints can largely be satisfied by
aerodynamic shape of an airship envelope.
The specific problem of airship envelope shape optimization aims at arriving at the
optimum envelope shape using the concept of multi-disciplinary design optimization. The
constraints of fixed volume (1000m3 ) and fixed length (26.8m) were posed and the objective
function CDV is to be minimized. Among all objective function the calculation of flow
parameters particularly drag needs the primary attention as the calculatin of drag requires
the use of flow analyzer. The strategy to solve the problem would be to use computational
fluid dynamics tool in conjunction with the optimizer. It was decided to select Fluent which
is commercial state of the art CFD software as an flow analysis tool. A reference GNVR
shape has been used to validate Fluent for the present application. The same shape has
47
CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 48
further been used for the comparison with optimized shapes resulted through the optimizer.
An axisymmetric structured grid was built around the upper half of the GNVR body using
commercial package Gambit 6.0. The coefficient of pressure C p distribution over the airship
envelope surface was found to be closely matching with reference values for GNVR shape
calculated using source panel method given by NAL Banglore . The values closely matches
except near the trailing edge because of the flow seperation. Thus it validates Fluent for the
airship application.The influence of computational domain size has also been studied.
As a part of primary strategy to attempt the problem a generalized geometry was defined
for the constraints of fixed volume and length. The geometry represents the combination of
two elliptical shapes and one parabola and is being parametrized using two design variables.
Since the size of design vector is small, it became economical to use the surrogate model
technique like Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments DACE which resulted in
response surface for CDV . The design space was descretized using orthogonal latin square
method and the actual values for CDV corresponding to the design points were calculated
using Fluent code. Slapping technique has been used which gives the convergence much
faster than the conventional CFD technique. The resulted optimized shape for minimum
CDV was found to be closely matching with GNVR shape.
To explore the possibility of better shapes in view of multi disciplinary aspect of opti-
mization, the generalized configuration for an envelope shape has been improved. The im-
proved general configuration comprises of two cubic splines in series with spherical portion
and parabola at the leading and trailing edge respectively. The geometry was defined using
the six dimensional design vector for the constraints of fixed volume and length and other
geometrical requirements. The shape generation program was developed using FORTRAN
language. Other than CDV objective functions considered were surface area and maximum
stress. To start with low fidelity model to estimate CDV ssuggested in the literature was used
to calculate CDV .
Simulated Annealing optimization code SIMANN was implemented with the shape
generation code with low fidelity and was fine tuned for the parameters like initial temper-
ature. The results were obtained for the indivisual objective functions. It was observed that
the values obtained for CDV using the low fidelity model differs largely and are in contrast
to that predicted by Fluent code. To make the results more reliable, an intermediate fidelity
was devised using the data obtained through CFD experimentation for the bodies having
same thickness ratio as that of GNVR shape. The intermediate fidelity model was observed
to give better results than low fidelity but still the results are in contradiction to that of high
fidelity. The constraint of the fixed length was relaxed to see the possibility of other aero-
dynamically better shape. It was found that for variable length configuration the optimized
shape for minimum CDV matches closely with that for fixed length.
To capture the flow physics more accurately, sufficient number of experiments were
carried our using Fluent code for the bodies with varying thickness ratio for the specified
constraints. After the detail study of the shapes an improved model for CDV eestimation has
been arrived at in terms of the predominant geometric parameters which directly influences
the aerodynamic characteristics of an envelope shape. For the fixed length constraint the
results obtained are in slight contradiction to that predicted by Fluent code. But the dif-
ference is small to enough to account for the numerical errors arising due to curve fitting
and mathematical computations. The optimized shape resulted for the variable length con-
figuration shows a significant improvement of 12% in CDV over GNVR shape. The same
exercise was carried out for surface area as objective function where it was observed that
shape tries to acquire the minimum length for minimum surface area.
To address the multi-disciplinary nature of the problem a composite objective function
consisting of CDV S, along-with the respective weight-ages has been devised. The optimized
shape obtained for the minimum composite objective function shows slight improvement
over the GNVR shape.
Conclusion :
$ Coefficient of pressure C p distribution around a reference GNVR shape obtained us-
ing Fluent code found to be matching to that arrived using source panel method except near
the trailing edge due to flow seperation.
$ The change in the computational size from 5l to 10l radius doesnot change the solu-
tion.
$ The slapping technique for CFD solution used found to give the convergence much
faster saving up to 40% of computational time per geometry.
$ It was observed that the resulted shape using DACE closely matches to the GNVR
shape for the shape configuration with primary shapes.
$ CDV as a function of d l suggested in the literature found to give the results largely
varying from predicted by Fluent code.
$ CDV found to be a function of Xymax and surface area other than thickness ratio.
$ Intermediate fidelity model developed using the parameter Xymax found to give better
results than low fidelity model. But the results obtained are in contradiction to that predicted
by Fluent code.
$ Dominant parameters affecting the aerodynamic behavior of an envelope were found
to be certain geometric parameters which are mainly the function of the slopes at specific
locations along the envelope shape.
$ The dominant geometric parameters have been inducted in the CDV model. The vali-
dation of the improved fidelity shows the absolute error well within 5.0%.
$ The resulted shape for variable length configuration for minimum CDV observed to
offer lesser drag than GNVR shape showing a remarkable improvement of 11.8% .
$ The resulted value of CDV for the cases of fixed length and variabl e length configu-
ration found to be closely matching to that given by Fluent code.
$ The variable length configuration for the minimum envelope surface area case achieves
the minimum length allowed.
$ The objective function value for the minimum composite objective function was found
to be lesser than GNVR shape.
References
[1] Howe D.,“ The feasibility of the LArge Freight Airship”, Crankfield Report Aero ,
No.5m, March 1971.
[2] Hoerner S.F.,Fluid-Dynamic Drag Midland Park, N.J., 1965
[3] Gillett J.D., “Airship Technology”, Cambridge Aerospace Series, 1999, pp. 181.
[4] Hess T.E., “Structures Technology For Lighter Than Air Vehicles ”, Air Vehicle Tech-
nology Department, NADC, Pennsylvania, Technical Memeor
[5] Sophia Lefantzi and Doyle D. Knight, “ Automated Design Optimisation of a Three-
Dimensional S-Shaped Subsonic Diffuser” , Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.18,
No.4, July-August 2002, pp. 913-921. andum No. VT-TM-1391.
[6] Arora Jasbir, “Introduction to Optimum Design”, Mc Graw Hill Publication, 1999,
pp.309-313.
[7] Z. Pateka and L. Smrcek,.”Aerodynamic characteristics of multi-surface aircraft con-

figurations”, Aircraft Design,Volume 2, December 1999, pp.191-206
[8] Rachid Younsi, Ismail El-Batanony, Jeur-Bernard Tritsch, Hassan Naji and Bernard
Landjeri.,”Dynamic study of a Wind Turbine Blade with Horizontal Axis”, European
Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids,Volume 20, March 2001, pp. 241-252
[9] Narayana C.L., and Srilatha K.R., “Analysis of Aerostata Configuraton By Panel
Method,” PD CF 0010, July 2000, NAL, Bangalore.
[10] Anderson J.D., “Fundamentals of Aerodyamics”,Mc Graw Hill Publication, 1997,

pp.218-224
51
REFERENCES 52
[11] Wilcox D.C., “Turbulenece Modelling for CFD”,DCW Industries , 1997, pp.79
[12] Jones S. P. and DeLaurier J.D.,“Aerodynamic Estimation Techniques for Aerostats

and Aeroships” , Journal of Aircraft, Vol 20, Feb. 1983, pp.120-126.
[13] Pant, R., Gawale, A., ”Design, Fabrication And Flight Testing Of Remotely Con-
trolled Airship”,National Conference on LTA Technologies, Aerial Delivery R&D Es-
tablishment, Agra,India, October 2002, pp.4-6
[14] Goffe, W. L., G. D. Ferrier, J. Rogers. (1994). Global Optimization of Statistical Func-
tions with Simulated Annealing, Journal of Econometrics, 60, 65-100.
[15] Corana, A., Marchesi, M., Martini, C. M. and Ridella, S. (1987) Minimizing mul-
timodal functions of continuous variables with the Simulated Annealing algorithm.
ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 13, 262-280.
[16] Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A., Rosenbluth, M., Teller, A. and Teller, E. (1953) Equa-
tion of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics,
21, pp. 1087-1090.
[17] Th.Lutz,Schweyher H.,Wagner S.,“Shape Optimization of Axisymmetrc Bodies in

Incompressible Flow” , Journal of Aircraft, Vol 20, Feb. 1985, pp.520-526

CFDthesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CFDthesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Optimization of Airship Envelope Shape using

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

Under the guidance of

Department of Aerospace Engineering

Dissertation entitled “Optimization of Airship Envelope Shape using Computa-

Guide Co- Guide

3 CFD Tool Validation and Primary Strategy Adopted 11

4 Improved Shape Generation Algorithm 21

5 Simulated Annealing Optimization Method 25

6 Results and Discussion 32

7 Summary and Conclusion 47

1.1 Airship Free Body Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Multi Disciplinary Aspects of Airship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.1 GNVR Envelope Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.1 Improved Configuration for Envelope Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.1 Optimization Algorithm using Simulate Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1 Input Parameters in Fluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.1 Ranges for Design Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Helium (He) Drag

Figure 1.1: Airship Free Body Diagram

The use of Helium as a lighter gas is preferred as Hydrogen is highly inflammable

1.3 Objective and Scope

2.1 Multi- Disciplinary Optimization Problem

Figure 2.1: Multi Disciplinary Aspects of Airship

2.1.1 Influence of Disciplines

based on surface area using the transformation

while hoop stress due to internal pressure is calculated as

2.1.2 Problem Formulation

2.2 Strategy for Solving Problem

2.2.1 Description of Available Tools

FLOW ANALYZER GRID GENERATOR

Figure 2.2: Strategy to Solve Problem

The Optimizer : The optimization techniques can be broadly distinguished based on

POINT D − GLOBAL MINIMA

POINT E − GLOBAL MAXIMA

POINTS B − LOCAL MINIMA

POINT A,C − LOCAL MAXIMA

Figure 2.3: Local and Global Optima

3. Evaluate objective function and gradient for new design vector.

CFD Tool Validation and Primary

3.1 Flow Analyzer

Figure 3.1: GNVR Envelope Shape

3.2 Validation of Fluent using GNVR Data

Figure 3.2: Structured Grid around GNVR body in Semicircular Domain

Table 3.1: Input Parameters in Fluent

Parameters Numerical Values

Table 3.2: Under-relaxation Parameters Specified to Fluent Code

Figure 3.3: Comparison using C p Distribution

Table 3.3: Fluent Code Steady State Soln. Parameters

Parameters Numerical Values

3.3 Shape Generation using Basic Shapes

Total length l = (a + xe + xp)

Figure 3.5: Generalized Airship Geometry

Design Vector Description

The portion from point A to B is ellipse, B to C ellipse and C to D is parabola.The equation

The number of design variables could be a b R1 R2 y0 xe ye x p c but the actual

3.4 Response Surface for CDV using DACE

Figure 3.6: Output of ’Shape Generation Code with Basic Shapes’

3.4.1 Slapping Technique for CFD Solution

3.5 Results using DACE

Figure 3.7: Response Surface for CDV using DACE

Figure 3.8: Optimized Shape (DACE) Vs GNVR Shape

Prob E exp E kT (5.1)

∆P internal 1 15 1 2ρaV 2 (5.6)

α2 = 0 9ll Ndy dx

B 342 9 d l 13 50 (6.6)