隨著時代的改變，各式各樣的飛機被發展出來，像是翼胴合一飛機，雖然它的概念很早就被提出，不過最近開始被更加重視了。翼胴合一飛機的機身和機翼是合為一體的，因此可以提供飛機較高的升力。在本研究之前，學長已經做過了許多關於翼胴合一飛機的空氣動力分析，不過尚未考慮到發動機部分。我們使用現有之飛機外形檔，再利用Pro/E 創造發動機並加在飛機的外形上，接著使用ANSYS 網格技術建造網格，並使用FLUENT 模擬出翼胴合一飛機在巡航時，不同派龍高度和攻角對其升力係數、阻力係數和升阻比的影響。有了這些基本數據後，就可以利用最佳化工具找到最佳的派龍高度及攻角。本文使用之最佳化工具是替代方法，替代方法是由許多不同的模型所組成，其中之一是Kriging model，我們正是用它來尋找最佳答案。為了要知道最佳化的使用方式正不正確，在翼胴合一飛機加發動機尋找最佳派龍高度及攻角的研究前，先預測了翼胴合一飛機在沒有發動機的情況下，使用Kriging model 找飛機巡航時的最佳攻角，在本研究中，我們只考慮升阻比，意即利用已知攻角的升阻比來預測最大升阻比的攻角，當預測的結果符合期望後，才開始飛機加發動機後的研究。在加發動機的案例中，吾人使用了兩種不同的方式去尋找最佳值，一種是先找派龍的最佳高度再找飛機的最佳攻角，另一種是直接預測出兩個值的最佳答案，結果顯示一次預測兩個值的案件比另一個有效率，且有更佳的結果，這也顯示出Kriging model 的優點，並證明吾人已經可以同時預測出兩個以上的最佳值。

In pace with the modern airplane development motivated by fuel efficiency and environmental conservation, many different aircraft configurations and design concepts are created in last two decades to accommodate these challenges. Blended Wing Body aircrafts (BWB) are created for the same reason, and remains to be one of the most promising flight vehicle concepts for future generations to come. But this plane are seldom seen, people are still study its aerodynamic analysis at the beginning stage, moreover the aerodynamic performance of BWB with its engines on. In this research, based on previous works at Tamkang, we construct geometry model first and now this BWB is with engine added on. Then, software ANSYS is implemented to generate different types of mesh, such as structured, unstructured, and hybrid grids. The flow solver routine with proper turbulence model selection is first tested on our previous UAV, M-6 wing, and BWB configurations, and then this simulation routine is also extended to the incompressible take-off speed and 0.85 Mach cruise conditions.
     After that, we select the surrogate model to find the BWB optimum angle of attack (AOA) and vertical height for engine positions. The surrogate model is a relatively new method for optimum engineering design, which is especially suited for CFD optimization computation and contains several different modules, and the model we select is the Kriging model. Without spend too much effort on the time consuming CFD simulation for every different AOA and engine positions, it allows us to find the best possible configuration conditions from a mere of about ten properly chosen design of experiment (DOE) cases. This model is verified by first predicting the best AOA value for BWB without engines, and a normalized optimization parameter or objective function is created, which composed of both the lift and drag coefficients. Thus we can predict the optimum AOA for BWB and its engine vertical positions. After the predicting value is achieved, new engine position geometry will be generated according to the surrogate model prediction. Results show that the close agreement between our Kriging model prediction and CFD computation represent a first triumph in the surrogate model implementation, and this could imply tremendous saving in future aerodynamic simulation in the airplane design phases.

Abstract	III
Contents	V
List of Figures	VII
List of Tables	XIV
Nomenclature	XVII
Chapter 1 Introduction	1
Chapter 2 Literature Review	5
Chapter 3 Numerical Modeling	19
3-1 Geometry Model Construction	19
3-2 Grid Generation	22
3-3 Flow Solver	25
3-4 Turbulence Modeling	30
3-5 Verification	33
3-6 Optimization	41
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion	44
4-1 BWB without the engine	44
4-2 The Optimal Engine Position and AOA Prediction in Two Steps	52
4-3 The Optimal Engine Position and AOA Prediction in One Step	59
Chapter 5 Conclusions	81
References	83
Appendix	88

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 BWB aircraft of NASA	2
Figure 1-2 Typical joined wing aircraft with two alternate tails	2
Figure 2-1 Genesis of the BWB concept	6
Figure 2-2 Interior arrangement of BWB passenger cabin	7
Figure 2-3 BWB cabin egress flow patterns	8
Figure 2-4 Sketches of joined wing configuration ranging through each design variable	9
Figure 2-5 Standard box wing	10
Figure 2-6 Typical engine component parts	11
Figure 2-7 The objective function and the Kriging model	16
Figure 2-8 Procedure of multi-objective global exploration	17
Figure 3-1 Blended-Wing-Body geometry model	19
Figure 3-2 BWB configuration and engines location	20
Figure 3-3 The rear view of engine and pylon relative positions	21
Figure 3-4 Enlargements of the engine and pylon location	21
Figure 3-5 BWB’s hybrid mesh	23
Figure 3-6 BWB’s structure mesh	24
Figure 3-7 Y plus distribution with CFX solver	28
Figure 3-8 Y plus distribution with FLUENT solver	28
Figure 3-9 The sets of FLUENT in ANSYS	29
Figure 3-10 Turbulence modeling selection of FLUENT in ANSYS	32
Figure 3-11 UAV’s configuration and its mesh	33
Figure 3-12 Boundary layer setting in GAMBIT	34
Figure 3-13 Unstructured mesh’s wall y plus distribution	35
Figure 3-14 Hybrid mesh’s wall y plus distribution	36
Figure 3-15 L/D comparison of BWB at M=0.85	38
Figure 3-16 Projection plane of M6 wing	39
Figure 3-17 Near structure mesh of the M6 wing	39
Figure 3-18 Pressure coefficients at section y/b= (a) 0.2 (b) 0.4 (c) 0.65 (d) 0.8 (e) 0.9 (f) 0.95 (g) 0.99	41
Figure 4-1 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=0°, 1°, 2°, 3°, 4°, 5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine	47
Figure 4-2 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=0°, 1°, 1.5°, 2°, 3°, 4°, 5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine	48
Figure 4-3 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=0°, 1°, 2°, 3°, 4° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine	49
Figure 4-4 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=1°, 1.5°,  2°, 3°, 4° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine	50
Figure 4-5 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=1°, 1.5°,  2°, 3°, 4°,5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine	51
Figure 4-6 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=1°, 2°, 3°, 4°,5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine	52
Figure 4-7 The streamline for BWB with no engines	58
Figure 4-8 The streamline for BWB with engine position is 3m	58
Figure 4-9 Pressure contour for BWB at 0.85 Mach and 2.09 degree with engine position of 2.97m.	64
Figure 4-10 Mach contour for BWB at 0.85 Mach and 2.09 degree with engine position of 2.97m.	64
Figure 4-11 Upper surface Mach contour comparison for BWB without engine at different AOA: (a) 0 degree (b) 1.7 degree	67
Figure 4-12 Lower surface Mach contour comparison for BWB without engine at different AOA: (a) 0 degree (b) 1.7 degree	67
Figure 4-13 Side-view Mach contour comparison for BWB without engine at different AOA: (a) 0 degree (b) 1.7 degree	68
Figure 4-14 Upper surface pressure contour comparison for BWB without engine at different AOA: (a) 0 degree (b) 1.7 degree	68
Figure 4-15 Lower surface pressure contour comparison for BWB without engine at different AOA: (a) 0 degree (b) 1.7 degree	69
Figure 4-16 Side-view pressure contour comparison for BWB without engine at different AOA: (a) 0 degree (b) 1.7 degree	69
Figure 4-17 Upper surface Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2 degree AOA: (a) without engine (b) with engine	70
Figure 4-18 Lower surface Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2 degree AOA: (a) without engine (b) with engine	70
Figure 4-19 Side-view Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2 degree AOA: (a) without engine (b) with engine	71
Figure 4-20 Upper surface Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2 degree AOA: (a) without engine (b) with engine	71
Figure 4-21 Lower surface Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2 degree AOA: (a) without engine (b) with engine	72
Figure 4-22 Side-view Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2 degree AOA: (a) without engine (b) with engine	72
Figure 4-23 Upper surface Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	73
Figure 4-24 Lower surface Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	73
Figure 4-25 Side-view Mach contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	74
Figure 4-26 Upper surface pressure contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	74
Figure 4-27 Lower surface pressure contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	75
Figure 4-28 Side-view pressure contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	75
Figure 4-29 Engine inlet pressure contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	76
Figure 4-30 Engine nozzle pressure contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	76
Figure 4-31 Engine longitudinal centerline pressure contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	77
Figure 4-32 Engine inlet temperature contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	77
Figure 4-33 Engine nozzle temperature contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	78
Figure 4-34 Engine longitudinal centerline temperature contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	78
Figure 4-35 Engine inlet velocity contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	79
Figure 4-36 Engine nozzle velocity contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	79
Figure 4-37 Engine longitudinal centerline velocity contour comparison for BWB at 2.09 degree AOA and 1.22m pylon height: (a) treat engine as a tube (b) include engine inlet/nozzle boundary conditions	80

List of Tables
Table 2-1 The parameters in a gas generator	11
Table 3-1 The L/D comparison due to different meshes and code application	27
Table 3-2 The L/D comparison due to different turbulence models and meshes	33
Table 3-3 The L/D comparison due to different meshes	34
Table 3-4 Lift and drag coefficient of BWB without engines at M=0.85	36
Table 3-5 L/D comparison of BWB at M=0.85	37
Table 4-2 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=0°, 1°, 1.5°, 2°, 3°, 4°, 5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine at AOA=1.7°	47
Table 4-3 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=0°, 1°, 2°, 3°, 4° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine at AOA=1.7°	48
Table 4-4 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=1°, 1.5°,  2°, 3°, 4° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine at AOA=1.7°	49
Table 4-5 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=1°, 1.5°,  2°, 3°, 4°, 5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine at AOA=1.7°	50
Table 4-6 L/D comparison between Kriging prediction of AOA=1°, 2°, 3°, 4°, 5° and FLUENT solver for BWB with no engine at AOA=1.7°	51
Table 4-7 BWB's CD and L/D for engine at different vertical positions	53
Table 4-8 BWB's CD2 and (L/D- L/D0)2 for engine at different vertical positions	53
Table 4-9 BWB's f for engine at different vertical positions	54
Table 4-10 BWB's CD, L/D, and f for engine at different vertical positions for 7 data	55
Table 4-11 BWB's CD, L/D, and f for engine at different AOA	56
Table 4-12 BWB's L/D at 2 degree AOA	57
Table 4-13 BWB's CD and L/D in different AOA and engine at vertical positions	59
Table 4-14 BWB's (L/D-L/D0)2, CD2 and CD2×C in different AOA and engine at vertical positions	60
Table 4-15 BWB's f in different AOA and engine at vertical positions	61
Table 4-16 Comparison engine's position, AOA and f in two different methods	63
Table 4-17 The CL, CD and L/D value in different boundary condition	65

[1] Gallman, J. W. and S. C. Smith, “Optimization of Joined-Wing Aircraft,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 30, No. 6, November-December 1993, pp. 897-905.
[2] Wan, T. and Song, B.C., “Aerodynamic Performance Study of Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft under Severe Weather Conditions,” 50th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibition, 9-12 January, 2012, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
[3] Nicolai, L. M. and G. Carichner, Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
[4] Wang, W. Y., “Aerodynamic Optimisation Analysis of a Modern Blended-Wing-Body Transport Aircraft,” M.S. Thesis, Tamkang University, 2010.
[5] Liebeck, R. H., “Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No 1, January-February 2004, pp. 10-25.
[6] Qin, N. and A. Vavalle, et al., “Aerodynamic Studies for Blended Wing Body Aircraft,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 4-6 September 2002, Atlanta, Georgia.
[7] Bolsunovsky, A. L. and N. P. Buzoverya, et al., “Flying Wing-Problems and Decisions,” Aircraft Design, 2001, pp. 193-219.
[8] Galea, E. R. and L. Filippidis, et al., “Evacuation Analysis of 1000+ Seat Blended Wing Body Aircraft Configurations: Computer Simulations and Full-scale Evacuation Experiment,” Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics, R. D. Peacock et al., Eds., Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2011, pp. 151-161.
[9] Wittmann, R., “Passenger Acceptance of BWB Configurations,” 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan, 2004.
[10] Wolkovitch, J., “The Joined Wing: An Overview,” Journal of Aircraft, March, 1986, pp. 161-178.
[11] Rasmussen, C. C. and R. A. Canfield, “Joined-Wing Sensor-Craft Configuration Design,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No 5, September-October 2006, pp. 1470-1478.
[12] Schiktanz, D. and D. Scholz, “Box Wing Fundamentals-an Aircraft Design Perspective,” Aero-Aircraft Design and Systems Group, Univ. of Hamburg, 2011, pp. 601-615.
[13] Lange, R. H. and J. F. Cahill, et al., “Feasibility Study of the Transonic Biplane Concept for Transport Aircraft Application,” NASA CR-132462, Lockheed Georgia Company, June 1974.
[14] Farokhi S., Aircraft Propulsion, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009, Chap. 4, pp. 127-128.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org
[16] Rao, S. S., Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009, Chap. 1, pp. 1-39.
[17] Kayacan, E., B. Ulutas, and O. Kaynak, “Grey System Theory-based Models in Time Series Prediction,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, 2010, pp. 1784–1789.
[18] Deng, J. L., “Introduction to Grey System Theory,” The Journal of Grey System, Vol. 1, 1989, pp.1-24.
[19] Yang, W. H. and Y. S. Tarng, “Design Optimization of Cutting Parameters for Turning Operations Based on the Taguchi Method,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 84, 1998, pp. 122–129.
[20] Forrester, A. I. J. and N. W. Bressloff, et al., “Optimization Using Surrogate Models and Partially Converged Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations,” Computational Engineering and Design Group, School of Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Southampton, March 2006.
[21] Loshchilov, I., M. Schoenauer and M. Sebag, “Comparison-Based Optimizers Need Comparison-Based Surrogates”, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN XI), Springer, 2010, pp. 364-373.
[22] Forrester, A. I. J., A. Sobester, and A. J. Keane, Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008, Chap. 2, pp. 49-63.
[23] Qian, Z. and C. C. Seepersad, et al., “Building Surrogate Models Based on Detailed and Approximate Simulations,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 128, 2006, pp. 668–677.
[24] Wang, H. T, X. C. Zhu, and Z. H. Du, “Aerodynamic Optimization for Low Pressure Turbine Exhaust Hood Using Kriging Surrogate Model,” International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 37, 2010, pp. 998–1003.
[25] Jeong, S., M. Murayama, and K. Yamamoto, “Efficient Optimization Design Method Using Kriging Model,” 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 5-8 January 2004, Reno, Nevada.
[26] Kanazaki, M. and K. Tanaka, et al., “Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Exploration of Elements’ Setting for High-Lift Airfoil Using Kriging Model,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 3, May-June 2007, pp. 858-864.
[27] Design Exploration User Guide, Release 14.5, October, 2012
[28] Wan, T. and H. Yang, “Aerodynamic Performance Investigation of a Modern Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft under the Influence of Heavy Rain Condition,” 8th Asian CFD Conf., Hong Kong, January 10, 2010.
[29] FLUENT 6.3 User’s Guide.
[30] Tsai, P. C., C. H. Lin, and T. Wan, “Aerodynamic Investigation of UAV Performance under the Influence of Heavy Rain,” 2009 AASRC Meeting, December 2009, Nangong, Taipei.