Technical Writing – Final Report

Master’s Degree in Aerospace Engineering

Track Flight Performance & Propulsion

Nikolas Pantelios Student ID: 5840686

June 22, 2024

1
 WM0201TU-ENG

Contents

Preface 3

Summary 4

List of Symbols 5

1 Introduction 6

2 Initial Wing Design 6

2.1 Initial Wing Geometry and Parametrization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Initial Wing Weights and Aerodynamic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Definition of the Optimization Problem 9

3.1 Objective Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4 Results 11
4.1 Comparison of Initial and Final Wing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Optimization Outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5 Conclusion and Recommendations 13

References 15

Appendix A: Additional Visualizations 18

2
 WM0201TU-ENG

Preface
This report was written by Masters student from the department of Aerospace Engineering at Delft
University of Technology.

It is mainly intended for students and professionals in aerospace engineering, mechanical en-
gineering, and related fields that are interested in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization and its
application as well as aircraft designers that are looking for inspiration on methods that can achieve
the reduction of the MTOW of a commercial aircraft in order to improve its safety, fuel efficiency,
and environmental impact. Therefore, it is assumed that the reader has basic knowledge of design
optimization of aerospace systems.

I would like to thank my supervisor Peer van den Hoven whose useful and detailed feedback
guided me while writing this report.

Delft, 16 June 2024

Nikolas Pantelios

3
 WM0201TU-ENG

Summary
The goal of Multidisciplinary Design optimization is to optimize designs by taking into account dif-
ferent disciplines. In that way, it is possible to reach a result that will constitute best compromise
between these disciplines. To achieve this, there are various techniques and optimization architec-
tures that can be used. Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of
these techniques is only dependent on the defined problem. One example of this application is in the
domain of aerospace engineering, specifically for the structure and shape of the wing, which has a
major influence on the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft and therefore on aspects such as fuel
efficiency and emissions.

This report focuses on the optimization of the wing shape for the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
aircraft in order to achieve a reduction in the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the aircraft.
This was done through the use of MATLAB tools developed at TU Delft, namely Q3Q and EM W ET .

Initially, the wing was parameterized by making use of several design variables, such as the
root and tip chords and taper ratios as well as CST coefficients that describe the shape of the airfoil.
These, in combination with the initial weight and aerodynamic parameters of the wing, constitute
the reference values of the optimization process.

Then, the optimization problem was defined by making use of several constraints for the vari-
ation of the design variables and the process was defined utilizing a Hybrid Individual Discipline
Feasible (IDF) optimization architecture. In that way, it was possible to reduce the computational
cost of process due to the large number of defined design variables.

Even though the final wing design is unconventional, it successfully satisfies the initial objective
as well as the defined constraints. Its increased wing root chord and decreased span allows with-
standing bending and torsional loads with a lighter wing structure.

Despite that, it is highly advised to explore the use of various MDO architecture as well as the
coupling with external aerodynamic and load solvers. As AI and machine learning technologies are
continuously developed, their utilization in the MDO process is highly promising, as it can increase
the efficiency and reduce the computational cost.

4
 WM0201TU-ENG

List of Symbols

Symbol Explanation Units

b Spanswise Distance of the Tip w.r.t Fuselage Centerline m
b′ Spanswise Distance of the Kink w.r.t Fuselage Centerline m
b′′ Spanswise Distance of the Tip w.r.t Kink m
ck Kink Chord m
cr Root Chord m
ct Tip Chord m
CL Lift Coefficient of the Entire Aircraft -
CD Drag Coefficient of the Entire Aircraft -
C l,dist Spanwise Lift Coefficient Distribution -
C m,dist Spanwise Pitching Moment Coefficient Distribution -
CT Specific Fuel Consumption of Reference Aircraft s−1
ftank Factor for the Wing-Tank Volume occupied by Structural Elements -
L/D Aerodynamic Efficiency -
R Design Range for the Reference Aircraft m
s Normalized surface of the Wing Fuel Tank Section m2
S Surface of Wing Platform m2
tanks Spanwise position of the Start of the Fuel Tank -
tanke Spanwise position of the End of the Fuel Tank -
v Cruise Speed for the Reference Aircraft m · s−1
Vtank Total Volume of the Fuel Tanks m3
V1 Volume of the Inboard Part of the Fuel Tank m3
V2 Volume of the Outboard Part of the Fuel Tank m3
WT O,max Maximum Take-off Weight kg
Wf Fuel Weight kg
WM ZF Maximum Zero Fuel Weight kg
WA−W Weight of the Entire Aircraft without Wing and Fuel Contribution kg
Wstr,w Structural Weight of the Wing kg
y Span-wise coordinate -
x Wing Design Parameters Vector -
θ′ Wing Incidence Angle Degrees
θ′′ Twist Angle of the Kink Degrees
θ′′′ Twist Angle of the Tip Degrees
Λ′LE Sweep Angle of the Leading Edge of the Inboard Wing Degrees
Λ′′LE Sweep Angle of the Leading Edge of the Outboard Wing Degrees
λ′ Taper Ratio of Inboard Wing -
λ′′ Taper Ratio of Outboard Wing -
ρf Density of Fuel kg · m−3
ϕ Dihedral Angle Degrees
5
 WM0201TU-ENG

1 Introduction
In 2008, aviation was the first industry that decided to take meaningful action to reduce its negative
impact on the environment by reducing aircraft emissions. To achieve this, various methods were
tried out, mainly focusing on engine design. However, the ambitious targets set in October 2021,
which aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050 (Aviation Benefits, 2022), make it
necessary to look at the challenge from different perspectives. One of those, focuses on reducing the
maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of an aircraft by optimising wing design. Although numerous
innovative ideas have come to the fore over the decades to achieve this target, promising to improve
the efficiency and sustainability of the aircraft, many of them have been discarded due to negative
impacts on other disciplines, such as fuel consumption or structural complexity. For this reason,
multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) has become an indispensable tool, as it enables solving
a technical problem by providing an optimal solution that represents a compromise between all
disciplines.
This report answers the following question: How can the wing shape be redesigned to achieve a
reduction of the MTOW of a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar aircraft to improve its safety, fuel efficiency, and
environmental performance? The optimization process was carried out with the help of MATLAB,
which allows the use of two essential tools developed by the MDO department of TU Delft. These
are Q3Q and EMWET, which allow the determination of the aerodynamic loads and the structural
weight of the wing, respectively. Apart from that, the optimization was defined based on a Hybrid
IDF architecture, as this allows for more accurate results.
This report is structured as follows. Firstly, Chapter 2 focuses on the original wing design
of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar and its parameterization, as well as on the definition of its weight
components (MTWO, fuel weight, structural weight and weight of the aircraft minus the wing con-
figuration) and aerodynamic parameters. In Chapter 3, the optimization problem is then defined by
specifying the objective function to be minimized, the disciplines involved, the relevant design con-
straints, the optimization architecture and the criteria by which the process is terminated. Finally,
in Chapter 4, the initial and final wing designs are compared in terms of their characteristics and
performance, after which some conclusions and recommendations are formulated in Chapter 5.

2 Initial Wing Design

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the initial wing design of Lockheed L-1011 TriStar and its
aerodynamic and structural properties. Section 2.1 focuses on presenting the original wing geometry
and its parametrization, which is an essential step for the optimization as it defines the parameters
that may be varied during the process. Section 2.2 presents its initial weight components, which
obviously directly affect the MTOW of the aircraft. Finally, Section 2.3 describes the how Q3D and
EMWET have been used to obtain an approximation of its aerodynamic and weight characteristics.

6
 WM0201TU-ENG

2.1 Initial Wing Geometry and Parametrization

Since it must serve as a reference point for the design, determining the initial geometry is the first
step in the optimization process. The top and bottom of the root and tip profiles have been modeled
by four fifth-order CST curves, as shown in Figures 1a and 1b and Figure 2a. As they are essential
for the definition of an effectively optimized wing, the geometrical features of the wing used for its
parametrization have been carefully selected. In Figure 2b, the different dimensions of the wing
are shown and on the right hand side a summary of the parameters used for the representation can
be found. It is essential to have a robust parametrization to ensure meaningful results, otherwise
the process may lead illogical designs, such as large sweep angles and small chords that can cause
overlapping trailing and leading edges.

(a) Wing Root Airfoil (b) Wing Tip Airfoil

Figure 1: Initial Airfoils Shapes used on Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

A robust parametrization of the wing is extremely important to determines the parameters that
the optimizer is allowed to change. For this reason, the wing has been divided into two trapezoids.
The first one, which is characterized from the root of the wing to the spanwise twist, has been
parameterized based on two factors. These factors are the chord at the wing root (cr ) and the taper
of this inner trapezoid (λ′ ). The outer wing, on the other hand, makes use of three parameters. In this
case, the taper of the outer trapezoid (λ′′ ), the distance of the wing tip from the wing root in spanwise
direction (b) and the free point of the leading edge of the outer trapezoid (λ′′LE ) were chosen. Finally,
the buckling points at the fold (θ′′ ) and at the tip (θ′′′ ) have been defined as additional planform
factors of the wing that must be changed in order to achieve the desired ideal result. Together with
the CST coefficients applied (6 for each curve), these parameters indicate our first design variables.

7
 WM0201TU-ENG

(a) Initial Wing Shape (b) Wing Shape Parametrization

Figure 2: Wing Planform of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

2.2 Initial Wing Weights and Aerodynamic Parameters

For the above reasons, it is important that all initial weight components and aerodynamic parameters
are calculated or at least approximated. To achieve this, firstly, the initial MTOW has been taken
from the literature (Lloyd R. Jenkinson, 2022). Secondly, the fuel weight (Wf ) has been calculated
using the Breguet equation for a design range of 6399 km (Lloyd R. Jenkinson, 2022). Thirdly, the
structural weight of the wing (Wstr,w ) has been be determined using Q3D to calculate the critical
loads and EM W ET to obtain this weight estimate. Then, the weight of the aircraft minus the wing
configuration (WA−W ) has been determined using the above components and remained constant dur-
ing the optimization.

In a similar manner, we obtained the initial values for the aerodynamic parameters by running
Q3D in a viscous mode and using the reference cruise flight of the L1011 found in the literature
(lock). The cruise flight takes place at an altitude of 10058.4 m with a speed of 248.47 m/s. The ISA
approximation was used for the other air characteristics (“Digital Dutch: 1976 Standard Atmosphere
Calculator”, 2022). Using that, the aerodynamic efficiency (CL /CD ) has been assumed to be 16 as a
first guess, while the lift coefficient (CL ) is calculated using equation (1). Then, the drag coefficient
of the wing (CD,wing ) was one of the outputs of Q3D, while the drag coefficient of the aeroplane
minus wing configuration (CD,A−W ) has been determined using equation (2). Finally, the total drag
of the aircraft minus the wing configuration (DA−W ) has been calculated directly using the equation
(3).The values of the above components are summarized in Table (1), shown in Appendix A.
p
WT O,max g · (WT O,max g − Wf g)
CL = (1)
1/2ρv 2 S

CL CL CL
= = DA−W
(2)
CD CD,wing + CD,A−W CD,wing + 1/2ρv 2S

1
DA−W = ρv 2 SCD,A−W (3)
2

8
 WM0201TU-ENG

3 Definition of the Optimization Problem

This chapter aims to describe how the defined research question can be translated into an actual
optimization problem. Section 3.1 defines the objective function and the relevant constraints that
are applied to the optimizer. Then, Section 3.2 defines the disciplines based on which the wing design
has been optimized. Finally, Section 3.3 presents the optimization architecture, namely the Hybrid
IDF and how it is applied on this optimization problem.

3.1 Objective Function

Generally, the objective function is the function that is provided to the optimizer in order to minimize
it. As it has been stated multiple times before, the goal of this optimization process is to minimize
the MTOW of the aircraft. Therefore, the objective function was defined to be the following:

WT O,max = WA−W + Wf + Wstr,w (4)

The constraints were applied on the optimization process to ensure that the obtained results are not
only reasonable but also an actual improvement of the initial design. In this case, there are two types
of constraints that are applied; namely equality constraints (or bounds) and inequality constraints.
The first are applied on the design variables of the optimization, including the additional ones defined
due to the chosen architecture, as it will be discussed in Section 3.3, and are briefly shown in Figure
A.1. There are two main inequality constraints that the optimization process needs to satisfy. The
first one has to do with the amount of fuel that is placed in the fuel tanks. Obviously, this amount
has to be smaller or equal to the volume that is available in both wing fuel tanks. Thus, the following
inequality constraint applies:
Wf − Vtank · ρf · ftank ≤ 0 (5)

From this equation, the fuel weight Wf can be easily calculated using the following expression:
1
1 − 0.938 · R·CT
v·L/D
Wf = 1 · (Wstr,w + WA−W ) (6)
0.938 · R·CT
v·L/D

On the other hand, the calculation of the fuel tank volume Vtank is slightly more complicated. The
reason for that is because the fuel tank has to be divided into two parts; the part before the kink of
the wing and the part that is after the kink. As a result, the volume components were calculated
using equations (7a) and (7b). It is important to note that these equations were derived for the
semi-span of the wing. Therefore, the resulting values have to summed up and multiplied by two in
order to calculate the total fuel tank volume of both wings.
b′      2
st − sr ck − cr
Z
V1 = sr + y · · cr + y · dy (7a)
b·tanks b b′
b·tanke      2
st − sr ct − ck
Z
′
V2 = sr + y · · ck + (y − b ) · dy (7b)
b′ b b − b′

9
 WM0201TU-ENG

The second inequality constraint applies on the wing loading. Of course, the load that acts on the
optimized wing should not be larger than that of the initial wing design. Therefore the following
inequality constraint is formulated:
 
WA−W + Wf + Wstr,w WT O,max
− ≤0 (8)
S S ref
3.2 Disciplines

The disciplines refer to the perspectives that are used to evaluate the variation in the design vari-
ables. The optimized wing design constitutes a compromise between these disciplines, as they are
often counteracting each other. This optimization process consists of four disciplines, shown in Figure
A.1.
Firstly, the Aerodynamics discipline, obviously, evaluated the aerodynamic performance of the final
wing design. This was done by making use of the Q3D tool in viscous mode for certain given cruise
flight conditions, which provided the lift and drag coefficients of the final design. In that way, it was
then possible to calculate the aerodynamic efficiency of the entire aircraft using equation 2.

Secondly, the Performance discipline was used to calculate the fuel weight Wf and utilized the
Breguet equation, shown in equation (9). Normally, this equation would be used to calculated the
range of the aircraft based on the structural weight, aircraft-minus-wings weight and the fuel weight.
However, since the range was pre-defined, it can be used to determine the fuel weight, by assuming
values for the missing weight components. The latter will be further discussed in Section 3.3, as it is
a result of the used optimization architecture.
 R·C −1
T
1 − 0.938 · e v·L/D
Wf =  R·C −1 · (Wstr,w + WA−W ) (9)
T
0.938 · e v·L/D

Thirdly, the Loads discipline was used to determine the critical loads that act on the wing, which
play a major role in forming its structure and thus determining the structural weight. This discipline
provided the lift force and pitching moment distribution over the wing by making use of the Q3D
tool in inviscid mode.

Finally, the Structures discipline was used to determine the structural weight of the wing. This
is done by utilizing the output of the Loads disciplines as well as the wing geometry and structural
parameters as input for the EMFWET tool.

3.3 Architecture

As it was mentioned in the introduction, the optimization procedure was defined using a Hybrid IDF
architecture due to its computational efficiency and its flexibility (Martins and Lambe, 2013). Gen-
erally, an IDF architecture is different from Multidisciplinary Feasible (MDF) and Multidisciplinary
Analysis (MDA) architectures due to the absence of the coordinator. In this case, its role is taken
by the optimizer, while the disciplines do not exchange data between them. It is responsibility of
the optimizer to provide the analysis blocks with target values, which in this case are treated as

10
 WM0201TU-ENG

extra design variables. The optimizer then will try to bring the residual to zero (i.e. the difference
between target values and compute states) by means of one extra set of equality constraints, in this
case called consistency constraints, shown in Figure A.1(Martins and Ning, 2021). The difference
with the Hybrid IDF is that there are only two disciplines that interact with each other to minimize
amount of defined target values and thus reduce the computational cost. This is demonstrated in
Figure A.2, which provides a detailed explanation of the design variables and target values, as well
as the operation of the entire optimization process.

4 Results
The goal of this chapter is to present the results that are obtained from the application of the
optimization process. To do that, Section 4.1 provides a comparison between the initial and the
optimized wing design in terms of the geometry as well as the weight and aerodynamic properties.
Finally, Section 4.2 presents the optimization outcome which includes the computational cost of the
process and the convergence of the constraints.

4.1 Comparison of Initial and Final Wing Design

As the optimization process was successfully completed, it can be noticed that the initial and final
designs are visibly different. From Figure 3, it can be seen that the final design has a significantly
smaller span, while chord has been increased. This result is logical, due to the goal of the optimization,
which is no other than the reduction of the MTOW of the aircraft. A larger wing root chord decreases
the loads and bending moments at the root and thus allows for a lighter structure(Anderson, 2011).
The effect of this change becomes apparent especially when looking at the wing structural weight
(Wstr ) in Table 1. However, even though this modification allows to reach the initial goal, at the
same time the wing becomes less aerodynamically efficient, as the reduction in wing span requires an
increase in the area of the wing.

Figure 3: Comparison of the Reference (Initial) and Optimized (Final) Wing Designs

11
 WM0201TU-ENG

In addition, Figure 4 illustrates that each parameter underwent changes throughout the op-
timization process. The root chord has seen a significant increase, while the kink and tip chords
have experienced slight decreases. Furthermore, all CST coefficients have deviated slightly from their
initial values. Moreover, the outboard wings’ leading edge sweep angle (ΛLE ) and outboard taper
ratio (λ) have decreased, while the inboard wings have shown a slight increase. These adjustments
have resulted in a notably larger fuel tank volume and a reduced maximum take-off weight.

(a) Wing Root Airfoil (b) Wing Tip Airfoil

Figure 4: Initial and Final Airfoils Shapes of Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

Finally, it becomes obvious the general shape of the final wing design, shown in Figure 5, is
quite unconventional, which is once again due to the initial goal of the optimization process. As the
goal was set to reduce the MTOW of the aircraft, the optimizer performed an analysis in the design
space and produced a design that only satisfies this condition. Therefore, all the variations in the
design variables were made in order to satisfy it.

(a) Initial Wing Design (b) Final Wing Design

Figure 5: Isometric Views of the Initial and Final Wing Designs of Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

4.2 Optimization Outcome

The efficiency of the optimization process does not only depend on the final results, but also on their
convergence as well as the computational costs that are involved. The optimization was completed

12
 WM0201TU-ENG

within approximately 3 hours, during which 717 iterations were performed and the objective func-
tion was evaluated 17 times. Considering the amount of design variables that were involved, it can
be concluded that, despite being an objectively time consuming process, the use of a Hybrid IDF
managed to reduce the computational time significantly.

Finally, from Figure 6, it can be seen that the final maximum constraint violation has a value of
approximate 0.0005 for the aerodynamic efficiency, while for the weights it is an order of magnitude
smaller. Therefore, it can be concluded that the process has successfully remained within the pre-
defined design space and produced meaningful results.

(a) Convergence of Equality Constraints (b) Convergence of Inequality Constraints

Figure 6: Convergence History of the Constraints applied on the Optimization Process

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of this report was to investigate how the wing design can be re-designed to reduce
the MTOW of a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. This was done by creating an optimization algorithm in
MATLAB using tools that were created by TU Delft researchers, while making use of Hybrid IDF
optimization architecture. To achieve this goal, the wing was parameterized in an efficient and robust
manner, while the weight and aerodynamic parameters of the initial wing design were determined.

Looking at the final results, the optimized wing design seems unorthodox due to its geometrical
features. However, that is only due to the focus of the optimizer on fulfilling the defined target. Even
though the optimization process seems expensive at first sight, it can be justified when looking at
the complexity of the problem which requires a large number of iterations to minimize the deviation
from the defined constraints.

Recommendations

Despite the successful completion of the optimization process, there are still four future steps that
could be made. Firstly, it would beneficial to connect an external aerodynamic solver in the MDO
process to perform a detailed aerodynamic analysis of the optimized result to ensure the accuracy of

13
 WM0201TU-ENG

the calculated aerodynamic parameters. In that way, it will also be possible to determine whether
this design can be utilized for future aircraft. Secondly, more MDO architectures should be explored
in order to minimize the computational cost of the process. Thirdly, the optimization process should
be enhanced by the use of AI and machine learning techniques which could potentially lead to
more efficient results. Finally, due to the importance of sustainability nowadays, it is important to
implement material choices into the optimization process. The implementation of these ideas will
be allow for the improvement of the optimization process and to pave a path towards more efficient,
accurate, robust and sustainable future aircraft designs.

14
 WM0201TU-ENG

References
Anderson, J. D. (2011). Introduction to flight (7th). McGraw-Hill Education.
Aviation Benefits. (2022). Climate action. https://aviationbenefits.org/environmental- efficiency/
climate-action/
Digital Dutch: 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator. (2022). https : / / www . digitaldutch . com /
atmoscalc/
Lloyd R. Jenkinson, D. R., Paul Simpkin. (2022). Douglas, Boeing (Douglas Products Division) &
Lockheed Aircraft. https://booksite.elsevier.com/9780340741528/appendices/data-a/table-
6/table.htm
Martins, J. R. R. A., & Ning, A. (2021). Engineering design optimization.
Martins, J. R., & Lambe, A. B. (2013). Multidisciplinary design optimization: A survey of architec-
tures. AIAA Journal, 51, 2049–2075. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051895/ASSET/IMAGES/
LARGE/FIGURE17.JPEG

15
 WM0201TU-ENG

Appendix A: Additional Visualizations

A.1 Initial and Final Wing Characteristics

Table 1: Initial and optimized values for the problem

Magnitude Initial value Optimized value

Aspect Ratio (AR) 6.9736 4.365
Wingspan (2b) 47.35 m 40.04 m
Semi-span (b) 23.675 m 20.02 m
Span length of inboard trapezoid(b′ ) 9.02 m 9.02 m
Span length of outboard trapezoid (b′′ ) 14.665 m 11 m
Root Chord (cr ) 13.31 m 16.28 m
Kink Chord (ck ) 7.2366 m 9.81 m
Tip Chord (ct ) 2.1820 m 2.179 m
Lift Coefficient of the Entire Aircraft (CL ) 0.4222 0.34667
Drag Coefficient of the Wing (CD,wing ) 0.0151 0.0147
Drag Coefficient of Aircraft-Wing (CD,A−W ) 0.0099 0.0087
Aerodynamic Efficiency (L/D) 16 14.8558
CST Coefficients for upper root (CSTu,r ) 0.2457 0.0836 0.2822 0.2197 0.0917 0.3302
0.09298 0.2934 0.4005 0.0954 0.3004 0.2446
CST Coefficients for lower root (CSTl,r ) -0.2369 -0.1718 -0.0495 -0.2627 -0.2012 -0.0616
-0.5015 0.0772 0.3422 -0.7094 0.0758 0.2497
CST Coefficients for upper tip (CSTu,t ) 0.1404 0.0479 0.1609 0.1437 0.0504 0.1587
0.0535 0.1673 0.2291 0.0521 0.1835 0.2758
CST Coefficients for lower tip (CSTl,t ) -0.1354 -0.0982 -0.0281 -0.1443 -0.1142 -0.0299
-0.2868 0.0443 0.1954 -0.2932 0.0432 0.2286
Drag of Aircraft-Wing (DA−W ) 40367 N 40310 N

16
 WM0201TU-ENG

Magnitude Initial value Optimized value

Surface of Wing Platform (S) 323.3609 m2 367.1922m2
Volume of Fuel (Vf uel ) 78.92 m3 78.32 m3
Volume of the Fuel Tank (Vtank ) 92.72 m3 170.96 m3
Maximum Take-off Weight (WT O,max ) 211374 kg 199378 kg
Fuel Weight (Wf ) 64491.2 kg 63995 kg
Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (WM ZF ) 146880 kg 135380 kg
Weight of the Aircraft without 121317.4 kg 121319.0 kg
Wing and Fuel (WA−W )
Structural Weight of the Wing (Wstr,w ) 25565.4 kg 14063.93 kg
Wing loading (WT O,max /S) 653.6782 kg/m2 535.98 kg/m2
Wing Incidence Angle (θ′ ) 0o 0o
Twist Angle of the Kink (θ′′ ) -1o -0.9758o
Twist Angle of the Tip (θ′′′ ) -6o -4.3428o
Sweep Angle of the Leading Edge (Λ′LE ) 37.26o 38.8o
of the Inboard Wing
Sweep Angle of the Leading Edge (Λ′′LE ) 38o 31.0001 o

of the Outboard Wing

Taper Ratio of Inboard Wing (λ′ ) 0.5437 0.6029
Taper Ratio of Outboard Wing (λ′′ ) 0.3015 0.2221
Dihedral Angle (ϕ) 5o 5o

17
 WM0201TU-ENG

A.2 Overview of the Optimization Process

Figure A.1: Overview of the Optimization Process

18
19
WM0201TU-ENG

Figure A.2: Application of Hybrid IDF for the Optimization of the Wing Design