{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/32785"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/32785","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Role of Constraints and Vehicle Concepts in Transport Design: A Comparison of Cantilever and Strut-Braced Wing Airplane Concepts","abstract":"The purpose of this study is to examine the multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) of a strut-braced wing (SBW) aircraft compared to similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft. In this study, four different configurations are examined: cantilever wing aircraft, fuselage mounted engine SBW, wing mounted engine SBW, and wingtip mounted engine SBW. The cantilever wing design is used as a baseline for comparison. Two mission profiles were used. The first called for a 7380 nmi range with a 305 passenger load based on a typical Boeing 777 mission. The second profile was supplied by Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) and has a 7500 nmi range with a 325 passenger load. Both profiles have a 0.85 cruise Mach number and a 500 nmi reserve range. Several significant refinements and improvements have been made to the previously developed MDO code for this study. Improvements included using ADIFOR (Automatic Differentiation for FORTRAN) to explicitly compute gradients in the design code. Another major change to the MDO code is the improvement of the optimization architecture to allow for a more robust optimization process. During the Virginia Tech SBW study, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) was tasked by NASA Langley to evaluate the results of previous SBW studies. During this time, the original weight equations which were obtained from NASA Langley's Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) was replaced by LMAS proprietary equations. A detailed study on the impact of the equations from LMAS on the four designs was done, comparing them to the designs that used the FLOPS equations. Results showed that there was little difference in the designs obtained using the new equations. An investigation of the effect of the design constraints on the different configurations was performed. It was found that in all the design configurations, the aircraft range proved to be the most crucial constraint in the design. However, results showed that all three SBW designs were less sensitive to constraints than the cantilever wing aircraft. Finally, a double-deck fuselage concept was considered. A double deck fuselage configuration would result in a greater wing/strut intersection angle which would, in turn, reduce interference drag at that section. Due to the lack of available data on double deck fuselage aircraft, a detailed study of passenger and cargo layout was done. Optimized design showed that there was a small improvement in takeoff gross weight and fuel weight over the single-deck fuselage SBW results when compared with a similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft.","abstract_html":"The purpose of this study is to examine the multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) of a strut-braced wing (SBW) aircraft compared to similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft. In this study, four different configurations are examined: cantilever wing aircraft, fuselage mounted engine SBW, wing mounted engine SBW, and wingtip mounted engine SBW. The cantilever wing design is used as a baseline for comparison. Two mission profiles were used. The first called for a 7380 nmi range with a 305 passenger load based on a typical Boeing 777 mission. The second profile was supplied by Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) and has a 7500 nmi range with a 325 passenger load. Both profiles have a 0.85 cruise Mach number and a 500 nmi reserve range. Several significant refinements and improvements have been made to the previously developed MDO code for this study. Improvements included using ADIFOR (Automatic Differentiation for FORTRAN) to explicitly compute gradients in the design code. Another major change to the MDO code is the improvement of the optimization architecture to allow for a more robust optimization process. During the Virginia Tech SBW study, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) was tasked by NASA Langley to evaluate the results of previous SBW studies. During this time, the original weight equations which were obtained from NASA Langley's Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) was replaced by LMAS proprietary equations. A detailed study on the impact of the equations from LMAS on the four designs was done, comparing them to the designs that used the FLOPS equations. Results showed that there was little difference in the designs obtained using the new equations. An investigation of the effect of the design constraints on the different configurations was performed. It was found that in all the design configurations, the aircraft range proved to be the most crucial constraint in the design. However, results showed that all three SBW designs were less sensitive to constraints than the cantilever wing aircraft. Finally, a double-deck fuselage concept was considered. A double deck fuselage configuration would result in a greater wing/strut intersection angle which would, in turn, reduce interference drag at that section. Due to the lack of available data on double deck fuselage aircraft, a detailed study of passenger and cargo layout was done. Optimized design showed that there was a small improvement in takeoff gross weight and fuel weight over the single-deck fuselage SBW results when compared with a similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Ko, Yan-Yee Andy"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Aerospace and Ocean Engineering","degree_department":"Aerospace and Ocean Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Mason, William H."],"committee_members":["Grossman, Bernard M.","Schetz, Joseph A."],"year":2000,"date_issued":"2000-04-26","date_published":"2000-04-26","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:42Z","subjects":["Tip-Mounted Engines","Strut-Braced Wing","Aircraft Design","Multidisciplinary Design Optimization"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-05152000-09240010"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-05152000-09240010","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/32785","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Mason, William H."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Grossman, Bernard M.","Schetz, Joseph A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Aerospace and Ocean Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Ko, Yan-Yee Andy"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T20:36:53Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T20:36:53Z","2001-05-15"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2000-04-26"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Aerospace and Ocean Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Tip-Mounted Engines","Strut-Braced Wing","Aircraft Design","Multidisciplinary Design Optimization"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-05152000-09240010"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/32785"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The purpose of this study is to examine the multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) of a strut-braced wing (SBW) aircraft compared to similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft. In this study, four different configurations are examined: cantilever wing aircraft, fuselage mounted engine SBW, wing mounted engine SBW, and wingtip mounted engine SBW. The cantilever wing design is used as a baseline for comparison. Two mission profiles were used. The first called for a 7380 nmi range with a 305 passenger load based on a typical Boeing 777 mission. The second profile was supplied by Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) and has a 7500 nmi range with a 325 passenger load. Both profiles have a 0.85 cruise Mach number and a 500 nmi reserve range. Several significant refinements and improvements have been made to the previously developed MDO code for this study. Improvements included using ADIFOR (Automatic Differentiation for FORTRAN) to explicitly compute gradients in the design code. Another major change to the MDO code is the improvement of the optimization architecture to allow for a more robust optimization process. During the Virginia Tech SBW study, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) was tasked by NASA Langley to evaluate the results of previous SBW studies. During this time, the original weight equations which were obtained from NASA Langley's Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) was replaced by LMAS proprietary equations. A detailed study on the impact of the equations from LMAS on the four designs was done, comparing them to the designs that used the FLOPS equations. Results showed that there was little difference in the designs obtained using the new equations. An investigation of the effect of the design constraints on the different configurations was performed. It was found that in all the design configurations, the aircraft range proved to be the most crucial constraint in the design. However, results showed that all three SBW designs were less sensitive to constraints than the cantilever wing aircraft. Finally, a double-deck fuselage concept was considered. A double deck fuselage configuration would result in a greater wing/strut intersection angle which would, in turn, reduce interference drag at that section. Due to the lack of available data on double deck fuselage aircraft, a detailed study of passenger and cargo layout was done. Optimized design showed that there was a small improvement in takeoff gross weight and fuel weight over the single-deck fuselage SBW results when compared with a similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Role of Constraints and Vehicle Concepts in Transport Design: A Comparison of Cantilever and Strut-Braced Wing Airplane Concepts"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Mason, William H."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Grossman, Bernard M.","Schetz, Joseph A."],"dc:contributor.department":["Aerospace and Ocean Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Ko, Yan-Yee Andy"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T20:36:53Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T20:36:53Z","2001-05-15"],"dc:date.issued":["2000-04-26"],"dc:description.abstract":["The purpose of this study is to examine the multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) of a strut-braced wing (SBW) aircraft compared to similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft. In this study, four different configurations are examined: cantilever wing aircraft, fuselage mounted engine SBW, wing mounted engine SBW, and wingtip mounted engine SBW. The cantilever wing design is used as a baseline for comparison. Two mission profiles were used. The first called for a 7380 nmi range with a 305 passenger load based on a typical Boeing 777 mission. The second profile was supplied by Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) and has a 7500 nmi range with a 325 passenger load. Both profiles have a 0.85 cruise Mach number and a 500 nmi reserve range. Several significant refinements and improvements have been made to the previously developed MDO code for this study. Improvements included using ADIFOR (Automatic Differentiation for FORTRAN) to explicitly compute gradients in the design code. Another major change to the MDO code is the improvement of the optimization architecture to allow for a more robust optimization process. During the Virginia Tech SBW study, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems (LMAS) was tasked by NASA Langley to evaluate the results of previous SBW studies. During this time, the original weight equations which were obtained from NASA Langley's Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) was replaced by LMAS proprietary equations. A detailed study on the impact of the equations from LMAS on the four designs was done, comparing them to the designs that used the FLOPS equations. Results showed that there was little difference in the designs obtained using the new equations. An investigation of the effect of the design constraints on the different configurations was performed. It was found that in all the design configurations, the aircraft range proved to be the most crucial constraint in the design. However, results showed that all three SBW designs were less sensitive to constraints than the cantilever wing aircraft. Finally, a double-deck fuselage concept was considered. A double deck fuselage configuration would result in a greater wing/strut intersection angle which would, in turn, reduce interference drag at that section. Due to the lack of available data on double deck fuselage aircraft, a detailed study of passenger and cargo layout was done. Optimized design showed that there was a small improvement in takeoff gross weight and fuel weight over the single-deck fuselage SBW results when compared with a similarly designed cantilever wing aircraft."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-05152000-09240010"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/32785"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Tip-Mounted Engines","Strut-Braced Wing","Aircraft Design","Multidisciplinary Design Optimization"],"dc:title":["The Role of Constraints and Vehicle Concepts in Transport Design: A Comparison of Cantilever and Strut-Braced Wing Airplane Concepts"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Aerospace and Ocean Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:42Z"}