|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Fig. 13 of the 2014 GENOPT paper.
Starting design and optimized designs for the specific case, fold98supdwn (panel with sub-segments):
top frame = starting design; the letter “s” in the name, fold98supdwn, indicates the presence of sub-segments;
middle frame = optimized design with u,v,w held; rotation free along the left-hand edge;
bottom frame = optimized design with symmetry conditions applied along the left-hand edge.
Compare with the optimized designs of the “convex up – convex down” panels without sub-segments shown in Figs. 6 and 9. In the optimized designs of the panel with sub-segments the amplitudes of the sub-segments are very small but not zero. In this case of alternating “convex up” and “convex down” major segments and alternating “convex up” and “convex down” sub-segments in each major segment, zero amplitude of the sub-segments is not the limiting case equivalent to a panel without sub-segments. This fact is a consequence of the “span9” formulation in which PHISUB(i), i = 1, 2, …8 (the half-angles subtended by a single sub-segment in major segment number i) are decision variables. If all the 10 sub-segments in major segment no. 1 were “convex down”, all the 10 sub-segments in major segment no. 2 were “convex up”, and so on, then the limiting case equivalent to a geometry with no sub-segments would have PHISUB(i) = PHISEG(i)/10, i = 1, 2, … 8.
Page 151 / 190