Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SC G W S: Sensitivity Analysis
SC G W S: Sensitivity Analysis
S LO
1.44W 2
gU f SC Lmax 7
To make the example concrete, lets consider the jet aircraft CJ-1 described by
Anderson. In that case, the conditions were:
318 ft 2
Uf
g
T
32.2 ft / s 2
7300 lbs
19815 lbs
C Lmax
1.0
S LO
1.4419815
32.20.002377 3181.07300
S LO
L max
Sensitivity Analysis
Also, lets suppose that the weight of the aircraft may need to be increased for a
higher load. Specifically, lets consider a 10% weight increase:
1) Linear sensitivity analysis
2) Nonlinear sensitivity analysis (i.e. re-evaluation)
They both have their own advantage and disadvantages. The choice is often
made based on the problem and the tools available. Well look at both options.
Linear Sensitivity Analysis
Linear sensitivity based on Taylor series approximations. Suppose we were
interested in the variation of S LO with w & C Lmax
Then:
wS LO
wS
'C Lmax LO 'W
wC Lmax
wW
wS LO
wS
& LO are the linear sensitivities of S LO to changes in
wC Lmax
wW
2 1.44W
gU f SC Lmax T
2
S LO
C Lmax
S LO
W
Fractional sensitivities
16.100
Sensitivity Analysis
C Lmax wS Lmax
S LO wC Lmax
W wS LO
S LO wW
1 .0
2 .0
'C Lmax
'S LO
| 1
S LO
C Lmax
'S LO
'W
| 2 .0
S LO
W
Thus, a small fraction change in C Lmax will have an equal but opposite effect on
the take-off distance.
The weight change will result in a charge of S LO which is twice as large and in
the same direction.
Thus, S LO is more sensitive to W than C Lmax changes at least according to linear
analysis.
Example
We were interested in C Lmax varying 0.1 which according to linear analysis
would produce P 0.1 S LO variation in take-off distance:
C Lmax
318 ft
C Lmax
318 ft
| 20.1S LO
| 636 ft
S LO (C Lmax
0.9)
S LO (C Lmax
0.9)
1.44(19815) 2
(32.2)(0.002377)(318)(0.9)(7300)
3535 ft
0.1)
353.6 ft
16.100
Sensitivity Analysis
Similarly,
S LO C Lmax
1.1
'S LO C Lmax
2892 ft
0 .1
290 ft
21796lb 3850 ft
'S LO 'W
16.100
0.1W 668 ft