Cooperation and Competition Strategies in Multi-objective Shape Optimization - Application to Low-boom/Low-drag Supersonic Business Jet

Cooperation and competition are natural laws that regulate the interactions between agents in numerous physical, or social phenomena. By analogy, we transpose these laws to devise e cient multi-objective algorithms applied to shape optimization problems involving two or more disciplines. Two e cient strategies are presented in this paper: a multiple gradient descent algorithm (MGDA) and a Nash game strategy based on an original split of territories between disciplines. MGDA is a multi-objective extension of the steepest descent method. The use of a gradient-based algorithm that exploits the cooperation principle aims at reducing the number of iterations required for classical multi-objective evolutionary algorithms to converge to a Pareto optimal design. On the other hand side, the Nash game strategy is well adapted to typical aeronautical optimization problems, when, after having optimized a preponderant or fragile discipline (e.g. aerodynamics), by the minimization of a primary objective-function, one then wishes to reduce a secondary objective-function, representative of another discipline, in a process that avoids degrading excessively the original optimum. Presently, the combination of the two approaches is exploited, in a method that explores the entire Pareto front. Both algorithms are rst analyzed on analytical test cases to demonstrate their main features and then applied to the optimum-shape design of a low-boom/low-drag supersonic business jet design problem. Indeed, sonic boom is one of the main limiting factors to the development of civil supersonic transportation. As the driving design for low-boom is not compliant with the low-drag one, our goal is to provide a trade-o between aerodynamics and acoustics. Thus Nash games are adopted to de ne a low-boom con guration close to aerodynamic optimality w.r.t. wave drag.

[1]  J. Page,et al.  Extrapolation of sonic boom signatures from CFD solutions , 2002 .

[2]  Jean-Antoine Désidéri,et al.  Multiple-Gradient Descent Algorithm (MGDA) , 2009 .

[3]  J. S. Petty Lower bounds for sonic boom considering the negative overpressure region , 1970 .

[4]  G. D. van Albada,et al.  A comparative study of computational methods in cosmic gas dynamics , 1982 .

[5]  Jean-Antoine Désidéri,et al.  Comparison between MGDA and PAES for Multi-Objective Optimization , 2011 .

[6]  James M. Hyman,et al.  On Finite-Difference Approximations and Entropy Conditions for Shocks , 2015 .

[7]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Sonic boom minimization using inverse design and probabilistic acoustic propagation , 2006 .

[8]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  J. Nash,et al.  NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES , 1951, Classics in Game Theory.

[10]  David W. Corne,et al.  Approximating the Nondominated Front Using the Pareto Archived Evolution Strategy , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[12]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[13]  Jean-Antoine Désidéri,et al.  Application of Metamodel-Assisted Multiple-Gradient Descent Algorithm (MGDA) to Air-Cooling Duct Shape Optimization , 2012 .

[14]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  CONMIN: A FORTRAN program for constrained function minimization: User's manual , 1973 .

[15]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  An evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization: the strength Pareto approach , 1998 .

[16]  R. Seebass,et al.  SONIC BOOM MINIMIZATION , 1998 .

[17]  David W. Coit,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[18]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[19]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[20]  Peter G. Coen,et al.  Origins and Overview of the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration Program , 2005 .

[21]  Jean-Antoine Désidéri Cooperation and competition in multidisciplinary optimization , 2012, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[22]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[23]  Andrea Minelli,et al.  Advanced Optimization Approach for Supersonic Low-Boom Design , 2012 .

[24]  Christine M. Darden,et al.  Limitations of linear theory for sonic boom calculations , 1993 .

[25]  M. Powell A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation , 1994 .

[26]  John Bonet,et al.  Supersonic Vehicle Systems for the 2020 to 2035 Timeframe , 2010 .

[27]  Jacques Periaux,et al.  Combining game theory and genetic algorithms with application to DDM-nozzle optimization problems , 2001 .

[28]  L. Cambier,et al.  elsA - An efficient object-oriented solution to CFD complexity , 2002 .

[29]  L. B. Jones,et al.  Lower Bounds for the Pressure Jumps of the Shock Waves of a Supersonic Transport of Given Length , 1972 .

[30]  François Coulouvrat,et al.  The Challenges of Defining an Acceptable Sonic Boom Overland , 2009 .

[31]  Wu Li,et al.  Generalized Formulation and Extension of Sonic Boom Minimization Theory for Front and Aft Shaping , 2009 .

[32]  A. R. George,et al.  Lower Bounds for Sonic Booms in the Midfield , 1969 .

[33]  Philip E. Gill,et al.  Practical optimization , 1981 .

[34]  G. Whitham The flow pattern of a supersonic projectile , 1952 .

[35]  J. Périaux,et al.  Multicriterion Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization and Inverse Problems Using Control Theory and Nash Games , 2007 .

[36]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint handling with evolutionary algorithms. I. A unified formulation , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[37]  P. Roe Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes , 1997 .

[38]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[39]  Albion D. Taylor,et al.  The TRAPS sonic boom program , 1980 .

[40]  C. M. Darden,et al.  Sonic-boom minimization with nose-bluntness relaxation , 1979 .

[41]  Jasbir S. Arora,et al.  Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering , 2004 .