Two-Level Multifidelity Design Optimization Studies for Supersonic Jets

The conceptual/preliminary design of supersonic jet configurations requires multidisciplinary analyses tools, which are able to provide a level of flexibility that permits the exploration of large areas of the design space. High-fidelity analysis for each discipline is desired for credible results; however, the corresponding computational cost can be prohibitively expensive, often limiting the ability to make drastic modifications to the aircraft configuration in question. Our work has progressed in this area, and we have introduced a truly hybrid, multifidelity approach in multidisciplinary analyses and demonstrated, in previous work, its application to the design optimization of a low-boom supersonic business jet. In this paper, we extend our multifidelity approach to the design procedure and present a two-level design of a supersonic business-jet configuration, in which we combine a conceptual low-fidelity optimization tool with a hierarchy of flow solvers of increasing fidelity and advanced adjoint-based sequential quadratic programming optimization approaches. In this work, we focus on the aerodynamic performance aspects alone: no attempt is made to reduce the acoustic signature. The results show that this particular combination of modeling and design techniques is quite effective for our design problem and the ones in general and that high-fidelity aerodynamic shape optimization techniques for complex configurations (such as the adjoint method) can be effectively used within the context of a truly multidisciplinary design environment. Detailed configuration results of our optimizations are also presented.

[1]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Aerodynamic design via control theory , 1988, J. Sci. Comput..

[2]  Timothy J. Baker,et al.  Mesh adaptation strategies for problems in fluid dynamics , 1997 .

[3]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  High-Fidelity Aero-Structural Design Using a Parametric CAD-Based Model , 2003 .

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

[5]  Antony Jameson Advances in Aerodynamic Shape Optimization , 2006 .

[6]  A. Jameson,et al.  Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Complex Aircraft Configurations via an Adjoint Formulation , 1996 .

[7]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Aircraft optimization for minimal environmental impact , 2002 .

[8]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  Automatic aerodynamic optimization on distributed memory architectures , 1996 .

[9]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Muiltiobjective Optimization Using Nondominated Sorting in Genetic Algorithms , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  M. J. Rimlinger,et al.  Constrained Multipoint Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using an Adjoint Formulation and Parallel Computers , 1997 .

[11]  Art B. Owen,et al.  9 Computer experiments , 1996, Design and analysis of experiments.

[12]  J. Alonso,et al.  Complete Configuration Aero-Structural Optimization Using a Coupled Sensitivity Analysis Method , 2002 .

[13]  Unal Resit,et al.  Response Surface Model Building and Multidisciplinary Optimization Using Overdetermined D-Optimal Designs , 1998 .

[14]  Hyoung Seog Chung Multidisciplinary design optimization of supersonic business jets using approximation model-based genetic algorithms , 2004 .

[15]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  Design of a Low-Boom Supersonic Business Jet Using Cokriging Approximation Models , 2002 .

[16]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization - Survey of recent developments , 1996 .

[17]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Advanced Algorithms for Design and Optimization of Quiet Supersonic Platforms , 2002 .

[18]  M. K. Chan,et al.  Supersonic aircraft optimization for minimizing drag and sonic boom , 2003 .

[19]  H. Ashley,et al.  Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies , 1965 .

[20]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Comparison of Response Surface and Kriging Models in the Multidisciplinary Design of an Aerospike Nozzle , 1998 .

[21]  T. W. Layne,et al.  A Comparison of Approximation Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models , 1998 .

[22]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Multi-fidelity Design Optimization of Low-boom Supersonic Business Jets , 2004 .

[23]  R. Carmichael,et al.  PAN AIR - A higher order panel method for predicting subsonic or supersonic linear potential flows about arbitrary configurations , 1981 .

[24]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Evolutionary Computation 2 , 2000 .

[25]  A. Jameson Optimum aerodynamic design using CFD and control theory , 1995 .

[26]  A Jameson,et al.  CALCULATION OF IN VISCID TRANSONIC FLOW OVER A COMPLETE AIRCRAFT , 1986 .

[27]  E. van der Weide,et al.  Time-dependent aeroelastic simulation of rapid manoeuvring aircraft , 2002 .

[28]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  Mutiobjective Optimization Using Approximation Model-Based Genetic Algorithms , 2004 .

[29]  Michael Andrew Park,et al.  Adjoint-Based, Three-Dimensional Error Prediction and Grid Adaptation , 2004 .

[30]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  AIAA-2002-0261 An Adjoint Method for the Calculation of Remote Sensitivities in Supersonic Flow , 2002 .

[31]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  High-Fidelity Aerostructural Design Optimization of a Supersonic Business Jet , 2002 .

[32]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  pyMDO: A framework for high-fidelity multi-disciplinary optimization , 2004 .

[33]  T Haftka Raphael,et al.  Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments , 1996 .

[34]  A. Jameson,et al.  Optimum Aerodynamic Design Using the Navier–Stokes Equations , 1997 .

[35]  Jean-Antoine Désidéri,et al.  Parallel Genetic Algorithms Applied to Optimum Shape Design in Aeronautics , 1997, Euro-Par.