Dimensionality-reduction-based surrogate models for real-time design space exploration of a jet engine compressor blade

Abstract Design space exploration (DSE) is a systematic analysis of designs based on parameters that are varied. DSE, however, often involves computationally expensive analyses that require large amounts of time and computer resources. To overcome this obstacle, tools and methods have been developed that allow the designer to quickly explore the design space. One such tool is surrogate modeling. A surrogate model's predictions are based off the relationship between the inputs and the outputs. If this relationship is sufficiently nonlinear, a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique may unfold the data and create a linear relationship by discovering the data's true dimensionality. The resultant surrogate has the potential to be more accurate due to the simplified relationship between the inputs and outputs. This paper uses surrogate models based on dimensionality reduction to predict finite element analysis (FEA) nodal properties of a jet engine compressor blade. Four different dimensionality reduction methods are compared, namely PCA, KPCA, ISOMAP, and LLE. The results show that nonlinear dimensionality-reduction-based surrogate models can reduce surrogate error in sufficiently nonlinear data spaces. To measure the linearity of the manifold, a new term, called the manifold distance ratio (MDR), is introduced. Nonlinear dimensionality-reduction-based surrogate models can have less error than PCA-based surrogate models when the MDR >1.7. For our application, ISOMAP-based surrogate models decreased the mean error of the surrogate for predicting nodal stresses by 35.7% compared to PCA. The lowest error in predicting the nodal coordinates was the inverse-transform-based PCA. While all errors in nodal coordinates were small, less than 0.23%, the other linear and nonlinear algorithms had between 2.4 and 3.2 times more error.

[1]  R. Bellman Dynamic programming. , 1957, Science.

[2]  R. Zimmermann,et al.  Interpolation-based reduced-order modelling for steady transonic flows via manifold learning , 2014 .

[3]  Charles John Cross Turbomachine airfoil vibration control utilizing active and passive piezoelectric elements , 1998 .

[4]  Ren-Jye Yang,et al.  High Performance Computing and Surrogate Modeling for Rapid Visualization with Multidisciplinary Optimization , 2004 .

[5]  Christopher K. I. Williams On a Connection between Kernel PCA and Metric Multidimensional Scaling , 2004, Machine Learning.

[6]  E. Zio,et al.  Probabilistic-based combined high and low cycle fatigue assessment for turbine blades using a substructure-based kriging surrogate model , 2020 .

[7]  Joel Nothman,et al.  SciPy 1.0-Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python , 2019, ArXiv.

[8]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. , 2000, Science.

[10]  Guang-Chen Bai,et al.  Dynamic surrogate modeling approach for probabilistic creep-fatigue life evaluation of turbine disks , 2019 .

[11]  Design of a Pulsing Flow Driven Turbine , 2020 .

[12]  Xiuli Shen,et al.  Surrogate-based optimization with improved support vector regression for non-circular vent hole on aero-engine turbine disk , 2020 .

[13]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  A kernel view of the dimensionality reduction of manifolds , 2004, ICML.

[14]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Kernel Principal Component Analysis , 1997, ICANN.

[15]  Jing Wang,et al.  MLLE: Modified Locally Linear Embedding Using Multiple Weights , 2006, NIPS.

[16]  Jie Xu,et al.  Interactive design space exploration and optimization for CAD models , 2017, ACM Trans. Graph..

[17]  E. Andres,et al.  Surrogate modeling for the main landing gear doors of an airbus passenger aircraft , 2017 .

[18]  Karl Pearson F.R.S. LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space , 1901 .

[19]  Steven E. Gorrell,et al.  Reduced-Order Modeling of Conjugate Heat Transfer Processes , 2016 .

[20]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling - A Practical Guide , 2008 .

[21]  Kenji Fukumizu,et al.  Hyperparameter Selection in Kernel Principal Component Analysis , 2014, J. Comput. Sci..

[22]  D. MacManus,et al.  Civil turbofan engine exhaust aerodynamics: Impact of fan exit flow characteristics , 2019, Aerospace Science and Technology.

[23]  David G. MacManus,et al.  Surrogate-based aerodynamic optimisation of compact nacelle aero-engines , 2019, Aerospace Science and Technology.

[24]  Jorge Cadima,et al.  Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[25]  S T Roweis,et al.  Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. , 2000, Science.

[26]  Ammon Hepworth,et al.  Rapid Visualization of Compressor Blade Finite Element Models Using Surrogate Modeling , 2018, Volume 7A: Structures and Dynamics.

[27]  Christopher Thelin,et al.  Structural Design Space Exploration Using Principal Component Analysis , 2020, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[28]  Ziyi Wang,et al.  Benchmark aerodynamic shape optimization with the POD-based CST airfoil parametric method , 2019, Aerospace Science and Technology.

[29]  Spencer Bunnell,et al.  Multi-fidelity surrogates from shared principal components , 2021, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[30]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization , 2007 .

[31]  Christopher Thelin,et al.  Spatially defined optimization of FEA using nodal surrogate models , 2021, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[32]  E. Iuliano Global optimization of benchmark aerodynamic cases using physics-based surrogate models , 2017 .

[33]  Ammon Hepworth,et al.  Real-Time Visualization of Finite Element Models Using Surrogate Modeling Methods , 2015, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[34]  Amitabha Mukerjee,et al.  Non-linear Dimensionality Reduction by Locally Linear Isomaps , 2004, ICONIP.

[35]  Yang Liu,et al.  Locally linear embedding: a survey , 2011, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[36]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria , 2001 .

[37]  Xingjian Wang,et al.  Common Proper Orthogonal Decomposition-Based Spatiotemporal Emulator for Design Exploration , 2018, AIAA Journal.