Multidisciplinary Optimisation of Aircraft Structures with Critical Non-Regular Areas: Current Practice and Challenges

The design optimisation of aerostructures is largely based on Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation (MDO), which is a set of tools used by the aircraft industry to size primary structures: wings, large portions of the fuselage or even an entire aircraft. The procedure is computationally expensive, as it must account for several thousands of loadcases, multiple analyses with hundreds of thousands of degrees of freedom, thousands of design variables and millions of constraints. Because of this, the coarse Global Finite Element Model (GFEM), on which the procedure is based, cannot be further refined. The structures represented in the GFEM contain many components and non-regular areas, which require a detailed modelling to capture their complex mechanical behaviour. Instead, in the GFEM, these components are represented by simplified models with approximated stiffness, whose main role is to contribute to the identification of the load paths over the whole structure. Therefore, these parts are kept fixed and are not constrained during the optimisation, as the description of their internal deformation is not sufficiently accurate. In this paper, we show that it would nevertheless be desirable to size the non-regular areas and the overall structures at once. Firstly, we introduce the concept of non-regular areas in the context of a structural airframe MDO. Secondly, we present a literature survey on MDO with a critical review of several architectures and their current applications to aircraft design optimisation. Then, we analyse and demonstrate with examples the possible consequences of neglecting non-regular areas when MDO is applied. In the conclusion, we analyse the requirements for alternative approaches and why the current ones are not viable solutions. Lastly, we discuss which characteristics of the problem could be exploited to contain the computational cost.

[1]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Multidisciplinary Optimization of Supersonic Wing Structures Using Curvilinear Spars and Ribs (SpaRibs) , 2013 .

[2]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Two-level composite wing structural optimization using response surfaces , 2000 .

[3]  François Gallard,et al.  GEMS, a Generic Engine for MDO Scenarios : Key Features in Application , 2019, AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum.

[4]  R. Haftka Simultaneous analysis and design , 1985 .

[5]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Global/local structural wing design using response surface techniques , 1997 .

[6]  G. L. Giles,et al.  Aerospace engineering design by systematic decomposition and multilevel optimization , 1984 .

[7]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  Structural sizing by generalized, multilevel optimization , 1987 .

[8]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  OpenMDAO: an open-source framework for multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization , 2019, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[9]  Zoran Filipi,et al.  Target cascading in vehicle redesign: a class VI truck study , 2002 .

[10]  L. Watson,et al.  Decomposition theory for multidisciplinary design optimization problems with mixed integer quasiseparable subsystems , 2006 .

[11]  Bret Stanford,et al.  Shape, Sizing, and Topology Design of a Wingbox under Aeroelastic Constraints , 2020, AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM.

[12]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  ENHANCED COLLABORATIVE OPTIMIZATION: A DECOMPOSITION-BASED METHOD FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN , 2008, DAC 2008.

[13]  John E. Renaud,et al.  Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design , 1996 .

[14]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Analytical Target Cascading in Automotive Vehicle Design , 2001 .

[15]  Christine V. Jutte,et al.  Aeroelastic Sizing and Layout Design of a Wingbox Through Nested Optimization , 2019, AIAA Journal.

[16]  B. Nagel,et al.  Global Local Structural Optimization of Transportation Aircraft Wings , 2010 .

[17]  Sameer B. Mulani,et al.  Global/Local Optimization of Aircraft Wing Using Parallel Processing , 2016 .

[18]  Robert D. Braun,et al.  Collaborative optimization: an architecture for large-scale distributed design , 1996 .

[19]  Kenneth T. Moore,et al.  OpenMDAO: An Open Source Framework for Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization , 2010 .

[20]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Convergence properties of analytical target cascading , 2002 .

[21]  Alan W. Wilhite,et al.  Bi-Level Optimization of a Conceptual Metallic Wing Box with Stiffness Constraints , 2016 .

[22]  Tao Jiang,et al.  Target Cascading in Optimal System Design , 2003, DAC 2000.

[23]  L. Watson,et al.  Global-local structural optimization using response surfaces of local optimization margins , 2004 .

[24]  J. Martins,et al.  On the consequences of the “no free lunch” theorem for optimization on the choice of MDO architecture , 2017 .

[25]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Global-local Aeroelastic Optimization of Internal Structure of Transport Aircraft wing , 2017 .

[26]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  On the Common Structure of MDO Problems: A Comparison of Architectures , 2006 .

[27]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanskisobieski,et al.  On the sensitivity of complex, internally coupled systems , 1988 .

[28]  John E. Dennis,et al.  Problem Formulation for Multidisciplinary Optimization , 1994, SIAM J. Optim..

[29]  Daniel Raymer,et al.  Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Sixth Edition , 2012 .

[30]  J. Rooda,et al.  An augmented Lagrangian decomposition method for quasi-separable problems in MDO , 2007 .

[31]  J. Rooda,et al.  Augmented Lagrangian coordination for distributed optimal design in MDO , 2008 .

[32]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Aeroservoelastic Optimization of Wing Structure Using Curvilinear Spars and Ribs (SpaRibs) , 2016 .

[33]  R. Haftka,et al.  On options for interdisciplinary analysis and design optimization , 1992 .

[34]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  pyMDO: An Object-Oriented Framework for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2009, TOMS.

[35]  Layne T. Watson,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization with Quasiseparable Subsystems , 2005 .

[36]  Christina Bloebaum,et al.  NON-HIERARCHIC SYSTEM DECOMPOSITION IN STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION , 1992 .

[37]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  Bilevel Integrated System Synthesis with Response Surfaces , 2000 .

[38]  J. E. Rooda,et al.  An augmented Lagrangian relaxation for analytical target cascading using the alternating direction method of multipliers , 2006 .

[39]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  A SYSTEM PARTITIONING AND OPTIMIZATION APPROACH TO TARGET CASCADING , 1999 .

[40]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Bilevel Design of a Wing Structure Using Response Surfaces , 2003 .

[41]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Development and Application of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture in a Multidisciplinary Design Environment , 1995 .

[42]  John E. Dennis,et al.  On Alternative Problem Formulations for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 1992 .

[43]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Enhanced Collaborative Optimization: Application to an Analytic Test Problem and Aircraft Design , 2008 .

[44]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  EBF3PanelOpt: An optimization framework for curvilinear blade-stiffened panels , 2013 .

[45]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Global/Local Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Subsonic Wing , 2014 .

[46]  Michel van Tooren,et al.  Bilevel Optimization Strategy for Aircraft Wing Design Using Parallel Computing , 2014 .

[47]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Collaborative optimization using response surface estimation , 1998 .

[48]  J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  Structural optimization by multilevel decomposition , 1983 .

[49]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Multidisciplinary design optimization: A survey of architectures , 2013 .

[50]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms , 2010 .

[51]  Jay Garcia,et al.  Using Optimization for Structural Analysis Productivity Improvement on the F-35 Lightning II , 2007 .

[52]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Integrated Global Wing and Local Panel Optimization of Aircraft Wing , 2015 .

[53]  Charlie Vanaret,et al.  GEMS: A Python Library for Automation of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Process Generation , 2018 .

[54]  Sobieszczanski Jaroslaw,et al.  Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS) , 1998 .

[55]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Bilevel Programming Weight Minimization of Composite Flying-Wing Aircraft with Curvilinear Spars and Ribs , 2019, AIAA Journal.