Robust Airfoil Optimization Using Maximum Expected Value and Expected Maximum Value Approaches

Deterministic engineering design often leads to unexpected or physically unrealizable results. This is due to the fact that deterministic design is not able to capture the effects of even slight natural fluctuations of parameters. Deterministic transonic shape optimization is no exception: deterministic designs can result in dramatically inferior performance when the actual operating conditions are different from the design conditions used during a deterministic optimization procedure. The goal of this paper is to overcome the off-design performance degradation of deterministic transonic shape optimization by using two different optimization approaches to produce robust designs. Two criteria, the well-known maximum/minimum expected value criterion (MEV) and the alternative expectedmaximum/minimumvalue criterion (EMV), are studied and applied to improve an initial RAE2822 design. It turns out that EMV is much easier to implement than MEV, given a deterministic optimization code, and may provide a promising method for optimizing design shapes under uncertainty.

[1]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory , 1996 .

[2]  M. Yousuff Hussaini,et al.  On the expected optimal value and the optimal expected value , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[3]  Mark Drela,et al.  Low-Reynolds-number airfoil design for the M.I.T. Daedalus prototype- A case study , 1988 .

[4]  M. Damodaran,et al.  Application of Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation Method for Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization , 2002 .

[5]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Reduction of the Adjoint Gradient Formula for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Problems , 2003 .

[6]  Huyse Luc,et al.  Free-form airfoil shape optimization under uncertainty using maximum expected value and second-order second-moment strategies , 2001 .

[7]  Pedro Paglione,et al.  New Stochastic Algorithm for Design Optimization , 2003 .

[8]  Richard L. Campbell,et al.  Efficient Viscous Design of Realistic Aircraft Configurations , 1998 .

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

[10]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian calibration of computer models , 2001 .

[11]  Refractor.  Uncertainty , 2001, The Lancet.

[12]  Kenji Yamamoto,et al.  Applications of genetic algorithm to aerodynamic shape optimization , 1995 .

[13]  Mark Drela,et al.  Pros & Cons of Airfoil Optimization , 1998 .

[14]  D. Quagliarella,et al.  Genetic algorithms applied to the aerodynamic design of transonic airfoils , 1994 .

[15]  Arkadi Nemirovski,et al.  Robust Truss Topology Design via Semidefinite Programming , 1997, SIAM J. Optim..

[16]  Kazuhiro Nakahashi,et al.  Surface modification method for aerodynamic design optimization , 2005 .

[17]  Wu Li,et al.  Performance Trades Study for Robust Airfoil Shape Optimization , 2003 .

[18]  Madara Ogot,et al.  Stochastic approach to optimal aerodynamic shape design , 1996 .

[19]  A. Jameson,et al.  Design Optimization of High-Lift Configurations Using a Viscous Continuous Adjoint Method , 2002 .

[20]  M. Damodaran,et al.  Inverse Transonic Airfoil Design Using Parallel Simulated Annealing and Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2002 .

[21]  Jenn-Long Liu,et al.  Intelligent Genetic Algorithm and Its Application to Aerodynamic Optimization of Airplanes , 2005 .

[22]  L. Huyse,et al.  Robust airfoil optimization to achieve drag reduction over a range of Mach numbers , 2002 .

[23]  William Y. Fowlkes,et al.  Engineering Methods for Robust Product Design: Using Taguchi Methods in Technology and Product Development , 1995 .

[24]  Luc Huyse,et al.  Aerodynamic shape optimization of two-dimensional airfoils under uncertain conditions , 2001 .

[25]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  Two-dimensional High-Lift Aerodynamic Optimization Using the Continuous Adjoint Method , 2000 .

[26]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Efficient Aerodynamic Shape Optimization , 2004 .

[27]  Wu Li,et al.  Profile Optimization Method for Robust Airfoil Shape Optimization in Viscous Flow , 2003 .

[28]  Sharon L. Padula,et al.  Probabilistic approach to free-form airfoil shape optimization under uncertainty , 2002 .

[29]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Exploring the Limits of Shock-free Transonic Airfoil Design , 2005 .

[30]  J. Norris.  Appendix: probability and measure , 1997 .