Surrogate-Based Aerodynamic Design Optimization: Use of Surrogates in Aerodynamic Design Optimization

The role of optimization in various practical applications has been increasing over the years. In the field of aerodynamics, design optimization is rapidly evolving in many ways. One of the latest developments in this field is the introduction of surrogates or metamodels. The use of surrogates has a number of advantages especially concerning the computation cost, memory and time budgets. The present paper aims to introduce the topic of surrogate-based optimization. An overview on the main aspects of surrogates and the associated terminology are discussed in detail. In addition, the paper provides a survey over the previous efforts contributing in this field. The paper is finalized with some general recommendations.

[1]  Timothy M. Mauery,et al.  COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SURFACE AND KRIGING MODELS FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OPTIMIZATION , 1998 .

[2]  Armando Vavalle,et al.  Iterative Response Surface Based Optimization Scheme for Transonic Airfoil Design , 2007 .

[3]  T. Simpson,et al.  Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria , 2000 .

[4]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Statistical Improvement Criteria for Use in Multiobjective Design Optimization , 2006 .

[5]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Metamodels for Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and recommendations , 2001, Engineering with Computers.

[6]  L. Watson,et al.  Reasonable Design Space Approach to Response Surface Approximation , 1999 .

[7]  Anthony A. Giunta,et al.  Aircraft Multidisciplinary Design Optimization using Design of Experiments Theory and Response Surface Modeling Methods , 1997 .

[8]  Kazuomi Yamamoto,et al.  Efficient Optimization Design Method Using Kriging Model , 2005 .

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

[10]  J. H. Starnes,et al.  Construction of Response Surface Approximations for Design Optimization , 1998 .

[11]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 1998 .

[12]  Enying Li,et al.  Development of metamodeling based optimization system for high nonlinear engineering problems , 2008, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[13]  Kevin Tucker,et al.  Response surface approximation of pareto optimal front in multi-objective optimization , 2004 .

[14]  P. Sagaut,et al.  Building Efficient Response Surfaces of Aerodynamic Functions with Kriging and Cokriging , 2008 .

[15]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments , 2003, Springer Series in Statistics.

[16]  Kazuomi Yamamoto,et al.  High-lift Wing Design in Consideration of Sweep Angle Effect Using Kriging Model , 2008 .

[17]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Response Surface Approximations: Noise, Error Repair, and Modeling Errors , 2000 .

[18]  Malcolm I. G. Bloor,et al.  Aerodynamic Design of a Flying Wing Using Response Surface Methodology , 2000 .

[19]  Marc A. Stelmack,et al.  Framework for Multidisciplinary Design Based on Response-Surface Approximations , 1999 .

[20]  Masoud Rais-Rohani,et al.  A comparative study of metamodeling methods for multiobjective crashworthiness optimization , 2005 .

[21]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

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

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

[24]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Kriging Models for Global Approximation in Simulation-Based Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2001 .

[25]  Shigeru Obayashi,et al.  Multidisciplinary design optimization of wing shape for a small jet aircraft using kriging model , 2006 .

[26]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Using Response Surface Metamodels to Optimize the Aerodynamic Performance of a High Speed Standoff Missile within a Multi-Disciplinary Environment , 2002 .

[27]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Surrogate-based aerodynamic shape optimization of a civil aircraft engine nacelle , 2007 .

[28]  Stephen J. Leary,et al.  Global Approximation and Optimization Using Adjoint Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes , 2004 .

[29]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  New Approaches to Conceptual and Preliminary Aircraft Design: A Comparative Assessment of a Neural Network Formulation and a Response Surface Methodology , 1998 .

[30]  Lfp Pascal Etman,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 1998 .

[31]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Computational Approaches for Aerospace Design: The Pursuit of Excellence , 2005 .

[32]  Kazuomi Yamamoto,et al.  Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Exploration of Elements’ Setting for High-Lift Airfoil Using Kriging Model , 2006 .

[33]  Vassili Toropov,et al.  Multi-Fidelity Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Based on Collaborative Optimization Framework , 2002 .

[34]  Yoichi Takenaka,et al.  Multidisciplinary design optimization for hypersonic experimental vehicle , 2007 .

[35]  Meng-Sing Liou,et al.  Multiobjective optimization using coupled response surface model and evolutionary algorithm , 2004 .

[36]  Kazuomi Yamamoto,et al.  Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Optimization of Elements' Setting for High-lift Airfoil Using Kriging Model , 2006 .

[37]  G. G. Wang,et al.  Adaptive Response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points , 2003 .