Double Shock Control Bump design optimization using hybridised evolutionary algorithms

The paper investigates two advanced optimisation methods for solving active flow control device shape design problem and also compares their optimisation efficiency in terms of computational cost and design quality. The first optimisation method uses Hierarchical Asynchronous Parallel Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (HAPMOEA) and the second uses Hybridized EA with Nash-Game strategies. Both optimisation method are based on a canonical evolution strategy and incorporates the concepts of parallel computing and asynchronous evaluation. For the practical test case, one of active flow control devices named Shock Control Bump (SCB) is considered and it is applied to Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) aerofoil. The concept of SCB is to decelerate supersonic flow on upper/lower surface of transonic aerofoil that leads delay of shock occurrence. Such active flow technique reduces a total drag at transonic speeds. Numerical results clearly show that Hybrid-Game helps EA to accelerate optimisation process, and also applying SCB on the suction and pressure sides significantly reduces transonic wave drag and improves lift on drag (L/D) value when compared to the baseline design.

[1]  N. Qin,et al.  Numerical study of active shock control for transonic aerodynamics , 2004 .

[2]  Petros Koumoutsakos,et al.  Reducing the Time Complexity of the Derandomized Evolution Strategy with Covariance Matrix Adaptation (CMA-ES) , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Luis Felipe Gonzalez,et al.  Fast reconstruction of aerodynamic shapes using evolutionary algorithms and virtual nash strategies in a CFD design environment , 2008, J. Comput. Appl. Math..

[4]  Andreas Zell,et al.  Median-Selection for Parallel Steady-State Evolution Strategies , 2000, PPSN.

[5]  Hilary Bart-Smith,et al.  High Authority Morphing Structures , 2003 .

[6]  Luis Felipe Gonzalez,et al.  Efficient Hybrid-Game Strategies Coupled to Evolutionary Algorithms for Robust Multidisciplinary Design Optimization in Aerospace Engineering , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Sridhar Kota,et al.  Active Flow Control Using High-Frequency Compliant Structures , 2004 .

[10]  Luis F. Gonzalez,et al.  UAS Mission Path Planning System, (MPPS) using hybrid-game coupled to multi-objective optimizer , 2010 .

[11]  Mourad Sefrioui,et al.  A Hierarchical Genetic Algorithm Using Multiple Models for Optimization , 2000, PPSN.

[12]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[13]  Jacques Periaux,et al.  UAS mission path planning system (MPPS) using hybrid-game coupled to multi-objective optimiser , 2009 .

[14]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Considerations in engineering parallel multiobjective evolutionary algorithms , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..