Reevaluating conceptual design fidelity: An efficient supersonic air vehicle design case

Multifidelity and multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) results for an efficient supersonic air vehicle (ESAV) are presented. This work builds upon previous published work that created a multifidelity and multidisciplinary analysis and design optimization framework. Based on the usual aircraft conceptual design assumption that low-fidelity analyses are capable of converging upon a design through MDO that would at least be representative of that which would be predicted by higher fidelity methods, a process is created to allow low-fidelity multidisciplinary analysis runs to guide the higher fidelity optimization in an effort to reduce the total required computational expense. Due to disparate physical simulation results between the different fidelity levels, the expected reduction in computational effort was not realized. A separate low-fidelity optimization and a higher fidelity optimization were then subsequently performed. A MDO method that required an order of magnitude fewer objective function evaluations than the low-fidelity MDO method was developed to perform the more computationally expensive higher fidelity MDO in the full ESAV design space. Although optimal low-fidelity and higher fidelity ESAV configurations are identified, the low-fidelity optimal solution is infeasible when analyzed with the higher fidelity framework, and vice versa. This was a surprising and unexpected result as these two fidelity level model suites were developed by the same team for the same aircraft. The common assumption that low-fidelity MDO design methods will find a feasible design close to the eventual higher fidelity design did not hold for the ESAV case. Sensitivity studies were performed around the optimal design to gain insight into this important region of the design space with respect to the particular fidelity level models used.

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

[2]  Aravind Seshadri,et al.  A FAST ELITIST MULTIOBJECTIVE GENETIC ALGORITHM: NSGA-II , 2000 .

[3]  Craig C. Morris,et al.  Flight Dynamic Constraints in Conceptual Aircraft Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design Optimization , 2014 .

[4]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Parametric Geometry Model for Design Studies of Tailless Supersonic Aircraft , 2014 .

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

[6]  Antonio De La Garza,et al.  High Fidelity MDO Process Development and Application to Fighter Strike Conceptual Design , 2012 .

[7]  Darcy L. Allison,et al.  Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design Optimization of an Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle , 2013 .

[8]  A. Yackle STOVL aircraft for shipboard operation , 1992 .

[9]  Alain Dervieux,et al.  Multilevel optimization of a supersonic aircraft , 2004 .

[10]  W Sproles Darrell,et al.  Computer Program To Obtain Ordinates for NACA Airfoils , 1996 .

[11]  I. H. Rettie,et al.  Role of Figures of Merit in Design Optimization and Technology Assessment , 1981 .

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

[13]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Development of a multidisciplinary design optimization framework for an efficient supersonic air vehicle , 2015 .

[14]  H Christopher Frey,et al.  OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS , 2001 .

[15]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Progress Towards Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Truss Braced Wing Aircraft with Flutter Constraints , 2010 .

[16]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Simultaneous Airframe and Propulsion Cycle Optimization for Supersonic Aircraft Design , 2008 .

[17]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Two-Level Multifidelity Design Optimization Studies for Supersonic Jets , 2005 .

[18]  Brian German,et al.  A Systems Engineering Approach to the Application of Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis and Optimization (MDAO) for Efficient Supersonic Air-Vehicle Exploration (ESAVE) , 2012 .

[19]  G. Daniel Brewer,et al.  Hydrogen Aircraft Technology , 1991 .

[20]  Hongman Kim,et al.  High Fidelity Multidisciplinary Optimization (HFMDO) , 2010 .

[21]  Edward J. Alyanak,et al.  Aerodynamic Modeling Techniques for Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Multidisciplinary Design Optimization , 2014 .

[22]  Runze Li,et al.  Design and Modeling for Computer Experiments , 2005 .

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

[24]  Kenneth T. Moore,et al.  Initial Multidisciplinary Design and Analysis Framework , 2010 .

[25]  Ramana V. Grandhi,et al.  Design of Engine Exhaust-Washed Structures for an Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle MDO Application , 2012 .

[26]  Rakesh K. Kapania,et al.  Towards Flying Qualities Constraints in the Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Supersonic Tailless Aircraft , 2012 .

[27]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  BLISS/S - A new method for two-level structural optimization , 1999 .

[28]  D. Shepard A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data , 1968, ACM National Conference.

[29]  Raymond M. Kolonay,et al.  Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Preliminary Conceptual Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization Results , 2012 .

[30]  Jingwei Zhang,et al.  Algorithm 905 , 2010 .

[31]  Olvi L. Mangasarian,et al.  Nonlinear Programming , 1969 .

[32]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Multifidelity Analysis and Optimization for Supersonic Design , 2010 .

[33]  Timothy T. Takahashi,et al.  Planform Selection for an Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle , 2014 .

[34]  Wu Li,et al.  Integration of Multifidelity Multidisciplinary Computer Codes for Design and Analysis of Supersonic Aircraft , 2011 .

[35]  Raymond M. Kolonay,et al.  Efficient Supersonic Air Vehicle Analysis and Optimization Implementation using SORCER , 2012 .

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