Shape optimization of underwater wings with a new multi-fidelity bi-level strategy

This paper proposes a new multi-fidelity bi-level optimization (MFBLO) strategy for shape designs of underwater wings. Firstly, hydrodynamic analyses of the wing planform and sections are decoupled for constructing a bi-level shape optimization frame, which includes an upper-level task merely concerning the wing planform design and several lower-level tasks only related to the section designs. By doing this, the shape design optimization gets remarkable benefits from the reduction of dimension and computational costs. Secondly, the bridge function method combined with three multi-fidelity data fusion approaches CC1, CC2, and CC3 are proposed to conduct the bi-level optimization, respectively. After comparison analyses, CC2 shows higher computational efficiency and accuracy, which is more appropriate for the bi-level shape optimization frame. Finally, compared with the single-level optimization with the fixed planform or sections and the conventional high-dimensional optimization, the proposed MFBLO needs less computation budget and gets higher lift-drag ratio, showing its outstanding advantages in handling the shape optimization of underwater wings.

[1]  Paul I. Barton,et al.  Towards global bilevel dynamic optimization , 2009, J. Glob. Optim..

[2]  Zhonghua Han,et al.  Efficient aerodynamic shape optimization of transonic wings using a parallel infilling strategy and surrogate models , 2016, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[3]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Statistical Approximations for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: The Problem of Size , 1999 .

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

[5]  M. Drela.  XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils , 1989 .

[6]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Survey of modeling and optimization strategies to solve high-dimensional design problems with computationally-expensive black-box functions , 2010 .

[7]  Rommel G. Regis,et al.  Trust Regions in Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Programming for Constrained Expensive Black-Box Optimization , 2015 .

[8]  D. Rudnick.  Ocean Research Enabled by Underwater Gliders. , 2016, Annual review of marine science.

[9]  T. Mori,et al.  Screening Parameters of Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Integrated Model with Sensitivity Analysis , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[10]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Requirements for papers focusing on new or improved global optimization algorithms , 2016 .

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

[12]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  A Competitive Divide-and-Conquer Algorithm for Unconstrained Large-Scale Black-Box Optimization , 2016, ACM Trans. Math. Softw..

[13]  Jie Xu,et al.  Multi-fidelity Model Integration for Engineering Design☆ , 2015 .

[14]  Wenjing Lyu,et al.  An application of multidisciplinary design optimization to the hydrodynamic performances of underwater robots , 2015 .

[15]  Nan Zhang,et al.  Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion in sufficient dimension reduction and feature screening , 2014 .

[16]  B. Kulfan.  Universal Parametric Geometry Representation Method , 2008 .

[17]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions , 1998, J. Glob. Optim..

[18]  Anthony F. Molland,et al.  Measurements and predictions of forces, pressures and cavitation on 2-D sections suitable for marine current turbines , 2004 .

[19]  G. G. Wang,et al.  Mode-pursuing sampling method for global optimization on expensive black-box functions , 2004 .

[20]  Christian Oliver Paschereit,et al.  Spectral proper orthogonal decomposition , 2015, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[21]  Paul A. Brandner,et al.  Experimental study of the steady fluid-structure interaction of flexible hydrofoils , 2014 .

[22]  M. Giles,et al.  Viscous-inviscid analysis of transonic and low Reynolds number airfoils , 1986 .

[23]  J. V. Ingen.  The eN method for transition prediction: Historical review of work at TU Delft , 2008 .

[24]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Review on Bilevel Optimization: From Classical to Evolutionary Approaches and Applications , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Jianbing Chen,et al.  The dimension-reduction strategy via mapping for probability density evolution analysis of nonlinear stochastic systems , 2006 .

[26]  Slawomir Koziel,et al.  Aerodynamic shape optimization by variable-fidelity computational fluid dynamics models: A review of recent progress , 2015, J. Comput. Sci..

[27]  Heather A. Harrington,et al.  Reduction of dimension for nonlinear dynamical systems , 2015, Nonlinear Dynamics.

[28]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Investigations of the Common Research Model Wing Benchmark , 2015 .

[29]  Peng Zhang,et al.  Traffic Signal Optimization Based on System Equilibrium and Bi-level Multi-objective Programming Model , 2016 .

[30]  Ali Elham,et al.  Quasi-Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Solver for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Lifting Surfaces , 2014 .

[31]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Multi-fidelity Design Optimization of Low-boom Supersonic Business Jets , 2004 .

[32]  C. Allen,et al.  A Geometric Comparison of Aerofoil Shape Parameterisation Methods , 2016 .

[33]  Chris Marnay,et al.  Optimal planning of microgrid power and operating reserve capacity , 2018 .

[34]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design: With Applications , 1984 .

[35]  T. Nagarajan,et al.  Underwater Gliders: A Review , 2014 .

[36]  Michael Griebel,et al.  A sparse grid based method for generative dimensionality reduction of high-dimensional data , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[37]  Makoto Aoshima,et al.  Effective PCA for high-dimension, low-sample-size data with singular value decomposition of cross data matrix , 2010, J. Multivar. Anal..

[38]  Baowei Song,et al.  Multi-start Space Reduction (MSSR) surrogate-based global optimization method , 2016 .

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

[40]  Timothy G. Trucano,et al.  Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2002 .

[41]  D. Zingg,et al.  Investigation into Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Planar and Nonplanar Wings , 2018 .

[42]  Jae-Woo Lee,et al.  Multidisciplinary Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle system design using Multi-Fidelity Model , 2013 .

[43]  Andrew Lewis,et al.  Grey Wolf Optimizer , 2014, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[44]  F van Keulen,et al.  Development and experimental validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the human scapula , 2004, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[45]  K. Graf,et al.  Comparison of full 3D-RANS simulations with 2D-RANS/lifting line method calculations for the flow analysis of rigid wings for high performance multihulls , 2014 .

[46]  D. Zingg,et al.  Multimodality and Global Optimization in Aerodynamic Design , 2013 .

[47]  Xin Yao,et al.  Turning High-Dimensional Optimization Into Computationally Expensive Optimization , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[48]  Dieter Bestle,et al.  Compressor blade design for stationary gas turbines using dimension reduced surrogate modeling , 2017, 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[49]  Robert G. Jeroslow,et al.  The polynomial hierarchy and a simple model for competitive analysis , 1985, Math. Program..

[50]  Peng Wang,et al.  Kriging-based multi-fidelity optimization via information fusion with uncertainty , 2018, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology.