Comparison of Gradient and Response Surface Based Optimization Frameworks Using Adjoint Method

This paper deals with aerodynamic shape optimization using an high fidelity solver. Due to the computational cost and restitution time needed to solve the RANS equations, this type of optimization framework must improve the solution using very few objective function evaluations despite the high number of design variables. The choice of the optimizer is thus largely based on its speed of convergence. The quickest optimization algorithms use gradient information to converge along a descent path departing from the baseline shape to a local optimum. Within the past few decades, numerous design problems were successfully solved using this method. In our framework, the reference algorithm uses a quasi-Newton gradient method and an adjoint method to inexpensively compute the sensitivities of the functions with respect to shape variables. As usual aerodynamic functions show numerous local optima when varying shape, a more global optimizer can be beneficial at the cost of more function evaluations. More recently, the use of expensive global optimizers became possible by implementing response surfaces between optimizer and CFD code. In this way, a Kriging based optimizer is described. This optimizer proceeds in iteratively refining at up to three points per iteration by using a balancing between function minimization and error minimization. It is compared to the reference algorithm on two drag minimization problems. The test cases are 2D and 3D lifting bodies parameterized with six to more than forty design variables driving deformation of meshes with Hicks-Henne bumps. The new optimizer effectively proves to converge to lower function values without prohibitively increasing the cost. However, response surfaces are known to become inefficient when dimension increases. In order to efficiently apply this response surface based optimizer on such problems, a Cokriging method is used to interpolate gradient information at sample locations.

[1]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  No free lunch theorems for optimization , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[2]  A. J. Booker,et al.  A rigorous framework for optimization of expensive functions by surrogates , 1998 .

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

[4]  Weiyu Liu,et al.  Development of gradient-enhanced kriging approximations for multidisciplinary design optimization , 2003 .

[5]  D. Dennis,et al.  SDO : A Statistical Method for Global Optimization , 1997 .

[6]  D. Dennis,et al.  A statistical method for global optimization , 1992, [Proceedings] 1992 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[7]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Ecien t Aerodynamic Shape Optimization , 2004 .

[8]  M. Meaux,et al.  VISCOUS AERODYNAMIC SHAPE OPTIMIZATION BASED ON THE DISCRETE ADJOINT STATE FOR 3D INDUSTRIAL CONFIGURATIONS , 2004 .

[9]  Joel Brezillon,et al.  Efficient aerodynamic shape optimization in MDO context , 2007 .

[10]  Laurent Cambier,et al.  Status of the elsA CFD Software for Flow Simulation and Multidisciplinary Applications , 2008 .

[11]  Sonja Kuhnt,et al.  Design and analysis of computer experiments , 2010 .

[12]  John E. Dennis,et al.  MoVars: Multidisciplinary Optimization Via Adaptive Response Surfaces , 2007 .

[13]  M. Meunier Simulation and Optimization of Flow Control Strategies for Novel High-Lift Configurations , 2009 .

[14]  Virginia Torczon,et al.  Using approximations to accelerate engineering design optimization , 1998 .

[15]  David W. Zingg,et al.  Comparison of Optimization Algorithms Applied to Aerodynamic Design , 2004 .

[16]  Hyoung-Seog Chung,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Adjoint Gradient Enhanced Approximation Models for Genetic Algorithms , 2006, ICCSA.

[17]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  Computational Science and Its Applications - ICCSA 2009 , 2009 .

[18]  Michael James Sasena,et al.  Flexibility and efficiency enhancements for constrained global design optimization with kriging approximations. , 2002 .

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

[20]  G. Carrier,et al.  Aerodynamic and Structural Optimisation of Powerplant Integration under the Wing of a Transonic Transport Aircraft , 2007 .

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

[22]  R. M. Hicks,et al.  Wing Design by Numerical Optimization , 1977 .

[23]  D. Destarac,et al.  Drag/thrust analysis of jet-propelled transonic transport aircraft; Definition of physical drag components , 2004 .

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

[25]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  A Taxonomy of Global Optimization Methods Based on Response Surfaces , 2001, J. Glob. Optim..

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

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

[28]  Richard Bellman,et al.  Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour , 1961, The Mathematical Gazette.

[29]  Ning Qin,et al.  Variable-fidelity aerodynamic optimization for turbulent flows using a discrete adjoint formulation , 2004 .

[30]  Sergey Peigin,et al.  Robust optimization of 2D airfoils driven by full Navier–Stokes computations , 2004 .