Graph-based algorithms and data-driven documents for formulation and visualization of large MDO systems

A new system is presented that enables the visualization of large multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) problems and their solution strategy. It was developed within the scope of the European project AGILE. In AGILE, collaborative MDO is performed in large, heterogeneous teams of experts by solving MDO problems using a collection of design and analysis tools. This paper focuses on the visualizations required to support the formulation phase of an MDO project. The Knowledge and graph-based AGILE Design for Multidisciplinary Optimization System (KADMOS), an open-source MDO support system developed by Delft University of Technology, uses graph-based analysis to formulate an MDO problem and its solution strategy, based on the disciplinary analyses available in a repository. The results of KADMOS are stored in the standardized format CMDOWS (Common MDO Workflow Schema), which comprises the entire information on an MDO system. Although, based on Extensible Markup Language, the readability of the CMDOWS file is quite poor also for MDO experts, especially for large MDO systems involving thousands of variables. Providing visualization capabilities to thoroughly inspect the outcome of the different MDO formulation steps becomes a key factor to enable the specification of large MDO systems in a heterogeneous team. Therefore, VISTOMS (VISualization TOol for MDO Systems), a dynamic visualization package, was developed by RWTH Aachen University to enable the visualization and inspection of the different MDO system specification steps, thereby removing one of the main hurdles for using MDO as a development process. The developed visualization capabilities are demonstrated by means of an aerostructural wing design optimization project.

[1]  Gary Belie.  Non-Technical Barriers to Multidisciplinary Optimization in the Aerospace Industry , 2002 .

[2]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes , 2012, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization.

[3]  Marin D. Guenov,et al.  NEUTRAL DESCRIPTION AND EXCHANGE OF DESIGN COMPUTATIONAL WORKFLOWS , 2011 .

[4]  Mario Schmidt.  Der Einsatz von Sankey-Diagrammen im Stoffstrommanagement , 2006 .

[5]  Pier Davide Ciampa,et al.  Knowledge architecture supporting collaborative MDO in the AGILE paradigm , 2017 .

[6]  Robert Michael Lewis,et al.  Reconfigurability in MDO Problem Synthesis. Part 1 , 2004 .

[7]  Martin Spieck,et al.  MDO: assessment and direction for advancement—an opinion of one international group , 2009 .

[8]  Riccardo Lombardi,et al.  Methodological enhancements in MDO process investigated in the AGILE European project , 2017 .

[9]  Volker Gollnick,et al.  Communication in aircraft design : Can we establish a common language? , 2012 .

[10]  G. La Rocca,et al.  A Fully Automated Chain from MDAO Problem Formulation to Workflow Execution , 2017 .

[11]  Joaquim R. R. A. Martins,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization for Complex Engineered Systems: Report From a National Science Foundation Workshop , 2011 .

[12]  John Haymaker,et al.  A comparison of multidisciplinary design, analysis and optimization processes in the building construction and aerospace industries , 2007 .

[13]  John E. Renaud,et al.  Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design , 1996 .

[14]  S. Shahpar,et al.  Challenges to overcome for routine usage of automatic optimisation in the propulsion industry , 2011, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[15]  Gianfranco La Rocca,et al.  Composing MDAO symphonies : Graph-based generation and manipulation of large multidisciplinary systems , 2017 .

[16]  Brian J. German,et al.  A graph theoretic approach to problem formulation for multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization , 2014 .

[17]  D. V. Steward,et al.  The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[18]  H R Sankey,et al.  THE THERMAL EFFICIENCY OF STEAM-ENGINES. (INCLUDING APPENDIXES). , 1896 .

[19]  Thomas A. Grandine,et al.  The search for the perfect body: Shape Control for multidisciplinary design optimization , 2006 .

[20]  Maurice F. M. Hoogreef,et al.  CMDOWS: a proposed new standard to store and exchange MDO systems , 2018 .

[21]  Kevin Bowcutt,et al.  A Perspective on the Future of Aerospace Vehicle Design , 2003 .

[22]  Aiaa,et al.  A collection of technical papers : 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, Georgia, 4-6 September 2002 , 2002 .

[23]  G. La Rocca,et al.  Knowledge based engineering techniques to support aircraft design and optimization , 2011 .

[24]  M.F.M. Hoogreef.  Advise, Formalize and Integrate MDO Architectures: A Methodology and Implementation , 2017 .

[25]  Pier Davide Ciampa,et al.  TOWARDS THE 3 RD GENERATION MDO COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT , 2022 .

[26]  R H Thurston,et al.  The Thermal Efficiency of Steam Engines , 1924, Nature.

[27]  Charlie Vanaret,et al.  Towards the Industrialization of New MDO Methodologies and Tools for Aircraft Design , 2017 .

[28]  R. H. Thurston,et al.  THERMAL EFFICIENCY OF STEAM-ENGINES. , 1898 .

[29]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  General framework for decomposition analysis in optimal design , 1993 .