MAD Center

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization

of Advanced Aircraft Configurations
Bernard Grossman
Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design (MAD) Center
for Advanced Vehicles
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
In collaboration with:
R. T. Haftka Dept. Aero. Eng., Mech. & Eng. Sci. U. of Florida
W. H. Mason Dept. Aero. & Ocean Eng. Virginia Tech
L. T. Watson Dept. Computer Sci. & Dept. Math. Virginia Tech
and students:
C. Baker, V. Balabanov, S. Cox, A. Giunta, H. Kim, D. Knill, D. Krasteva
 Research: MDO of Aircraft Configurations
✈ MAD Center

MDO Design philosophy

• impracticality of brute-force linking of high-fidelity codes
• variable-complexity modelling (VCM)
• response-surface methodology (RSM)

Incorporating CFD and FE Structures into conceptual design
• VCM reduces computational burden
• RSM allows the study of design trade-offs

Design space exploration
• RSM in high-dimensional design spaces
• design space visualization with local optima

Parallel computing
• Dynamic load balancing reqd. for evaluating millions of configurations
• Distributed load control for scalability
Research (continued): MDO of Aircraft Configurations
✈ MAD Center

Global optimization
• Number of processors and choice of algorithm
• Preliminary results with multi-start local and global optimization

Protection against modeling and simulation uncertainties in optimization
• Discrepancies in simulations of varying fidelity and empirical data
• Automated diagnostic methodology, robust statistics

Problem solving environments
• VRML based VIZCRAFT
• parallel coordinates

Design example: Strut-Braced Wing
• MDO crucial to design
• CFD and aeroelasticity still offline
• Transonic transport (Boeing 777 mission): 19% TOGW reduction, 24%
less fuel, 46% fewer emissions
 Selected References
✈ MAD Center

Response surface methodology:

• Giunta, A. A., Balabanov, V., Haim, D., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H., Wat-
son, L. T., and Haftka, R. T., “Multidisciplinary Optimisation of a Super-
sonic Transport Using Design of Experiments Theory and Response Surface
Modelling,” Aeronautical Journal, 101, No. 1008, 1997, pp. 347-356.
• Kaufman, M., Balabanov, V., Burgee, S. L., Giunta, A. A., Grossman, B.,
Haftka, R. T., Mason, W. H. and Watson, L. T., “Variable-Complexity Re-
sponse Surface Approximations for Wing Structural Weight in HSCT De-
sign,” Computational Mechanics, 18, No. 2, June 1996, pp. 112-126.
Design space exploration:
• Baker, C., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H., Watson, L. T. and Haftka, R.
T., “HSCT Configuration Design Space Exploration Using Aerodynamic Re-
sponse Surface Approximations”, Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Paper No. 98–
4803–CP, St. Louis, MO, Sept. 1998, pp. 769–777.
 Selected References (continued)
✈ MAD Center

Using detailed CFD in design:

• Knill, D. L., Balabanov, V., Golividov, O., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H.,
Haftka, R. T. and Watson, L. T., “Accuracy of Aerodynamic Predictions
and Its Effects on Supersonic Transport Design,” MAD Center Report 96-
12-01, Virginia Tech, AOE Dept., Blacksburg, VA, Dec. 1996.
• Mason, W. H., Knill, D. L., Giunta, A. A., Grossman, B., Haftka, R. T.
and Watson, L. T., “Getting the Full Benefits of CFD in Conceptual De-
sign,” AIAA 16th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Paper No. 98-2513,
Albuquerque, NM, June 1998.
• Knill, D. L., Giunta, A. A., Baker, C. A., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H.,
Haftka, R. T. and Watson, L. T., “Response Surface Models Combining Lin-
ear and Euler Aerodynamics for Supersonic Transport Design,” J. Aircraft,
36, No. 1, Jan.–Feb. 1999, pp. 75–86.
Using detailed structural analysis in design:
• Balabanov, V., Giunta, A. A., Golividov, O., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H.,
Watson, L. T. and Haftka, R. T., “Reasonable Design Space Approach to
Response Surface Approximation”, J. Aircraft, 36, No. 1, Jan.–Feb. 1999,
pp. 308–315.
 Selected References (continued)
✈ MAD Center

Parallel computing:
• Burgee, S., Giunta, A. A., Balabanov, V., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H.,
Narducci, R., Haftka, R. T., and Watson, L. T., “A Coarse Grained Variable-
Complexity Multidisciplinary Optimization Paradigm,” Intl. J. Supercom-
puting Applications and High Performance Computing, 10, No. 4, 1996,
pp. 269-299.
• Krasteva, D. T., Baker, C., Watson, L. T., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H.
and Haftka, R. T., “Distributed Control Parallelism for Multidisciplinary
Design of a High Speed Civil Transport”, in Proc. 7th Symp. on the Fron-
tiers of Massively Parallel Computation, IEEE Computer Soc., Los Alamitos,
CA, 1999, 166–173; also MAD Center Report 98-11-01, Virginia Tech, AOE
Dept., Blacksburg, VA, Nov. 1998.
• Krasteva, D. T., Watson, L. T., Baker, C., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H. and
Haftka, R. T., “Distributed control parallelism in multidisciplinary aircraft
design”, Concurrency, Practice Experience, Vol. 11(8), 1999, pp. 435–459.
 Selected References (continued)
✈ MAD Center

Global optimization:
• Cox, S. E., Haftka, R. T., Baker, C. A., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H. and
Watson, L. T., “Global Optimization of a High Speed Civil Transport Con-
figuration”, Proceedings of the Third World Congress on Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Amherst, NY, May 1999.
Problem solving environments:
• Goel, A., Baker, C. A., Shaffer, C. A., Grossman, B., Mason, W. H., Watson,
L. T. and Haftka, R. T., “VizCraft: a problem solving environment for
configuration design of a high speed civil transport”, submitted to IEEE
Comput. Sci. Engrg., also MAD Center Report 99-06-01, Virginia Tech,
AOE Dept., Blacksburg, VA, June 1999.
HSCT design problem:
• MacMillin, P. E., Mason, W. H., Grossman, B. and Haftka, R. T., “An MDO
Investigation of the Impact of Practical Constraints on an HSCT Configura-
tion,” AIAA 35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Paper No. 97-0098,
Reno, NV, Jan. 1997.
 Selected References (continued)
✈ MAD Center

MDO Application: strut-braced wing transport:

• Grasmeyer, J. M., Naghshineh-Pour, A., Tetrault, P.-A., Grossman, B.,
Haftka, R. T., Kapania, R. K., Mason, W. H. and Schetz, J. A., “Mul-
tidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Strut-Braced Wing Aircraft with
Tip-Mounted Engines,” MAD Center Report 98-01-01, Virginia Tech, AOE
Dept., Blacksburg, VA, Jan. 1998.
• Gern, F. H., Gundlach, J., Naghshineh-Pour, A., Sulaman, E., Tetrault,
P., Grossman, B., Haftka, R. T., Kapania, R., Mason, W. H. and Schetz,
J. A., “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Transonic Commercial
Transport with a Strut-Braced Wing,” Paper 1999-01-5621, World Aviation
Congress and Exposition, San Francisco CA, Oct. 1999.
• Gundlach, J., Gern, F., Tetrault, P., Nagshineh-Pour, A., Ko, A., Grossman,
B., Haftka, R. T., Kapania, R. K., Mason, W. H., and Schetz, J. A., “Mul-
tidisciplinary Optimization of a Strut-Braced Wing Transonic Transport,”
AIAA 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Paper No. 98-0420, Reno,
NV, Jan. 2000.
 MDO in Aircraft Design
✈ MAD Center

Integrated Design
• Aerodynamics, Structures, Performance
• Controls, Propulsion
• Manufacturing, Costs

Conceptual Design Level

• Simple analysis methods
(algebraic, tables, FLOPS, ACSYNT)
• Traditionally multidisciplinary

Preliminary Design Level

• More detailed analysis methods
(panel codes, beam models)
• Usually disciplinary

Detailed Design
• State-of-the-art analysis methods
(Navier-Stokes, detailed finite-element)
• Disciplinary
 Our Approach to MDO
✈ MAD Center

Objective:
• Utilize detailed analysis methods in the early stages of a multidisciplinary design
process
◦ new concepts with weak historical database
◦ market-driven efficient designs

Problem:
• Computational cost of hundreds of thousands of high-fidelity analyses
• Numerical noise due to discretization, incomplete convergence, shocks, irregular
constraint boundaries, etc.
• Immense, non-convex design spaces

Approach:
• Variable-Complexity Modeling (VCM):
◦ simultaneous use of several models (analyses) of different levels of complexity
and fidelity
• Response Surface Models (RSM):
◦ curve fitting (polynomial approximation) to the results of multiple analyses
based on design of experiments theory
 Variable-Complexity Modelling
✈ MAD Center

VCM: simultaneously use both simple and detailed analysis methods

• simple models: hundreds of thousands of evaluations
• detailed models:thousands of evaluations
• very detailed models: ten to a hundred of evaluations

° Replace disciplinary, detailed model with simple model

• e. g., weight equation instead of finite-element structural analysis

° Use detailed model sparingly, by calibrating simple model

• approximate (algebraic) solution FA (E x ).
• detailed solution FD (E
x ).

σ (E
x0 ) = FD (E
x0 )/FA (Ex0 )
F(Ex ) = σ (x0 )FA (E
x)

° Explore design space with simple models and use detailed model in promising
regions

° Use functional form of simple models to generate response surface models from
detailed analyses.
 Variable-Complexity Modelling: Experience
✈ MAD Center

Variable-Complexity Modelling:
is an effective procedure to reduce the computational burden of multidisciplinary
design optimization.

Problem Areas:
• Convergence difficulties due to noisy and non-smooth derivatives.
• Local minima in design space.
• Not adequate for very high-fidelity codes.
Euler/ Navier-Stokes
Detailed finite-element

The Next Step:

• Take advantage of the power of parallel computing.
• Customized response surface methodology.
• Use variable-complexity strategy to address curse of dimensionality.
CDwave Noisy Analysis Example
0.00076

1/10 Count
0.00075

0.00074

0.00073

0.00072

0.00071
50 60 70 80 90 100
Wing Semispan (ft)
 Response Surface Modelling
✈ MAD Center

Response Surface:
• Curve-fit, using polynomial approximation (typically quadratic), the response in
terms of specified variables.
X
N X
N
Y = c0 + cj x j + c j,k x j xk
1≤ j≤N 1≤ j≤k≤N

• For HSCT design problem, response surfaces for drag and material bending weight.
Size of the model:
• For quadratic response surface in N variables, (N + 1)(N + 2)/2 coefficients.
for 10 variables, 66 coefficients, at least 100 analyses.
for 25 variables, 351 coefficients, at least 500 analyses.
Size of the design space:
• Candidate design at each corner of the design space, there will be 2 N candidate
designs.
10 variables, 1,024 vertices.
25 variables, 33,500,000 vertices.
• Curse of dimensionality.
 Customized Response Surfaces
✈ MAD Center

° Use variable-complexity modelling to develop customized response surfaces.

° Preliminaries with simple analyses
• From analytical form determine appropriate functional form (e.g., log-log) and
appropriate variables.
• Analyze very large number of candidate designs.
• Reduce design space by applying geometric constraints and approximate per-
formance constraints.
• Reduce design space by eliminating nonsense designs.
• Use statistical techniques to determine the best locations to evaluate candidate
designs.
° Response surface with detailed analyses.
• Use coarse-grained parallel computing.
• Fit response surface for the aerodynamic drag components and wing bending
material weight.
° Perform MDO using response surfaces.
 Issues Leading to the Use of Response Surfaces
✈ MAD Center

Prehistoric (No Computers) Design Process:

° Prehistoric integration problem:
• Designers (generalists) lacked skills to exercise methods devised by analysts
(specialists).
° Solution: Provide designers with RESULTS rather than tools.
° Requirement: Collapse information depending on a large number of parameters on
two dimensional design charts.
• Use experience and common sense to narrow down ranges of parameters.
• Use similarity parameters to reduce number of variables.
• Use appropriate scales (e.g., log-log).
° Experimentalists still use these approaches today.
 Advantages of Response Surface Approach
✈ MAD Center

• Disciplinary codes can be exercised independently by specialists rather than gener-

alists.
• Errors reduced because designs analyzed in groups rather than singly.
• Computational efficiency through parallel computing.
• Response surface construction provides insight into design tradeoffs.
◦ Simplified MDO code integration.
◦ Noise filtered out.

° Optimization task becomes computationally trivial and permits:

Global optimization.
Multicriterion optimization.
Reliability based optimization.
° Design trade-offs, off-design performance, design space visualization, alternate ob-
jective functions greatly facilitated with response surfaces
 The Design Space
Feasible Point
Visualization Plot
TOGW (lbs)
Infeasible Point
Base Point 2 775000 •Choose 3 Feasible Base
Constraint Boundaries 770000
Range 765000 Points
Geom., Nacelle 760000
Max. Thrust Req.
755000 •Connect Base Points to get
750000
Plane in 28-Dimensional
Space
•Create Grid in Plane
Base Point 1 Base Point 3 •Evaluate Objective Fn. and
Constraints at Grid Points
(with RS models)
Infeasible Points outside
Constraint Boundaries on plot
violate Side Constraints

•Even in Simplified Plot, Design Space appears Complicated, Nonconvex

•Range Constraint is Multiply Connected even with Quadratic Drag RS Models

Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design (MAD) Virginia Tech Department of

Center for Advanced Vehicles Aerospace and Ocean Engineering
 The Design Space, contd.

IS

IS
Range TOGW (lbs)

AX

AX
IS 5 Geom., Nacelle 810000
AX 4
Max. Thrust Req. 800000
790000
780000
3 770000
760000
2 750000

•Base Points 1 & 2 are fixed

1 2

•Base Point 3 varies linearly

IS

IS

IS
AX
AX

AX
3 4 5

Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design (MAD) Virginia Tech Department of

Center for Advanced Vehicles Aerospace and Ocean Engineering
Parallel Coordinates Example

Single design point

Parallel Coordinates Example (contd.)

Constraint violations for a single design point

Parallel Coordinates Example (contd.)

Visualizing a database of design points

Parallel Coordinates Example (contd.)

Recognizing patterns and relationships in a database

Parallel Coordinates Example (contd.)

Result of “brushing” out design points

 NASA Langley
Research Center
October 16, 1998

Strut-Braced Wing Transport

NAS1-96014 DA17
 Why a Strut-Braced Wing?

Cantilever
Bending
Moment
SBW

◆ Strut Allows Span Increase, t/c Reduction and/or Wing

Bending Material Weight Reduction
◆ Small t/c Allows Wing to Unsweep for Same Transonic
Wave Drag
◆ Reduced Sweep Permits More Natural Laminar Flow
– Fuel Savings
– Causes Additional Weight Savings

Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design (MAD) Center Dept. of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering
for Advanced Vehicles Virginia Tech
 2010 Minimum-TOGW Optima
◆ Thrust Reduction of 21.5-31.6% ◆ SBW %TOGW Improvement
– Lower Noise Pollution at Urban = 9.2-17.4%
Airports ◆ SBW %Fuel Improvement =
◆ Large SBW Sweep Reduction 14.3-21.8%
◆ Less Wing Area ◆ Similar Wingspans Except for
Wingtip-Engine Case
◆ Wingtip Deflection Constraint

Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design (MAD) Center Dept. of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering
for Advanced Vehicles Virginia Tech
Continuing Research: MDO of Aircraft Configurations
✈ MAD Center

° Critical for detailed high-fidelity analyses early in the design process

° Impractical to link high-fidelity codes with an optimizer for an MDO tool
° Variable-complexity modelling has been shown to significantly reduce the compu-
tational burden
° Reponse surface modelling is an effective tool for performing MDO
• code disaggregation
• parallel computing efficiency
• design trade-off studies

Further research needed in MDO to:

° Bring detailed costs and manufacturing into the design process
° Address global optimization and reliability-based optimization
° Fully incorporate advantages of parallel computing
° Effectively utilize problem solving environment in design