Rule Based Architecture for Collaborative Multidisciplinary Aircraft Design Optimisation

Authors: Nickolay Jelev, Andy Keane, Carren Holden, András Sóbester

Abstract:

In aircraft design, the jump from the conceptual to preliminary design stage introduces a level of complexity which cannot be realistically handled by a single optimiser, be that a human (chief engineer) or an algorithm. The design process is often partitioned along disciplinary lines, with each discipline given a level of autonomy. This introduces a number of challenges including, but not limited to: coupling of design variables; coordinating disciplinary teams; handling of large amounts of analysis data; reaching an acceptable design within time constraints. A number of classical Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation (MDO) architectures exist in academia specifically designed to address these challenges. Their limited use in the industrial aircraft design process has inspired the authors of this paper to develop an alternative strategy based on well established ideas from Decision Support Systems. The proposed rule based architecture sacrifices possibly elusive guarantees of convergence for an attractive return in simplicity. The method is demonstrated on analytical and aircraft design test cases and its performance is compared to a number of classical distributed MDO architectures.

Keywords: Multidisciplinary design optimisation, rule based architecture, aircraft design, decision support system.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1130405

References:

[1] K. Sabbagh, Twenty First Century Jet: Making and Marketing the Boeing 777. Scribner Book Company, 1996.
[2] G. Norris and M. Wagner, Airbus A380: superjumbo of the 21st century. Zenith Imprint, 2005.
[3] M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
[4] L. Prandtl, “Uber tragflugel des kleinsten induzierten widerstandes,” Zeitschrift f¨ur Flugtechnik und motorluftschiffahrt, 1933.
[5] R. T. Jones, “The spanwise distribution of lift for minimum induced drag of wings having a given lift and a given bending moment,” 1950.
[6] J. DeYoung, “Minimization theory of induced drag subject to constraint conditions,” 1979.
[7] G. K. Kenway and J. R. Martins, “Multipoint high-fidelity aerostructural optimization of a transport aircraft configuration,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 144–160, 2014.
[8] J. R. R. A. Martins and A. B. Lambe, “Multidisciplinary design optimization: A survey of architectures,” AIAA journal, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 2049–2075, 2013.
[9] N. P. Tedford and J. R. Martins, “Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms,” Optimization and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 159–183, 2010.
[10] K. A. J. Price, A. R. and C. M. Holden, “On the coordination of multidisciplinary design optimization using expert systems,” AIAA journal, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1778–1794, 2011.
[11] A. S. B. R. G. P. Kroo, I. and I. Sobieski, “Multidisciplinary optimization methods for aircraft preliminary design,” AIAA paper, vol. 4325, p. 1994, 1994.
[12] J. Allison, M. Kokkolaras, M. Zawislak, and P. Y. Papalambros, “On the use of analytical target cascading and collaborative optimization for complex system design,” in 6th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005, pp. 1–10.
[13] N. Alexzandrov and R. M. Lewis, “Analytical and computational aspects of collaborative optimization,” NASA/TM-210104-2000, pp. 1205–1210, 2000.
[14] S. Kodiyalam, “Evaluation of methods for multidisciplinary design optimization (mdo). part 1,” 1998.
[15] N. Michelena, H. M. Kim, and P. Papalambros, “A system partitioning and optimization approach to target cascading,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering Design, vol. 2, 1999, pp. 1109–1112.
[16] B. D. Roth, “Aircraft family design using enhanced collaborative optimization,” Ph.D. dissertation, 2008.
[17] I. Roth, B. & Kroo, “Enhanced collaborative optimization: Application to an analytic test problem and aircraft design, (2008),” in 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Victoria, BC, 2008.
[18] J. Agte, O. De Weck, J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, P. Arendsen, A. Morris, and M. Spieck, “Mdo: assessment and direction for advancementan opinion of one international group,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 40, no. 1-6, pp. 17–33, 2010.
[19] H. P. Nii, “The blackboard model of problem solving and the evolution of blackboard architectures,” AI magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 38, 1986.
[20] N. Li, R. Tan, Z. Huang, C. Tian, and G. Gong, “Agile decision support system for aircraft design,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 04015044, 2015.
[21] R. Hooke and T. A. Jeeves, ““direct search” solution of numerical and statistical problems,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 212–229, 1961.
[22] R. T. Haftka, “Simultaneous analysis and design,” AIAA journal, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1099–1103, 1985.
[23] R. E. Perez, H. H. Liu, and K. Behdinan, “Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization approaches for aircraft conceptual design,” in AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, 2004.
[24] J. Cousin and M. Metcalf, “The bae (commercial aircraft) ltd transport aircraft synthesis and optimisation program (tasop),” in Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations Conference, p. 3295.
[25] M. D. Morris, “Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments,” Technometrics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 1991.