19 research outputs found

    Polynomial Response Surface Approximations for the Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a High Speed Civil Transport

    Get PDF
    Surrogate functions have become an important tool in multidisciplinary design optimization to deal with noisy functions, high computational cost, and the practical difficulty of integrating legacy disciplinary computer codes. A combination of mathematical, statistical, and engineering techniques, well known in other contexts, have made polynomial surrogate functions viable for MDO. Despite the obvious limitations imposed by sparse high fidelity data in high dimensions and the locality of low order polynomial approximations, the success of the panoply of techniques based on polynomial response surface approximations for MDO shows that the implementation details are more important than the underlying approximation method (polynomial, spline, DACE, kernel regression, etc.). This paper surveys some of the ancillary techniquesโ€”statistics, global search, parallel computing, variable complexity modelingโ€”that augment the construction and use of polynomial surrogates

    Parallel software for nonlinear systems of equations. Final report, February 28, 1995--June 30, 1997

    Full text link

    Compute as Fast as the Engineers Can Think! Utrafast Computing Team Final Report

    Get PDF
    This report documents findings and recommendations by the Ultrafast Computing Team (UCT). In the period 10-12/98, UCT reviewed design case scenarios for a supersonic transport and a reusable launch vehicle to derive computing requirements necessary for support of a design process with efficiency so radically improved that human thought rather than the computer paces the process. Assessment of the present computing capability against the above requirements indicated a need for further improvement in computing speed by several orders of magnitude to reduce time to solution from tens of hours to seconds in major applications. Evaluation of the trends in computer technology revealed a potential to attain the postulated improvement by further increases of single processor performance combined with massively parallel processing in a heterogeneous environment. However, utilization of massively parallel processing to its full capability will require redevelopment of the engineering analysis and optimization methods, including invention of new paradigms. To that end UCT recommends initiation of a new activity at LaRC called Computational Engineering for development of new methods and tools geared to the new computer architectures in disciplines, their coordination, and validation and benefit demonstration through applications

    HPCCP/CAS Workshop Proceedings 1998

    Get PDF
    This publication is a collection of extended abstracts of presentations given at the HPCCP/CAS (High Performance Computing and Communications Program/Computational Aerosciences Project) Workshop held on August 24-26, 1998, at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. The objective of the Workshop was to bring together the aerospace high performance computing community, consisting of airframe and propulsion companies, independent software vendors, university researchers, and government scientists and engineers. The Workshop was sponsored by the HPCCP Office at NASA Ames Research Center. The Workshop consisted of over 40 presentations, including an overview of NASA's High Performance Computing and Communications Program and the Computational Aerosciences Project; ten sessions of papers representative of the high performance computing research conducted within the Program by the aerospace industry, academia, NASA, and other government laboratories; two panel sessions; and a special presentation by Mr. James Bailey

    Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Design Optimization Using Discrete Sensitivity Analysis and Parallel Computing

    Get PDF
    A hybrid automatic differentiation/incremental iterative method was implemented in the general purpose advanced computational fluid dynamics code (CFL3D Version 4.1) to yield a new code (CFL3D.ADII) that is capable of computing consistently discrete first order sensitivity derivatives for complex geometries. With the exception of unsteady problems, the new code retains all the useful features and capabilities of the original CFL3D flow analysis code. The superiority of the new code over a carefully applied method of finite-differences is demonstrated. A coarse grain, scalable, distributed-memory, parallel version of CFL3D.ADII was developed based on derivative stripmining . In this data-parallel approach, an identical copy of CFL3D.ADII is executed on each processor with different derivative input files. The effect of communication overhead on the overall parallel computational efficiency is negligible. However, the fraction of CFL3D.ADII duplicated on all processors has significant impact on the computational efficiency. To reduce the large execution time associated with the sequential 1-D line search in gradient-based aerodynamic optimization, an alternative parallel approach was developed. The execution time of the new approach was reduced effectively to that of one flow analysis, regardless of the number of function evaluations in the 1-D search. The new approach was found to yield design results that are essentially identical to those obtained from the traditional sequential approach but at much smaller execution time. The parallel CFL3D.ADII and the parallel 1-D line search are demonstrated in shape improvement studies of a realistic High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) wing/body configuration represented by over 100 design variables and 200,000 grid points in inviscid supersonic flow on the 16 node IBM SP2 parallel computer at the Numerical Aerospace Simulation (NAS) facility, NASA Ames Research Center. In addition to making the handling of such a large problem possible, the use of parallel computation provided significantly reduced overall execution time and turnaround time

    The Second ICASE/LaRC Industry Roundtable: Session Proceedings

    Get PDF
    The second ICASE/LaRC Industry Roundtable was held October 7-9, 1996 at the Williamsburg Hospitality House, Williamsburg, Virginia. Like the first roundtable in 1994, this meeting had two objectives: (1) to expose ICASE and LaRC scientists to industrial research agendas; and (2) to acquaint industry with the capabilities and technology available at ICASE, LaRC and academic partners of ICASE. Nineteen sessions were held in three parallel tracks. Of the 170 participants, over one third were affiliated with various industries. Proceedings from the different sessions are summarized in this report

    The Cost of Numerical Integration in Statistical Decision-theoretic Methods for Robust Design Optimization

    Get PDF
    The Bayes principle from statistical decision theory provides a conceptual framework for quantifying uncertainties that arise in robust design optimization. The difficulty with exploiting this framework is computational, as it leads to objective and constraint functions that must be evaluated by numerical integration. Using a prototypical robust design optimization problem, this study explores the computational cost of multidimensional integration (computing expectation) and its interplay with optimization algorithms. It concludes that straightforward application of standard off-the-shelf optimization software to robust design is prohibitively expensive, necessitating adaptive strategies and the use of surrogates

    ํ™•๋ฅ  ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ๋‹ค๋ถ„์•ผ ํ†ตํ•ฉ ์ตœ์ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ํƒ์ƒ‰ ๋ฐ ์žฌ์„ค์ •์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (๋ฐ•์‚ฌ)-- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ๊ธฐ๊ณ„ํ•ญ๊ณต๊ณตํ•™๋ถ€, 2012. 8. ์ด๋™ํ˜ธ.In this study, a stochastic and statistic approach for the systematic design space exploration and rearrangement is proposed. To efficiently investigate the feasibility of the design space, surrogate model and Monte Carlo simulation have been used. With these methods, probability density function, cumulative distribution function and reliability of the design space are calculated to identify the probability of design success. Then, the design space is moved and rearranged into the higher feasible region using Chebyshev inequality and reliability index. First of all, a number of test cases composed of algebraic functions were carried out to investigate the validity of the suggested method. For two exact functions, multidisciplinary feasible and collaborative optimization formulations were performed to verify the utility of proposed methods. As a result, converged design space included the feasible region located outside of the initial design space. Based on these results, the proposed method was applied to the multidisciplinary design optimization of the aircraft wing which also considered collaborative optimization with three subsystems (aerodynamics, structure, and performance). And then, design optimizations were performed for the initial and converged design space separately. Consequently, the feasibility and optimization result of the converged design space were improved in comparison with those of the initial design space. In conclusion, it is verified that the design space exploration and rearrangement method proposed in this study has the capability of searching for the feasible region which is excluded in the initial design space, and can rearrange the design space into the higher feasible design space automatically.๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ํ™•๋ฅ  ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ํƒ์ƒ‰๊ณผ ์žฌ์„ค์ •์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ๊ฐ€์šฉ์„ฑ์„ ํšจ์œจ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ณ„์‚ฐํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ๊ทผ์‚ฌ ๋ชจ๋ธ๊ณผ ๋ชฌํ…Œ์นด๋ฅผ๋กœ ์‹œ๋ฎฌ๋ ˆ์ด์…˜ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ์ ์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ œ์‹œ๋œ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ํ™•๋ฅ  ๋ฐ€๋„ ํ•จ์ˆ˜์™€ ๋ˆ„์  ๋ถ„ํฌ ํ•จ์ˆ˜, ์‹ ๋ขฐ์„ฑ ์ง€์ˆ˜ ๋“ฑ์˜ ํ™•๋ฅ  ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ์ˆ˜์น˜ ๊ฐ’๋“ค์„ ํšจ์œจ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ณ„์‚ฐํ•˜๊ณ  ์„ค๊ณ„ ์„ฑ๊ณต ํ™•๋ฅ ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ณ„์‚ฐ๋œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ํ™•๋ฅ  ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ํŠน์„ฑ ๊ฐ’๋“ค์„ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜์œผ๋กœ, Chebyshev ๋ถ€๋“ฑ์‹๊ณผ ์‹ ๋ขฐ์„ฑ ์ง€์ˆ˜๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์ข€ ๋” ๋„“์€ ๊ฐ€์šฉ ์˜์—ญ์„ ํฌํ•จํ•˜๋Š” ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์œผ๋กœ์˜ ์ž๋™ ์žฌ์„ค์ •์„ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋จผ์ €, ์ œ์•ˆ๋œ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์˜ ๊ฒ€์ฆ์„ ์œ„ํ•˜์—ฌ ๋Œ€์ˆ˜์‹์œผ๋กœ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ๋œ ์—„๋ฐ€ ํ•จ์ˆ˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ํƒ์ƒ‰๊ณผ ์žฌ์„ค์ •์„ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์—ฌ ์œ ์šฉ์„ฑ์„ ๊ฒ€์ฆํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋‘ ๊ฐ€์ง€์˜ ์—„๋ฐ€ ํ•จ์ˆ˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด ๋‹จ์ผ ๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์ธ ๋‹ค๋ถ„์•ผ ๋งŒ์กฑ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ• (multi-disciplinary feasible, MDF) ๊ณผ ๋‹ค๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์ธ ํ˜‘๋™ ์ตœ์ ํ™”(collaborative optimization, CO) ๋กœ ์ •์‹ํ™”๋ฅผ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์—ฌ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ๋‹ค๋ถ„์•ผ ํ†ตํ•ฉ ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์œ ์šฉ์„ฑ์„ ๊ฒ€์ฆํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ทธ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋กœ ์ˆ˜๋ ด๋œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์€ ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ์™ธ๋ถ€์— ๋†“์—ฌ์ ธ ํฌํ•จ๋˜์ง€ ์•Š์•˜๋˜ ๊ฐ€์šฉ ์˜์—ญ์„ ํฌํ•จํ•œ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์œผ๋กœ ์ž๋™ ์žฌ์„ค์ • ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ์ œ์•ˆ๋œ ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ๋Œ€ํ‘œ์ ์ธ ๋‹ค๋ถ„์•ผ ํ†ตํ•ฉ ์ตœ์ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๋ฌธ์ œ์ธ ๊ณต๋ ฅ๊ณผ ๊ตฌ์กฐ, ์„ฑ๋Šฅ ๋ถ„์•ผ๋ฅผ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•˜๋Š” ํ•ญ๊ณต๊ธฐ ๋‚ ๊ฐœ์˜ ๋‹ค๋ถ„์•ผ ํ†ตํ•ฉ ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๋ฌธ์ œ์— ์ ์šฉํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๋‹จ์ผ ๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ตœ์ ํ™”์™€ ๋”๋ถˆ์–ด ๋Œ€ํ‘œ์ ์ธ ๋‹ค๋‹จ๊ณ„ ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์ธ ํ˜‘๋™ ์ตœ์ ํ™” ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•๋„ ์ ์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„๊ณผ ์ˆ˜๋ ด๋œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„ ๊ฐ๊ฐ์—์„œ์˜ ์ตœ์ ํ™”๋ฅผ ๊ฐœ๋ณ„์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์—ฌ ๊ทธ ๊ฐ’ ๋“ค์„ ๋น„๊ตํ•˜์—ฌ ์ˆ˜๋ ด๋œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ๊ฐ€์šฉ์„ฑ๊ณผ ์ตœ์ ํ•ด๊ฐ€ ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ๊ฐ’๋ณด๋‹ค ํ–ฅ์ƒ๋œ ๊ฐ’์„ ์ง€๋‹ˆ๊ณ  ์žˆ์Œ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด์„œ, ๋ณธ ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์—์„œ ์ œ์‹œ๋œ ํ™•๋ฅ  ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์˜ ํƒ์ƒ‰ ๋ฐ ์žฌ์„ค์ • ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์€ ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ๋‹ค๋ถ„์•ผ ํ†ตํ•ฉ ์ตœ์ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๋ฌธ์ œ์— ์ ์šฉํ•จ์— ์žˆ์–ด ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์—์„œ ์ œ์™ธ๋œ ๊ฐ€์šฉ ์˜์—ญ๊นŒ์ง€๋„ ํฌํ•จํ•œ ๊ฐ€์šฉ์„ฑ์ด ๋†’์€ ์˜์—ญ์œผ๋กœ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์„ ํšจ์œจ์ ์œผ๋กœ ํƒ์ƒ‰ํ•˜๊ณ  ์ž๋™์ ์œผ๋กœ ์žฌ์„ค์ • ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ๋ณด๋‹ค ํ–ฅ์ƒ๋œ ์ตœ์ ํ•ด๋ฅผ ์ˆ˜๋ ด๋œ ์„ค๊ณ„ ๊ณต๊ฐ„์—์„œ ๋„์ถœํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Œ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.ABSTRACT I TABLE OF CONTENTS III NOMENCLATURES VI LIST OF FIGURES IX LIST OF TABLES XII CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION - 1 - 1.1 Motivations - 1 - 1.2 Literature Survey - 6 - 1.3 Dissertation Objectives and Outline - 10 - CHAPTER 2. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS - 11 - 2.1 High-Fidelity Aeroelastic Analysis - 11 - 2.1.1 Aerodynamic Analysis - 11 - 2.1.1.1 Governing Equation: Three Dimensional Euler Equation - 11 - 2.1.1.2 Spatial Discretization - 13 - 2.1.1.3 Time Integration - 18 - 2.1.1.4 Grid System and Validation - 20 - 2.1.2 Structural Analysis - 22 - 2.1.2.1 Nine-node Shell Mixed Finite Element and Drilling DOF - 22 - 2.1.2.2 Validation of Nine-node Shell Mixed Finite Element - 24 - 2.1.2.3 Modeling of Wing Structure - 25 - 2.1.2.4 CFD and CSM Connection Scheme - 25 - 2.1.2.5 Sizing of Structural Component by Ultimate Loading Condition - 26 - 2.1.3 Aeroelastic Analysis - 27 - 2.2 Low-Fidelity Aeroelastic Analysis - 35 - CHAPTER 3. STOCHASTIC APPROACHES FOR THE DSE AND REARRANGEMENT - 38 - 3.1 Surrogate Model - 38 - 3.1.1 Response Surface methodology - 39 - 3.1.2 Artificial Neural Network - 41 - 3.2 Design of Experiment (DOE) - 44 - 3.3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) - 47 - 3.4 Monte-Carlo Simulation (MCS) - 49 - 3.5 Calculate the probability of success - 50 - 3.6 Chebyshev Inequality Condition - 54 - 3.7 Reliability Index - 57 - CHAPTER 4. DESIGN SPACE EXPLORATION AND REARRANGEMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - 60 - 4.1 DSE and Rearrangement of the Design space to Improve the Feasibility with Chebyshev Inequality - 61 - 4.1.1 Test Functions - 62 - 4.1.1.1 Goldstein Function - 62 - 4.1.1.2 Branin Function - 63 - 4.1.1.3 Collaborative Optimization (CO) of Goldstein Function with Chebyshev Inequality Condition - 64 - 4.1.2 MDO of the Aircraft Wing - 66 - 4.1.2.1 Aero-structural Optimization of the Supersonic Fighter Wing with High Fidelity Analysis - 66 - 4.1.2.2 Aero-structural Optimization of the Transonic Wing with Low Fidelity Analysis - 68 - 4.1.2.3 CO of the Transonic Wing with Low Fidelity Analysis - 71 - 4.2 DSE and Rearrangement of the Design space to Improve the Feasibility with Reliability Index - 100 - 4.2.1 Test Functions - 101 - 4.2.1.1 Goldstein function - 101 - 4.2.1.2 Branin Function - 103 - 4.2.1.3 Collaborative Optimization (CO) of Goldstein Function with Reliability Index - 104 - 4.2.2 CO of the Transonic Wing with Low Fidelity Analysis Using RI Based Method - 107 - 4.3 Discussion - 123 - CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS - 125 - REFERENCE - 127 - ์ดˆ ๋ก - 136 -Docto

    Reducing the Computational Effort Associated with Evolutionary Optimisation in Single Component Design

    Get PDF
    The dissertation presents innovative Evolutionary Search (ES) methods for the reduction in computational expense associated with the optimisation of highly dimensional design spaces. The objective is to develop a semi-automated system which successfully negotiates complex search spaces. Such a system would be highly desirable to a human designer by providing optimised design solutions in realistic time. The design domain represents a real-world industrial problem concerning the optimal material distribution on the underside of a flat roof tile with varying load and support conditions. The designs utilise a large number of design variables (circa 400). Due to the high computational expense associated with analysis such as finite element for detailed evaluation, in order to produce "good" design solutions within an acceptable period of time, the number of calls to the evaluation model must be kept to a minimum. The objective therefore is to minimise the number of calls required to the analysis tool whilst also achieving an optimal design solution. To minimise the number of model evaluations for detailed shape optimisation several evolutionary algorithms are investigated. The better performing algorithms are combined with multi-level search techniques which have been developed to further reduce the number of evaluations and improve quality of design solutions. Multi-level techniques utilise a number of levels of design representation. The solutions of the coarse representations are injected into the more detailed designs for fine grained refinement. The techniques developed include Dynamic Shape Refinement (DSR), Modified Injection Island Genetic Algorithm (MiiGA) and Dynamic Injection Island Genetic Algorithm (DiiGA). The multi-level techniques are able to handle large numbers of design variables (i.e. > 100). Based on the performance characteristics of the individual algorithms and multi-level search techniques, distributed search techniques are proposed. These techniques utilise different evolutionary strategies in a multi-level environment and were developed as a way of further reducing computational expense and improve design solutions. The results indicate a considerable potential for a significant reduction in the number of evaluation calls during evolutionary search. In general this allows a more efficient integration with computationally intensive analytical techniques during detailed design and contribute significantly to those preliminary stages of the design process where a greater degree of analysis is required to validate results from more simplistic preliminary design models
    corecore