Double-shock control bump design optimization using hybridized evolutionary algorithms

Abstract

This study investigates the application of two advanced optimization methods for solving active flow control (AFC) device shape design problem and compares their optimization efficiency in terms of computational cost and design quality. The first optimization method uses hierarchical asynchronous parallel multi-objective evolutionary algorithm and the second uses hybridized evolutionary algorithm with Nash-Game strategies (Hybrid-Game). Both optimization methods are based on a canonical evolution strategy and incorporate the concepts of parallel computing and asynchronous evaluation. One type of AFC device named shock control bump (SCB) is considered and applied to a natural laminar flow (NLF) aerofoil. The concept of SCB is used to decelerate supersonic flow on suction/pressure side of transonic aerofoil that leads to a delay of shock occurrence. Such active flow technique reduces total drag at transonic speeds which is of special interest to commercial aircraft.

Numerical results show that the Hybrid-Game helps an EA to accelerate optimization process. From the practical point of view, applying a SCB on the suction and pressure sides significantly reduces transonic total drag and improves lift-to-drag (L/D) value when compared to the baseline design.

Keywords

active flow control shock control bump shape design optimization Hybrid-Game Nash equilibrium evolutionary algorithm

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lee

D. S.

Periaux

Gonzalez

L. F.

UAS mission path planning system (mpps) using hybrid-game coupled to multi-objective optimiser. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Contr., 2010, 132(4), 1–11. (041005).

Deb

Agrawal

Pratap

Meyarivan

A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2002, 6(2), 182–197.

Lee

D. S.

Gonzalez

L. F.

Periaux

Srinivas

Hybrid-game strategies coupled to evolutionary algorithms for robust multidisciplinary design optimization in aerospace engineering. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2011, 15(2), 133–150. TEVC-00213-2009) (In Press).

Periaux

Lee

D. S.

Gonzalez

L. F.

Srinivas

Fast reconstruction of aerodynamic shapes using evolutionary algorithms and virtual nash strategies in a CFD design environment. Special Issue J. Comput. Appl. Math. (JCAM), 2009, 232(1), 61–71. ISSN 0377-0427.

Lee

D. S.

Gonzalez

L. F.

Whitney

E. J.

Multi-objective, Multidisciplinary Multi-fidelity Design tool: HAPMOEA – User Guide Appendix–I, D.S. Lee. Uncertainty Based Multiobjective and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization in Aerospace Engineering, 2007 (The Univ. of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia).

Bart-Smith

Risseeuw

P. E.

High authority morphing structures. In Proceedings of IMECE 03, no. IMECE 2003-43377, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress, 2003 (Washington, DC) November.

Oborn

Kota

Hetrick

J. A.

Active flow control using high-frequency compliant structures. J. Aircr., 2004, 41(3), 603–609.

Ashill

P. R.

Fulker

L. J.

Shires

A novel technique for controlling shock strength of laminar-flow aerofoil sections. In Proceedings of 1st Europian Forum on Laminar flow technology, 1992 (DGLR, AAAF, RAeS, Hamburg, Germany) 175–183. 16–18 March.

Qin

Zhu

Shaw

S. T.

Numerical study of active shock control for transonic aerodynamics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow, 2004, 14(4), 444–466.

10.

Fulker

J. L.

Simmons

M. J.

An experiment study of shock control methods, 1994 (Technical Report, DERA) DRA/AS/HWA/TR94007/1.

11.

An Open Database Workshop for Multiphysics Software Validation, TA5: Shock control bump optimisation on a transonic laminar flow airfoil (Chairman N. Qin). Univ. Jyvaskyla, Finland, 18 December 2009 & 10–12 March 2010.

12.

Hansen

Ostermeier

Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol. Comput., 2001, 9(2), 159–195.

13.

Hansen

Möller

S. D.

Koumoutsakos

Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES). Evol. Comput., 2003, 11(1), 1–18.

14.

Wakunda

Zell

Schoenauer

Deb

Rudolph

Yao

Lutton

Merelo

J. J.

Schwefel

H.-P.

Median-selection for parallel steady-state evolution strategies. parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN VI, 2000 (Springer, Berlin) 405–414.

15.

Van Veldhuizen

D. A.

Zydallis

J. B.

Lamont

G. B.

Considerations in engineering parallel multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2003, 7(2), 144–217.

16.

Sefrioui

Périaux

Schoenauer

Deb

Rudolph

Yao

Lutton

Merelo

J. J.

Schwefel

H.-P.

A hierarchical genetic algorithm using multiple models for optimization. Parallel problem solving from nature, PPSN VI, 2000 (Springer, Berlin) 879–888.

17.

Lee

D. S.

Uncertainty based multiobjective and multidisciplinary design optimization in aerospace engineering, 2008 (The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia) 348–370. Section 10.7.

18.

Zitzler

Deb

Thiele

Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evol. Comput., 2000, 8(2), 173–195.

19.

Drela

A user's guide to MSES 2.95, 1996 (MIT Computational Aerospace Sciences Laboratory) September.