Due to the development in computer technology, computational simulations have become indispensable for most engineering system design processes, particularly in aerospace applications. Performing a simulation-driven aerodynamic design optimization is a challenging task due to the computational expensiveness of high fidelity models, the considerable number of design parameters, the variety of disciplines that must be considered… etc. In this paper, the preliminary design of an aircraft wing through the use of a fully automated design environment, coupled with surrogate-based optimization, is presented. A parametric modeling framework was developed based on the seamless integration of several commercial software through built-in scripting languages. The design process goes through geometry modeling, Aerodynamic grid generation and flow solution which involves SIEMENS NX, ICEM CFD and FLUENT respectively. The optimization is made feasible using surrogate modeling techniques combined with a Sequential Quadratic Programing (SQP) algorithm.
MaininiLMaggioreP. Multidisciplinary integrated framework for the optimal design of a jet aircraft wing. Int J Aerosp Eng2012; 2012; 2012: 1–9.
2.
AsieduYGuP. Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. Int J Prod Res1998; 36(4): 883–908.
3.
Ulaganathan S. Design of experiments and kriging methodology for surrogate based aerodynamic shape optimization. Master’s Thesis, Cranfield University, 2011.
4.
Goraj Z, Cisowski J, Frydrychewicz A, et al. Mini UAV design and optimization for long endurance mission. In: ICAS congress 2008, Anchorage, AK, September 2008, pp.14–19. Edinburgh, UK: Optimage Ltd, Paper ICAS 2008-1.5.2.
5.
GadomskiJHernikBGorajZ. Analysis and optimisation of a male uav loaded structure. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol2006; 78(2): 120–131.
6.
Goraj Z, Frydrychewicz A, Hermetz J, et al. HALE UAV platform optimised for a specialized 20-km altitude patrol mission. In: ICAS congress 2004, Yokohama, Japan, 29 August–3 September 2004. Edinburgh, UK: Optimage Ltd, Paper ICAS 2004-1.6.3.
7.
Goraj Z, Rodzewicz M, Grendysa W, et al. Design and configuration layouts of an advanced long endurance UAV-lessons learnt after flight testing. In Proceedings of 28th ICAS Congress, Brisbane, 23–28 September 2012. Edinburgh, UK: Optimage Ltd, Paper ICAS 2012-1.11.3.
8.
Goraj Z. A specialized UAV for surveillance in windy, turbulent environment of the antarctic coast. In: ICAS 2014 CD Proceedings-29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), St. Petersburg, 7–12 September 2014. Stockholm Sweden: ICAS, Paper no 2014-0693.
9.
RokickiJStalewskiWŻółtakJMulti-disciplinary optimisation of forward-swept wing. In: BurczynskiTPeriauxJ (eds). Evolutionary and deterministic methods for design, optimatization and control with applications to industrial and societal problems, Barcelona: CIMNE, 2009, pp. 253–259.
10.
StalewskiWŻółtakJ. Design of a turbulent wing for small aircraft using multidisciplinary optimisation. Arch Mech2014; 66(3): 185–201.
11.
Stalewski W and Żółtak J. Multi-objective and multidisciplinary optimization of wing for small aircraft. In: Edizioni C (ed.) Proceedings of the CEAS 2011 3rd CEAS air and space conference, 21st AIDAA congress, Venice–Italy: Council of European Aerospace Societies (CEAS), 17–21 October 2011, pp.1015–1024.
12.
RobinsonTEldredMWillcoxKet al.Surrogate-based optimization using multifidelity models with variable parameterization and corrected space mapping. AIAA J2008; 46(11): 2814–2822.
13.
KozielSLeifssonL. Simulation-driven design by knowledge-based response correction techniques, New York, NY: Springer, 2016.
14.
Mieloszyk J. Handling optimization problems on an example of micro UAV. In: Proceedings of the 3rd CEAS air and space conference, 21st AIDAA congress, Venice, 2011.
15.
MieloszykJGoetzendorf-GrabowskiTMieszalskiD. Rapid geometry definition for multidisciplinary design and analysis of an aircraft. Aviation2016; 20(2): 60–64.
16.
Goetzendorf-Grabowski T, Mieloszyk J and Mieszalski D. MADO- software package for high order multidisciplinary aircraft design and optimization. In: Proceedings of 28th ICAS congress, Brisbane, 23–28 September 2012. Edinburgh, UK: Optimage Ltd, Paper ICAS2012-1.9.4.
17.
Martins J. A coupled-adjoint method for high-fidelity aero-structural optimization. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, USA, 2002.
18.
JamesonA. Aerodynamic design via control theory. J Sci Comput1988; 3(3): 233–260.
19.
KramerOCiaurriDEKozielSDerivative-free optimization. In: KozielSYangX-S (eds). Computational optimization, methods and algorithms, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2011, pp. 61–83.
20.
KleijnenJP. A comment on Blanning’s metamodel for sensitivity analysis: the regression metamodel in simulation. Interfaces1975; 5(3): 21–23.
21.
SimpsonTWPoplinskiJKochPNet al.Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput2001; 17(2): 129–150.
BandlerJWChengQSDakrourySAet al.Space mapping: the state of the art. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech2004; 52(1): 337–361.
24.
VenterGHaftkaRTStarnesJH. Construction of response surface approximations for design optimization. AIAA J1998; 36(12): 2242–2249.
25.
SacksJWelchWJMitchellTJet al.Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci1989; 4(4): 409–423.
26.
PowellMJDRadial basis functions for multivariable interpolation: a review. In: MasonJC (ed). Algorithms for approximation, New York, NY, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 143–167.
27.
MullurAAMessacA. Extended radial basis functions: more flexible and effective metamodeling. AIAA J2005; 43(6): 1306–1315.
28.
SmolaAJSchölkopfB. A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput2004; 14(3): 199–222.
29.
WortmannTCostaANanniciniGet al.Advantages of surrogate models for architectural design optimization. AI EDAM-Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf2015; 29(4): 471–481.
30.
Ahmed M and Qin N. Surrogate-based aerodynamics design optimization: use of surrogates in aerodynamics design optimization. In: 13th international conference on aerospace science & aviation technology, Cairo, Egypt: Egyptien Ministry of defense, Military Technical college, 26–28 May 2009, pp.26–28.
31.
SevantNEBloorGMIWilsonMJ. Aerodynamic design of a flying wing using response surface methodology. J Aircr2000; 37(4): 562–569.
KanazakiMImamuraTJeongSet al.High-lift wing design in consideration of sweep angle effect using kriging model. In: 46th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 7–10 January 2008, pp. 7–10.
34.
BoulkeraaTGhenaietAMendezSet al.A numerical optimization chain combining computational fluid dynamics and surrogate analysis for the aerodynamic design of airfoils. Proc IMechE G: J Aerosp Eng2014; 228(11): 1964–1981.
Simpson T, Toropov V, Balabanov V, et al. Design and analysis of computer experiments in multidisciplinary design optimization: A review of how far we have come-or not. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 10–12 September 2008, p.5802. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
37.
Long T, Liu L, Peng L, et al. Aero-structure coupled optimization of high aspect ratio wing using enhanced adaptive response surface method. In: 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference and 14th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Indianapolis, IN, 17–19 September 2012. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
38.
ParkCJohCYKimYS. Multidisciplinary design optimization of a structurally nonlinear aircraft wing via parametric modeling. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2009; 10(2): 87–96.
39.
SchmittVCharpinF. Pressure distributions on the onera-m6-wing at transonic mach numbers. In: AGARD-AR-138 experimental data base for computer program assessment. Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France: Advisory Grow for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), May 1979.
40.
JinRChenWSimpsonTW. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim2001; 23(1): 1–13.
41.
Wang L, Beeson D, Wiggs G, et al. A comparison of metamodeling methods using practical industry requirements. In: Proceedings of the 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Newport, RI, 1–4 May 2006. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
42.
MullurAAMessacA. Metamodeling using extended radial basis functions: a comparative approach. Eng Comput2006; 21(3): 203–217.
43.
BaiYHanXJiangCet al.Comparative study of metamodeling techniques for reliability analysis using evidence theory. Adv Eng Softw2012; 53: 61–71.
44.
BuhmannMD. Radial basis functions: Theory and implementations2003; vol. 12, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
HardyRL. Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. J Geophys Res1971; 76(8): 1905–1915.
MoodyJDarkenCJ. Fast learning in networks of locally-tuned processing units. Neural Comput1989; 1(2): 281–294.
48.
Laurent L. Stratégie multiparamétrique et métamodèles pour l’optimisation multiniveaux de structures. PhD Thesis, École normale supérieure de Cachan-ENS Cachan, 2013.
49.
McDonaldDBGranthamWJTaborWLet al.Global and local optimization using radial basis function response surface models. Appl Math Model2007; 31(10): 2095–2110.
50.
BoxGEHunterWGHunterJS. Statistics for experimenters: An introduction to design, data analysis, and model building, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
51.
TaguchiG. Introduction to quality engineering: Designing quality into products and processes, Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization, Unipub/Quality Resources, 1986.
52.
McKayMDBeckmanRJConoverWJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics2000; 42(1): 55–61.
53.
Beachkofski BK and Grandhi RV. Improved distributed hypercube sampling. In: 43 rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Denver, CO.
54.
Siemens PLM Software. SIEMENS NX, version 8.5, September 2012.
