Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:10:07.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A framework for enhanced decision-making in aircraft conceptual design optimisation under uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2020

D.H.B. Di Bianchi Open the ORCID record for D.H.B. Di Bianchi [Opens in a new window] ,
N.R. Sêcco  and
F.J. Silvestre
D.H.B. Di Bianchi*
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, Aeronautical Design, Aerospace Systems and Structures, São José dos Campos, Brazil
N.R. Sêcco
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, Aeronautical Design, Aerospace Systems and Structures, São José dos Campos, Brazil
F.J. Silvestre
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin, Flight Mechanics, Flight Control and Aeroelasticity, Berlin, Germany
*
davi.bianchi@embraer.com.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a framework to support decision-making in aircraft conceptual design optimisation under uncertainty. Emphasis is given to graphical visualisation methods capable of providing holistic yet intuitive relationships between design, objectives, feasibility and uncertainty spaces. Two concepts are introduced to allow interactive exploration of the effects of (1) target probability of constraint satisfaction (price of feasibility robustness) and (2) uncertainty reduction through increased state-of-knowledge (cost of uncertainty) on design and objective spaces. These processes are tailored to handle multi-objective optimisation problems and leverage visualisation techniques for dynamic inter-space mapping. An information reuse strategy is presented to enable obtaining multiple robust Pareto sets at an affordable computational cost. A case study demonstrates how the presented framework addresses some of the challenges and opportunities regarding the adoption of Uncertainty-based Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation (UMDO) in the aerospace industry, such as design margins policy, systematic and conscious definition of target robustness and uncertainty reduction experiments selection and prioritisation.

Keywords

Optimisation under uncertaintyAircraft conceptual designVisual analyticsDecision-making
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 125 , Issue 1287 , May 2021 , pp. 777 - 806
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Nicolai, M.L. and Carichner, G.E. Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design, Volume I - Aircraft Design, AIAA Education Series, 2nd ed, AIAA, 2010, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
Torenbeek, E. Advanced Aircraft Design: Conceptual Design, Analysis and Optimization of Subsonic Civil Airplanes, 1st ed, John Wiley & Sons, 2013, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Siddal, J.N. Probabilistic Engineering Design: Principles and Applications, Mechanical Engineering Series, CRC, 1983.Google Scholar
Messac, A. Optimization in Practice with MATLAB for Engineering Students and Professionals, 1st ed, Cambridge University Press, 2015, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Dantzig, G.B. Linear programming under uncertainty, Manage. Sci., 1955, 1, pp 197–206.Google Scholar
Freund, R.J. The introduction of risk into a programming model, Econometrica, 1956, 24, pp 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M.W. and Narciso, J.D. Probabilistic design methodology for composite aircraft structures, Tech Rep DOT/FAA/AR-99/2, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999.Google Scholar
Uebelhart, S.A. Non-deterministic Design and Analysis of Parameterized Optical Structures During Conceptual Design, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.Google Scholar
Li, L. Structural Design of Composite Rotor Blades with Consideration of Manufacturability, Durability, and Manufacturing Uncertainties, PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Aerospace Engineering, 2008.Google Scholar
Sandgren, E. and Cameron, T.M. Robust design optimization of structures through consideration of variation, Comput. Struct., 2002, 80, pp 1605–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W., Huyse, L. and Padula, S. Robust airfoil optimization to achieve consistent drag reduction over a mach range, Tech Rep NASA/CR-2001-211042, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA/CR-2001-211042. NASA Langley Research Center, 2001.Google Scholar
Gumbert, C., Newman, P. and Hou, G. Effect of random geometric uncertainty on the computational design of a 3-D flexible wing, AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, AIAA, 2002.Google Scholar
Lindsley, N.J., Pettit, C.L. and Beran, P.S. Nonlinear plate aeroelastic response with uncertain stiffness and boundary conditions, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. Maint. Manage. Life-Cycle Des. Perform., 2006, 2, pp 201–220.Google Scholar
Hollom, J. and Qin, N. Uncertainty analysis and robust shape optimisation for laminar flow aerofoils, Aeronaut. J., 2020, pp 1–24. doi: 10.1017/aer.2020.63.Google Scholar
Wie, B., Liu, Q. and Sunkel, J. Robust stabilization of the Space Station in the presence of inertia matrix uncertainty, J. Guidance Control Dyn., 1995, 18, pp 611–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLaurentis, D.A. A Probabilistic Approach to Aircraft Design Emphasizing Guidance and Stability and Control Uncertainties, PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology. School of Aerospace Engineering, 1998.Google Scholar
Zang, T.A., Hemsch, M.J., Hilburger, M.W., Kenny, S.P., Luckring, J.M., Maghami, P., Padula, S.L. and Jefferson Stroud, W. Needs and opportunities for uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design methods for aerospace vehicle, Tech Rep, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA/TM-2002-211462, Langley Research Center, 2002.Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, A., Tarkian, M., Amadori, K. and Multidisciplinary design optimization of aerial vehicles: A review of recent advancements, Int. J. Aerospace Eng., 2018, 2018 doi: 10.1155/2018/4258020.Google Scholar
Jin, R., Du, X. and Chen, W. The use of metamodeling techniques for optimization under uncertainty, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 2003, 25, 99–116.Google Scholar
Queipo, N.V., Haftka, R.T., Shyy, W., Goel, T., Vaidyanathan, R. and Kevin Tucker, P. Surrogate-based analysis and optimization, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 2005, 41, (1), pp 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, B.M., Eldred, M.S., Geraci, G., Hooper, R.W., Jakeman, J.D., Maupin, K.A., Monschke, J.A., Rushdi, A.A., Adam Stephens, J., Swiler, L.P. and Wildey, T.M. Dakota, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: Version 6.4 theory manual, Tech Rep SAND2014-4235, Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia National Laboratories, 2016.Google Scholar
Allaire, D. and Willcox, K. Surrogate modeling for uncertainty assessment with application to aviation environmental system models, AIAA J., 2010, 48, (8), pp 1791–1803.Google Scholar
Brevault, L., Balesdent, M., Berend, N. and Riche, R.L. Decoupled multidisciplinary design optimization formulation for interdisciplinary coupling satisfaction under uncertainty, AIAA J., 54, 2016.Google Scholar
Du, X., Guo, J. and Beeram, H. Sequential optimization and reliability assessment for multidisciplinary systems design, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 2008, 35, (2), pp 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.C. Uncertainty Quantification: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Computational Science and Engineering, SIAM-Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2013, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Sullivan, T.J. Introduction to Uncertainty Quantification, Texts in Applied Mathematics, Springer, 2015, Cham.Google Scholar
Helton, J.C. Conceptual and computational basis for the quantification of margins and uncertainty, Tech Rep SAND2009-3055, Sandia National Laboratories, report SAND2009-3055. Sandia National Laboratories, 2009.Google Scholar
Padulo, M. Computational Engineering Design Under Uncertainty - An Aircraft Conceptual Design Perspective, PhD thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Cranfield University, 2009.Google Scholar
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., Morris, A. and Tooren, M.V. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Supported by Knowledge Based Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2015, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
Neufeld, D. Multidisciplinary Aircraft Conceptual Design Optimization Considering Fidelity Uncertainties, PhD thesis, Ryerson University, 2010.Google Scholar
Oberkampf, W., DeLand, S., Rutherford, B., Diegert, K. and Alvin, K. A new methodology for the estimation of total uncertainty in computational simulation, AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, St. Louis, MO, AIAA, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLaurentis, L. and Mavris, D. Uncertainty modeling and management in multidisciplinary analysis and synthesis, AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Dallas, TX, AIAA, 2000.Google Scholar
Ayyub, B.M. Methods for expert-opinion elicitation of probabilities and consequences for corps facilities, Tech Rep IWR Report-00-R-10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Report-00-R-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, 2000.Google Scholar
Yao, W., Chen, X., Luo, W.van Tooren, M.and Fast numerical methods for stochastic computations: A review, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 2011, 47, pp 450–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, B.M., Eldred, M.S., Geraci, G., Hooper, R.W., Jakeman, J.D., Maupin, K.A., Monschke, J.A., Rushdi, A.A., Adam Stephens, J., Swiler, L.P. and Wildey, T.M.. Dakota, a multilevel parallel object-oriented framework for design optimization, parameter estimation, uncertainty quantification, and sensitivity analysis: Version 6.4 user’s manual, Tech Rep SAND2014-4633, Sandia National Laboratories, Technical Report SAND2014-4633. Sandia National Laboratories, 2016.Google Scholar
Esliner, P.W., Lin, G. and Engel, D.W. Survey and evaluate uncertainty quantification methodologies, Tech Rep, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 2012.Google Scholar
Alonso, J.J., Eldred, M.S., Constantine, P., Duraisamy, K., Farhat, C., Iaccarino, G. and Jakeman, J. Scalable environment for quantification of uncertainty and optimization in industrial applications (SEQUOIA), AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference, Grapevine, TX, AIAA.Google Scholar
Du, X. and Chen, W. Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility robustness in engineering design, J. Mech. Des., 1999, 122, (4), pp 385–394.Google Scholar
Rangavajhala, S., Mullur, A.A. and Messac, A. Equality constraints in multiobjective robust design optimization: Decision making problem, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 2009, 140, (2), pp 315–337.Google Scholar
Messac, A. and Ismail-Yahaya, A. Multiobjective robust design using physical programming, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 2002, 23, (5), pp 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ba-Abbad, M.A., Nikolaidis, E. and Kapania, R.K. New approach for system reliability-based design optimization, AIAA J., 2006, 44, (5), pp 1087–1096.Google Scholar
Nikbay, M. and Kuru, M.N. Reliability based multidisciplinary optimization of aeroelastic systems with structural and aerodynamic uncertainties, J. Aircr., 2013, 50, (3), pp 708–715.Google Scholar
Pilch, M., Trucano, T.G. and Helton, J.C. Ideas underlying the quantification of margins and uncertainties, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 2011, 96, (9), pp 965–975.Google Scholar
Ob, W.L., DeLand, S.M., Rutherford, B.M., Diegert, K.V. and Alvin, K.F. Estimation of total uncertainty in modeling and simulation, Tech Rep SAND2000-0824, Sandia National Laboratories, Technical Report SAND2000-0824. Sandia National Laboratories, 2000.Google Scholar
Parkinson, A., Sorensen, C. and Pourhassan, N. A general approach for robust optimal design, J. Mech. Des., 1993, 115, (1), pp 74–80.Google Scholar
Price, N.B., Kim, N.-H., Haftka, R.T., Balesdent, M., Defoort, S. and Riche, R.L. Deciding degree of conservativeness in initial design considering risk of future redesign, J. Mech. Des., 2016, 138, (11), 111409 (13 pages). doi: 10.1115/1.4034347.Google Scholar
He, Q., Allaire, D.L., Deyst, J.J. and Willcox, K.E. A Bayesian framework for uncertainty quantification in the design of complex systems, AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, AIAA, 2012.Google Scholar
Van Nguyen, N., Lee, J.-W., Lee, Y.-D. and Park, H.-U. A multidisciplinary robust optimisation framework for uav conceptual design, Aeronaut. J., 2014, 118, (1200), pp 123–142.Google Scholar
Ullman, D.G. Robust decision-making for engineering design, J. Eng. Des., 2001, 12, pp 3–13. doi: 10.1080/09544820010031580.Google Scholar
Dodson, M. and Parks, G.T. Robust aerodynamic design optimization using polynomial Chaos, J. Aircr., 2009, 46, (2), pp 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, L.W.T. and Willcox, K.W. Monte Carlo information-reuse approach to aircraft conceptual design optimization under uncertainty, J. Aircr., 2015, 53, pp 427–438.Google Scholar
Rangavajhala, S., Mullur, A. and Messac, A. Uncertainty visualization in multiobjective robust design optimization, AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Newport, Rhode Island, AIAA, 2006.Google Scholar
Guenov, M.D., Chen, X., Molina-Cristóbal, A., Riaz, A., van Heerden, A.S.J. and Padulo, M. Margin allocation and tradeoff in complex systems design and optimization, AIAA J., 2018, 56, (7), pp 2887–2902.Google Scholar
McCullers, L. Flight Optimization System Release 8.23 User’s Guide, 2011, Hampton, VA.Google Scholar
Lukaczyk, T.W., Wendorff, A.D., Colonno, M., Economon, T.D., Alonso, J.J., Orra, T.H. and Ilario, C. Suave: an open-source environment for multi-fidelity conceptual vehicle design, 16th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2015, p 3087.Google Scholar
Martins, J.R.R.A. and Lambe, A.B. Multidisciplinary design optimization: A survey of architectures, AIAA J., 2013, 51, pp 2049–2075.Google Scholar
Vanaret, C., Gallard, F. and Martins, J. On the consequences of the “no free lunch” theorem for optimization on the choice of an appropriate mdo architecture, 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2017, p 3148.Google Scholar
Baklacioglu, T. Fuel flow-rate modelling of transport aircraft for the climb flight using genetic algorithms, Aeronaut. J., 2015, 119, (1212), pp 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piskin, A., Baklacioglu, T., Turan, O. and Aydin, H. Modeling of energy efficiency of a turboprop engine using ant colony optimisation, Aeronaut. J., 2020, 124, (1272), pp 237–256.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M.W. A step-wise approach to elicit triangular distributions, 2013. NASA report number HQ-STI-04-2013, presented at 2013 International Cost Estimating and Analysis Association (ICEAA) Professional Development and Training Workshop, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Allaire, D.L., Willcox, K.E. and Toupet, O. A Bayesian-based approach to multifidelity multidisciplinary design optimization, AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Fort Worth, Texas, AIAA, 2010.Google Scholar
Profir, B., Eres, M.H., Scanlan, J., Bates, R. and Argyrakis, C. Quantifying uncertainties during the early design stage of a gas turbine disc by utilizing a Bayesian framework, 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2018, p 3202.Google Scholar
Jandel, M., Bivall, P., Hammar, P., Johansson, R., Kamrani, F. and Quas, M.J. Visual analytics: Perspectives on the field of interactive visualization, Tech Rep, Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOI, 2016.Google Scholar
Gundmundsson, S. General Aviation Aircraft Design: Applied Methods and Procedures, 1st ed, 2014, Elsevier, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Bianchi, D.H.B.D., Orra, T.H. and Silvestre, F.J. Evaluation of the impacts of objective function definition in aircraft conceptual design, J. Aircr., 2017, 55, (3), pp 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, S. A robust optimization procedure with variations on design variables and constraints, ASME Adv. Des. Autom., vol. 32, 1993, pp 379–385.Google Scholar
Amadori, K., Backstrom, E. and Jouannet, C. Selection of future technologies during aircraft conceptual design, AIAA SciTech Forum, Kissimmee, FL, 2017, AIAA.Google Scholar
Amadori, K., Backstrom, E. and Jouannet, C. Future technologies prioritization for aircraft conceptual design, AIAA SciTech Forum, Kissimmee, FL, AIAA, 2018.Google Scholar
Gatian, K.N. and Mavris, D.N. Facilitating technology development progression through quantitative uncertainty assessments, AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, AIAA, 2014.Google Scholar
Gatian, K.N. and Mavris, D.N. Enabling technology portfolio selection through quantitative uncertainty analysis, AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Dallas, TX, AIAA, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatian, K.N. and Mavris, D.N. Planning technology development experimentation through quantitative uncertainty analysis, AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, San Diego, CA, AIAA, 2016.Google Scholar
Jouannet, C., Amadori, K., and Bäckström, E. and Bianchi, D. Uncertainty management in technologies prioritization for future aircraft program, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, FL, AIAA, 2020.Google Scholar
Bianchi, D.H.B.D., Amadori, K., Backstrom, E. and Jouannet, C. An uncertainty-based framework for technology portfolio selection for future aircraft program [manuscript submitted for publication], AIAA SciTech Forum, Online, AIAA, 2021.Google Scholar