Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T13:44:21.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multidisciplinary design optimisation (MDO) methods: their synergy with computer technology in the design process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski
Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski*
Affiliation:
Computational AeroSciences and Multidisciplinary Research Coordinator, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 139, Hampton, VA 23681
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper identifies speed, agility, human interface, generation of sensitivity information, task decomposition, and data transmission (including storage) as important attributes for a computer environment to have in order to support engineering design effectively. It is argued that when examined in terms of these attributes the presently available environment can be shown to be inadequate. A radical improvement is needed, and it may be achieved by combining new methods that have recently emerged from multidisciplinary design optimisation (MDO) with massively parallel processing computer technology. The caveat is that, for successful use of that technology in engineering computing, new paradigms for computing will have to be developed - specifically, innovative algorithms that are intrinsically parallel so that their performance scales up linearly with the number of processors. It may be speculated that the idea of simulating a complex behaviour by interaction of a large number of very simple models may be an inspiration for the above algorithms; the cellular automata are an example. Because of the long lead time needed to develop and mature new paradigms, development should begin now, even though the widespread availability of massively parallel processing is still a few years away.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1026 , August 1999 , pp. 373 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1999 

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

1. Current State of the Art on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO), An AIAA White Paper, September 1991. Publ. by AIAAGoogle Scholar
2. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. and Haftka, R.T. Multidisciplinary Aero space Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments, Structural Optimization 14, ppl–23, Springer-Verlag 1997.Google Scholar
3. Jayaram, S., Myklebust, A. and Gelhausen, P. ACSYNT - A Standards-Based System for Parametric Computer Aided Conceptual Design of Aircraft, AIAA Paper 92–1268, Feb. 1992.Google Scholar
4. Unal, R., Lepsch, R., Engelund, W., Stanley, D. “Approximation Model Building and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Using Response Surface Methods,” proceedings of 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Part I, Bellevue, WA, Sept. 4-6, 1996. Also available as AIAA Paper 96–4044.Google Scholar
5. Sellar, R.S., Batill, S.M. and Renaud, J.E. Optimization of Mixed Discrete/Continuous Design Variable Systems Using Neural Networks. AIAA 94–4348.Google Scholar
6. Ryan, T.P. Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement, ch. 13, John Wiley & Sons, 1989.Google Scholar
7. Unoer, E. R., Hutchison, M. G., Rais-rohani, M., Haftka, R. T. and Grossman, B. Variable-Complexity Multidisciplinary Design of a Transport Wing. International Journal of System Automation: Research and Applications (SARA), Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87–113, 1992.Google Scholar
8. Adelman, H. M. and Haftka, R. T. Sensitivity Analysis of Discrete Systems. In Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, Kamat, M. P., ed., AIAA, Washington, D.C., 1993.Google Scholar
9. Reuther, J., Jameson, A. Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Wing and Wing-Body Configurations Using Contro Theory, AIAA-95-0123Google Scholar
10. Barthelemy, J.-F. M. and Hall, L. E. Automatic Differentiation as a Tool in Engineering Design. Structural Optimization, Vol. 9, pp. 76–82, 1995.Google Scholar
11. Squire, W. and Trapp, G. Using Complex Variables to Estimate Derivatives of Real Functions, SIAM Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.110–112, 3/1998.Google Scholar
12. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. Sensitivity of Complex, Internally Coupled Systems. AIAA Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 153–160, 1990.Google Scholar
13. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J., Barthelemy, J.-F. M. and Riley, K. M. Sensitivity of Optimum Solutions to Problems Parameters. AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 1291–1299, September 1982.Google Scholar
14. Barthelemy, J.-F and Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. Optimum Sensitivity Derivatives of Objective Functions in Nonlinear Programming. AIAA Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 913–915, June 1983.Google Scholar
15. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J. Optimization by Decomposition: A Step from Hierarchic to Non-Hierarchic Systems. Presented at the Second NASA/Air Force Symposium on Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Hampton, Virginia, NASA CP-3031, Part 1, September 1988. Also NASA TM-101494.Google Scholar
16. Eason, E., Nystrom, G., Burlingham, A. and Nelson, E. Nonhierarchic Multidisciplinary Optimal Design of a Commercial Aircraft. AIAA/NASA/ USAF/ISSMO 5th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Panama City Beach, Florida, AIAA-94-4302, September 1994 .Google Scholar
17. Bloebaum, C. An Intelligent Decomposition Approach for Coupled Engineering Systems. Proceedings of the 4th AIAA/NASA/USAF/OAI Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Cleveland, Ohio, AIAA Paper No. 92–4821, September 1992.Google Scholar
18. Wujek, B. A., Renaud, J. E., Batill, S. M. and Brockman, J. B. Concurrent Subspace Optimization Using Design Variable Sharing in a Distributed Computing Environment. Proceedings of the 1995 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Advances in Design Automation, ASME DE-Vol. 82, Azarm, S., eds., pp. 181–188, September 1995.Google Scholar
19. Sellar, R., Batill, S., “Concurrent Subspace Optimization Using Gradient-Based Neural Network Approximations,” proceedings of 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Part I, Bellevue, WA, Sept. 4-6, 1996. Also available as AIAA Paper 96–4019.Google Scholar
20. Arslan, M.A. and Haiela, P. Use of Artificial Neural Networks to Enhance the Concurrent Subspace Optimization Strategy, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Optimization and Innovative Design, Paper No 153, The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, 7/28-30/97, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
21. Wuiek, B. A., Renaud, J. E., Johnson, E. W., Brockman, J. B. and Batill, S. M. Design Flow Management and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization in Application to Aircraft Concept Sizing. 34th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, AIAA 96–0713, January 1996.Google Scholar
22.iSIGHT Designers and Developers Manual, version 3.1, Engineous Software Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina, 1998.Google Scholar
23. Kroo, I., Altus, S., Braun, R., Gage, P. and Sobieski, I. Multidisciplinary Optimization Methods for Aircraft Preliminary Design. 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Panama City Beach, Florida, Vol. 1, AIAA Paper No. 94–4325, pp. 697–707, September 1994.Google Scholar
24. Sobieski, I.P., Manning, V.M. and Kroo, I.M. Response Surface Estimation and Refinement in Collaborative Optimization, AIAA-98-4753, 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, September 2-4, 1998, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
25. Sobieszczanski-sobieski, J., Agte, J. and Jr.Sandusky, R. Bi-level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS), AIAA 98–4916, 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, September 2-4,1998, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
26. Mistree, F., Hughes, O.F. and Bras, B.A., The Compromise Decision Support Problem and Adaptive Linear Programing Algorithm, in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, pp.247–286, (Kamat, M.P., ed.), AIAA Publ., Washington DC 1993.Google Scholar
27.The National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, 1997 edition (publ. in January 1998), Semiconductor Industry Association (S.I.A)Google Scholar
28. Tristram, C. The Big Bad Bit Stuffers of IBM, MIT Technology Review, July-August 1998, pp.45–51.Google Scholar
29. Gershenfeld, N. and Chuang, I. Quantum Computing with Molecules, Scientific American, June 1998, pp.66–71.Google Scholar
30. Waldrop, M.M. Complexity, Simon & Schuster Publ. New York, 1992.Google Scholar
31. He, X., Luo, L.S. Lattice Boltzmann Model for the Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equation” J. Stat. Phys., 88, 927, (1997)Google Scholar
32. Haiela, P. Implications of Artificial Life Simulations in Structural Analysis and Design, AIAA-98-1775.Google Scholar
33. Samareh, J.A. Aeroelastic Deflection of NURBS Geometry, 6th International Conference on Numerical Grid Generation in Computational Field Simulation, University of Greenwich, London, 7/6-9/98.Google Scholar
34. Samareh, J.A. Use of CAD Geometry in MDO, AIAA-96-3991.Google Scholar