Optimizing the Design & Integration of the (Early) 21st Century System

1. Engineering Technology Management Tracking the Constant of Change Risk Systems Engineering Economics History Management Legal Aspects Society Supply Chain Logistics Technical Information Multidiscipline Design Product Development Optimizing the Design & Integration of the (Early) 21st Century System AIAA MDO TC Thomas A. Zang NASA Langley Research Center

2. Objectives • Summarize the 1990s view of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) • Illustrate the role MDO technologies have played in contemporary design decisions

3. A Dose of Humility “the aerospace industry has done multidisciplinary design optimization since the days of the Wright brothers”

4. 1991 MDO White Paper MDO Development Tasks • Data exchange requirements defined • Common, parameterized geometry model • Data management system • Models for manufacturing, reliability, supportability and life-cycle cost • Design-oriented analysis • Discipline design sensitivities • Systems sensitivity analysis • Improved optimization algorithms • Post-optimum sensitivity analysis • Systematic design space search methods • The MDO TC published its first White Paper led by Daniel Schrage & Jarek Sobieski • Concurrent engineering had just emerged and had not yet been assimilated by the MDO TC http://endo.sandia.gov/AIAA_MDOTC/sponsored/aiaa_paper.html

5. Increasing Difficulty High Fidelity CFD, FEM Intermediate Fidelity Fidelity Level Conceptual Design F-22 Level of MDO F/A-18 E/F Trade Studies Limited Optimization/ Iteration Full MDO Lrg A/C Space Telescope F-16 Agile Falcon Rotocraft GE Engine GM Auto MDO Elements Frontier BWB Information Management & Processing• MDO Framework and Architecture• Data Bases and Data Flow & Standards• Computing Requirements• Design Space Visualization Design Formulations & Solutions• Design Problem Objectives• Design Problem Decomposition, Organization• Optimization Procedures and Issue Additions to 1991 Vision Management & Cultural Implementation• Organizational Structure• MDO Operation in IPD Teams• Acceptance, Validation,Cost &, Benefits• Training Analysis Capabilities & Approximations• Breadth vs.. Depth Requirements• Effective Incl. of High Fidelity Analyses/Test• Approximation & Correction Processes• Parametric Geometric Modeling• Analysis and Sensitivity Capability 1998 “White Paper” on Industrial Experience 10 papers on industry applications w. summary by Giesing & Barthelemy, AIAA-98-4737 No papers on MDO in Conceptual Design! Cost, manufacturing and -ilities models fell out of scope

6. Fluids/ Grid Structures/ Elements Propulsion/ Controls MDO/ Method F-C Index POC FLUIDS STRUCTURES NAVIER- STOKES GUMBERT EUL/50K 2D,W-B/5K GRD 16 DETAILED 3D FINITE ELEMENTS MAUTE EUL/50K 2D,FEM/6K GRD 16 SIMPLE 3D FINITE ELEMENTS GIUNTA EUL/300K 2D, PLATE/1K GRD 14 EULER COMPLEXITY IN GEOMETRY 2D FINITE ELEMENTS COMPLEXITY IN PHYSICS INTERFACING KIM EUL/100K 2D,W-B/1K GRD/GA 11 RAVEH EUL/500K 2D,W-B/1K GRD 16 EQUIVALENT PLATE FULL POTENTIAL OYAMA NS/500K 1D, BEAM GA 16 MODAL APPROACH KNILL EUL/500K 2D, E_PLATE GRD 15 SHAPE FUNCTIONS RODRIGUEZ NS/500K 1-D NS GRD 17 TRANSONIC SMALL DISTURBANCE BLAIR PANEL 2D,W-B/N-L GRD 10 LINEAR ANALYTICAL METHODS LOOK UP TABLES 2002 Aero/Structures/Controls Applications Survey • Use of Euler/Navier-Stokes based CFD and 2D FEM based CSM methods have started impacting MDO • Gradient approach is used extensively for MDO • Genetic algorithm based MDO are in the early stages of research but are growing rapidly • Use of parallel computers for large scale MDO is yet to be exploited Guruswamy & Obayasi, AIAA-2002-5638

7. Recipients of the MDO Award • “… presented to an individual for outstanding contributions to the development and/or application of techniques of multidisciplinary design optimization in the context of aerospace engineering” • Lucien A. Schmit, Jr. (1994): initialization and pioneering of the field of engineering optimization • Jaroslaw Sobieski (1996): initialization and pioneering of MDO as a field • Raphael T. Haftka (1998): depth and breadth ofmethodological contributions • Vipperla B. Venkayya (2000): structural and aeroelastic optimization methods and tools • Garret N. Vanderplaats (2002): bringing optimization to users through commercial software

8. MDO Then and Now • The structural optimization community formed the core of the original MDO TC community (1989) • During the 1990s the focus of the MDO community was on subjects such as • maturing structural optimization • developing aerostructural analysis • influencing aerodynamic sensitivity analysis & optimization • deploying approximation-based multidisciplinary analysis & optimization methods • researching & deploying MDO frameworks and architectures • researching multidisciplinary decomposition • Today, the c.g. of MDO is moving away from aeroelasticity at the preliminary design level, and towards encompassing other disciplines at the conceptual design level

9. Early 21st Century Multidisciplinary Design Examples • The emphasis is on 2002-2003 examples of broad multidisciplinary capabilities that organizations have used in real aerospace design decisions • The selections are intended to illustrate a spectrum of design stages • University-centric applications are not included for lack of time • Many more examples exist • some that I know about but don’t have time to cover • many that I just don’t know about

10. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Project Design Center (Team X for Proposal Development) http://pdcteams.jpl.nasa.gov/

11. NASA Advanced Engineering Environment (Launch Vehicle Technology Assessment) Upstream Feedback Geometry Aero/ Aerothermo- dynamics Propulsion Weights & Sizing and Structures Ascent Trajectory Optimization Entry & Aborts Trajectories Flybacks Trajectories Landing Trajectories Downstream Impact DDTE & Prod Cost Safety and Reliability Ops. Time & Cost Econ Closure D. Monell, AIAA-2004-0202

12. FUEGO/ SYRINX DAKOTA PREMO (SACCARA) Basic Framework Services VIPAR SALINAS Mechanics Mgmt ANDANTE SIERRA Kernel KRINO Field Mgmt Mesh Mgmt PRESTO (PRONTO) Parallel Communications ARIA (GOMA) ADAGIO (JAS) CALORE (COYOTE) Sandia SIERRA Framework http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2002/023637p.pdf

13. PROPULSION MODELING PERFORMANCE MODELING AERODYNAMIC MODELING CONCEPTUAL DESIGNER - Requirements - Constraints - Etc. - Trade Studies - Optimizations - Sensitivities INPUTS OUTPUTS Common Design Variables & Data RCD provides the link between a common design environment & LM Aero/COTS analysis tools WEIGHTS MODELING COST MODELING Lockheed Martin Rapid Conceptual Design (RCD) A. Carty, AIAA-2002-5438 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

14. Configurator Fixed Cycle Flowpath Mechanicals Pratt & Whitney/NASA Glenn Research Center(Conceptual Engine Design Using NPSS) Global Optimization Nested Iteration Local Optimization B. Staubach, AIAA-2003-2803 http://hpcc.grc.nasa.gov/npssintro.shtml

15. Impacts 1 • Jet Propulsion Laboratory Team X • proposal development time reduced from 6 months to 2 weeks • NASA Space Transportation AEE • routinely employed by the NGLT program to evaluate technologies applicable to future rocket-based launch systems • Sandia SIERRA Framework • new multiphysics capabilities developed in months instead of years

16. Tool Development Setup Trades Planning Standard A. Carty, AIAA-2002-5438 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company RCD 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Impacts 2 • Lockheed-Martin • enabled the identification of optimal solutions that are counter-intuitive and functions of multiple design disciplines • Pratt & Whitney • 5 times gain to first mechanical assessment • $100 M reduction in manufacturing cost on engine fleet

17. One Example of a Current MDO Development Project That Aims to Be both Broad and Deep

18. Navy Integrated Hypersonic Aeromechanics Tool(Design and Assessment of Hypersonic Missiles) Geometric Variables Geometry Outer Mold Line Flowpath Geometry FEM Mesh Aerodynamics Installed Inlet Performance Drag vs. M, a, etc... Aerodynamic Loads 3-DOF Aero Database Propulsion Variables Propulsion TSFC vs. M, a, etc... Propulsion Heating Propulsive Loads Propulsion Database Trajectory Constraints Trajectory Flight Profile Inertia Loads Fuel/Range/ Speed Thermal FEM Temperatures Empty Mass Properties Skin Gages Structural Empty Mass Properties Empty Weight Stability & Control Gain & Phase Margins Highlighted components are new in Build 2 Optimize Baker, et al, AIAA-2003-6952

19. MDO Elements Information Management & Processing• MDO Framework and Architecture• Data Bases and Data Flow & Standards• Computing Requirements• Design Space Visualization Design Formulations & Solutions• Design Problem Objectives• Design ProblemDecomposition, Organization• Optimization Procedures and Issues Management & Cultural Implementation• Organizational Structure• MDO Operation in IPD Teams• Acceptance, Validation, Cost & Benefits• Training Analysis Capabilities & Approximations• Breadth vs. Depth Requirements• Effective Incl. of High Fidelity Analyses/Test• Approximation & Correction Processes• Parametric Geometric Modeling• Analysis and Sensitivity Capability Key “MDO” Technologies Used in These Examples

20. Emerging “MDO” Technologies in the 21st Century • The MDO TC has another White Paper under development that will provide a consensus view • One man’s opinion on what you’ll see as additional MDO technologies in significant use in aerospace design by the 2009 Delta Forum: • distributed, collaborative engineering • risk assessment and mitigation • multidisciplinary design under uncertainty • multidisciplinary optimization using decomposition • multidisciplinary optimization visualization • parametric (geometry) models spanning concept to flight • multiprocessor computing enabling larger-scale MDO

21. Acknowledgements • Jet Propulsion Laboratory Team X • Robert Oberto • NASA Advanced Engineering Environment • Michelle Garn (NASA LaRC) • Roger Lepsch (NASA LaRC) • Sandia SIERRA • Jim Stewart • Lockheed-Martin Rapid Conceptual Design • Atherton Carty (Palmdale) • Pratt & Whitney and NASA Glenn NPSS • Steve Sirica (P&W) • John Lytle (GRC) • Navy IHAT • Michael Munsun (NAVAIR, China Lake)

22. References 1 • Current State-of-the-Art in Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, prepared by the MDO Technical Committee, January 1991 • J. P. Giesing and J.-F. M. Barthelemy, A Summary of Industry MDO Applications and Needs, AIAA-98-4737 • G. P.Guruswamy and S. Obayashi, Use of High Fidelity Methods in Multidisciplinary Optimization – A Preliminary Study, AIAA-2002-5638 • D. Monell, D. Mathias, J. Reuther, M. Garn, The Advanced Engineering Environment (AEE) Project for NASA’s NGLT Program, AIAA-2004-0202

23. References 2 • J. R. Stewart and H. C. Edwards, Parallel adaptive application development using the SIERRA framework, in K.J. Bathe, ed., Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics. Proc. First MIT Conf., Cambridge, MA, 2001, Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2001), 1661-1664 • A. Carty, An Approach to Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis & Optimization for Rapid Conceptual Design, AIAA-2002-5438 • B. Staubach, Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, MDO, the Next Frontier of CAD/CAE in the Design of Aircraft Propulsion Systems, AIAA-2003-2803 • M. L. Baker, M. J. Munson, K. Y. Alston and G. W. Hoppus, Integrated Hypersonics Aeromechanics Tool (IHAT), AIAA-2003-6952