multi objective evolution design for uav aerodynamic applications l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Multi-objective Evolution Design for UAV Aerodynamic Applications PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Multi-objective Evolution Design for UAV Aerodynamic Applications

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

Multi-objective Evolution Design for UAV Aerodynamic Applications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 255 Views
  • Uploaded on

Multi-objective Evolution Design for UAV Aerodynamic Applications. University of Sydney E. J. Whitney L. F. Gonzalez K . Srinivas Dassault Aviation J. Périaux M. Sefrioui. UAV-MMNT03 Sydney, Australia    14-16 July 2003. Overview. Evolution Algorithms (EAs).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Multi-objective Evolution Design for UAV Aerodynamic Applications' - allegra


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
multi objective evolution design for uav aerodynamic applications
Multi-objective Evolution Design for UAV Aerodynamic Applications

University of Sydney

E. J. Whitney

L. F. Gonzalez

K. Srinivas

Dassault Aviation

J. Périaux

M. Sefrioui

UAV-MMNT03

Sydney, Australia    14-16 July 2003

overview
Overview
  • Evolution Algorithms (EAs).
  • Hierarchical Topology-Multiple Models.
  • Multi-Criteria Optimisation – Game Theory.
  • Parallel Computing and AsynchronousEvaluation.
  • Test Case Applications:
    • UAV aerofoil design for transit and loiter.
    • UAV aerofoil design for transit and takeoff.
    • UCAV whole aircraft conceptual design.
the problem
The Problem…

Problems in aerodynamic optimisation:

  • Modern aerodynamic design uses CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) almost exclusively.
  • CFD has matured enough to use for preliminary design andoptimisation.
  • Most aerodynamic design problems will need to be stated in multi-objective form.
  • The internal workings of validated in-house solvers are essentially inaccessible from a modification point of view (they are black-boxes).
  • Fitness functions of interest are generally multimodal with a number of local minima. Sometimes the optimum shape/s is not obvious to the designer. The fitness function will involve some numerical noise.
the solution
… The Solution

We apply an Evolution Algorithm (EA):

  • EAs are able to explore large search spaces.
  • They are robust towards noise and local minima.
  • They are easy to parallelise, significantly reducing computation time.
  • EAs successively map multiple populations of points, alowing solution diversity.
  • They are capable of finding a number of solutions ina Pareto set or calculating a robust Nash game.
the central difficulty
“The Central Difficulty”

Evolutionary techniques are …

still … very … slow!

(Often involving hundreds or thousands of separate flow computations)

Therefore, we need to think about ways of speeding up the process…

hierarchical topology multiple models

Exploitation

(small mutation span)

Model 1

precise model

Exploration

(large mutation span)

Model 2

intermediate

model

Model 3

approximate model

Hierarchical Topology-Multiple Models
  • Interactions of the 3 layers: solutions go up and down the layers.
  • The best ones keep going up until they are completely refined.
  • No need for great precision during exploration.
  • Time-consuming solvers are used only for the most promising solutions.
  • Think of it as a kind of optimisation and population based multigrid.
parallel computing and asynchronous evaluation

Different Speeds

1 individual

Asynchromous

Evaluator

1 individual

Parallel Computing and Asynchronous Evaluation

Evolution Algorithm

asynchronous evaluation

No need for synchronicity  no possible wait-time bottleneck.

  • No need for the different processors to be of similar speed.
  • Processors can be added or deleted dynamically during the execution.
  • There is no practical upper limit on the number of processors we can use.
  • All desktop computers in an organisation are fair game.
Asynchronous Evaluation
  • Fitness functions are computed asynchronously.
  • Only one candidate solution is generated at a time, and only one individual is incorporated at a time rather than an entire population at every generation as is traditional EAs.
  • Solutions can be generated and returned out of order.
multi criteria problems
Multi-Criteria Problems
  • Aeronautical design problems normally require a simultaneous optimisation of conflicting objectives and associated number of constraints. They occur when two or more objectives that cannot be combined rationally. For example:
  • Drag at two different values of lift.
  • Drag and thickness.
  • Pitching moment and maximum lift.
  • Generation of a Pareto front allows the designer to choose after the optimisation phase; This allows selection amongst a wide range of potential solutions.
multi criteria optimisation
…..Multi--Criteria Optimisation

A multi-criteria optimisation problem can be formulated as:

Minimise:

Subject to constraints:

Using this concept, the objective of Pareto optimality is to find the non-dominated set of of optimum individuals (i.e. aerofoils, nozzles, wings) between a number of specified criteria.

some more examples
Some More Examples

Here our EA solves a two objective problem with two design variables. There are two possible Pareto optimal fronts; one obvious and concave, the other deceptive and convex.

some more examples 2
Some More Examples (2)

Again, we solve a two objective problem with two design variables however now the optimal Pareto front contains four discontinuous regions.

nash games
Nash Games
  • A Nash optimisation can be viewed as a competitive game between two players that each greedily optimise their own objective at the expense of the other player.
  • A Nash equilibrium is obtained when no player can improve his own objective at the expense of the other.

Epoch Completed?

Player 2

Player 1

Migrate and Exchange

applications
Applications

Now we present three UAV case studies. All have two objectives. These are:

  • Case One: Aerofoil design, drag minimisation for high-speed transit and loiter conditions.
  • Case Two: Aerofoil design, drag minimisation for high-speed transit and takeoff conditions.
  • Case Three: Whole aircraft conceptual design, gross weight minimisation and cruise efficiency maximisation.
case one
Case One

Problem Definition:

  • Dual point design procedure is described here to find the Pareto set of aerofoils for minimum total drag at two design points.The flow conditions for the two points analyzed are:
bounding envelope of the aerofoil search space and an example solution
Bounding Envelope of the Aerofoil Search Space and an Example Solution
  • Constraints:
  • Thickness > 12% x/c
  • Pitching moment > -0.065
  • Two Bezier curves representation.
  • Four control points on the mean line.
  • Five control points on the thickness distribution.
solver
Solver
  • Panel method with coupled integral boundary layer (XFOIL), by M. Drela of MIT Aero-Astro.
  • The solver gives very good approximations of important flow features in the purely subsonic regime, including finite separation bubbles and thinly separated regions.
  • Free boundary layer transition is used.
  • Any candidate which is found to have supersonic flow regions (transonic aerofoil) is rejected immediately.
hierarchical implementation

Exploitation

Population size = 20

Model 1

119 Surface Panels

Intermediate

Population size = 20

Model 2

99 Surface Panels

Model 3

79 Surface Panels

Exploration

Population size = 10

Hierarchical Implementation
first case results 2

Objective Two Optimal

Compromise

Objective One Optimal

First Case Results (2)
first case results 3
First Case Results (3)

Objective One Optimal - Transit Condition

first case results 4
First Case Results (4)

Compromise Solution - Transit Condition

Compromise Solution - Loiter Condition

first case results 5
First Case Results (5)

Objective Two Optimal - Loiter Condition

case two
Case Two

Problem Definition:

  • Again, a dual point design procedure is described here to find the Pareto set of aerofoils for minimum total drag at two design points.The flow conditions for the two points analyzed are:
implementation
Implementation
  • Single population used, 139 surface panels.
  • 6 control points on the mean line, 8 on the thickness distribution.
  • Run for 7,700 function evaluations.
  • Thickness similarly constrained (> 12%), but pitching moment only constrained for transit case.
second case results 2

Objective Two Optimal

Compromise

Second Case Results (2)

Objective One Optimal

second case results 3
Second Case Results (3)

Objective One Optimal - Transit Condition

second case results 4
Second Case Results (4)

Compromise Solution - Transit Condition

Compromise Solution - Takeoff Condition

second case results 5
Second Case Results (5)

Objective Two Optimal - Takeoff Condition

case three
Case Three

Problem Definition:

  • Find conceptual design parameters for a UCAV, to minimise two objectives:
    • Gross weight  min(WG)
    • Cruise efficiency  min(1/[MCRUISE.L/DCRUISE])
  • We have six unknowns:
mission definition

Cruise 40000 ft,

Mach 0.9, 400 nm

Release Payload 1800 Lbs

Accelerate

Mach 1.5, 500 nm

Maneuvers at Mach 0.9

Release Payload 1500 Lbs

Taxi

Climb

20000 ft

Descend

Takeoff

Landing

EngineStart and warm up

Mission Definition
solver34
Solver
  • The FLOPS (FLight OPtimisation System) solver developed by L. A. (Arnie) McCullers, NASA Langley Research Centerwas used for evaluating the aircraft configurations.
  • FLOPS is a workstation based code with capabilities for conceptual and preliminary design of advanced concepts.
  • FLOPS is multidisciplinary in nature and contains several analysis modules including: weights, aerodynamics, engine cycleanalysis, propulsion, missionperformance, takeoff and landing, noise footprint,cost analysis,and program control.
implementation35
Implementation
  • Solved via a Nash game.
  • Two hierarchical trees, each with two levels and population sizes of 10.
  • Information exchanged (epoch) after 50 function evaluations.
  • Variables split:
    • Player One: Aspect ratio, wing thickness and wing sweep; Maximises cruise efficiency.
    • Player Two: Wing area, engine thrust and wing taper; Minimises gross weight.
  • Run for 550 function evaluations, but converged after 250.
third case results 4
Third Case Results (4)

Upper Bound

Nash Equilibrium

Lower Bound

conclusion
Conclusion
  • The multi-criteria HAPEA has shown itself to be promising for direct and inverse design optimisation problems.
  • No problem specific knowledge is required  The method appears to be broadly applicable to black-box solvers.
  • A wide variety of optimisation problems including Multi-disciplinary Design Optimisation (MDO) problems can be solved.
  • The process finds traditional classical aerodynamic results for standard problems, as well as interesting compromise solutions.
  • The algorithm may attempt to circumvent convergence difficulties with the solver.
future
Future
  • Work is in progress to apply the optimisation procedure to multidisciplinary problems. We intend to couple the aerodynamic optimisation with:
    • Electromagnetics - Investigating the tradeoff between efficient aerodynamic design and RCS issues.
    • Structures - Especially in three dimensions means we can investigate interesting tradeoffs that may provide weight improvements.
    • Acoustics - How to maintain efficiency while lowering detectability.
    • And others…
slide43

E

ND