Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:27:47.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A case for multi-level optimisation in aeronautical design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

G. M. Robinson  and
A. J. Keane
G. M. Robinson
Affiliation:
British Aerospace/Rolls-Royce University Technology Partnership for DesignDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of SouthamptonSouthampton, UK
A. J. Keane
Affiliation:
British Aerospace/Rolls-Royce University Technology Partnership for DesignDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of SouthamptonSouthampton, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses how the inevitable limitations of computing power available to designers has restricted adoption of optimisation as an essential design tool. It is argued that this situation will continue until optimisation algorithms are developed which utilise the range of available analysis methods in a manner more like human designers. The concept of multi-level algorithms is introduced and a case made for their adoption as the way forward. The issues to be addressed in the development of multi-level algorithms are highlighted.

The paper goes on to discuss a system developed at Southampton University to act as a test bed for multi-level algorithms deployed on a realistic design task. The Southampton University multi-level wing design environment integrates drag estimation algorithms ranging from an empirical code to an Euler CFD code, covering a 150,000 fold difference in computational cost. A simple multi-level optimisation of a civil transport aircraft wing is presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1028 , October 1999 , pp. 481 - 485
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. Elby, D., Averill, R.C., Punch, W.F. and Goodman, W.F. Evaluation of injection island GA performance on flywheel design optimization, Adaptive Computing in Design and Manufacture, Parmee, I. (Ed), Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
2. El-Beltaoy, M.A.andKeane, A.J.Acomparisonof genetic algorithms with various optimization methods for multilevel problems, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, to appear.Google Scholar
3. Robinson, G.M., Elbeltagy, M.A. and Keane, A.J., Optimization in mechanical design, in Evolutionary Design by Computers, Bentley, P. (Ed), Academic Press, to be published early 1999.Google Scholar
4. Cousin, J.M. and Metcalfe, M.P. The BAe transport aircraft synthesis and optimisation program, AIAA 90-3295, September 1990.Google Scholar
5. Epstein, B., Luntz, A. and Nachson, A. Multigrid Euler solver about aircraft configurations, with cartesian grids and local refinement, AIAA paper 89-1960, 1989.Google Scholar
6. Lock, R.C. The prediction of the drag of aerofoils and wings at high subsonic speeds, Aeronaut J, June/July 1986, 90, (896), pp 207–226.Google Scholar
7. Cooke, T.A. Measurements of the boundary layer and wake of two aerofoil sections at high Reynolds numbers and subsonic Mach numbers, ARC R&M 3722, 1973.Google Scholar
8. Maskew, B. Prediction of subsonic aerodynamic characteristics: A case for low-order panel methods, J Aircr, 19, (2), February 1982.Google Scholar
9. Robinson, G.M. and Keane, A.J. Orthogonal representation of a family of aerofoils, In preparation.Google Scholar
10. Van Dam, C.P. and Nikfetrat, K., Accurate prediction of drag using Euler methods, J Aircr, 29, (3), March 1992.Google Scholar
11. Redeker, G. DLR-F4 wing body combination, A selection of experimental test cases for the validation of CFD codes, AGARD AR-303, August 1994.Google Scholar
12. Rosenbrock, H.H. An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function, Comp J, 3, (3), 1960.Google Scholar