Rule Based Architecture for Collaborative Multidisciplinary Aircraft Design Optimisation

In aircraft design, the jump from the conceptual to
preliminary design stage introduces a level of complexity which
cannot be realistically handled by a single optimiser, be that a
human (chief engineer) or an algorithm. The design process is often
partitioned along disciplinary lines, with each discipline given a level
of autonomy. This introduces a number of challenges including, but
not limited to: coupling of design variables; coordinating disciplinary
teams; handling of large amounts of analysis data; reaching an
acceptable design within time constraints. A number of classical
Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation (MDO) architectures exist in
academia specifically designed to address these challenges. Their
limited use in the industrial aircraft design process has inspired
the authors of this paper to develop an alternative strategy based
on well established ideas from Decision Support Systems. The
proposed rule based architecture sacrifices possibly elusive guarantees
of convergence for an attractive return in simplicity. The method
is demonstrated on analytical and aircraft design test cases and its
performance is compared to a number of classical distributed MDO
architectures.

Authors:

• Nickolay Jelev
• Andy Keane
• Carren Holden
• András Sóbester

Keywords:

• Multidisciplinary design optimisation
• rule based architecture
• aircraft design
• decision support system.

References:

[1] K. Sabbagh, Twenty First Century Jet: Making and Marketing the Boeing
777. Scribner Book Company, 1996.
[2] G. Norris and M. Wagner, Airbus A380: superjumbo of the 21st century.
Zenith Imprint, 2005.
[3] M. H. Sadraey, Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach. John
Wiley & Sons, 2012.
[4] L. Prandtl, “Uber tragflugel des kleinsten induzierten widerstandes,”
Zeitschrift f¨ur Flugtechnik und motorluftschiffahrt, 1933.
[5] R. T. Jones, “The spanwise distribution of lift for minimum induced
drag of wings having a given lift and a given bending moment,” 1950.
[6] J. DeYoung, “Minimization theory of induced drag subject to constraint
conditions,” 1979.
[7] G. K. Kenway and J. R. Martins, “Multipoint high-fidelity aerostructural
optimization of a transport aircraft configuration,” Journal of Aircraft,
vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 144–160, 2014.
[8] J. R. R. A. Martins and A. B. Lambe, “Multidisciplinary design
optimization: A survey of architectures,” AIAA journal, vol. 51, no. 9,
pp. 2049–2075, 2013.
[9] N. P. Tedford and J. R. Martins, “Benchmarking multidisciplinary design
optimization algorithms,” Optimization and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1,
pp. 159–183, 2010.
[10] K. A. J. Price, A. R. and C. M. Holden, “On the coordination
of multidisciplinary design optimization using expert systems,” AIAA
journal, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1778–1794, 2011.
[11] A. S. B. R. G. P. Kroo, I. and I. Sobieski, “Multidisciplinary optimization
methods for aircraft preliminary design,” AIAA paper, vol. 4325, p. 1994,
1994.
[12] J. Allison, M. Kokkolaras, M. Zawislak, and P. Y. Papalambros, “On
the use of analytical target cascading and collaborative optimization
for complex system design,” in 6th world congress on structural and
multidisciplinary optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005, pp. 1–10.
[13] N. Alexzandrov and R. M. Lewis, “Analytical and computational aspects
of collaborative optimization,” NASA/TM-210104-2000, pp. 1205–1210,
2000. [14] S. Kodiyalam, “Evaluation of methods for multidisciplinary design
optimization (mdo). part 1,” 1998.
[15] N. Michelena, H. M. Kim, and P. Papalambros, “A system partitioning
and optimization approach to target cascading,” in Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Engineering Design, vol. 2, 1999, pp.
1109–1112.
[16] B. D. Roth, “Aircraft family design using enhanced collaborative
optimization,” Ph.D. dissertation, 2008.
[17] I. Roth, B. & Kroo, “Enhanced collaborative optimization: Application
to an analytic test problem and aircraft design, (2008),” in 12th
AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference,
Victoria, BC, 2008.
[18] J. Agte, O. De Weck, J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, P. Arendsen,
A. Morris, and M. Spieck, “Mdo: assessment and direction for
advancementan opinion of one international group,” Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 40, no. 1-6, pp. 17–33, 2010.
[19] H. P. Nii, “The blackboard model of problem solving and the evolution
of blackboard architectures,” AI magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 38, 1986.
[20] N. Li, R. Tan, Z. Huang, C. Tian, and G. Gong, “Agile decision support
system for aircraft design,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 29,
no. 2, p. 04015044, 2015.
[21] R. Hooke and T. A. Jeeves, ““direct search” solution of numerical and
statistical problems,” Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 8, no. 2, pp.
212–229, 1961.
[22] R. T. Haftka, “Simultaneous analysis and design,” AIAA journal, vol. 23,
no. 7, pp. 1099–1103, 1985.
[23] R. E. Perez, H. H. Liu, and K. Behdinan, “Evaluation of
multidisciplinary optimization approaches for aircraft conceptual
design,” in AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization
conference, Albany, NY, 2004.
[24] J. Cousin and M. Metcalf, “The bae (commercial aircraft) ltd transport
aircraft synthesis and optimisation program (tasop),” in Aircraft Design,
Systems and Operations Conference, p. 3295.
[25] M. D. Morris, “Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational
experiments,” Technometrics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 161–174, 1991.