Skip to main content
Log in

Efficient aerodynamic shape optimization of transonic wings using a parallel infilling strategy and surrogate models

  • RESEARCH PAPER
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surrogate models are used to dramatically improve the design efficiency of numerical aerodynamic shape optimization, where high-fidelity, expensive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is often employed. Traditionally, in adaptation, only one single sample point is chosen to update the surrogate model during each updating cycle, after the initial surrogate model is built. To enable the selection of multiple new samples at each updating cycle, a few parallel infilling strategies have been developed in recent years, in order to reduce the optimization wall clock time. In this article, an alternative parallel infilling strategy for surrogate-based constrained optimization is presented and demonstrated by the aerodynamic shape optimization of transonic wings. Different from existing methods in which multiple sample points are chosen by a single infill criterion, this article uses a combination of multiple infill criteria, with each criterion choosing a different sample point. Constrained drag minimizations of the ONERA-M6 and DLR-F4 wings are exercised to demonstrate the proposed method, including low-dimensional (6 design variables) and higher-dimensional problems (up to 48 design variables). The results show that, for surrogate-based optimization of transonic wings, the proposed method is more effective than the existing parallel infilling strategies, when the number of initial sample points are in the range from N v to 8N v (N v here denotes the number of design variables). Each case is repeated 50 times to eliminate the effect of randomness in our results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Byrd RH, Lu P, Nocedal J, Zhu C (1995) A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM J Sci Comput 16:1190–1208

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri A, Haftka RT, Ifju P et al (2015) Experimental flapping wing optimization and uncertainty quantification using limited samples. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51(4):597–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernukhin O, Zingg DW (2013) Multimodality and global optimization in aerodynamic design. AIAA J 51(6):1342–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186:311–338

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45(1–3):50–79. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsbourger D, Le Riche R, and Carraro L (2007) A multi-points criterion for deterministic parallel global optimization based on kriging, The International Conference on Nonconvex Programming: Local and Global Approaches, Rouen, France

  • Ginsbourger D, Le Riche R, Carraro L (2010) Kriging is well-suited to parallelize optimization. In: Computational intelligence in expensive optimization problems. Springer, Berlin, pp 131–162

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giunta AA, Wojtkiewicz SFJ and Eldred MS (2003) Overview of modern design of experiments methods for computational simulations, AIAA 2003–649

  • Goto Y, Jeong S, Obayashi S, and Kohama Y (2008) Design space exploration of supersonic formation flying focusing on drag minimization. J Aircr 45(2): doi: 10.2514/1.28766

  • Han Z-H, Goertz S (2012) A hierarchical kriging model for variable-fidelity surrogate modeling. AIAA J 50(9):1885–1896. doi:10.2514/1.J051354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han Z-H, Zhang K-S, Song W-P, Qiao Z-D (2010a) Optimization of active flow control over an airfoil using a surrogate-management framework. J Aircr 47(2):603–612. doi:10.2514/1.45899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han Z-H, Zimmermann R, and Goertz S (2010b) A new cokriging method for variable-fidelity surrogate modeling of aerodynamic data, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, AIAA Paper 2010–1225

  • Han Z-H, Zimmermann R, Goertz S (2012a) An alternative cokriging model for variable-fidelity surrogate modeling. AIAA J 50(5):1205–1210. doi:10.2514/1.J051243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han Z-H, Goertz S, Zimmermann R (2012b) Improving variable-fidelity surrogate modeling via gradient-enhanced kriging and a generalized hybrid bridge function. Aerosp Sci Technol 25(1):177–189. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2012.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han Z-H, Zhang K-S, Liu J, and Song W-P (2013) Surrogate-based aerodynamic shape optimization with application to wind turbine airfoils, 51th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Grapevine, Texas, AIAA Paper 2013–1108

  • Hoyle N, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ (2006) Design optimization of a two-dimensional subsonic engine air intake. AIAA J 44(11): doi: 10.2514/1.16123

  • Jameson A (1988) Aerodynamic design via control theory. J Sci Comput 3:3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson A, Pierce NA, and Martinelli L (1997) Optimum aerodynamic design using the Navier-Stokes equations, AIAA Paper 97–0101

  • Jeong S, Murayama M, Yamamoto K (2005) Efficient optimization design method using kriging model. J Aircr 42(2): doi: 10.2514/1.6386

  • Jones DR (2001) A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces. J Glob Optim 21:345–383

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch WJ (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13:455–492

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kanazaki M, Tanaka K, Jeong S, Yamamoto K (2007) Multi-objective aerodynamic exploration of elements’ setting for high-lift airfoil using kriging model. J Aircr 44(3): doi: 10.2514/1.25422

  • Keane AJ (2006) Statistical improvement criteria for use in multiobjective design optimization. AIAA J 44:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koziel S, Leifsson L (2013) Surrogate-based aerodynamic shape optimization by variable-resolution models. AIAA J 51(1): doi: 10.2514/1.j051583

  • Krige DG (1951) A statistical approach to some basic mine valuations problems on the Witwatersrand. J Chem Metall Min Eng Soc S Afr 52(6):119–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulfan BM (2008) Universal parametric geometry representation method. J Aircr 45(1):142–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurenceau J, Sagaut P (2008) Building Efficient response surfaces of aerodynamic functions with kriging and cokriging. AIAA J 46(2):498–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurenceau J, Meaux M, Montagnac M, Sagaut P (2010) Comparison of gradient-based and gradient-enhanced response-surface-based optimizers. AIAA J 48(5): doi: 10.2514/1.45331

  • Liu J, Han Z-H, and Song W-P (2012a) Efficient kriging-based optimization design of transonic airfoils: some key issues, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Nashville, Tennessee, AIAA Paper 2012–0967, Jan. 2012

  • Liu J, Han Z-H, and Song W-P (2012b) Comparison of infill sampling criteria in kriging-based aerodynamic optimization, 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Brisbane, Australia

  • Matheron GM (1963) Principles of geostatistics. Econ Geol 58(8):1246–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Redeker G (1994), DLR-F4 wing body configuration, In AGARD, A Selection of Experimental Test Cases for the Validation of CFD Codes, Vol. 2

  • Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4:409–423

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schonlau M (1997) Computer experiments and global optimization, PhD thesis, University of Waterloo

  • Simpson TW, Mauery TM, Korte JJ, Mistree F (2001) Kriging models for global approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary design optimization. AIAA J 39:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobester A, Leary SJ, Keane AJ (2004) A parallel updating scheme for approximation and optimization high fidelity computer simulations. Struct Multidiscip Optim 27:371–383. doi:10.1007/s00158-004-0397-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobester A, Leary SJ, Keane AJ (2005) On the design of optimization strategies based on global response surface approximation models. J Glob Optim 33:31–59. doi:10.1007/s10898-004-6733-1

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Song W, Keane AJ (2007) Surrogate-based aerodynamic shape optimization of a civil aircraft engine nacelle. AIAA J 45(10): doi: 10.2514/1.30015

  • Vavalle A, Qin N (2007) Iterative response surface based optimization scheme for transonic airfoil design. J Aircr 44(2): doi: 10.2514/1.19688

  • Viana FAC, and Haftka RT (2010) Surrogate-based optimization with parallel simulations using the probability of improvement, 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conference, Fort Worth, Texas, AIAA-2010-9392

  • Yao W, Chen X, Huang Y, van Michel M (2013) A surrogate based optimization method with RBF neural network enhanced by linear interpolation and hybrid infill strategy. Optim Methods Softw. doi:10.1080/10556788.2013.777722

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun Y, Yoon M, and Nakayama H (2009) Multi-objective optimization based on meta-modeling by using support vector regression. Optim Eng 10:doi: 10.1007/s11081-008-9063-1

  • Zhang Y, Han Z -H, Shi L -X, and Song W -P (2016) Multi-round surrogate-based optimization for benchmark aerodynamic design problems, 54th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting, 4–8 January 2016, San Diego, California, USA, AIAA Paper 2016–1545

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11272265) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 3102015BJ(II) MYZ18). The Authors would like to thank the National Supercomputer Center in Tianjin for the use of computation resource of TianHe-1A, and Mr. Chen Fu for his effort helping us to adapt the optimization framework to TianHe-1A. The Authors also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their thoughtful comments and suggestions for improving this article. The authors are grateful for Dr. Richard Dwight from Delft University of Technology who helped us to improve the language from the perspective of an English native speaker.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z.-H. Han.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, J., Song, WP., Han, ZH. et al. Efficient aerodynamic shape optimization of transonic wings using a parallel infilling strategy and surrogate models. Struct Multidisc Optim 55, 925–943 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1546-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1546-7

Keywords

Navigation