Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 559–574 | Cite as

A surrogate based multistage-multilevel optimization procedure for multidisciplinary design optimization

  • Wen YaoEmail author
  • Xiaoqian Chen
  • Qi Ouyang
  • Michel van Tooren
Research Paper

Abstract

Optimization procedure is one of the key techniques to address the computational and organizational complexities of multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO). Motivated by the idea of synthetically exploiting the advantage of multiple existing optimization procedures and meanwhile complying with the general process of satellite system design optimization in conceptual design phase, a multistage-multilevel MDO procedure is proposed in this paper by integrating multiple-discipline-feasible (MDF) and concurrent subspace optimization (CSSO), termed as MDF-CSSO. In the first stage, the approximation surrogates of high-fidelity disciplinary models are built by disciplinary specialists independently, based on which the single level optimization procedure MDF is used to quickly identify the promising region and roughly locate the optimum of the MDO problem. In the second stage, the disciplinary specialists are employed to further investigate and improve the baseline design obtained in the first stage with high-fidelity disciplinary models. CSSO is used to organize the concurrent disciplinary optimization and system coordination so as to allow disciplinary autonomy. To enhance the reliability and robustness of the design under uncertainties, the probabilistic version of MDF-CSSO (PMDF-CSSO) is developed to solve uncertainty-based optimization problems. The effectiveness of the proposed methods is verified with one MDO benchmark test and one practical satellite conceptual design optimization problem, followed by conclusion remarks and future research prospects.

Keywords

Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) Optimization procedure Multiple-discipline-feasible (MDF) Concurrent subspace optimization (CSSO) Surrogate model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 50975280 and Grant No. 61004094, Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University of Ministry of Education of China under Grant No. NCET-08-0149, Fund of Innovation by Graduate School of National University of Defense Technology under Grant No. B090102, and Hunan provincial innovation foundation for postgraduate, China.

References

  1. Agarwal H, Renaud J, Lee J, Watson L (2004) A unilevel method for reliability based design optimization. In: Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Palm Springs. AIAA-2004-2029Google Scholar
  2. Alexandrov NM, Kodiyalam S (1998) Initial results of an mdo method evaluation study. In: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, St. Louis, Missouri. AIAA-1998-4884Google Scholar
  3. Balling RJ, Sobieszcznski-Sobieski J (1996) Optimization of coupled systems: a critical overview of approach. AIAA J 34:6–17zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balling RJ, Wilkinson CA (1997) Execution of multidisciplinary design optimization approaches on common test problems. AIAA J 35:178-186zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batill SM, Renaud JE, Gu X (2000) Modeling and simulation uncertainty in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA. AIAA-2000-4803Google Scholar
  6. Chen X, Hasselman TK, Neill DJ (1997) Reliability based structural design optimization for practical applications. In: Proceedings of the 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Kissimmee. AIAA-1997-1403Google Scholar
  7. Chen S, Zhang F, Khalid M (2002) Evaluation of three decomposition mdo algorithms. In: Proceedings of 23rd international congress of aerospace sciences, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. DeMiguel V, Murray W (2006) A local convergence analysis of bilevel decomposition algorithms. Optim Eng 7:99–133MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Weck O, Eckert C, Clarkson J (2007) A classification of uncertainty for early product and system design. In: International conference on engineering design, Paris, France. ICED07/No.480Google Scholar
  10. Du X, Chen W (2000a) A methodology for managing the effect of uncertainty in simulation-based design. AIAA J 38:1471–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du X, Chen W (2000b) An efficient approach to probabilistic uncertainty analysis in simulation-based multidisciplinary design. In: the 38th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada. AIAA-2000-0423Google Scholar
  12. Du X, Chen W (2002) Sequential optimization and reliability assessment method for efficient probabilistic design. In: Proceedings of ASME 2002 design engineering technical conference and computers and information in engineering conference, Montreal. DETC2002/DAC-34127Google Scholar
  13. Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45:50–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Helton JC, Burmaster DE (1996) Treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Analysis 14:707–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2000) Comparative studies of metamodeling techniques under multiple modeling criteria. AIAA-2000-4801Google Scholar
  17. Johnson M, Moore L, Ylvisaker D (1990) Minimax and maximin distance designs. J Stat Plan Infer 26:131–148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liang J, Mourelatos ZP (2008) A single-loop method for reliability-based design optimisation. Int J Prod Dev 5:76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luo W (2003) Study and application of theory of multimethod collaborative optimization in the system design of flying vehicles. PhD Thesis, National University of Defense TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  20. Padula SL, Alexandrov N, Green LL (1996) MDO test suite at NASA Langley research center. In: 6th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. AIAA-1996-4028Google Scholar
  21. Park J, Sandberg IW (1991) Universal approximation using radial basis function networks. Neural Comput 3:246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Royset JO, Der Kiureghian A, Polak E (2001) Reliability-based optimal structural design by the decoupling approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 73:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sellar RS, Batill SM (1996) Concurrent subspace optimization using gradient-enhanced neural network approximations. In: 6th AIAA, NASA, and ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Reston, VA. AIAA-96-4019Google Scholar
  24. Sellar RS, Batill SM, Renaud JE (1996a) Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design. In: 34th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV. AIAA-96-0714Google Scholar
  25. Sellar RS, Stelmack MA, Batill SM, Rnaud JE (1996b) Response surface approximations for discipline coordination in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 37th AIAA/ASME/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. AIAA-96-2311Google Scholar
  26. Simpson TW, Booker AJ, Ghosh D, Giunta AA, Koch PN, Yang R (2004) Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion. Struct Optim 27:302–313Google Scholar
  27. Sobieszcznski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition: a step from hierarchic to non-hierarchic systems. In: Second NASA/Air Force symposium on recent advances in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Hampton, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  28. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization survey of recent developments. Struct Optim 14:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tedford NP, Martins JRRA (2010) Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms. Optim Eng 11:159–183. doi: 10.1007/s11081-009-9082-6 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tosserams S, Etman LFP, Rooda JE (2007) An augmented Lagrangian decomposition method for quasi-separable problems in mdo. Struct Multidisc Optim 34:211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Valdebenito M, Schuëller G (2010) A survey on approaches for reliability-based optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 42:645–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wertz JR, Larson WJ (1999) Space mission analysis and design. 3rd ed. Microcosm Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  33. Wu YT, Shin Y, Sues R, Cesare M (2001) Safety-factor based approach for probability-based design optimization. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference and exhibit, Seattle, Washington. AIAA-2001-1522Google Scholar
  34. Yao W (2007) Research on uncertainty multidisciplinary design optimization theory and application to satellite system design. Master Thesis, National University of Defense TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  35. Yao W, Guo J, Chen X, van Tooren M (2010) Utilizing uncertainty multidisciplinary design optimization for conceptual design of space systems. In: 8th Conference on systems engineering research, Hoboken, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Yao W, Chen X, Luo W, van Tooren M, Guo J (2011) Review of uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods for aerospace vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci. 47(6):450–479. doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yi SI, Shin JK, Park GJ (2008) Comparison of MDO methods with mathematical examples. Struct Multidisc Optim 35:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhao M, Cui W (2011) On the development of bi-level integrated system collaborative optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 43:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wen Yao
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Xiaoqian Chen
    • 1
  • Qi Ouyang
    • 1
  • Michel van Tooren
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Aerospace and Materials EngineeringNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Faculty of Aerospace EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations