Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 2013–2024 | Cite as

Development of a metamodel assisted sampling approach to aerodynamic shape optimization problems

  • Amir SafariEmail author
  • Adel Younis
  • Gary Wang
  • Hirpa Lemu
  • Zuomin Dong


A new metamodel-assisted sampling search approach applied to the aerodynamic shape optimization of turbomachinery airfoils is presented in this paper. The proposed methodology integrates a non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) geometry representation, a twodimensional flow analysis, and an improved metamodel driven optimization algorithm named approximated promising region identifier (APRI), which represents a momentous advancement of the existing space exploration techniques specifically for the high-dimensional expensive black-box (HEB) problems. The novel optimization method prospects the whole design space by generating sample points, reporting evaluating information using a surrogate model, and then focusing the search in the most promising region by deploying more agents. Using the integration of these adaptive tools and methods, the optimization results are considerably promising in terms of computational efficiency and performance enhancement of the turbomachinery blade airfoil shape in both design and off-design conditions.


Global optimization Metamodeling Sampling search Promising region approximation Turbomachinery airfoil shape optimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    B. Zhang, T. Wang, C. G. Gu and X. W. Shu, An integrated blade optimization approach based on parallel ANN and GA with hierarchical fair competition dynamic-niche, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 25 (6) (2011) 1457–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Ellbrant, L. E. Eriksson and H. Mårtensson, CFD optimization of a transonic compressor using multiobjective GAand metamodels, Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 23–28 September, Brisbane, Australia (2012).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Verstraete, Multidisciplinary optimization of turbomachinery components using differential evolution, tA workshop on Multidisciplinary Optimization for Turbomachinery Applications, Workshop of the ASME Turbo Expo 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada 6–10 June (2011).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Shahrokhi and A. Jahangirian, A surrogate assisted evolutionary optimization method with application to the transonic airfoil design, Journal of Engineering Optimization, 42 (6) (2010) 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    V. G. Asouti, I. C. Kampolis and K. C. Giannakoglou, A grid-enabled asynchronous metamodel-assisted evolutionary algorithm for aerodynamic optimization, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 10 (4) (2009) 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. K. Karakasis, K. C. Giannakoglou and D. G. Koubogiannis, Aerodynamic design of compressor airfoils using hierarchical, distributed, metamodel-assisted evolutionary algorithms, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Turbomachinery, Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics, Athens, Greece, 5–9 March (2007).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Naujoks, N. Beume and M. Emmerich, Metamodelassisted SMS-EMOA applied to airfoil optimization tasks, Proceedings of the EUROGEN’05, Miinchen, Germany, 12–14 September (2005).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. K. Karakasis and K. C. Giannakoglou, Metamodelassisted Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization, Proceedings of the EUROGEN’ 05, Miinchen, Germany, 12–14 September (2005).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Emmerich and B. Naujoks, Metamodel-assisted multiobjective optimization strategies with implicit constraints and their application in airfoil design, Proceedings of the ERCOFTAC’ 04, Athens, Greece, 31 March- 2 April (2004).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    V. E. Garzon, Probabilistic aerothermal design of compressor airfoils, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, Massachusetts, USA (2003).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    I. G. Loshchilov, Surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms, Ph.D. thesis, Laboratory of Intelligent System, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland (2013).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Y. Jin, Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: Recent advances and future challenges, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1 (2011) 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. Iuliano and D. Quagliarella, Proper orthogonal decomposition, surrogate modeling and evolutionary optimization in aerodynamic design, Computers & Fluids, 84 (2013) 327–350.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Zhang, Z. Gao, L. Huang and M. Wang, Double-stage metamodel and its application in aerodynamic design optimization, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 24 (2011) 568–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Y. Ma, A. Engeda, M. Cave and J. L. Di Liberti, Improved centrifugal compressor impeller optimization with a radial basis function network and principle component analysis, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 224 (4) (2010) 935–945.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    L. Piegl and W. Tiller, The NURBS Book, 2nd Ed., Springer-Verlag (1995–1997).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Safari and H. Lemu, A comparative study of optimum bezier and NURBS curve fitting for measured point cloud of airfoil shapes, Proceedings of the International Workshop of Advanced Manufacturing and Automation, Trondheim, Norway, 21-22 June (2012).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Safari, H. Lemu, S. Jafari and M. Assadi, A comparative analysis of nature-inspired optimization approaches to 2-D geometric modeling for turbomachinery applications, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 716237 (2013) 15.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. Tang, Orthogonal array-based latin hypercube, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88 (424) (1993) 1392–1397.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. L. Hardy, Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces, Journal of Geophysical Research, 76 (1971) 1905–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    N. Dyn, D. Levin and S. Rippa, Numerical procedures for surface fitting of scattered data by radial functions, Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7 (2) (1986) 639–659.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Myers, D. Montgomery and C. Anderson-Cook, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3th Ed., Wiley (2007).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. Box and K. Wilson, On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions, Journal of Royal Statistics Society, 13 (1951) 1–45.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. Simpson, J. Pepliniski, P. Koch and J. Allen, Metamodeling for computer-based engineering design: Survey and recommendations, Engineering with Computers, 17 (2001) 129–150.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    G. Matheron, Principles of geostatistics, Economic Geology, 58 (8) (1963) 1246–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    N. Cressie, Spatial prediction and ordinary Kriging, Mathematical Geology, 20 (4) (1988) 405–421.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    S. Lophaven and H. Nielsen, DACE — A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox, Technical Report, IM-REP 2002–2012, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark (2012).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. Januševskis, Development of metamodeling methods for analysis and optimization of mechanical systems, Ph.D. dissertation thesis, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia (2008).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    A. Younis and Z. Dong, Metamodeling and search using space exploration and unimodal region elimination in computation intensive design optimization, Engineering Optimization, 42 (6) (2010) 517–533.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    M. G. Cox, The numerical evaluation of B-spline, Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, 15 (1972) 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    C. de Boor, On calculating with B-spline, Journal of Approximation Theory, 6 (1972) 52–60.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    A. Safari, H. Lemu and M. Assadi, A novel combination of adaptive tools for turbomachinery airfoil shape optimization using a real-coded genetic algorithm, Proceedings of theASME Turbo Expo ‘13, 3–7 June 2013, San Antonio, USA (2013).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    D. Wilcox, Turbulence modeling for CFD, 2nd Ed., Anaheim: DCW Industries (1998) 174.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    A. Younis and Z. Dong, Global optimization using mixed surrogates and space elimination in computationally intensive engineering designs, International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics, 13 (4) (2012) 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amir Safari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adel Younis
    • 2
  • Gary Wang
    • 2
  • Hirpa Lemu
    • 1
  • Zuomin Dong
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical & Structural Engineering and Material TechnologyUniversity of Stavanger (UiS)StavangerNorway
  2. 2.Department of Mechatronic Systems EngineeringSimon Fraser University (SFU)VancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Victoria (UVic)VictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations