Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 1241–1254 | Cite as

A study of Nash-EGO algorithm for aerodynamic shape design optimizations

  • Shengguan Xu
  • Hongquan ChenEmail author
  • Jiale Zhang
Research Paper


In this paper, our newly proposed Nash-EGO algorithm is applied to real large-scale airfoil/wing optimizations. A finite wing is represented by mounting control airfoils parameterized with a set of design variables, which are manipulated to be increased gradually in purpose of enriching the searching space to accommodate possible more optimal solutions. The enriched design territory is technically split into small subsets to be assigned to the players of Nash-EGO. Doing this way, the performance of each efficient global optimization (EGO) player could be expected to keep at a high level due to EGO players now take care of only their own small-scale subsets instead of facing the large-scale problem directly. The algorithm is first applied to a constrained drag minimization of RAE 2822 airfoil with 14 to 54 design variables and two to eight Nash players to investigate the performance of Nash-EGO, particularly for having an understanding of the influences of the numbers of design variables and Nash players. Then, more challenging cases, sectional shape optimizations of DLR-F4 wing with up to 84 design variables, are conducted. The results show that, in comparison with the baselines, up to 47.5% drag reductions can be achieved by Nash-EGO optimizer; meanwhile, the CPU costs are greatly reduced (up to 366.8% speedup) as compared with the counterpart of the traditional EGO. The successful applications presented show the capability of Nash-EGO algorithm for solving real engineering optimizations with large scales.


Nash-EGO algorithm Efficient global optimization Aerodynamic shape optimization Airfoil optimization Wing optimization 



This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11172134) and the Foundation of “Jiangsu Innovation Program for Graduate Education” (Grant No. KYLX_0218). The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. Anderson JD Jr (2010) Fundamentals of aerodynamics, 5th edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Braibant V, Fleury C (1984) Shape optimal design using B-splines. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 44(3):247–267. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Deng F, Qin N, Liu XQ, Yu XQ, Zhao N (2013) Shock control bump optimization for a low sweep supercritical wing. Sci China Technol Sci 56(10):2385–2390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Endo N, Kanazaki M, Murayama M, Yamamoto K (2016) Influence of engine intake/exhaust on wing design of civil aircraft by means of knowledge discovery techniques. In: Proceedings of the 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Forrester AIJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ (2006) Optimization using surrogate models and partially converged computational fluid dynamics simulations. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 462(2071):2177–2204. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Gogulapati A, Friedmann PP, Martins J (2014) Optimization of flexible flapping-wing kinematics in hover. AIAA J 52(10):2342–2354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hicks RM, Henne PA (1978) Wing design by numerical optimization. J Aircr 15(7):407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeong S, Murayama M, Yamamoto K (2005) Efficient optimization design method using kriging model. J Aircr 42(2):413–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch WJ (1998) Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim 13(4):455–492. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanazaki M, Matsuno T, Maeda K, Kawazoe H (2015) Efficient global optimization applied to wind tunnel evaluation-based optimization for improvement of flow control by plasma actuators. Eng Optim 47(9):1226–1242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference On Neural Networks Proceedings, Vols 1–6. Ieee, New York.
  12. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kulfan B, Bussoletti J (2006) “Fundamental” parameteric geometry representations for aircraft component shapes. In: Proceedings of the 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Portsmouth, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Laurenceau J, Meaux M, Montagnac M, Sagaut P (2010) Comparison of gradient-based and gradient-enhanced response-surface-based optimizers. AIAA J 48(5):981–994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li X (2015) Direct numerical simulation techniques for hypersonic turbulent flows. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 36(1):147–158. Google Scholar
  16. Liu J, Song WP, Han ZH, Zhang Y (2016) Efficient aerodynamic shape optimization of transonic wings using a parallel infilling strategy and surrogate models. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(3):925–943. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moigne A, Qin N (2004) Variable-fidelity aerodynamic optimization for turbulent flows using a discrete adjoint formulation. AIAA J 42(7):1281–1292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nadarajah S (2013) Aerodynamic design optimization: drag minimization of the RAE 2822 in transonic viscous flow. Available at website:
  19. Othman N, Kanazaki M (2016) Trajectory and aerodynamic control optimization of civil aircraft descent under hazard situations based on high-fidelity aerodynamic database. In: Proceedings of the 34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Washington, D.C, USGoogle Scholar
  20. Prandtl L (1921) Applications of modern hydrodynamics to aeronautics. NACA Technical Report:116Google Scholar
  21. Redeker G (1994) “DLR-F4 wing-body configuration,” a selection of experimental test cases for the validation of CFD Codes. AGARD Report: AR-303Google Scholar
  22. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct Optim 14(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Song C, Yang X, Song W (2018) Multi-infill strategy for kriging models used in variable fidelity optimization. Chin J Aeronaut 31(3):448–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tang Z, Chen Y, Zhang L (2017) Natural laminar flow shape optimization in transonic regime with competitive Nash game strategy. Appl Math Model 48(2017):534–547. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tesfahunegn YA, Kozeil S, Gramanzini JR, Hosder S, Han ZH, Leifsson L (2015) Application of direct and surrogate-based optimization to two-dimensional benchmark aerodynamic problems: a comparative study. In: AIAA Science and Technology Forum and ExpositionGoogle Scholar
  26. Toal DJJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ (2008) Kriging hyperparameter tuning strategies. AIAA J 46(5):1240–1252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wall WA, Frenzel MA, Cyron C (2008) Isogeometric structural shape optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197:2976–2988. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang GG, Shan S (2007) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J Mech Des 129(4):370–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang YY, Zhang BQ, Chen YC (2011) Robust airfoil optimization based on improved particle swarm optimization method. Appl Math Mech Engl Ed 32:1245–1254. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Whitley D (1994) A genetic algorithm tutorial. Stat Comput 4(2):65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu S, Chen H (2013) New type of multi-point updating strategy for EGO parallelization. TNUAA 30:1–5Google Scholar
  32. Xu S, Chen H (2018) Nash game based efficient global optimization for large-scale design problems. J Glob Optim 71(2):361–381. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Ye KQ, Li W, Sudjianto A (2000) Algorithmic construction of optimal symmetric Latin hypercube designs. J Statist Plann Inference 90(1):145–159. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Yeongmin J, Seongim C (2014) Variable-fidelity aerodynamic design using gradient-enhanced kriging surrogate model with regression. In: Proceedings of the 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Maryland, USGoogle Scholar
  35. Yim J, Lee BJ, Kim C, Obayashi S (2008) Multi-stage aerodynamic design of multi-body geometries by kriging-based models and adjoint variable approach. In: Proceedings of the 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Hawaii, US
  36. Zhang Y, Han ZH, Shi L, Song WP (2015) Multi-round surrogate-based optimization for benchmark aerodynamic design problems. In: AIAA Aerospace Sciences MeetingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Aerospace EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations