Abstract
A gradientbased aeroelastic shape optimization framework making use of a reduced order model to substitute a parameterization based on computeraided design software is presented. This parameterization concept is not novel in principle, but it is embedded here in a complex highfidelity optimization process and proven for a highdimensional design space. The design software is used initially to generate a parametric model of a threedimensional transport aircraft configuration. To streamline the actual optimization process, the computeraided design model is replaced with a parametric reduced order model based on proper orthogonal decomposition that is capable of predicting discrete surface displacement fields as a function of the design parameters. During the optimization, surface displacements are computed according to the current design parameters and applied on the baseline shape. In every optimization step, the aircraft's steadystate equilibrium of forces and moments are satisfied by a trimming algorithm and the Reynoldsaveraged Navier–Stokes solver TAU is coupled with a linear structural finiteelement method model. Gradients are computed analytically using geometric sensitivities provided by the reduced order model and by applying the adjoint method to the flow solver and the mesh deformation tool. The workflow is embedded within FlowSimulator, a multiphysics environment for high performance computing. The optimization process is demonstrated for a highdimensional wing parameterization with 126 degrees of freedom. The aircraft cruise drag could be significantly reduced by 6% on a series of three continuously refined meshes for the aerodynamic analysis. For an accurate representation of the optimal shape by the computeraided design software after the optimization, the approximation error introduced by the reduced order modelling approach must be sufficiently small. Therefore, the accuracy of the predictions was analyzed. The results identify the main source of the geometric error and quantify their effect on the drag reduction gained by the optimization. We dedicate this article to the memory of our colleague and friend Arno Ronzheimer, whose devotion to CAD modeling was unsurpassed.
1 Motivation
Increasing the application of highfidelity numerical simulation tools in the early stages of product design is considered to be one of the key drivers for shortening design cycles and reducing risks and costs in the aerospace industry [1]. Employing Multidisciplinary Optimization (MDO) has been identified as one of the most promising tasks in this context. However, there is still a long way to go to fulfill the industrial requirements concerning efficiency, accuracy and comprehensiveness. This work describes a gradientbased trimmed aeroelastic optimization process which is used as an MDO subprocess within DLR’s project VicToria (Virtual Aircraft Technology Integration Platform), a followup project of DigitalX [2]. The MDO activities in VicToria target at overcoming the current shortcomings of MDO by combining and further enhancing stateoftheart Computer Aided Engineering techniques.
An additional focus of this work is an efficient integration of a parametric Computer Aided Design (CAD) model into the optimization process. The challenge is to support adjointbased optimization processes. The adjoint method computes exact gradients at a computational cost which is independent on the number of design parameters. To get the total derivative of a cost functional, each workflow module is either required to be analytically differentiated or to employ finite differences to compute its partial gradients. Consequently, a shape parameterization module needs to provide derivatives of the surface shape with respect to design variables. Differentiated CAD Kernels like OpenCASCADE [3] or PADGE [4] offer this possibility, but in an industrial context, these special solutions are not likely to replace the established commercial CAD systems. The socalled design velocity method [5] employs finite differences on tessellated CADsurfaces to compute the gradients. This approach is independent on the CAD software, but the surface gradient accuracy is sensitive to the perturbation step size.
This work follows the approach of Bobrowski et al. [6]. The basic idea is to create a surrogate model for discrete surface displacement fields with respect to aircraft shape parameters apriori defined by a design engineer. This requires a parameterized CAD model which can be evaluated several times to generate a sampling data set. With the training data, a Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) based Reduced Order Model (ROM) can be built and used for fast and robust displacement and sensitivity predictions. This approach offers the main advantage of having analytic geometric sensitivities which are required for an efficient adjointbased optimization. At the same time, the approach enables a parameterization setup using the designer’s CAD system of choice and allowing for sophisticated geometrical features. Finally, an optimization workflow which solely relies on Unixbased High Performance Computing (HPC) systems can be achieved.
So far, CADROM parameterizations have been investigated for up to 14 design variables by Bobrowski et al. [6] showing a low geometric prediction error. Stannard [7] employed a 74dimensional CADROM parameterization for an adjointbased optimization, but did not evaluate the CADROM method itself. In a typical gradientbased shape optimization problem the design space usually spans over several hundreds of design variables This work evaluates the feasibility of the CADROM method for a highdimensional parameterization with 126 degrees of freedom and a representative optimization setup including trimming, thrust scaling and static aeroelastic coupling. Such optimization setups for full aircraft configurations have been treated before by the aerodynamic optimization community [7,8,9] and highdimensional CADROM parameterizations have already been successfully applied by the authors for even more complex aerodynamic [10] and multidisciplinary [11] optimization cases. However, this work focuses on the parameterization aspect itself and highlights potentials and shortcomings of the CADROM method.
First, the optimization process with its components and in particular the CADROM is introduced in Sect. 2. The description of the test case, a longrange transport aircraft configuration, and the problem setup is given in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, optimization results are presented to evaluate the potentials of applied methods with a special focus on the highdimensional CADROM performance. Outcomes are reviewed in Sect. 5, which also includes a brief introduction to future work.
2 Methods and tools
The section gives an overview of the trimmed aeroelastic optimization process and explains the tools involved in the underlined subsections.
The primal optimization process is drafted in Fig. 1. The process is driven by a gradientbased optimization algorithm which reduces the aerodynamic drag of an aircraft with respect to a set of shape design parameters.
The only constraints applied in the process are a balance of all forces and moments acting on the aircraft. This balance is enforced by a trim algorithm (Sect. 2.1) for each new design proposed by the optimization algorithm. Basically, the optimization algorithm treats an unconstrained problem and the trim algorithm ensures that each design is feasible by adapting the trim parameters. This requirement comes from the VicToria MDO architectures [11] which are using this process. For each trim iteration, at least one aeroelastic coupling iteration between the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and the Computational Structural Mechanics (CSM) domains is performed. The aeroelastic coupling starts with the deformation of the CFD mesh. Therefore, surface displacements coming from the shape parameterization (Sect. 2.2) and from the structural analysis are summed up on the boundaries of the CFD mesh. The boundary displacements are then propagated into the volume mesh (Sect.2.3). The following aerodynamic analysis is performed by a highfidelity CFD solver (Sect. 2.4). The aerodynamic loads are interpolated from the CFD to the CSM domain (Sect. 2.5) and act as boundary conditions for the structural analysis (Sect. 2.6). The obtained structural displacements are interpolated to the CFD domain and the next aeroelastic coupling iteration starts. The gradients are efficiently computed by the discrete adjoint approach [12, 13] using the differentiated parameterization and mesh deformation methods as well as the linearized CFD solver. Since the coupled aerostructural adjoint method introduced by Martins et al. [14] has not yet been integrated into this process, the gradients handed over to the optimization algorithm do not account for secondary effects representing the inherently coupled aeroelastic displacement response resulting from a design parameter change.
Both the primal and the adjoint workflows are embedded within FlowSimulator [15, 16], an environment for massively parallel multiphysics simulations. Its backbone is the FlowSimulator Data Manager, which allows for an efficient inmemory data exchange between DLR’s inhouse plugins, i.e. all tools except the structural solver.
The aforementioned connection to the VicToria MDO chains is indicated by the dotted lines in Fig. 1. The presented trimmed aeroelastic optimization process requires as input a presized structural model, which is constant in this exercise, but is regularly updated in an actual MDO workflow [17].
2.1 Trim algorithm
The trim algorithm employs Newton’s method for finding the roots of the force and moment balances accounting for aerodynamic loads, gravity forces and the engine thrust. The parameters are the angle of attack, the deflection angle of the Horizontal Tail Plane (HTP) and the thrust. The required Jacobian is updated by Broyden’s Bad Method and the convergence is improved using the Aitken method for accelerating vector sequences. A fast convergence of the trim algorithm is crucial for the optimization runtime, since each trim iteration involves several aeroelastic coupling iterations.
Since the optimization algorithm does not directly consider the trim constraints and parameters, the objective functional gradient is corrected as suggested by Merle et al. [18] to take into account the actions of the trim process.
2.2 Shape parameterization
The shape parameterization is based on an underlying CAD model, which is replaced during the optimization by a ROM. First, the preprocessing steps (Sects. 2.2.1, 2.2.2) which have to be carried out before the optimization is started are presented. Second, the online phase which generates displacement and geometric sensitivities (Sect. 2.2.3) and interpolates them onto the CFD domain (Sect. 2.2.4) is described.
2.2.1 CAD model and surface discretization
The shape parameterization starts with the creation of a fully parametric CAD model, as described by Ronzheimer [19]. The work was done with the commercial software package CATIA V5, but any other parametric CAD system could be used instead. The advantage of employing CATIA V5 is not only its powerful features, but also its popularity and acceptance in the aerospace industry which is supposed to make the CADROM approach more attractive to industrial designers. The CAD model was constructed by combining several CAD parts corresponding to main aircraft parts like wing, fuselage, empennage, etc. Each part is parameterized by a set of construction parameters. Large shape changes are defined by classic conceptual design parameters like aspect ratio, sweep, twist etc. Small shape changes are introduced by variations of Bspline control points defining for example airfoil and belly fairing sections. The designer is essentially free to define his parameterization of choice. All parameters are linked to socalled construction tables which can be externally provided. Besides displacement and sensitivity predictions, the CADROM should later on also be capable of providing geometric functionals such as fuel tank volume and roll and taxi clearances which are required in an MDO process. Therefore, the respective measurements are also defined within the CAD model.
The continuous CAD surfaces need to be discretized to extract later displacement fields as input for the CADROM generation. In contrast to the approach described by Bobrowski et al. where discretization points are distributed on surface intersections or additional section cuts directly within the CAD model, the present approach uses an additional meshing tool which produces a blockstructured surface mesh. A sufficiently dense surface mesh enables the resolution of even small geometric features, as demonstrated in the wingpylonjunction area in Fig. 2. The surface mesh is computed with the tool Ansys ICEM CFD Hexa, which requires the definition of a blocking strategy compatible with the underlying CAD model. The blockstructured method ensures a constant surface mesh topology which allows the tracking of displacements with respect to a design parameter change.
2.2.2 Reduced order model generation
During this phase the ROM is constructed by iteratively evaluating the CAD model following a Design of Experiment (DOE), assembling the snapshot matrix and then applying POD to this matrix based on all surface displacement fields. The necessary steps are:

1.
Generation of a DOE plan

2.
Sampling Data generation

3.
Extraction of displacement fields

4.
Generation of the PODbased ROM
The DOE plan is generated using DLR’s inhouse Surrogate Modeling for AeRo data Toolbox SMARTy [20] which supports different DOE algorithms such as Full Factorial Design, Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS), Sobol and Halton sequences. The bounds should cover the design space intended to be used during the optimization, since extrapolation may decrease the prediction accuracy of the obtained ROM. The DOE is executed by sweeping through the design tables and updating the CAD surfaces and the structured surface mesh according to each sample. After the sampling data generation, the CAD model is no longer needed, except when more samples are required, or when a new CADROM with different parameters or larger bounds is generated.
Next, a socalled snapshot matrix is constructed by concatenating all computed surface displacement fields. A POD basis is obtained by applying singular value decomposition to this snapshot matrix. Afterwards, displacement fields \(\Delta {\tilde{\user2{X}}}_S\) can be reconstructed according to
with \(\phi\) as the leftsingular vectors, n the number of valid DOE samples, D^{j} a design vector from the DOE plan and a(D^{j}) as POD coefficients corresponding to D^{j}. The influence of each POD mode onto the system behaviour is governed by the corresponding eigenvalue, also referred to as relative information content. Consequently, the POD subspace can be truncated to \(m < n\) modes by applying a predefined cutoff criterion. To represent the entire design space with the POD model, it is important that geometrical features, which may be nonlinear with respect to a variation of D, are covered by the DOE. An adequate resolution in each dimension and a uniform distribution of samples is therefore crucial.
2.2.3 Reduced order model evaluation
During the online phase, the CADROM is evaluated to provide surface displacements for a design vector which differs from the initial sampling points. Thus, displacement fields for arbitrary design parameters can be computed by interpolating the POD coefficients and multiplying them with the POD modes. Among the most common interpolation methods are Radial Basis Functions (RBF) with a Thin Plate Spline (TPS) kernel
The coefficients \(\gamma_j^i\) are chosen to match exactly the training data with the TPS function \(\varphi\). For the prediction of geometric sensitivities, i.e. the derivative of the surface displacements with respect to the design parameters, (1) and (2) are differentiated with respect to D.
An alternative to the interpolation of POD coefficients would be to use them directly as optimization parameters as successfully applied by Volpi et al. [21]. Since the handling of actual aircraft design parameters rather than abstract POD coefficients and their communication with other disciplines in an MDO context seems more intuitive, the interpolationbased approach has been followed in this work.
Note that more advanced interpolation techniques such as Kriging have shown superior results in various other ROM applications and might yield even more accurate results than the herein pursued RBFbased technique.
2.2.4 Process integration
The CAD software can be fully replaced by the steps described in the previous subsection and is out of the loop during the optimization phase. The final integration of the CADROM into the optimization process requires an interpolation of the displacement or geometric sensitivity predictions given on the structured surface mesh onto the boundaries of the mesh representing the CFD domain. Therefore, the same interpolation method is used as for aeroelastic coupling. The additional error related to this mesh interpolation has not been evaluated in detail in this work, since it showed to be at least 1–2 orders of magnitude smaller than the error introduced by the CADROM prediction. By integrating the mesh interpolation into the online phase, remeshing could be done during the optimization without the need to regenerate the CADROM.
A few features have been included in the CADROM implementation to make its application more convenient for optimization. Thus, it is possible to load several ROMs built using the same blockstructured surface mesh and to return a linear superposition of displacements or sensitivities according to a list of input design vectors. This feature is based on the underlying assumption that the CAD software acts approximately linear with respect to changes of design parameters. The option was introduced to merge design spaces in case CADROMs were built for different sets of design parameters in the preprocessing phase. Furthermore, it is also possible to get predictions from input values relative to the baseline and for design vectors which are defined only on a subspace of the design space spanned by the CADROM. Values on missing dimensions are automatically replaced by values from the baseline geometry. To support these additional features, it is necessary that the CADROM parameterization interface is initialized with the baseline vectors.
2.3 Mesh deformation
The employed mesh deformation tool is based on the theory of linear Elasticity Analogy (EA) as described by Stein et al. [22]. The mesh is modeled as an elastic solid with a variable Young’s modulus which is reciprocal to the volume of the local mesh element in the baseline mesh. Small elements are artificially stiffened and basically perform a rigid body motion, whereas large elements absorb the deformation. As the applied displacements are relatively small, it is sufficient to linearly approximate the model. The resulting linear elasticity equations are discretized by an FiniteElement Method (FEM) and solved on the baseline mesh for each optimization, trim or aeroelastic iteration.
Since the problem is selfadjoint, the implementation of the EA method for computing the final shape sensitivities is straightforward, as proposed by Nielsen and Park [23].
2.4 Aerodynamic analysis
The Flow is computed by means of the finitevolume RANS method TAU [24] developed at DLR. The negative extension of the Spalart–Allmaras (SAneg) turbulence model is used for this process. The compressible steadystate flow is computed in fully turbulent conditions on unstructured mediandual grids. The secondorder accurate discretization is based on a matrixdissipative central convection scheme and GreenGauss gradients for the viscous flux. The discretized set of equations governing the transport of mass, momentum, energy and the SAneg transport variable are solved by virtue of an agglomeration multigrid method based on the full approximation scheme (FAS). Several implicitEuler relaxation steps are applied on every grid level. The corresponding linear problems are treated by a symmetric forward–backward Gauss–Seidel (LUSGS) iteration.
For employing the discrete adjoint method in in TAU, the residual of the secondorder accurate flow discretization is fully linearized with respect to the conservative flow variables including the turbulence model. The adjointresidual terms corresponding to the remotestencil terms of the secondorder discretization are reconstructed in two passes, so that the memory requirements of the discreteadjoint method are similar to the nonlinear flow solver. The discrete adjoint RANS problem is solved with a GMRES method, preconditioned by the linear counterpart to the FAS multigrid method. Multigrid smoothing, in turn, was performed by the implicitEuler method, wherein the transpose of the primal LUSGS operator is applied. More details are provided by the work of Stück [25].
2.5 Load and displacement transfer
The load and displacement transfer are based on a Moving Least Squares (MLS) interpolation method, originally proposed by Lancaster and Salkauskas [26]. It is a meshfree approach which first constructs local polynomial fits and then assembles them continuously over the whole domain by generating a global MLS interpolation matrix. Data on given target points is forced to be interpolated. The method is by built conservative and since the MLS matrix is used for displacement and its transpose for loads transfer also consistent in the context of aeroelastic coupling.
2.6 Structural analysis
The structural analysis is performed by the commercial software package MLS Nastran. The tool performs a linear static analysis by solving a linear system assembled from an FEMbased discretization of the structural model. Besides the structural displacements, the tool also computes the aircraft’s total mass and centre of gravity, both required to set up the balance of forces and moments for trimming.
3 Test case description
The section describes the aircraft to be optimized and details relevant settings and criteria applied for the optimization. The chosen wing section parameterization is presented and an evaluation of the CADROM prediction error for this specific parameterization is carried out.
3.1 Aerodynamic and structural models
The test object used in this study is a generic multidisciplinary research test case representing a typical configuration for a modern long range wide body aircraft. The aerodynamic analysis is performed with flowthrough nacelles and the thrust is modeled by scalable force vectors aligned with the engine axis, see Fig. 3.
Mesh convergence studies as a verification method for highfidelity aerodynamic analysis is often neglected in aerodynamic or aeroelastic shape optimization. Nevertheless, it is a crucial part of the work to increase trust in the applied methods and finally in the optimization result. Therefore, trimmed aeroelastic analysis has been performed on a family of five continuously refined CFD meshes. Since the geometry and the considered maneuvers are symmetric, only one half of the CFD domain has been meshed. The number of mesh points and of assigned computational cores per mesh level are listed in Table 1. The convergence criteria for trimming, aeroelastic coupling and for the flow solver were set as described in Sect. 3.3. Figure 4 shows a continuous reduction of the cruise drag over the refinement levels relative to the L1 value. The computational effort for the L4 and L5 meshes was found to be already high for optimization purposes and the difference in drag with respect to the coarser L3 level is not significant. Therefore, it was decided to perform the optimization only on the L1–3 mesh levels.
The runtimes in Fig. 4 are substantially improved in the optimization using restart solutions for the aerodynamic analysis on equal mesh levels and better initial guesses for the trim parameters and structural displacements.
The structural model represents the loadbearing components of the entire aircraft by FEM shell elements which are internally connected by Rigid Body Elements (RBE), see Fig. 5. Since only wing and empennage boxes are modeled, additional RBEs are placed at the wing and at the horizontal and vertical tail plane leading and trailing edges to improve the load and displacement transfer. Aluminum was chosen as structural material. Furthermore, the structural model also includes distributed payload, secondary masses and fuel masses. The model was presized for the baseline outer shape by accounting for several hundreds of load cases.
3.2 Wing section parameterization
The parameterization for this test case is defined by 9 upper and 9 lower Bspline control points on 7 wing sections along the wing span, as shown in Fig. 6. The control points are free to move in vertical direction which results in 126 degrees of freedom. The bounds are set to ± 1% local chord length allowing for maximal displacements of about ± 11 cm. Parameter bounds of control points close to the trailing edge are more restrictive to avoid surface intersections. Bspline control points directly at the leading and trailing edges are fully fixed. Hence, the twist distribution is constant.
To train the CADROM, a Sobol sequence with 3000 samples was defined for the introduced 126dimensional design space. The run times per sample for CATIA V5 and Ansys ICEM CFD Hexa were about 1.2 min and 0.2 min, respectively. This enabled the computation of around 1000 samples per day. The displacement fields were extracted from a 30,000nodes structural surface mesh and a cutoff of 99.999999% of the relative energy was used to reduce the number of POD modes from 3.000 to 1.704, since retaining more modes did not enhance the prediction accuracy for this particular case. Only the TPS method turned out to be feasible for interpolating the POD coefficients with a turnaround time of around 8 min on a 16 core compute node of DLR’s HPC system CASE. As mentioned in Sect. 2.2.3, Kriging interpolation is assumed to show more accurate results. However, interpolating the given number of reduced POD coefficients would have taken several weeks. The tested implementation of the Kriging interpolation is only partly shared memory parallelized and treats each output variable separately. The associated hyperparameter optimization and the necessity to invert the correlation matrix for each POD coefficient were detected as show stoppers. In consequence, this approach revealed to be inapplicable due to extremely high runtimes, even if using more computational resources.
As aforementioned, the CADROM prediction error is related to the number of samples used for training. To measure this relation, two additional CADROMs were built using only the first 1000 and 2000 samples of the Sobol sequence. The maximal error for parameterization displacements was computed by predicting additional 100 validation samples which have been generated using an LHS strategy. Figure 7 shows that the PODbased prediction improves quickly with the number of samples used for training, whereas the additional POD coefficient interpolation by TPS dominates the final error.
Note that for the POD predictions, the globally optimal POD coefficients are computed by projecting the given displacements of the validation samples onto the POD basis rather than using an interpolation algorithm. For the CADROM built with 3000 training samples, the maximal displacement prediction error (including POD and TPS inaccuracies) is about 34.2% of the maximal allowed bound variation and does not seem to decrease by adding more training samples. These relatively high values are only problematic when it comes to rebuild the optimal design in the CAD system by feeding it with the optimization result. Since the displacement fields are smooth and the corresponding geometric sensitivities are consistent, the CADROM method is well suited for optimization, as demonstrated in Sect. 4.
To enable HTP rotation for trimming, a second CADROM containing only HTP deflection as design parameter was built. Since the same structural surface mesh was used as for the wing section parameterization CADROM, superposition of displacement predictions as described in Sect. 2.2.4 is applied.
3.3 Problem setup
The aircraft drag is optimized for the cruise mission at Mach 0.83 and 38,000 ft. Full payload and a fuel mass of 15% maximal takeoff weight are assumed.
A sequential quadratic programming method which reduces to a Newton’s method for an unconstraint problem is used to drive the optimization process. The L^{2} norm of TAU’s density residual is converged by 6 orders of magnitude. A fixed number of 3 aeroelastic coupling iterations is performed per trim iteration and a constant relaxation factor of 0.7 is applied to each aeroelastic displacement update. The trim tolerances are set to 0.1 force or moment counts for the full equilibrium state. By that, the aerodynamic drag can be evaluated with an accuracy of approximately ± 0.1 drag counts.
To investigate the effect of refined meshes on the optimization result, it was decided to perform a consecutive optimization on the three mesh levels.
4 Optimization results
The optimization history is plotted in Fig. 8. It shows that a significant drag reduction of around 6% (relative to the L3 baseline value) is achieved already on the coarsest mesh level and that the transfers to finer levels come with only little losses on the aerodynamic improvement. The three optimizations took around 5, 7 and 6 days respectively. All optimization iterations are feasible regarding the trim constraints and the process proved to be extremely robust with no crashes occurring.
Figure 9 shows the primary source of the drag reduction. For the transonic cruise flow conditions, the baseline geometry produces a strong shock wave on the upper wing surface. The shock region starts around the kink section and propagates down to the tip. This causes a relatively high wave drag. By locally adapting the wing sections, the sharp shock is softened and as a consequence, the wave drag reduces. The thrust scaling is reduced which is in a good agreement with the decrease in drag. The negative HTP deflection angle indicates that the center of gravity has not been defined in an ideal position already for the baseline design. This should not be considered as a deficit of the process, but rather as boundary condition for the present optimization. Results are expected to be more realistic with the VicToria MDO architectures, since these also include preliminary design tools accounting for proper mass distributions.
A secondary source for the efficiency improvement can be associated to small changes in the aerodynamic wing loading, as can be seen in Fig. 10. The lift distribution on the wing tip region gets closer to the ideal elliptic case which causes the lowest amount of induced drag. By setting the wing section twist angles as additional optimization parameters, this effect is expected to be further exploited. The loading on the inner wing is decreased to reduce the engine installation drag. In total, the wing produces less lift, but this is mainly compensated by the fuselage due to the increased angle of attack.
Figure 11 shows how the optimization algorithm adapted the wing to reduce the drag. First, it can be seen that the defined parameter bounds were chosen to be sufficiently large, since the maximal obtained displacements are for the most sections approximately half as big as the allowed values. One of the main geometrical changes is the reduction of the wing leading edge radius over the entire wing span and a thickening of the rear inboard wing region.
The maximal CADROM displacement prediction error for the optimal L3 shape was found to be around 7 mm. It is located on the lower wing side in the center of the root wing section. This is the section which has the lowest sampling resolution relative to the maximal allowed displacements. To evaluate the impact of this geometric error on the aerodynamic performance, the design parameters corresponding to the L3 optimum have been exported to the CAD system. The CAD model was updated, remeshed and a trimmed aeroelastic analysis was performed which showed that the drag improvement reduced from 6.0 to 3.9%. This indicates that at least for a retransfer of the optimal shape to the CAD system, the POD coefficient interpolation error still needs to be improved.
5 Conclusions
We have presented an adjointbased aeroelastic shape optimization process for a trimmed aircraft configuration using a CADROM parametrization, a mesh deformation method based on the linear EA method, the highfidelity RANS solver TAU, the FEM solver Nastran and an MLS interpolation scheme for consistent and conservative load and displacement transfer. The process was integrated within the efficient HPC environment FlowSimulator.
We found that the process successfully reduced the cruise drag of a modern transport aircraft by about 6% by adapting 126 Bspline control points defining spanwise distributed wing sections. The significant aerodynamic efficiency gain was tracked back to reasonable effects and could be verified on a series of three continuously refined meshes.
A focus of this work was on the applied CADROM method which substituted a highdimensional parametric CAD model by a PODbased ROM during the optimization process. Detailed analysis of the CADROM revealed that the displacement prediction error was mainly due to the applied POD coefficient interpolation technique which is currently TPSbased and not due to the subspace approximation inherently linked to the truncated POD. It was also observed that the POD accuracy increased with the number of samples used for training, whereas the overall prediction accuracy including the TPS interpolation remained approximately constant. A reanalysis of the true CAD representation of the optimal design vector showed that the drag improvement achieved in the optimization is smaller by 2.1 percentage points.
In future studies, we intend to enhance the process by enabling the aeroelastic shape optimization of a powered engine configuration and to extend the current aerodynamic adjoint method to a coupled aerostructural adjoint approach to account for fully consistent gradients. Furthermore, we plan to conduct further testing on the CADROM approach to evaluate the method in detail for different parameter types, numbers and bounds. Also, our implementation of the hyperparameteroptimized Kriging interpolation of POD coefficients is currently improved to deal with the problem complexity within a feasible time frame and to further reduce the overall prediction error.
Data Availability
Because of confidentiality agreements with industrial partners, the supporting aircraft model data can only be made available to researchers subject to a nondisclosure agreement. For details of the data and how to request access please contact the corresponding author.
References
Slotnick, J., Khodadoust, A., Alonso, J., Darmofal, D., Gropp, W., Lurie, E., Mavriplis, D.: CFD vision 2030 study: a path to revolutionary computational aerosciences (2013)
Kroll, N., AbuZurayk, M., Dimitrov, D., Franz, T., Führer, T., Gerhold, T., Görtz, S., Heinrich, R., Ilic, C., Jepsen, J., Jägersküpper, J., Kruse, M., Krumbein, A., Langer, S., Liu, D., Liepelt, R., Reimer, L., Ritter, M., Schwöppe, A., Scherer, J., Spiering, F., Thormann, R., Togiti, V., Vollmer, D., Wendisch, J.H.: DLR project digitalX: towards virtual aircraft design and flight testing based on highfidelity methods. CEAS Aeronaut. J. 7(1), 3–27 (2016)
Banović, M., Mykhaskiv, O., Auriemma, S., Walther, A., Legrand, H., Müller, J.D.: Algorithmic differentiation of the Open CASCADE technology CAD kernel and its coupling with an adjoint CFD solver. Optim. Methods Softw. 33(4–6), 813–828 (2018)
Guénot, D., Gallard, F., Brézillon, J., Mérillac, Y.: Aerodynamic optimisation of a parametrised engine pylon on a mission path using the adjoint method. Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 33(6–7), 289–301 (2019)
Agarwal, D., Robinson, T.T., Armstrong, C.G., Marques, S., Vasilopoulos, I., Meyer, M.: Parametric design velocity computation for CADbased design optimization using adjoint methods. Eng. Comput. 34(2), 225–239 (2018)
Bobrowski, K., Ferrer, E., Valero, E., Barnewitz, H.: Aerodynamic shape optimization using geometry surrogates and adjoint method. AIAA J. 55(10), 3304–3317 (2017)
Stannard, A.: Efficiency improvements to adjointbased aeroelastic optimisations using a trimcorrected and hybrid mesh deformation strategy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sheffield (2022)
Olivanti, R., Brézillon, J.: On the benefits of engaging coupledadjoint to perform highfidelity multipoint aircraft shape optimization. In: AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, p. 3072 (2021)
Merle, A., Ilic, C., AbuZurayk, M., Häßy, J., Becker, R.G., Schulze, M., Klimmek, T.: Highfidelity adjointbased aircraft shape optimization with aeroelastic trimming and engine coupling. In: EUROGEN 2019, Guimarães, Portugal
AbuZurayk, M., Merle, A., Ilic, C., Keye, S., Goertz, S., Schulze, M., Hartmann, J.: Sensitivitybased multifidelity multidisciplinary optimization of a powered aircraft subject to a comprehensive set of loads. In: AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum, p. 3168
Ilic, C., AbuZurayk, M., Wunderlich, T., Jepsen, J., Schulze, M., Leitner, M., Schuster, A., Dähne, S., Petsch, M., Becker, R.G., Zur, S.A., Gottfried, S.: Overview of collaborative high performance computingbased MDO of transport aircraft in the DLR project VicToria. Deutscher Luft und Raumfahrtkongress (DLRK), Friedrichshafen, Germany (Sept. 2018)
Lions, J.L.: Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations. Springer, New York (1971). Translated by S.K. Mitter.
Jameson, A.: Aerodynamic design via control theory. J. Sci. Comput. 3(3), 233–260 (1988)
Martins, J.R.R.A., Alonso, J.J., Reuther, J.J.: Aerostructural wing design optimization using highfidelity sensitivity analysis. In: CEAS Conference on Multidisciplinary Aircraft Design and Optimization, Köln, Germany (June 2001)
Meinel, M., Einarsson, G.O.: The FlowSimulator framework for massively parallel CFD applications. In: PARA 2010—State of the Art in Scientific and Parallel Computing, Reykjavik, Iceland (June 2010)
Reimer, L.: The FlowSimulator—a software framework for CFDrelated multidisciplinary simulations. In: European NAFEMS Conference: CFD—Beyond the Solve, Munich, Germany (Dec. 2015)
Klimmek, T., Bach, T., Dähne, S., Jepsen, J., Kier, T., Kohlgrüber, D., Leitner, M., Petsch, M., Schulze, M., Schuster, A.: Overall Aircraft Design Synthesis, Loads Analysis, and Structural Optimization—Parameterized Disciplinary Subprocesses within High FidelityBased Overall Aircraft MDO. Deutscher Luft und Raumfahrtkongress (DLRK). Friedrichshafen, London (2018)
Merle, A., Stück, A., Rempke, A.: An adjointbased aerodynamic shape optimization strategy for trimmed aircraft with active engines. In: 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Denver, CO (June 2017)
Ronzheimer, A.: CAD centric aircraft design. In: 7th European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ECFD 7), ECCOMAS, Glasgow, UK (Jun. 2018)
Volpi, S., Diez, M., Stern, F.: Multidisciplinary design optimization of a 3D composite hydrofoil via variable accuracy architecture. In: 19th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, Atlanta, GA (June 2018)
Bekemeyer, P., Bertram, A., Hines Chaves, D.A., Dias Ribeiro, M., Garbo, A., Kiener, A., Hoffmann, N.: Datadriven aerodynamic modeling using the DLR SMARTy toolbox. In: AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, p. 3899 (2022)
Stein, K., Tezduyar, T.E., Benney, R.: Mesh moving techniques for fluidstructure interactions with large displacements. J. Appl. Mech. 70(1), 58–63 (2003)
Nielsen, E.J., Park, M.A.: Using an adjoint approach to eliminate mesh sensitivities in computational design. AIAA J. 44(5), 948–953 (2006)
Kroll, N., Langer, S., Schwöppe, A.: The DLR flow solver TAU—status and recent algorithmic developments. In: 52th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, National Harbor, MD (Jan. 2014)
Stück, A.: An adjoint view on flux consistency and strong wall boundary conditions to the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Comput. Phys. 301, 247–264 (2015)
Lancaster, P., Salkauskas, K.: Surfaces generated by moving least squares methods. Math. Comput. 37(55), 141–158 (1981)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our colleagues Thomas Klimmek and Matthias Schulze from the DLR Institute of Aeroelasticity for providing the structural model used in this work. Last, we would like to pay our gratitude and our respects to Arno Ronzheimer. After significantly contributing to this project by implementing the parametric CAD model and the corresponding automated surface meshing, Arno Ronzheimer passed away in June 2018. His enthusiasm for aircraft design and his good nature will always be remembered.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Merle, A., Bekemeyer, P., Görtz, S. et al. Adjoint highdimensional aircraft shape optimization using a CADROM parameterization. CEAS Aeronaut J 14, 729–738 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272023006603
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272023006603