Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: Designed by Computer

Chapter

Abstract

Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) has been a field of research for 25 years. It refers to the formulation of the design problem in mathematical models and applying optimization techniques to find the minimum or maximum of a predefined objective function, possibly subject to a set of constraints. MDO has become an important tool in concurrent engineering (CE), with the ability to handle many design variables (DV) across various disciplines. Advances in computer technologies and software engineering have facilitated the practical application of MDO in industry, including aerospace, automotive, shipbuilding, etc. However, active research and development in MDO continues. The creative input of the human designer to the design process is critical and must be integrated in the MDO process. For MDO to be effective in the design of modern complex systems it must also incorporate non-technical disciplines, such as finance, environment, operational support, etc. It remains a challenge to do model them with adequate fidelity. Simulations and analytical models have imbedded assumptions, inaccuracies and approximations. How do we deal with these in an MDO environment? This chapter gives an introduction to MDO with an historical review, a discussion on available numerical optimization methods each with their specific features, the various MDO architectures and decompositions and two case studies where MDO has been applied successfully.

Keywords

Multidiscplinary design optimization Complex systems Concurrent engineering MDO architectures Optimization methods 

References

  1. 1.
    de Weck O, Willcox K (2010) Multidisciplinary system design optimization. MIT ESD.77/16.888Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloebaum CL (2013) The role of MDO in the design for complex engineered systems (DCES). In: 9th MDO specialist conference, 11 Apr 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuhmacher G (2008) Numerical optimization methods in the aerospace design process—civil and military applications and benefits. In: 2nd European hyperWorks technology conference, Strasbourg, France, 30 Sept–1 Oct 2008Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo J, Guadagni L (2012) Multidisciplinary design optimization for concurrent engineering of space systems. In: SECESA2012, Lisbon, 17–19 Oct 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neufeld D, Chung J, Kamaran B (2008) Development of a flexible MDO architecture for aircraft conceptual design. In: EngOpt 2008—international conference on engineering optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1–5 June 2008Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campana EF et al (2009) New global optimization methods for ship design problems. Optim Eng (2009) 10:533–555. doi: 10.1007/s11081-009-9085-3
  7. 7.
    Di Pasquale E, Gielczynski G (2010) Multi-disciplinary optimization of railways systems. In: International conference on integrated design and manufacturing in mechanical engineering, Bordeaux, France, 20–22 Oct 2010Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breitkopf P, Filomeno Coelho R (eds) (2010) Multidisciplinary design optimization in computational Mechanics. Wiley, New York, ISBN 978-1-84821-138-4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiani M et al (2013) Surrogate-based optimization of automotive structures under multiple crash and vibration design criteria. Int J Crashworthiness 18(5):473–482CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bérend N, Bertrand S (2009) MDO Approach for early design of aerobraking orbital transfer vehicles. Acta Astronaut 65:1668–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoofs AJG (1993) Structural optimization history and state-of-the-art, topics in applied mechanics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 339–345Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmit LA (1960) Structural design by systematic synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on electronic computation, ASCE, New York, pp 105–132Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkayya VB (1978) Structural optimization: a review and some recommendations. Int J Numer Meth Eng 13:203–228. doi: 10.1002/nme.1620130202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Serna1 A, Bucher C (2009) Advanced surrogate models for multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 8th Weimar Optimization and Stochastic DaysGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boussouf L (2011) Surrogate based optimization for multidisciplinary design. In: SAE aerospace technology conference, Toulouse, France, 18–21 Oct 2011Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nocedal J, Wright SJ (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer Science + Business Media, New York, ISBN-13: 978-0387-30303-1Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venter G (2010) Review of optimization techniques, encyclopedia of aerospace engineering. Wiley Ltd, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roy R, Hinduja SH, Teti R (2008) Recent advances in engineering design optimization: challenges and future trends. CIRP Ann Manufact Technol 57(2008):697–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waziruddin S, Brogan DC, Reynolds Jr PF (2004) Coercion through optimization: a classification of optimization techniques. In: 2004 fall simulation interoperability workshop, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moldoveanu G, Abaluta O (2009) Multidisciplinary optimization in urban services management. Theor Empirical Res Urban Manage 1(10)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee HJ, Lee JW, Lee JO (2009) Development of web services-based multidisciplinary design optimization framework. Adv Eng Softw 40:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schittkowski K, Yuan Y (2007) Sequential quadratic programming methods. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. doi: 10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0984
  23. 23.
    Boggs PT, Tolle JW (1995) Sequential quadratic programming. Acta Numer 4:1–51CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lasdon LS, Fox RL, Ratner MW (1973) Nonlinear optimization using the generalized reduced gradient method. In: Office of naval research, technical memorandum no. 32Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michalewicz Z, Janikow CZ (1991) Genetic algorithms for numerical optimization. Stat Comput 1(2):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fernandes de Oliveira R et al (2008) Genetic optimization applied in conceptual and preliminary aircraft design. In: XVII Congresso e Exposição Internacionais da Tecnologia da Mobilidade, São Paulo, Brasil, 7–9 Oct 2008Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hart CG, Vlahopoulos N (2009) Integrating a particle swarm optimizer in a multi-discipline design optimization environment for conceptual ship design. In: SAE world congress and exhibition, Detroit, MI, 20–23 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schutte JF et al (2004) Parallel global optimization with the particle swarm algorithm. Int J Numer Meth Eng 61(13):2183–2387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peri D, Fasanoy G, Dessi D, Campana EF (2008) Global optimization algorithms in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Victoria, Canada, 10–12 Sept 2008Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strobbe T, Pauwels P, Verstraeten R, De Meyer R (2011) Metaheuristics in architecture. Int J Sustain Constr Des 2(2):190, ISSN 2032-7471Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gonzalez LF, Periaux J, Srinivas K, Whitney EJ (2004) Evolutionary optimization tools for multi-objective design in aerospace engineering: from theory to MDO applications. In: Evolutionary algorithms and intelligent tools in engineering optimization, CIMNE, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Depince P, Guedas B, Picard J (2007) Multidisciplinary and multiobjective optimization: comparison of several methods. In: 7th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Seoul, 21–25 May 2007Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kesseler E, van Kan WJ (2006) Multidisciplinary design analysis and multi-objective optimization applied to aircraft wing. In: National aerospace laboratory NLR, NLR-TP-2006-748Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marler RT, Arora JS (2004) Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. J Struct Multi Optim 26:369–395CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li M (2007) Robust optimization and sensitivity analysis with multi-objective genetic algorithms: single- and multi-disciplinary applications. PhD thesis, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Bleuler S (2004) A tutorial on evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimization, vol 535. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17144-4_1
  37. 37.
    Yang F, Bouchlaghem D (2010) Genetic algorithm-based multiobjective optimization for building design. Archit Eng Des Manage 6:68–82. doi: 10.3763/aedm.2008.0077 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fantini P (2007) Effective multiobjective MDO for conceptual aircraft design—an aircraft design perspective. PhD thesis, Cranfield UniversityGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pierret S (2005) Multi-objective and multi-disciplinary optimization of three-dimensional turbomachinery blades. In: 6th world congresses of structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 May–3 June 2005Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salas AO, Townsend JC (1998) Framework requirements for MDO application development. In: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, St. Louis, MO, 2–4 Sept 1998Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Manolache F, Costiner S (2002) Parallel processing approaches for multi-disciplinary optimization algorithms. Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Center for Nonlinear AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gould N, Orban D, Toint P (2005) Numerical methods for large-scale nonlinear optimization. Acta Numer 14:299–361CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martins JRRA, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cramer EJ et al (1993) Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. In: AIAA symposium of multidisciplanary design optimizationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mainini L, Maggiore P (2012) Multidisciplinary integrated framework for the optimal design of a jet aircraft wing. Int J Aerosp Eng 2012(750642):9, doi: 10.1155/2012/750642
  46. 46.
    Ajmera HC, Mujumdar PM, Sudhakar K (2004) MDO architectures for coupled aerodynamic and structural optimization of a flexible wing. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, Palm Springs, CA, 19–22 Apr 2004Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Barthelemy JF (1985) Improving Engineering system design by formal decomposition, sensitivity analysis, and optimization. In: NASA technical memorandum 86377Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) multidisciplinary design optimization—some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1/2):3–22Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1990) Sensitivity analysis and multidisciplinary optimization for aircraft design: recent advances and results. AIAA J Aircr 27(12):993–1001Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kroo I, Manning V (2000) Collaborative optimization: status and directions. In: 8th AIAA/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA, 6–8 Sept 2000Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Braun RD, Kroo IM (1995) Development and application of the collaborative optimization architecture in a multidisciplinary design environment. In: Proceedings of the ICASE/NASA langley workshop on multidisciplinary design optimization, Hampton, VA, 13–16 Mar 1995Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Du X, Chen W (2001) A hierarchical approach to collaborative multidisciplinary robust design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Braun RD, Gage P, Kroo I, Sobieski I (1996) Implementation and performance issues of collaborative optimization. NASA/TM-2004-213192Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Simpson TW, Martins JRRA (2011) Multidisciplinary design optimization for complex engineered systems: report from a national science foundation workshop. J Mech Des 133(10):101002. doi: 10.1115/1.4004465
  55. 55.
    Ryan A (2007) A Multidisciplinary approach to complex systems design. In: PhD thesis, University of AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sobieski J (2010) A Perspective on the state of multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO). In: Workshop on MDO, Fort Worth, 16 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka RT (1995) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. In: 34th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibition, Reno, NV, 15–18 Jan 1995Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Peri D, Fasanoy G, Dessi D, Campana EF (2008) Global optimization algorithms in multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Victoria, Canada, 10–12 Sept 2008Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schuhmacher G, Murra I, Wang L, Laxander A et al. (2002) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a regional aircraft wing box. In: 9th AIAA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Atlanta, GA, 4–6 Sept 2002Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Simpson TW, Martins JRRA (2012) Advancing the design of complex engineered systems through multidisciplinary design optimization. In: NSF workshop, 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 23–26 Apr 2012Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kolonay RM (2014) A physics-based distributed collaborative design process for military aerospace vehicle development and technology assessment. Int J Agile Syst Manage 7(3/4):242–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van Tooren M, La Rocca G (2008) Systems engineering and multi-disciplinary design optimization. In: Curran R et al (eds) Collaborative product and service life cycle management for a sustainable world. Proceedings of the 15th ISPE international conference on concurrent engineering. Springer, London, pp 401–415Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sobolewski M (2014) Unifying front-end and back-end federated services for integrated product development. In: Cha J et al (eds) Moving integrated product development to service clouds in global economy. Proceedings of the 21st ISPE Inc. international conference on concurrent engineering. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ottino A, Ghodous P, Ladjal H, Shariat B, Figay N (2014) Interoperability of simulation applications for dynamic network enterprises based on cloud computing—aeronautics application. In: Cha J et al (eds) Moving integrated product development to service clouds in global economy. Proceedings of the 21st ISPE Inc. international conference on concurrent engineering. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 597–606Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations