Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation of Unmanned

Aerial Vehicles (UAV) using Multi-Criteria

Evolutionary Algorithms
Eleventh Australian International Aerospace Congress 13-17 March , Melbourne Convention Centre and
Australian International Airshow 2005 at Avalon Airport Design November 15-19, 2004
L. F. Gonzlez,
E. J. Whitney, K. Srinivas, K.C Wong
The University of Sydney, Australia
J. Priaux
Dassault Aviation Pole Scientifique, INRIA
Sophia Antipolis, OPALE project associate
OUTLINE
Introduction
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV/UCAV) Design
Requirements

The need and requirements for a Multidisciplinary
Design Optimsation Framework in Aeronautics

Theory
Evolution Algorithms (EAs).
Multidisciplinary Multi-objective Design
Hierarchical Asynchronous Evolutionary Algorithm
(HAPEA).

Applications: UAV Design

Conclusions


OUTLINE
UAVDESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Use and development of UAV for military
and civilian applications is rapidly
increasing.

Similar to the manned aircraft the challenge
is to develop trade-off studies of optimal
configurations to produce a high
performance aircraft that satisfy the mission
requirements.

UAV systems are ever increasingly
becoming important topics for aerospace
research and industrial institutions.

There are difficulties in these new concepts
because of the compromising nature of the
missions to be performed, like high-- or
medium--altitude surveillance, combat
environments (UCAV) and many others.

Multi-missions
highmedium--
altitude surveillance
High
Performance
Complex trade-
offs
Optimization-Optimal Solution(S)
Pareto optimal
Surface of UAV,
UAV
MDO Complex Task - UAV -Example
Multiple Goals Minimise-Maximise
Purchase Price
Aerodynamic
Performance
Takeoff weight
Multiple Disciplines
Structures
Fight Controls
Aero acoustics
Propulsion
Sensors
Aero elasticity
Aerodynamics
Search Space Large
Multimodal
Non-Convex
Discontinuous
Post-Processing
Visualization tools
Multi-objective, trade-
off
WHY A FRAMEWORK FOR MDO?
in-house/ commercial solvers-
inaccessible modification
Optimisation
Multiple Disciplines
Parallel Computing
A software system to integrate and evaluate
different complexities of MDO is required
REQUIREMENTS FOR A MO-MDO FRAMEWORK
Robust Optimisation methods
(Global solutions, handle noise, complex
functions, ease of integration of legacy
codes CFD-FEA- black-boxes).

Problem formulation and execution
(Automatic movement of data, parallel
Processing heterogeneous computers).

Architectural design and information access
(GUI, object oriented, no-overhead on
optimization, easily extended, database-
management, post-processing, visualization
capabilities, fault tolerance mechanisms)
Data Data
GUI
Aerofoil
Design
MSES, XFOIL
NSC2ke
Wing Design
FLO22
CalculiX
Aircraft Design
FLOPS , ADA
Nozzle
Design
HDASS
Mathematical
Test
Functions
GUI
Design of Experiments

Optimisation
EA Optimiser
Gradient Based
Optimiser
Parallel Computing
MPI PVM
Analysis Modules
RSM Kriging
Post-Processor
Propeller
Design

Mesh generator
MDO FRAMEWORK
Traditional Gradient Based
methods for MDO might fail
if search space is:

Advanced Optimisation Tools:
Evolutionary Optimisation
Crossover
Mutation
Fittest
Evolution
ROBUST AND EFFICIENT OPTIMISATION
TOOLS
Large
Multimodal
Non-Convex
Many Local Optimum
Discontinuous

Good for all of the above
Easy to paralellise
Robust towards noise
Explore larger search spaces
Good for multi-objective problems

EVOLUTION ALGORITHMS
What are EAs.
There are many evolutionary methods and
algorithms.

The complex task of MDO requires .
Crossover
Mutation
Fittest
Evolution
Based on the Darwinian theory of
evolution populations of
individuals evolve and reproduce
by means of mutation and
crossover operators and compete
in a set environment for survival
of the fittest.

A Robust and efficient evolutionary optimisation
method.
DRAWBACK OF EVOLUTIONARY
ALGORITHMS
A typical MDO problem relies on CFD and FEA for
aerodynamic and structural analysis.
CFD/FEA Computation are time
consuming
Our research addresses these issue in
some detail
Evolution process is time consuming/ high number of
function evaluations are required.
Hierarchical Asynchronous Parallel Evolutionary
Algorithms (HAPEA)
ROBUST OPTIMISATION METHODS
Multi-objective Parallel Evolutionary
Algorithm

Hierarchical Topology

Asynchronous Approach


Features of the Method:
Our Contribution..
MULTI-OBJ ECTIVE OPTIMISATION (1)
Aeronautical design problems normally
require a simultaneous optimisation of
conflicting objectives and associated number
of constraints. They occur when two or more
objectives that cannot be combined rationally.
For example:

Drag at two different values of lift.
Drag and thickness.
Pitching moment and maximum lift.
Best to let the designer choose after the optimisation
phase.
Maximise/ Minimise
Subjected to
constraints
Objective functions, output (e.g. cruise efficiency).

x: vector of design variables, inputs (e.g. aircraft/wing geometry)

g(x) equality constraints and h(x) inequality constraints: (e.g.
element von Mises stresses); in general these are nonlinear
functions of the design variables.

( ) N i x f
i
... 1 =
( )
( ) K k x h
N j x g
k
i
... 1 0
... 1 0
= s
= =
( ) x f
i
MULTI-OBJ ECTIVE OPTIMISATION (2)
F
2
F
1
Pareto Optimal Front
Non-Dominated
Dominated
Feasible region
Infeasible region
A set of solutions that are
non-dominated w.r.t all
others points in the
search space, or that
they dominate every
other solution in the
search space except
fellow members of the
Pareto optimal set.
PARETO OPTIMAL SET

EAs work on population
based solutions can
find a optimal Pareto set
in a single run


HIERARCHICAL TOPOLOGY-
MULTIPLE MODELS
Model 1
precise model
Model 2
intermediate
model
Model 3
approximate
model
Exploration
Exploitation

We use a technique that finds optimum solutions by using many
different models, that greatly accelerates the optimisation process.

Interactions of the layers: solutions go up and down the layers.

Time-consuming solvers only for the most promising solutions.

Asynchronous Parallel Computing

Hierarchical Topology
ASYNCHRONOUS EVALUATION
Suspend the idea of generation
Solution can be generated in and out of order
Processors Can be of different speeds
Added at random
Any number of them possible
Methods of solutions to
MO and MDO -> variable
time to complete.
Time to solve non-linear PDE - > Depends upon geometry

Why asynchronous??
How:
Evolution Algorithm Evaluator
PROBLEM FORMULATION AND
EXECUTION

The Method is applicable to integrated or distributed
MDO analysis

Single or multi-objective problems can be analysed

EAs require no derivatives of the objective function

The coupling of the algorithm with different analysis
codes is by simple function calls and input and output
data files.

Different programming languages C, C++, Fortran 90,
and Fortran 77. and CFD and FEA software: FLO22
FLOPS, ADA, XFOIL, MSES, CalculiX
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND
INFORMATION ACCESS
Design Modules

Design of
Experiments

Post-processing

Parallel
Computing

Optimisation
Tools

DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION MODULES
Wing Design Aircraft Design
RESULTS SO FAR
Evaluations CPU Time
Traditional 2311 224 152m 20m
New
Technique
504 490
(-78%)
48m 24m
(-68%)
The new technique is
approximately three times
faster than other similar
EA methods.

We have successfully coupled the optimisation code to
different compressible and incompressible CFD codes
and also to some aircraft design codes
CFD Aircraft Design
HDASS MSES XFOIL Flight Optimisation
Software
(FLOPS)
FLO22 Nsc2ke ADS (In house)
A testbench for single and multi-objective problems has
been developed and tested
Aircraft Conceptual Design and
Multidisciplinary Optimisation
2D Nozzle Inverse Optimisation
Transonic Wing Design
UAV Aerofoil Design
Shock Control Bump Optimisation
CURRENT AND ONGOING OPTIMISED
INDUSTRIAL APLICATIONS
Propeller Design
High Lift Aircraft System
Transonic aerofoil optimisation using
Grid-free solvers
AF/A-18 Flutter
Model Validation
F3 Rear Wing Aerodynamics
M
1.11389
1.06934
1.02478
0.980227
0.935671
0.891115
0.84656
0.802004
0.757448
0.712892
0.668337
0.623781
0.579225
0.534669
0.490113
0.445558
0.401002
0.356446
0.31189
0.267335
0.222779
0.178223
0.133667
0.0891115
0.0445558
CURRENT AND ONGOING OPTIMISED
INDUSTRIAL APLICATIONS
MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND
MULTI-OBJECTIVE WING DESIGN
OPTIMISATION
Mach Number 0.69
Cruising Altitude 10000 ft
C
l
0.19
Wing Area 2.94 m
2

MOO OF TRANSONIC WING DESIGN FOR
AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)
Objective: Minimisation of
wave drag and wing weight

( )
( )

min
min
2
1
weight
w
sparcap
d
total f
c f
=
=
DESIGN VARIABLES

16 Design variables on
three span wise aerofoils
9 Design variables on
three span wise aerofoil
section
57 design variables
, , ,
, , , ,
rb bt l
rb bt r b t
ARw b
A A I I I
+
Description
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Wing Aspect Ratio [AR] 3.50 15.00
Break to root Taper [br] 0.65 0.80
Break to tip Taper [bt] 0.20 0.45
Wing 1/4 Chord inboard Sweep, deg [i] 10.00 25.00
Break Location, [bl] 0.30 0.45
DESIGN VARIABLES
Minimum thickness
Position of Maximum
thickness
Fitness functions
CONSTRAINTS & OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS

( )
/ 14% ,12% int ,11% tip t c root ermediate >
( )
/
20% 55%
t c
x s s
( )
1
2
min( )
min
w
weight
f Cd
f totalsparcap
=
=
Approach one : Traditional EA with single population model
Computational Grid 96 x 12 x 16
Approach two : HAPEA
Exploitation
Population size = 30
Exploration
Population size = 30
Intermediate
Population size =
30
Grid size
96 x 12 x 16
Grid size
72 x 9 x 12
Grid size
48 x 6 x 8
Six machines were used in all calculations
IMPLEMENTATION
The algorithm was run five times for 2000 function evaluations and took
about six hours to compute
PARETO FRONTS AFTER 2000
FUNCTION EVALUATIONS
MULTIDISCIPLINARY WING DESIGN

Best for Objective One
Best for Objective Two
Pareto Solutions
RESULTS
Aerofoil Geometries at 0, 20 and 100% semispan
UAV DESIGN AND OPTIMISATION
Minimise two objectives:

Operational Fuel Weight min(OFW)
Endurance min (1/E)

Subject to:
Takeoff length < 1000 ft
Alt Cruise > 40000 ft
Endurance > 24 hrs

With respect to:
External geometry of the aircraft
Mach = 0.3
Endurance > 24 hrs
Cruise Altitude: 40000 ft
DESIGN VARIABLES
In total we have 29 design variables
Design Variable Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Wing Area (sq ft) 280 330

Aspect Ratio 18 25.2
Wing Sweep (deg) 0.0 8.0
Wing Taper Ratio 0.28 0.8
13 Configuration Design variables
Aerofoil-Wing Geometry
W
i
n
g

16 Design variables for the
aerofoil
+
DESIGN VARIABLES


Twist
Horizontal Tail Area
(sq ft)
65.0 85.0
HT Aspect Ratio 3.0 15.0
HT Taper Ratio 0.2 0.55
HT Sweep (deg) 12.0 15.0
Vertical Tail Area
(sq ft)
11.0 29.0
VT Aspect Ratio 1.0 3.2
VT Taper Ratio 0.28 0.62
VT Sweep (deg) 12.0 34.0
Fuselage Diameter 2.6 5.0
Tail
Fuselage
MISSION PROFILE

Structural &
weight analysis
A compromise on fidelity models
Vortex induced drag: VLMpc
Viscous drag: friction.f
Aerofoil Design Xfoil
Evolutionary Algorithms
(HAPEA)
Optimisation
Aircraft design
and analysis
Aerodynamic
Analysis
Analytically by FLOPS
Flight Optimsation System
(FLOPS) NASA CODE
DESIGN TOOLS

IMPLEMENTATION
Population size: 20

Population size: 20


Population size: 20
Grid 141 x 74 x 36 on aerofoil, 20
x 6 on Vortex model
Grid 109 x 57 x 27 on aerofoil, 17
x 6 on Vortex model
Grid 99 x 52 x 25 on aerofoil, 15
x 6 on Vortex model
Aircraft Design and Optimisation Module

Hierarchical Topology
PARETO OPTIMAL REGION

Objective 1 optimal
Objective 2 optimal
Compromise
PARETO OPTIMAL CONFIGURATIONS
CAD-Model and Flight Simulation
OUTCOMES (1)

The new technique facilitates the process of conceptual
and preliminary MDO studies

The new technique with multiple models: Lower the
computational expense dilemma in an engineering
environment (three times faster)

Direct and inverse design optimisation problems have
been solved for one or many objectives.

Some Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation (MDO)
problems have been solved.



OUTCOMES (2)
The algorithms find traditional classical results
for standard problems, as well as interesting
compromise solutions.

In doing all this work, no special hardware has
been required Desktop PCs networked
together have been up to the task.

No problem specific knowledge is required
The method appears to be broadly applicable to
different analysis codes.

Work to be done on approximate techniques and
use of higher fidelity models.


Acknowledgements
Mourad Sefrioui, Dassault Aviation for fruitful
discussions on Hierarchical EAs and his contribution to
the optimization procedure.

Steve Armfield and Patrick Morgan at the University of
Sydney for providing the cluster of computing facilities.

We would like to thank Arnie McCullers at NASA LaRC
who kindly provided the FLOPS software.


Questions
Thank you for your attention
Additional Slides
Acknowledgements
Multidisciplinary design problems
involve search space that are
multi-modal, non-convex or
discontinuous.

Traditional methods use
deterministic approach and rely
heavily on the use of iterative
trade-off studies between
conflicting requirements.

Problems in MDO (1)
Traditional optimisation methods
will fail to find the real answer in
most real engineering applications,
(Noise, complex functions).

The internal workings of validated
in-house/ commercial solvers are
essentially inaccessible from a
modification point of view (they are
black-boxes).
Problems in MDO
The process of MDO is complex and involves several
considerations as robust optimisation tools, problem formulations,
parallel computing visualization tools.
A software system or framework is desired
Parallelization Module


Classification of our Model:
The algorithm can be classified as a hierarchical Hybrid pMOEA model
[CantuPaz] uses a Master slave PMOEA but incorporate the concept of
isolation and migration trough hierarchical topology binary tree structure
where each level executes different MOEAs/parameters (heterogeneous)
The distribution of objective function evaluations over the salve
processors is where each slake performs k objective function evaluations.
Parallel Processing system characteristics:
We use a Cluster of maximum 18 PCs with Heterogeneous CPUs, RAMs ,
caches, memory access times , storage capabilities and communication
attributes.
Inter-processor communication:
Using the Parallel Virtual Machine (PVM)
EAs
The selection operator is a
novel approach to
determine whether an
individual x is to be
accepted into the main
population
Create a tournament Q
Where B is the selection buffer.
Population
Tournament Q
Asynchronous Buffer
Evaluate x
If x not dominated
x
Pareto Tournament Selection
| | B n B B q q q Q
n
2
1
6
1
; .... ,
2 1
s s c =
Evolutionary Algorithms
Explore large search spaces.
Robust towards noise and local minima
Easy to parallelise
Map multiple populations of points,
allowing solution diversity.
A number of multi-objective solutions
in a Pareto set
or
performing a robust Nash game.

UAV design

Pareto Optimal configurations
The Challenge
The use of higher fidelity models is still prohibitive,
research on surrogate modeling/approximation
techniques is required.

MDO is a challenging topic, the last few year have
seen several approaches for Design and optimization
using Evolutionary techniques but research indicate
that it is problem dependent and it is still an open
problem.

Access to Dell Linux Cluster is limited for
benchmarking purposes. Use of higher fidelity
models is still prohibitive.
Work in Progress
Master of Engineering

Rotor Blade design and Optimisation using
evolutionary Techniques
Adaptive Transonic Wing/Aerofoil Design and MDO
using Evolutionary Techniques
Grid-less Algorithms for Design and optimisation in
Aeronautics

Undergraduate Projects

Transonic wing design using DACE (Design of
Experiments-approximation Theories)
An empirical study on DSMC for within evolutionary
Optimisation