Pareto Solutions of Multipoint Design of Supersonic Wings Using Evolutionary Algorithms
Design datamining is demonstrated through multipoint aerodynamic design of supersonic wings. Tradeoff information for the design is gathered by Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) and visualized by Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs). Four design objectives are considered: Aerodynamic drags are minimized at both supersonic and transonic cruise conditions under lift constraints. Bending and pitching moments are also minimized for structure and stability considerations. MOEAs are first performed by using 72 design variables. SOM is then applied to map the resulting Pareto solutions obtained in the four dimensional objective function space to two dimensions. This reveals global tradeoffs between four design objectives. Furthermore, the relations between design variables are mapped onto another SOM. The resulting SOMs are confirmed to perform aerodynamic design datamining properly.
KeywordsDesign Variable Pareto Front Pareto Solution Pitching Moment Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Sakata K (2000) Supersonic Experimental Airplane Program in NAL and its CFD-Design Research Demand. 2nd SST-CFD Workshop, pp 53–56.Google Scholar
- 3.Poloni C and Mosetti G (1996) Aerodynamic Shape Optimization by means of a Hybrid Genetic Algorithm. Z. anew. Math. Mech., 73(3):247–250.Google Scholar
- 4.Parmee IC and Watson AH (1999) Preliminary Airframe Design Using Co-Evolutionary Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms. GECCO-99: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 1657–1665.Google Scholar
- 6.Sasaki D, Obayashi S and Nakahashi K (2001) Navier-Stokes Optimization of Supersonic Wings with Four Design Objectives Using Evolutionary Algorithm. AIAA-2001-2531.Google Scholar
- 7.Kohonen T (1995) Self-Organizing Maps. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- 8.Hollmen J (2001 ) Self-Organizing Map, <http://www.cis.hut.fi/-jhollmen/dippa/node7.html>, last access on February 6, 2002.
- 9.Fonseca CM and Fleming PJ (1993) Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and Generalization. Proc. of the 5th ICGA, pp 416–423.Google Scholar
- 10.Obayashi S, Takahashi S and Takeguchi Y (1998) Niching and Elitist Models for MOGAs. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN V, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Vol 1498, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 260–269.Google Scholar
- 11.Eshelman LJ and Schaffer JD (1993) Real-coded genetic algorithms and interval schemata. Foundations of Genetic Algorithms2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Mateo, pp 187–202.Google Scholar
- 15.Eudaptics software gmbh. <http://www.eudaptics.com/>, last access on February 6, 2002. (Japanese version: <http://www.eudaptics.com/technology/somine.html>)Google Scholar