Multidisciplinary Inverse Design and Optimization (MIDO)

  • G. S. Dulikravich
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 366)


Designing for improved performance and life expectancy of high speed transport configurations is traditionally conducted by performing a repetitive sequence of uncoupled, single-discipline analyses involving flow field, temperature field, stress-strain field, structural dynamics, manufacturability tradeoffs and a large amount of personal designer’s experience and intuition [289]–[295]. Since the entire aircraft system is seemingly highly coupled, it would be plausible that both analysis and design should be performed using an entirely new generation of computer codes that solve a huge system of partial differential equations governing aerodynamics, elastodynamics, heat transfer inside the structure, dynamics, manufacturing cost estimates, etc. simultaneously. This approach offers very stable computation since all boundary and interfacing conditions are incorporated implicitly. On the other hand, this approach might not be the most computationally economical since different subsystems (Navier-Stokes equations, elastodynamic equations, heat conduction equation, Maxwell’s equations, etc.) that form such a complex mathematical system have vastly different eigenvalues and consequently converge at significantly different rates to a steady state solution. In addition, a rigorous analysis can show that even seemingly highly coupled systems are only loosely coupled and can be analyzed semi-sequentially [296]. Such a semi-sequential approach is presently used by most researchers and the industry since it can utilize most of the existing analysis and inverse design and optimization software as ready and interchangeable modules with minimum time invested in their modifications. Nevertheless, this approach is much more prone to global instability because of the often unknown and inadequately treated boundary and interface conditions.


AIAA Paper Multigrid Method Acceleration Method Inverse Design Aerodynamic Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [289]
    Sobieski, J. S. Multidisciplinary Optimization for Engineering Systems: Achievements and Potential, NASA TM 101566, March 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [290]
    Voigt, R. G. Requirements for Multidisciplinary Design of Aerospace Vehicles on High Performance Computers, ICASE Report No. 89–70, Sept. 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [291]
    Dovi, A. R., Wrenn, G. A. Aircraft Design for Mission Performance Using Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization Methods, J. of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. 12, 1990, pp. 1043–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [292]
    Savu, G., Trifu, O. On A Global Aerodynamic Optimization of a Civil Transport Aircraft“, Proc. of 3rd Int. Conf. on Inverse Design Concepts and Optimiz. in Eng. Sci. (ICIDES-III), editor: G.S. Dulikravich, Washington, D.C., October 23–25, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [293]
    Fornasier, L. Numerical Optimization in Germany: A Non-Exhaustive Survey on Current Developments with Emphasis on Aeronautics, Proc. of 3rd Int. Conf. on Inverse Design Concepts and Optimiz. in Eng. Sci. (ICIDES-III), editor: Dulikravich, G. S., Washington, D. C., October 23–25, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [294]
    Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., Haftka, R. T. Multidisciplinary Aerospace Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments, AIAA paper 96–0711, Reno, NV, January 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [295]
    Appa, K., Argyris, J. Nonlinear Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Using System Identification and Optimal Control Theory, AIAa-95–1481, New Orleans, LA, April 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [296]
    Arian, E. Analysis of the Hessian for Aeroelastic Optimization, ICASE Report No. 95–84, Dec. 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [297]
    Kennon, S. R., Dulikravich, G. S. A Posteriori Optimization of Computational Grids, AIAA Paper 85–0483, Reno,NV, 1985; also AIAA Journal, Vol. 24, No. 7, July 1986, pp. 1069–1073.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [298]
    Carcaillet, R., Kennon, S. R., Dulikravich, G. S. Optimization of Three-Dimensional Computational Grids, AIAA Paper 85–4087, Colorado Springs, CO, October 1985; also Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 23, No. 5, May 1986, pp. 415–421.Google Scholar
  11. [299]
    Kennon, S. R., Dulikravich, G. S. Composite Computational Grid Generation Using Optimization, Proceedings of the First International Conf. on Numerical Grid Generation Comp. Fluid Dynamics, editor J. Haeuser, Landshut, W. Germany, July 14–17, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [300]
    Carcaillet, R., Dulikravich, G. S., Kennon, S. R. Generation of Solution Adaptive Computational Grids Using Optimization, Computer Meth. in Appl. Mech. and Eng., Vol. 57, Sept. 1986, pp. 279–295.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [301]
    Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., Turkel, E. Numerical Solutions of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using RungeKutta Time-Stepping Schemes, AIAA Paper 81–1259, June 1981.Google Scholar
  14. [302]
    Martinelli, L., Jameson, A., Grasso, F. A Multigrid Method for the Navier-Stokes Equations, AIAA Paper 86–0208, January 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [303]
    Chima, R. V. and Turkel, E., Schaffer, S. Comparison of Three Explicit Multigrid Methods for the Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations, AIAA Paper 87–0602, January 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [304]
    Saad, Y., Schultz, M. Conjugate Gradient-Like Algorithms for Solving Non-symmetric Linear Systems, Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 44, No. 170, 1985, pp. 417–424.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [305]
    Hafez, M., Parlette, E., Salas, M. D. Convergence Acceleration of Iterative Solutions of Euler Equations for Transonic Flow Computations, AIAA Paper 85–1641, July 1985.Google Scholar
  18. [306]
    Huang, C. Y., Dulikravich, G. S. Fast Iterative Algorithms Based on Optimized Explicit Time-Stepping, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 63, August 1987, pp. 15–36.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [307]
    Turkel, E. Review of Preconditioning Methods for Fluid Dynamics, ICASE Report No. 92–47, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Sept. 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [308]
    Lee, S., Dulikravich, G. S. Distributed Minimal Residual (DMR) Method for Acceleration of Iterative Algorithms, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 86, 1991, pp. 245–262.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [309]
    Lee, S., Dulikravich, G. S. Accelerated Computation of Viscous Flow with Heat Transfer, Numerical Heat Transfer: Fundamentals, Part B, Vol. 19, June 1991, pp. 223–241.Google Scholar
  22. [310]
    Brandt, A. Multigrid Technique, Guide with Applications to Fluid Dynamics, GMD Studien 85, GMD-AIW, Postfach 1240, D-5205 St. Augustine, Germany, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. [311]
    Choi, K. Y., Dulikravich, G. S. Sensitivity-Based Methods for Convergence Acceleration of Iterative Algorithms, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 123, Nos. 1–4, June 1995, pp. 161–172.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [312]
    Choi, K. Y., Dulikravich, G. S. Acceleration of Iterative Algorithms on Highly Clustered Grids, AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 4, April 1996, pp. 691–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [313]
    Griewank, A., Corliss, G. F. (editors) Automatic Differentiation of Algorithms Theory, Implementation and Application, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [314]
    Bischof, C. H., Carle, A., Corliss, G., Griewank, A., Hovland, P. ADIFOR–Generating Derivative Code from Fortran Programs, Scient. Programming, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1992, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  27. [315]
    Green, L. L., Newman, P. A., Haigler, K. J. Sensitivity Derivatives for Advanced CFD Algorithm and Viscous Modelling Parameters via Automatic Differentiation, AIAA paper 93–3321-CP, Orlando, FL, July 6–9. 1993.Google Scholar
  28. [316]
    Hou, G. J.-W., Maroju, W., Taylor, A. C., Korivi, V., Newman, P. A. Transonic Turbulent Airfoil Design Optimization With Automatic Differentiation in Incremental Iterative Forms, AIAA CFD Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA, June 1995, AIAA-95–1692-CP, pp. 512–526.Google Scholar
  29. [317]
    Hovland, P., Altus, S., Kroo, I., Bischof, C. Using Automatic Differentiation With the Quasi-Procedural Method for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, AIAA paper 96–0090, Reno, NV, January 1996.Google Scholar
  30. [318]
    Cheung, S. Aerodynamic Design Parallel CFD and Optimization Routines, AIAA CFD Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA, June 1995, AIAA-95–1748-CP, pp. 1180–1187.Google Scholar
  31. [319]
    Jameson, A., Alonso, J. J. Automatic Aerodynamic Optimization on Distributed Memory Architectures, AIAA paper 96–0409, Reno, NV, January 1996.Google Scholar
  32. [320]
    Poloni, C., Fearon, M., Ng, D. Parallelisation of Genetic Algorithm for Aerodynamic Design Optimisation, Proceedings of 2nd Conf. on Adaptive Computing in Engineering Design and Controls (ACEDC), Plymouth, UK, March 23–27, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. [321]
    Osyczka, A. Multicriterion Optimization in Engineering, Ellis Hoewood, Ltd., England, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. [322]
    Eschenauer, H., Koski, J., Osyczka, A. Multicriteria Design Optimization Procedures and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. [323]
    Azarm, S., Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. Reduction Method With System Analysis for Multiobjective Optimization-Based Design, ICASE Report No. 93–22, April 1993.Google Scholar
  36. [324]
    Poloni, C., Mosetti, G., Contessi, S. Multi-Objective Optimization by GAs: Application to System and Component Design, invited STS lecture at ECCOMAS 96 (European Community in Computational Methods in Applied Sciences), Paris, France, Sept. 9–13, 1996.Google Scholar
  37. [325]
    Poloni, C. Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Multiobjective Aerodynamic Optimisation, in: Genetic Algorithms in Engineering and Computer Science, pp. 397–415, John Wiley & Sons, England, December 1995, ISBN 0–471–95859–X, Contributed book edited by: G.Winter, J.Periaux, M.Galan and P.Cuesta.Google Scholar
  38. [326]
    Ta’asan, S. Trends in Aerodynamics Design and Optimization: A Mathematical Viewpoint, AIAA CFD Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA, June 1995, AIAA-95–1731-CP, pp. 961970.Google Scholar
  39. [327]
    Prasanth, K., Markin, R.E., Whitaker, K. W. Design of Thrust Vectoring Exhaust Nozzles for Real-Time Applications Using Neural Networks, Proc. of 3rd Int. Conf. on Inverse Design Concepts and Optimization in Engineering Sciences (ICIDES-III), editor: G. S. Dulikravich, Washington, D. C., October 23–25, 1991.Google Scholar
  40. [328]
    Huang, S. Y., Miller, L. S., Steck, J. E. An Exploratory Application of Neural Networks to Airfoil Design, AIAA paper 940501, Reno, NV, January 1994.Google Scholar
  41. [329]
    Poloni, C., Mosetti, G. Private Conversation, April 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. S. Dulikravich
    • 1
  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations