Green, Lawrence | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2010

Robustness-Based Design Optimization Under Data Uncertainty

This paper proposes formulations and algorithms for design optimization under both aleatory (i.e., natural or physical variability) and epistemic uncertainty (i.e., imprecise probabilistic information), from the perspective of system robustness. The proposed formulations deal with epistemic uncertainty arising from both sparse and interval data without any assumption about the probability distributions of the random variables. A decoupled approach is proposed in this paper to un-nest the robustness-based design from the analysis of non-design epistemic variables to achieve computational efficiency. The proposed methods are illustrated for the upper stage design problem of a two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) vehicle, where the information on the random design inputs are only available as sparse point and/or interval data. As collecting more data reduces uncertainty but increases cost, the effect of sample size on the optimality and robustness of the solution is also studied. A method is developed to determine the optimal sample size for sparse point data that leads to the solutions of the design problem that are least sensitive to variations in the input random variables.

Zaman, Kais↗

NASA NTRS1999

Demonstration of Automatically-Generated Adjoint Code for Use in Aerodynamic Shape Optimization

Gradient-based optimization requires accurate derivatives of the objective function and constraints. These gradients may have previously been obtained by manual differentiation of analysis codes, symbolic manipulators, finite-difference approximations, or existing automatic differentiation (AD) tools such as ADIFOR (Automatic Differentiation in FORTRAN). Each of these methods has certain deficiencies, particularly when applied to complex, coupled analyses with many design variables. Recently, a new AD tool called ADJIFOR (Automatic Adjoint Generation in FORTRAN), based upon ADIFOR, was developed and demonstrated. Whereas ADIFOR implements forward-mode (direct) differentiation throughout an analysis program to obtain exact derivatives via the chain rule of calculus, ADJIFOR implements the reverse-mode counterpart of the chain rule to obtain exact adjoint form derivatives from FORTRAN code. Automatically-generated adjoint versions of the widely-used CFL3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code and an algebraic wing grid generation code were obtained with just a few hours processing time using the ADJIFOR tool. The codes were verified for accuracy and were shown to compute the exact gradient of the wing lift-to-drag ratio, with respect to any number of shape parameters, in about the time required for 7 to 20 function evaluations. The codes have now been executed on various computers with typical memory and disk space for problems with up to 129 x 65 x 33 grid points, and for hundreds to thousands of independent variables. These adjoint codes are now used in a gradient-based aerodynamic shape optimization problem for a swept, tapered wing. For each design iteration, the optimization package constructs an approximate, linear optimization problem, based upon the current objective function, constraints, and gradient values. The optimizer subroutines are called within a design loop employing the approximate linear problem until an optimum shape is found, the design loop limit is reached, or no further design improvement is possible due to active design variable bounds and/or constraints. The resulting shape parameters are then used by the grid generation code to define a new wing surface and computational grid. The lift-to-drag ratio and its gradient are computed for the new design by the automatically-generated adjoint codes. Several optimization iterations may be required to find an optimum wing shape. Results from two sample cases will be discussed. The reader should note that this work primarily represents a demonstration of use of automatically- generated adjoint code within an aerodynamic shape optimization. As such, little significance is placed upon the actual optimization results, relative to the method for obtaining the results.

Green, Lawrence↗