Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China
China Ship Scientific Research Center, P.O.Box 116, Wuxi, Jiangsu, 214082, China
Abstract
In this paper, a Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) procedure is applied to a HOV design.
Multidisciplinary decomposition and analyses have been developed for this complex system that includes
hydrodynamics, structure, propulsion, weight & volume. The Multi-Objective Collaborative Optimization (MOCO)
method is selected to conduct the preliminary conceptual design of the HOV. This approach was able to identify
Pareto front designs. The results also demonstrate that MDO approaches are more suitable for design of the HOV
and more flexible and advanced compared with the traditional design approach.
Keywords: MDO, HOV, Conceptual Design, Multi-Objective Collaborative Optimization (MOCO)
1. Introduction
The conceptual design stage of a complex engineering design process is the most critical to its
success or failure, as at this stage 75% of the final cost and performance metrics are determined.
The design of a Human Occupied Vehicle (HOV) is a complex and multidisciplinary task, and the
task is often divided into a set of smaller and easier tractable design problems. A complete design
requires analyses of hydrodynamics, structure, propulsion, weight, control, operations, cost and
the others. It is important for each of these aspects to be addressed at the conceptual design phase.
The traditional approach for the design of a HOV is of a sequential order. As shown in Fig. 1, in
this approach, design begins with the first discipline team, where the values of certain design
variables are fixed and passed to the second disciplinary team, and so on until a complete design
emerges from the last discipline. The traditional approach may lead to non-optimal system designs
for many reasons including: [1]
(1) Analysis in upstream discipline may depend on results determined in downstream
disciplines. In the sequential order approach, upstream disciplines must assume values
which may not match the actual values when they are finally determined in the
downstream disciplines.
(2) The system objectives (cost, performance, etc.) may depend heavily on results
determined in downstream disciplines where design freedom no longer exists to make
significant changes.
(3) The design may be so fixed by time and it reaches downstream disciplines that may be
1
Hydrodynamics
Propulsion
Energy
Structure
Weight &
Volume
[2]
analyze and optimally design a system governed by the multiple coupled disciplines or made up of
coupled components. It is a part of the concurrent engineering technology that may well be an
enabling technology for complex advanced systems
[3]
past decade, MDO has been widely discussed and used not only in aerospace and aeronautical
industries[4-6], but also in other complex engineering systems such as automobile[7], underwater
vehicles[8, 9], ship[10] etc. and resulted in a more reliable and better design.
For the purpose of attaining the overall performance optimization of a HOV and improving
procedure of a HOV conceptual design, MDO technique has been employed. The purpose of this
paper is to explore how Collaborative Optimization (CO), one of the MDO methods, can be
applied in the conceptual design of a HOV.
[11, 12]
adjusting the system variables with the goal of minimizing or maximizing the system-level
objective. This problem is subjected to the interdisciplinary compatibility constraints equal to
zero.
System-Level optimizer
Goal: Design objective
s.t.:
Interdisciplinary
compatibility constraints
Subspace optimizer 1
Goal: Interdisciplinary
compatibility
S.t.: Analysis 1
constraints
Subspace optimizer 2
Goal: Interdisciplinary
compatibility
S.t.: Analysis 2
constraints
Analysis 1
Analysis 2
Subspace optimizer N
Goal: Interdisciplinary
compatibility
S.t.: Analysis N
constraints
Analysis N
[12]
adopted the direct search method such as Hooke and Jeeves method or the
probabilistic search method such as genetic algorithm instead of the gradient-based method. A
variety of extensions have been made to CO including resolving the system including mixed
continual and discrete design variables [1], and introduction of multi-objective formulation[20, 21].
In this study, a MOCO has been selected to handle multiobjective systems. In the MOCO, the
goal of the system level optimizer is to minimize a system level multiobjective function of target
variables while satisfying compatibility constraints using a Pareto Genetic Algorithm based on
(PGA). PGA solves system level optimization problem with respect to system design variables.
For each generation at the system level, the disciplines are optimized for each candidate design
from the population. The system level optimization problem is described as equations (1-3)
3
Min :{f1 , f2 ,L , f N }
S .t.:
(1)
J i 0, i = 1, 2,L , N
(2)
(3)
Equations (4-7) describe the subsystem level optimization problem for a typical subsystem, in
this case subsystem 1
Min : J 1 (x ss1 ) = (1
S .t. :
D.V .
y1 j
(x sh )1 2
(x aux ) i1 2 N
x1 2 N
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
) 2 (4)
o
o
o
o
(x sh )1
x1
(x aux ) i1
(x aux )1 j
i=2
i =2
g1 0
(5)
(6)
(7)
The MOCO architecture for HOV design that has been developed for conceptual design is
briefly discussed, a more detailed description can be found in Ref. [21].
Dmax
2
La
Dmax
2
Lm
Fig.3 HOV configuration
unit
Baseline
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
4
Lm
4.45
La
3.0
2.8
3.2
3.0
2.6
3.2
kn
2.5
2.5
3.0
Wpl
kg
220
200
300
kWh
110
90
140
Wbuo
kg
6374
5500
7000
Firstly, we decompose the design problem into a system module and four disciplinary
optimization modules: geometry & hydro, structure, propulsion, weight & volume. Figure 4
describes the MOCO architecture of the HOV design.
System
optimizer
J1
D o , Lo ,
D o , Lo , RTo
uo, Eo
o
o
o
W plo , Wbuo
, W pro
, V pro
RTo , V fo
o
o
W pro
, V pro
Discipline 1
Geometry & hydro
J2
Discipline 2
Structure
J3
Discipline 3
Propulsion
J4
Discipline 4
Weight & volume
(8)
(i = 1,2,3,4)
o
o
D.V . : x o = [ D o , u 0 , E o , Lo , RTo ,V fo ,Wso , Vso , W pro
,V pro
,W plo ]
(9)
(10)
5
Min : J 1 = (1
Vf 2
RT 2
D 2
L 2
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
)
Do
Lo
RTo
V fo
(11)
(12)
D.V . : x ss1 = [ La , Lm , D]
(13)
W
V
W
D 2
L
) + (1 o ) 2 + (1 so ) 2 + (1 so ) 2 + (1 To ) 2
o
D
L
Ws
Vs
WT
Min : J 2 = (1
(14)
(15)
D.V . : x ss1 = [ D, L, WT ]
(16)
W pro 2
V pro 2
R
u 2
E 2
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
) + (1 To ) 2
o
o
o
o
u
E
W pro
V pro
RT
Min : J 3 = (1
(17)
(18)
D.V . : x ss1 = [u , E , RT ]
(19)
Min : J 4 = (1
W pl
W
+ (1
o
pl
) 2 + (1
Vf
Wbuo 2
W
V
) + (1 o ) 2 + (1 so ) 2 + (1 so ) 2
o
Wbuo
Vf
Ws
Vs
W pro 2
V pro 2
WT 2
)
+
(
1
)
+
(
1
)
o
o
WTo
W pro
V pro
(20)
(22)
Parato front
7.0
HOV2
HOV1
6.5
Tco (h)
6.0
5.5
HOV3
5.0
HOV4
4.5
4.0
0.0120
0.0125
0.0130
0.0135
0.0140
0.0145
0.0150
Rw
D /m
Lm /m
La /m
HOV1
2.93
4.60
2.95
HOV2
2.87
4.63
HOV3
2.81
HOV4
2.83
u /k
E / kW h
Wbuo /k
W pl /k
Tco /
Rw
2.50
131.99
g
7000.00
g
265.70
h
7.00
0.0123
2.93
2.50
119.91
6845.00
300.00
6.46
0.0142
5.07
3.08
2.51
110.47
6656.00
300.00
5.29
0.0146
4.60
2.93
2.51
98.83
6482.00
300.00
4.39
0.0148
HOV1 and HOV4 are located at the ends of the Pareto front, and HOV2 and HOV3 are located
at the middle of the Pareto front. HOV1 has the longest cruise and operation time which is up to 7
hours, but the alternative has the minimum ratio which is just 0.0123. In contrast, HOV4 has the
maximum ratio and the shortest cruise and operation time. If the time is the most important
performance for a HOV, the HOV between HOV1 and HOV2 are excellent choices.
Braun R D, Moore A A, Kroo I M. Collaborative architecture for launch vehicle design [J].
AIAA Paper 96-0715, the 34th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada, January
1518, 1996.
[6]
Kodiyalam S. Evaluation of methods for multidisciplinary design optimization, Phase I [R]. Tech.
optimization of undersea vehicles [C]. AIAA Paper 2000-4865, the 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multi- disciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Long Beach, CA, Sept. 6-8, 2000.
[9]
Kroo I, and Manning V, Collaborative Optimization Status and Directions [C]. AIAA Paper
[14]
Manning V. High Speed Civil Transport Design via Collaborative Optimization [D]. Ph.D. thesis,
Jun S, Jeon Y, Rho J, D Lee. Application of Collaborative Optimization Using Response Surface
[21]
design for submersible [J]. Journal of Ship Mechanics, Vol.12, No.2, 2008.4.