Skip to main content
Log in

Benchmarking of monolithic MDO formulations and derivative computation techniques using OpenMDAO

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The design optimization of coupled systems requires the implementation of multidisciplinary design optimization techniques in order to obtain consistent and optimal solutions. The associated research topics include the development of optimization algorithms, computational frameworks, and multidisciplinary design optimization formulations. This paper presents a benchmarking of the combination of monolithic formulations and derivative computation techniques. The monolithic formulations include typical literature formulations as well as new normalized variable hybrid formulation. A novel test problem is proposed which consists in the sizing of a space launcher thrust vector control electro-mechanical actuator. Solving the single multidisciplinary coupling present in this problem is complex due to the possibility to face one, two, or no solutions depending on the external load and reducer gear ratio configuration. A larger scale version of this test problem is also proposed and tested by adding a high degree of freedom point-to-point trajectory. The tests are carried out in order to obtain typical performance criteria but also some proposed additional robustness criteria such as variation of the initial conditions or the external load scale. These additional criteria are particularly relevant in an industrial engineering design context where knowledge capitalization and reuse are sought. The most significant findings are the interesting performances of the new formulation in terms of computational cost and the robustness. Furthermore, the effect of the choice of derivative computation strategy on different performance criteria is assessed for the original and larger scale problem, and thus underlines the benefits of full analytic gradient-based optimization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexandrov N, Lewis R (2000) Algorithmic perspectives on problem formulations in mdo. In: 8th symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, pp 4719

  • Balling RJ, Sobieszczanski Sobieski J (1996) Optimization of coupled systems-a critical overview of approaches. AIAA J 34(1):6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beiranvand V, Hare W, Lucet Y (2017) Best practices for comparing optimization algorithms. Optim Eng 18(4):815–848

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Budinger M, Reysset A, Halabi TE, Vasiliu C, Mare JC (2014) Optimal preliminary design of electromechanical actuators. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aer Eng 228(9):1598–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunch JR, Hopcroft JE (1974) Triangular factorization and inversion by fast matrix multiplication. Math Comput 28(125):231–236

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale C, Resta P (2007) Vega electromechanical thrust vector control development. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, pp 5812

  • Chauhan SS, Hwang JT, Martins JR (2017) Benchmarking approaches for the multidisciplinary analysis of complex systems using a taylor series-based scalable problem. In: World congress of structural and multidisciplinary optimisation, Springer, pp 98–116

  • Chell BW, Hoffenson S, Blackburn MR (2019) A comparison of multidisciplinary design optimization architectures with an aircraft case study. In: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, pp 0700

  • Ciampa PD, Nagel B (2017) The agile paradigm: the next generation of collaborative mdo. In: 18th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, pp 4137

  • Delbecq S (2018) Knowledge-based multidisciplinary sizing and optimization of embedded mechatronic systems – application to aerospace electro-mechanical actuation systems. PhD thesis, Toulouse, INSA

  • Delbecq S, Budinger M, Hazyuk I, Sanchez F, Piaton J (2017) A framework for sizing embedded mechatronic systems during preliminary design. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1):4354–4359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq S, Budinger M, Piaton J (2018a) A more integrated design approach for embedded mechatronic systems: application to electrical thrust reverser actuation systems. In: ICAS 2018 congress of the international council of the aeronautical sciences

  • Delbecq S, Budinger M, Piaton J, Dagusé B (2018b) Optimization of primary flight control actuation system using parametric sizing models of actuators, power electronics and structural analysis. Recent Advances in Aerospace Actuation Systems and Components, INSA Toulouse, pp 132–138

  • Gray J, Moore KT, Hearn TA, Naylor BA (2013) Standard platform for benchmarking multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization architectures. AIAA J 51(10):2380–2394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray JS, Hwang JT, Martins JR, Moore KT, Naylor BA (2019) Openmdao: an open-source framework for multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim 59:1075–1104

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang JT (2015) A modular approach to large-scale design optimization of aerospace systems. University of Michigan, PhD thesis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang JT, Martins J (2017) A computational architecture for coupling heterogeneous numerical models and computing coupled derivatives. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software

  • Kessler C (2011) Active rotor control for helicopters: individual blade control and swashplateless rotor designs. CEAS Aeronaut J 1(1-4):23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimization-some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1-2):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft D (1988) A software package for sequential quadratic programming. Forschungsbericht- Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt

  • Lambe A B, Martins JRRA (2012) Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46:273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-012-0763-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins JR, Hwang JT (2013) Review and unification of methods for computing derivatives of multidisciplinary computational models. AIAA J 51(11):2582–2599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins JR, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskrey R, Thayer W (1978) A brief history of electrohydraulic servomechanisms. Moog Technical Bulletin, pp 141

  • Papalambros PY, Wilde DJ (2000) Principles of optimal design: modeling and computation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Park J (1996) Motion profile planning of repetitive point-to-point control for maximum energy conversion efficiency under acceleration conditions. Mechatronics 6(6):649–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez R, Liu H, Behdinan K (2004) Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization approaches for aircraft conceptual design. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, pp 4537

  • Powell MJ (1994) A direct search optimization method that models the objective and constraint functions by linear interpolation. In: Advances in optimization and numerical analysis, Springer, pp 51–67

  • Reysset A, Budinger M, Maré JC (2015) Computer-aided definition of sizing procedures and optimization problems of mechatronic systems. Concurr Eng 23(4):320–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos F, Johansson H, Wikander J (2006) Optimal selection of motor and gearhead in mechatronic applications. Mechatronics 16(1):63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez F, Delbecq S (2016) Surrogate modeling technique for the conceptual and preliminary design of embedded actuation systems and components. In: International congress of the aeronautical sciences

  • Sanchez F, Budinger M, Delbecq S, Hazyuk I (2017a) Modelling and design approaches for the preliminary design of power electronic converters. In: ELECTRIMACS

  • Sanchez F, Budinger M, Hazyuk I (2017b) Dimensional analysis and surrogate models for the thermal modeling of multiphysics systems. Appl Therm Eng 110:758–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellar R, Batill S, Renaud J (1996) Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design. In: 34th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, pp 714

  • Stefano Bianchi E (2005) The launchers and the vega programme and the launcher subsystems http://www.ingaero.uniroma1.it/attachments/1609_VEGA%20%20sapienza%20small.pdf

  • Tedford NP, Martins JR (2010) Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms. Optim Eng 11(1):159– 183

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Thareja R, Haftka R (1986) Numerical difficulties associated with using equality constraints toachieve multi-level decomposition in structural optimization. In: 27th structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, pp 854

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Safran and the French National Association of Research and Technology who funded the PhD thesis that produced most of the work presented in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Delbecq.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Raphael Haftka

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Replication of results

The results presented in this paper were generated by the source code available at the following Github repository: https://github.com/SizingLab/RoR_SAMO_paper_Benchmarking_monolythic_MDO_formulations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delbecq, S., Budinger, M. & Reysset, A. Benchmarking of monolithic MDO formulations and derivative computation techniques using OpenMDAO. Struct Multidisc Optim 62, 645–666 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02521-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-020-02521-7

Keywords

Navigation