You are on page 1of 50

Multidisciplinary System Design Optimization (MSDO)

Lecture 3: Modeling and Simulation

Prof. Olivier de Weck


1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

MSDO Framework
today
Design Vector Simulation Model Discipline A Discipline B Objective Vector

x1 x2 xn
Coupling

J1 J2 Jz

Discipline C Multiobjective Optimization Optimization Algorithms

Approximation Methods Sensitivity Analysis


Coupling

Tradespace Exploration (DOE)


2

Numerical Techniques (direct and penalty methods) Heuristic Techniques (SA,GA)

Isoperformance Special Techniques

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Todays Topics
Definitions of Modeling and Simulation - physics-based modeling - empirical modeling Model/Simulation Development Process - module identification - module ordering: DSMs and N2 diagrams - module coding: fidelity and benchmarking - model execution = simulation Computational Issues - coupling disparate CAE/CAD tools
3

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Definitions

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Definitions
Definition: Model
(as used in this class)

A model is a mathematical object that has the ability to predict the behavior of a real system under a set of defined operating conditions and simplifying assumptions.

Definition: Simulation (as used in this class)


Simulation is the process of exercising a model for a particular instantiation of the system and specific set of inputs in order to predict the system response.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

From the Reference


System
Experiment with Actual System Experiment with Model of System

Physical Model

Mathematical Model

Analytical Solution

Simulation

Law & Kelton (2000), Simulation Modeling and Analysis 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc.
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Additional Detail Next Chart


The following chart includes additional detail to emphasize the factors that differentiate a model and a simulation Simulation/Model Factors: Real World Variability Reaction to Events

These relate back to the purpose of the sim/model

Models should not include all the details for all purposes
They quickly become unwieldy & expensive
7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Analysis Methods
Purpose:

System
Experiment with Actual System Experiment with Model of System

Analysis/Design Prediction Training Testing Entertainment Experiencing Visualizing Analyzing

Physical Model

Mathematical Model

Analytical Solution Static vs Dynamic

Numerical (Simulation) Deterministic vs Stochastic Continuous vs Discrete

Law & Kelton (2000), Simulation Modeling and Analysis 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc.
8

Modified by M.J. Steele with added detail

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Visualization Sensory Immersion

Model and Simulation Development Process

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Model Development Process


Start Process Define Master Table DSM Diagram

Objectives Constraints Design Variables

N2 Governing Equations Define Modules

Iterate to Improve Fidelity

Code Modules

Integrate Modules

Benchmark Sanity Check

Test Code Ready For Use

10

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Objectives, Constraints, Design Variables


This is how we want system to behave Define Objectives J Define Design Variables x Things about system we can change Define Constraints and Bounds g, h Must satisfy this Determine important fixed parameters p Fixed, outside our

control yet important

Influence Matrix

x1 Ji
gj
11

+
o

xn o
+

+
+

+ influence
o no influence

model relationships
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Physics Based Modeling


Start with governing equations Continuum Mechanics for physical systems Introduce Boundary Conditions Introduce Initial Conditions External forcing functions Discretize system

12

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Governing Equations
Continuum (Structural) Mechanics
x xy y zy xz yz y

yx zx

stress tensor
F3

F1

F2

u x

strain
Fi
x

-Equilibrium Equations -Constitutive equations -Compatibility equations


13

0 E x
dx' dx dx

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Example: Finite Element Model

Mx Cx Kx
Geometry Connectivity Material Properties Boundary Conditions Loads

F
Mass and Inertia Matrix

Z X Y

Deflections, Stress, Strain


Natural Frequencies Mode Shapes

Time as Variable: Static


14

Assumptions Discretization Steady State

Transient

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Empirical Modeling
Derive a model, not from physics and first principles, but from observation, i.e. data Usually leads to low order models Only valid under similar operating conditions Many cost models are of this nature

15

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Example: Empirical Modeling


Engi ne Si z e v s . HP 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0. 0 2. 0 4. 0 6. 0
In-line engine image removed due to copyright restrictions. Animation can be found at HowStuffWorks.com.

Hor s epower

could do physicsBased modeling of this in-line 4 engine, but instead do


Engi ne Si z e ( Li t er s )

Linear Regression

HP = 51.48*ED + 23.12
16

HP

ED

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

How to decompose a system


What to do when system is new - no experience ? First define black boxes or modules based on: disciplinary tradition, degree of coupling of governing equations or availability of analysis software Crisply define inputs and outputs of each module

Ref: Rogers, J.L.: A Knowledge-Based Tool for Multilevel Decomposition of a Complex Design Problem, NASA TP2903, 1989
17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Partitioning of Equations
E1 E2

x1 x2 2 x3 2 0 x2 3x5 9 0 x1 x4 x5 x2 x5
X1 X2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

-5 variables -5 independent equations -no degrees of freedom


1. Solve x2,x5 from E2 and E4 2. Solve x4 from E5 3. Solve x1 and x3 from E3 and E1

E3
E4 E5

x3 10 0 x2 9 0
X4 X5

9 x5 3 x2 7 0 x2 x4
X3 1 1 1 1 1

X2 E2 E4 E5 E3 E1 1 1 1 1

X5 1 1 1 1

X4

X1

X3

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5

Module 1 1 1 Module 2 1 1 1 1 Module 3

Occurrence matrix for system of equations 18


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Occurrence matrix showing the system of equations partitioned into three subsets

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Module Definition
What is a module in MSDO ?
A module in multidisciplinary system design optimization is a finite group of tightly coupled mathematical relationships who are under the responsibility of a particular individual or organization, and where some variables represent independent inputs while others are dependent outputs. The module frequently appears as a black box to other individuals or organizations .

x1 ... xn
19

Module A

y1 ... ym

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Modules for Simulation


A module within a simulation architecture may be defined as a piece of computer code which:
Performs a compact set of calculations. Contains a single entry point and exit point. May be tested in isolation.

Attributes of a good modular unit within a simulation architecture include:


High internal coupling within the module
All sub-functions within the module contribute to form a single primary function.

Low coupling between modules


Minimize the number of variables that flow between modules.

Minimization of feedback loops


Data flow is processed sequentially from input to output.

20

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Module Inputs and Outputs


Info fed to upstream (feedback) Info coming from upstream (feed-forward)

Input Output

Module i
Input

Output

Info fed from downstream (feedback)


21

Info fed to downstream (feed-forward)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Module Example
sensors actuators (e.g. CMGs) pointing requirement vehicle inertia matrix disturbance torques

I
d

Output

Attitude Control

Output

Input
Example: Spacecraft Design
22

power required propellant amount

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

The N2 Diagram
An NxN matrix used to develop and organize interface information. Similar to a Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Each module within the simulation architecture is placed along the diagonal. Provides a visual representation of the flow of information through the simulation architecture. Helps to identify critical modules that have many inputs and outputs. The fidelity of critical modules should be thoroughly tested and verified. Explicitly defines all inputs and outputs for macro-modules and modules. Allows for plug and play
Independent testing Alternative modules easily analyzed Can increase overall model fidelity incrementally

23

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Initial random sequencing


feedforward

Execution sequence goes from upper left corner to lower right corner

Problem: Each instance of feedback requires an iteration

feedback
24

Initial, random arrangement of modules on the N-square matrix diagonal.


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Ordered sequence
The Need
Identify coupling between discipline or subsystems in a complex system.

The Solution
Automatic identification of subsystems based on interdependence of design variable and constraints.

Actuators Sensors Structures and materials

Dynamics Controls e.g. = output = mode shapes

Modules in the N-square matrix resequenced to reduce feedback.

25

Systematic permutation groups and reduces number of feedback loops

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

TPF Example : Overview N2 Diagram


TMAS N-Squared Diagram
Design Const. Env. Apert. Vector Vector Module Conf. Module Spacecraft Payload and Bus Module Dynamics, Control, & Stability Module Deployment & Operations Module GINA Systems Analysis Module

Design Vector 1 2,3,4 2,4 1,2,3 2,3,4 2,3 1 2,3,4 2,3,4 1,2,3,4 3 1 1,2,3 1,2 2 2,3,4 1,2,3,4 Architecture Constants Vector 11 2 2,3 3 1,2 4 13,14 14,31 15,16 11,32-40 3 5 to 11 2,12 all Environment 1 1,2,3 Aperture Configuration 1 1 1 1 Payload 3,4 1,2 1,2 Power 1,6 6,7 6,7 2,3 2,3,5,6 Thermal 1,4 4 Propulsion 3 6 Communications 5 1 to 8,10 6 Structure 6,10 3,4,5 6,9 6 Sub-Modules Truss Design 1,2 1 Design Vector State-Space Plant Model 1,2 1 Architecture Constants Vector Attitude Determination and Control Environment Model Integration 3 Aperture Configuration Performance Assesment 1 Payload Orbit Transit1,2,3 4 Power Launch 2 Thermal Operations 2 1 Propulsion Capability 7,8,9 Communications Performance 4 Structure Cost 6 Truss Design Cost Per Function 1 State-Space Plant Model Adaptability Attitude Determination and Control Model Integration Performance Assesment Orbit Transit Launch Operations Capability Performance Cost Cost Per Function Adaptability

Inputs

Outputs

m-file

Outputs

Inputs

26

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Coding - Benchmarking
Coding of modules can be done in parallel, once the I/O structure has been decided Use dummy input data to exercise modules in isolation Integrate modules step-by-step starting from upper left corner in N2-Diagram Do end-to-end simulation test before release Benchmark (validate) simulation against known cases (experimental data)
27 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Recap
Start Process Define Master Table DSM Diagram

Objectives Constraints Design Variables

N2 Governing Equations Define Modules

Iterate to Improve Fidelity

Code Modules

Integrate Modules

Benchmark Sanity Check

Test Code Ready For Use

28

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Example

de Weck, O. L. and Chang D., Architecture Trade Methodology for LEO Personal Communication Systems , 20th International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, Paper No. AIAA-2002-1866, Montral, Qubec, Canada, May 12-15, 2002

29

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Example: Communications Satellites


Design (Input) Vector

Simulator

Performance Capacity Cost

Can we quantify the conceptual system design problem using modeling and simulation?
30 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Design (Input) Vector X


The design variables are:
Astrodynamics Satellite Design Network Constellation Type: C Orbital Altitude: h Minimum Elevation Angle: Satellite Transmit Power: Pt Antenna Size: Da Multiple Access Scheme MA:
min

Design Space
Polar, Walker 500,1000,1500,2000 2.5,7.5,12.5 1.0,2.0,3.0 MF-TDMA, MF-CDMA [km] [deg] [m] [-]

200,400,800,1600,2400 [W]

Network Architecture: ISL


C: h: emin: Pt: DA: MA: ISL: 'walker' 2000 12.5000 2400 3 'MFCD' 0

yes, no

[-]

X1440=

This results in a 1440 full factorial, combinatorial conceptual design space

31

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Objective Vector (Output) J


Performance (fixed)
Data Rate per Channel: R=4.8 [kbps] J1440= Bit-Error Rate: pb=10-3 Link Fading Margin: 16 [dB]

Consider
Cs: Clife: LCC: CPF: 1.4885e+005 1.0170e+011 6.7548e+009 6.6416e-002

Capacity
Cs: Number of simultaneous duplex channels Clife: Total throughput over life time [min]

Cost
Lifecycle cost of the system (LCC [$]), includes:
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Satellite Construction and Test Launch and Orbital Insertion Operations and Replenishment

Cost per Function, CPF [$/min]


32 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Multidisciplinary Simulator Structure


Constants Input p x Vector Vector

msat
Spacecraft

h,

min

Constellation

msat

Launch Module

LV

Cost

T, p
ISL
Pt , Da , MA

nspot
Satellite Network

nGW
Link Budget

LCC
Rs
Capacity

Cs

msat Satellite Mass Number of Satellites T p Number of orbital planes


33

nspot Number of spot beams nGW Number of gateways LV Launch vehicle selection

Output J Vector

Note: Only partial input-output relationships shown


Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Governing Equations
a) Physics-Based Models Energy per bit over noise ratio:

Eb N0

PG r G t kL space L add.Tsys.R

(Link Budget)
b) Empirical Models

msat

38 0.14 Pt

mprop

0.51

(Spacecraft)
Scaling models derived from FCC database

34

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Benchmarking
Benchmarking is the process of validating a model or simulation by comparing the predicted response against reality.
Benchmarking Result 1: Simultaneous channels of the constellation
Number of simultaneous channels of the constellation

Benchmarking Result 2: Lifecycle cost


Lifecycle cost (billion $)

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 Iridium Iridium and Globalstar 2 Globalstar actual or planned simulated

140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

actual or planned simulated

1 Iridium

2 Globalstar

Iridium and Globalstar

Benchmarking Result 3: Satellite mass


Number of satellites in the constellation

Benchmarking Result 4: Number of satellites in the constellation


70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Iridium 1 Globalstar 2 Orbcomm 3 SkyBridge 4 actual or planned simulated

1,400.0 1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0

Satellite mass (kg)

actual or planned simulated

Iridium 1

Globalstar 2

Orbcomm 3

SkyBridge 4

Iridium , Globalstar, Orbcom m , and SkyBridge

Iridium , Globalstars, Orbcom m , and SkyBridge

35

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Simulation Results

Lifecycle Cost [B$]

10

Iridium actual
Iridium simulated Globalstar actual Globalstar simulated

Pareto Front

10

10

10

10

10

10

Global Capacity Cs [# of duplex channels]


36 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Simple Example (Prep for Homework A1)

37

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Example: Communications Satellite


Design of a geosynchronous communications satellite
Satellite

Earth

S
t

Pbus

Ground Station

Main Lobe

D
Antenna Bus Solar Panel

r = 6378 [km]

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

38

Design problem (Define D.V., objectives, constraints): How should antenna (D) and solar array (A) be sized for a given orbital period (p) such that a data rate requirement (R=Rreq) is met, while minimizing cost (C) ?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Comsat: Governing Equations


Objective: min C , Constraint: R>=Rreq
Communications: Power:

D t Pt 2 16S
avg
4

[bps]
(link budget)

Pt

A AWo cos
p 1.66 10

Pbus
3/ 2

(power budget)

[W]

Orbits: Cost:

S rE

(orbital period)

[min]

2500 D

12000 A 1 +100 Pbus


10 P t [W]

[$]

Bus Engineering:
39

P bus

(cost budget)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Comsat: Master Table


D A p R C Pt Antenna Diameter Solar Panel Area Orbital Period Data Rate Cost Transmitter Power [m] [m2] [min] [bps] [$] [W] design var. design var. design var. constraint objective dependent

40

Pbus Bus Power Sun incidence angle a array/xmit efficiencies a,t, S Orbital altitude constant Wo Solar constant

[W] [deg] [%] [km] [-] [W/m2]

dependent parameter parameter dependent parameter parameter

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

ComSat Block Diagram


Input Vector x D
A p

BLOCK DIAGRAM

A
Power

Cost

Pt
D

Pbus
Orbits

Bus Comm

Output Vector

C R

p
41

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Comsat N2 Diagram
In p Orbits D S Comm Pt Powe r Pbus Pt Bus Pbus Cost C R A D,A

Out
42

iterative block
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Computational Implementation

43

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Computational Issues
Computer technologies have been changing the environment of engineering design - enabling MDO Hardware: Advances in processor speed, memory and storage Software: Powerful disciplinary analysis and simulation programs (e.g. Nastran, Fluent )

This also creates new difficulties: Most activities involve stand-alone programs and many engineers spend 50-80% of their time organizing data and moving it back-and-forth between applications
Data must be shared between disciplines more easily
44 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Coupling Disparate Tools


Case 1: Within one application on the same computer
Application
in

Case 2: Between different applications on the same computer



in

B B

A C

B E D

out

*
D

* *
E

out

E.g. MATLAB, Excel, C++

* Interface files
45 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Implementation and Ownership (II)


Case 3: In a LAN or WAN environment
Owner A Owner C
A B B

Design Team Site


in
Map out

#
E

46

Owner B

# Server

Owner G

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Modeling-Simulation Environments
Integrated Modeling & Simulation ICEMaker
Write functions and integrate via Master script MATLAB, Mathematica are popular environments Developed at Caltech/JPL linked spreadsheets (client server)

DOME (MIT) - CO (Oculus)

FIPER (Simulia Dassault Systems) PHX Model Center

DOME based peer-peer system APIs into numerous Engineering applications


Client-server enterprise system Targeted at the corporate environment Phoenix Integration Flagship Product Desktop Integration Environment

47

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

Lecture Summary
Follow a logical model & simulation development process, dont forget benchmarking Decomposition is crucial in order to facilitate code integration and coupling N2/DSM Matrix is useful tool to organize data Minimize the number of feedback loops

48

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

N2 and DSM References


Rogers, James L.: DeMAID/GA User's Guide - Design Manager's Aid for Intelligent Decomposition with a Genetic Algorithm, April 1996, NASA TM 110241. Steward, D.V., 1981, Systems Analysis and Management: Structure, Strategy, and Design, New York: Petrocelli. D.V. Steward. Partitioning and Tearing Systems of Equations, SIAM Journal of Numerical Analysis. Ser.B, vol.2, no.2, 1965, pp.345-365 de Weck, O. L. and Chang D., Architecture Trade Methodology for LEO Personal Communication Systems , 20th International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, Paper No. AIAA-2002-1866, Montral, Qubec, Canada, May 12-15, 2002 Ulrich, K.T., and S.D. Eppinger, 1995, Product Design and Development , McGraw-Hill. The Design Structure Matrix Website, http://www.dsmweb.org/
49 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Prof. de Weck and Prof. Willcox

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu

ESD.77 / 16.888 Multidisciplinary System Design Optimization


Spring 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.