Multidisciplinary Design Optimization – Some Formal Methods, Framework Requirements, and Application to Vehicle Design Srinivas Kodiyalam SGI

HPC Applications & Market Development Server & Supercomputing Business 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, MS 405 Mountain View, California 94043-1351. e-mail: skodiyal@sgi.com & Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski Manager, Computational AeroSciences & Multidisciplinary Research Coordinator NASA Langley Research Center Mail Stop: 139 Hampton, Virginia 23681. Email: j.sobieski@larc.nasa.gov
1. Abstract: A vehicle is an engineering system whose successful design requires harmonization of a number of objectives and constraints that, in principle, can be modeled as a constrained optimization in the space of design variables. However, dimensionality of such optimization and the complexity and expense of the underlying analysis suggest a decomposition approach to enable concurrent execution of smaller and more manageable tasks. In order to preserve the couplings that naturally occur among the elements of the whole problem, such optimization by various types of decomposition must include a degree of coordination at the system level. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) is a body of methods and techniques for performing the above optimization so as to balance the design considerations at the system and detail levels. The paper is an overview of a few MDO methods selected for their applicability to vehicle systems. Keywords: Optimization, MDO Methods, MDO Requirements, High Performance Computing (HPC). Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kodiyalam, S. and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. (2001) ‘ Multidisciplinary design optimization – some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design’ Int. J. Vehicle Design (Special Issue), pp. 3–22. ,

2. Introduction: It is an indisputable fact of physics that in an engineering system such as a road vehicle there are interactions among the physical phenomena and the vehicle hardware parts. These interactions make the vehicle a synergistic whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Taking advantage of that synergy is the mark of a good design but the web of interactions is difficult to untangle. That difficulty combined with the need to partition the work into subtasks executed simultaneously to compress the project time gave rise to the practice of dividing the detailed design work into specialty areas, each area centered on a physical phenomenon, e.g., stress and strain, or on a hardware subsystem, e.g., the car suspension. The above practice has achieved its purpose of developing a broad work front and compressing the project calendar time but on the downside it impeded trade-offs across

the subtasks boundaries making the design of the vehicle fall somewhat short of optimal. To give a limited example of a trade-off, suppose that the system-level objective is to minimize the vehicle cost while maintaining a certain minimum of the acceleration capability. Obviously, acceleration benefits from both the lighter structure and more power in the engine, but the cost of reducing the structure weight or adding power may not be the same. Thus, the interplay of weight, power, and costs form a three-way tradeoff that can be formalized as a mathematical optimization at the system level. Underlying that optimization are subsystem optimizations in the areas of propulsion and structure that engage large number of detailed design variables and considerable specialized expertise. The Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) has evolved as a new discipline (Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, 1995) that provides a body of methods and techniques to assist engineers in moving engineering system design closer to optimum in a situation illustrated by the above example. Parallel to the development of the above methodology, a number of software packages have been created to facilitate integration of codes, data, and user interface. These packages are often referred to as frameworks; one may consult (Salas and Townsend, 1998) for a few examples. Experience accumulated from these framework implementations and applications has now reached the point where it may be translated into requirements to guide the future framework developments. Accordingly, the focus of this paper is on Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO), including formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. 3. System Optimization Problem and Formal MDO Methods: A general system, consisting of three Black Boxes (BB) representing three disciplines such as Aerodynamics, Structures and Performance, is shown in Figure 1.0. The Black Boxes are coupled by exchanging information Y while the variables X and Z, local and system-level, govern their design. Formal MDO methods are intended for synthesis of such generic, multidisciplinary engineering systems, such as aircraft or automotive vehicle, whose design is governed by multiple disciplines [Sobieszczanski-Sobieski and Haftka, 1997, Balling and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, 1996]. Several MDO methods exists, including, All-in-One (Ai-O) method, Individual Discipline Feasible (IDF) method [Cramer et al., 1994], Concurrent SubSpace Optimization (CSSO) using the Global Sensitivity Equations (GSE) [Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, 1988, Renaud and Gabriele, 1993], Collaborative Optimization (CO) method [Braun and Kroo, 1997], and Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS) method [Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, Agte and Sandusky, 1998]. Variants of several of these methods using polynomial or neural networks based response surfaces have also been investigated [Sobieski and Kroo, 1998, Renaud and Gabriele, 1994, Kodiyalam and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, 1999]. The key concept in several of these MDO methods is a decomposition of the design task into subtasks performed independently in each of the modules, and a system-level or coordination task giving rise to a two-level optimization. In general, decomposition was

the concurrent execution of the subtasks fits well the technology of massively concurrent processing that is now becoming available. The general system optimization problem is stated in the follo ing form: w Given a set of design variables. 1994) is the most common way of approaching the solution of MDO problems. Fij may be t either an interpolation or an approximation fit. U(XD)). bounds on design variable.µij is some spline coefficients obtained using a “fi” Fij of the output of discipline j. (1) Find: ∆X Minimize: Φ (X.. The mapping iE is an evaluation of the j spline representation from discipline j into a form suitable for use by discipline i (for example. A brief description of some of the formal MDO methods used to solve the system optimization problem is provided in the following subsections. U(XD)) and the X constraints g(XD. If a gradient-based method is used to solve the above problem. then a complete MDA is necessary not just at each iteration. Figure 2 shows the data flow in a A-i-O analysis and optimization. Thus. Y(X) represents the behavior (state) variables. ral 3.2. U(XD)) < 0 and. The optimization problem is: Minimiz F(XD. X.Y(X)) Satisfy: G(X. In the problem defined by (1). calculating structu loads from aerodynamic pressures). In this method. In this figure.Y(X)) Bounds on X.motivated by the obvious need to distribute work over many people and computers to compress the task calendar time. 3. U(XD)) e: Subject to: g(XD. Φ represents the design objective function and G repre sents the design constraints. attaining multidisciplinary compatibility can be prohibitively expensive in realistic application. As an additional advantage. Individual Discipline Feasible (IDF) Method .XD. Equally important benefit from the decomposition is granting autonomy to the groups of engineers responsible for each particular subtask in choosing their methods and tools for the subtask execution.1 All-in-One Method The All-in-One method (also referred to as Multidisciplina Feasibility (MDF) in ry Cramer et al. but at every point where the derivatives are t be o evaluated. the vector of design variables XD is provided to the coupled system of analysis disciplines and a complete multidisciplinary an alysis (MDA) is performed via a fixed-point iteration with that value of XD to obtain the system (MDA) output variable U(XD) that is then used in evaluating the objective F( D.

0001. Zs represents the system design variable and Z represents the system coupling variable. only of importance to subspace analysis j. with the top level being the system optimizer that optimizes on the multidisciplinary variables (or. Z = {Zs. while satisfying the subspace constraints (gj). and the interdisciplinary design variables xj. IDF maintains individual discipline feasibility. XD is the set of design variables and Xµ is the set of interdisciplinary coupling variables. x . z) to satisfy the interdisciplinary compatibility constraints (J while minimizing ) the system objective (F). Therefore. J is defined as: Jj = | Xj – Zjs |**2 + | Yj – Zjc |**2 c where. number of disciplines.3.0001) as against strict equality constraints (J = 0. The notations in Figure 3 are similar to those in Figure 2. Collaborative Optimization (CO) The CO formulation is a two-level hierarchical schemefor MDO. The objective of each subsystem optimizer is to minimize in a least squares sense the discrepancy between the subset of subspace design variables ( i) x and subspace analysis computed responses (yj) that are common to more than one subspace analysis block and the system level values of these variables. which are common to more than one subspace analysis block.. are considered to be fixed within a subspace problem. j = 1. The IDF formulation is: Minimize: Subject to: F(XD. U(X)) with respect to X = (XD. the specific analysis variables that represent communication. For implementation purposes. z. X. Xµ) g(XD. z. 3. Figure 3 shows the data flow in an IDF analysis and optimization. The collaborative optimization formulation is intended for cases when the number of disciplinary variablesxsj is much larger than the number of interdisciplinary variables j. Zc}. U(X)) < 0 C(X) = Xµ − µ = 0 and bounds on optimization variable. we use Jj = Cj2 < 0. It is important to note that an evaluation of U(X) involves executing all the single discipline analysis codes independently with simultaneously available multidisciplinary data X. system level * targets. while allowing the optimizer to drive eth individual disciplines to multidisciplinary feasibility and optimality by controlling the interdisciplinary coupling variables. The system level design variables. C is referred to as the interdisciplinary constraint. the analysis computations can be performed concurrently.0). between analysis disciplines are treated asoptimization variables and are in fact indistinguishable from design variables from the point of view of a single analysis discipline solver.The IDF formulation provides a way to avoid a complete MDA at optimization. the interdisciplinary compatibility constraints (J's) were formulated as inequality con straints (J < 0. or coupling. A distinction is made between the disciplinary design variables xsj. In IDF. For implementation purposes.

5. followed by a coordination procedure for directing system problem convergence and resolving subspace conflicts. e.3. the non local states that are required to evaluate the objective and constraint functions are approximated using the Global Sensitivity Equations (GSE). Within the subspace optimization. such as displacements. The total number of the X variables in a typical airframe is in thousands but their number in an individual substructure is likely to be quite small. 3.4. • Nonlinearity of the overall behavior constraints. • The number of Z variables is much smaller than the total number of X variables . for a detailed description of the GSE. Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS) The recently introduced BLISS method uses a gradient-guided path to reach the improved system design. The CSSO method provides for multidisciplinary analysis feasibility at each cycle but deals with all the design variables simultaneously at the system/coordination problem level. the stringer buckling in built up. 1988. . Please refer to Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. the constraints they govern directly. With BLISS. alternating between the set of modular design subspaces (disciplinary problems) and the system level design space. In CSSO. the general system optimization problem is decomposed into a set of local optimizations dealin with a large number of g detailed local design variables (X) and a system level optimization dealing with a relatively small number of global variables (Z) in comparison with the other MDO methods. Concurrent Sub Space Optimization (CSSO) CSSO is a non-hierarchic system optimization algorithm that optimizes decomposed subspaces concurrently. The variables used in Figure 4 are defined in the CO method description provided under Section 2. 3. Figure 4 shows the data flow in a CO analysis and optimization. each subspace optimization problem is a system level problem formulated with respect to a subset of the total system design vector. Also. therefore. BLISS is an A-i-O like method in that a complete system analysis performed to maintain multidisciplinary feasibility at the beginning of each cycle of the path. with respect to X and Z tends to be weaker than that of the local strength and buckling constraints. they tend to be clustered.g.In other words. In optimization it is useful to distinguish between X an Z because: d • The X variables are associated with individual components and. This corresponds to common design practice where individual design teams optimize their local component designs and compromises are made at the integrated product team or system level.. thin-walled structures typical of aerospace vehicles. tend to be highly nonlinear. this formulation is intended for solving design problems with loosely coupled analyses of individually large dimension.

storage and access of data. The framework requirements for MDO application development have been outlined in the work of Salas and Townsend (1998) as follows: Architectural Design. The set of analysis toolsto be linked could involve such tools as COTS software (CAD. CAE. A flow chart of the BLISS method is shown in Figure 5. and Access to Information. More details of these different MDO methods can be obtained from the above mentioned references. Task De composition. Sobieszczanski Sobieski (1999) lists the key attributes for a MDO environment as follows: Computer Speed. s In relation to CAD tools. databases. 4. Sensitivity Analysis. the framework should provide for efficient transfer. CAM). Computer Agility. engineers. ranging from OE Ms.0 MDO Framework Requirements: Several requirements exist for a framework to provide an easy-to-use and robust MDO environment. or (ii) a response suface constructed using r either the system analysis solutions or the subsystem optimum solutions. legacy (in house) codes. spreadsheets. The MDO framework should i facilitate integration with the world wide web and simplify information/content identification and manipulation through using markup languages such as XML that is more robust than parsing the HTML files. This paper proposes several key requirements for process integration and problem solving capabilities in a MDO framework. facilitating both tight and loose collaboration. it would be highly desirable to support both a CAD-centric approach with the CAD tool as the master as well as an MDO -centric approach with the CAD tool as a slave to the MDO framework. tools and data in a geographically distributed setting. This then implies that gathering information through internet is essential for collaborative desgn. through CORBA client-server compliancy of the software tools and models. These include: • Provide for quick and easy linking of analysis tools. Human Interface and Data Transmission. In relation to CAE tools. suppliers and consultants. . customers. Problem Formulation. Problem Execution. The internet provides a means to link designers.With BLISS. and tools to capture user’ knowledge. including analysis responses as well as behavior sensitivities. the solution of the system level problem is obtained using either (i) the optimum sensitivity derivatives of the behavior/state (Y) variables with respect to system level design variables (Z) and the Lagrange multipliers of the constraints obtained at the solution of the disciplinary optimizations. • Provide effective support for geographically distributed modeling and optimization.

t • Access to a full range of model approximation techniques such as polynomial. these models can improve convergence for “noisy” computational tools by smoothing the response function. • Access to a full range of optimization search strategies ranging fromgradient based numerical optimization. Such mathematical models can be based on representing the function of interest as a low degree polynomial with coefficients found by the regress analysis. user’ s knowledge of the design problem could be beneficial in defining design rules and effective utilization of such rules in the optimizaion process.• Access to efficient parametric study capability such as design of experiments (DOE) based procedures. The advisor should guide the user toward the choice of appropriate optimization search techniques to solve the user’ s given problem. such as the design space information. This approach ion . simulated annealing and genetic algorithms and most importantly. simulation code executiontime (low or high) and code precision could also be critical in the choice of optimization algorithms. an optimization advisor that can appropriately recommend the optimization algorithm or a combination of algorithms (hybrid optimization plan) to be used for solution of the user problem. discrete. analysis tools information. Creating a simple mathematicalmodel to approximate the behavior of the expensive computational tool and using it during optimization for gradient calculations and finding the next optimum search direction can reduce the number of "expensive and exact" analyses by a factor of 10. and user k owledge about the n optimization problem domain. the use of DOE provides an efficient and effective method for determining the most significant factors and interactions in a given design problem. Design space information could consist of details regarding number of design variables. he existence of equality constraints. including full factorial designs. Kriging. In addition. Unlike the black box approach. and variable complexity models. As opposed to varying design variables (factors) independently or randomly varying numerous factors. or neural networks based response surfaces. the t existence of discontinuous feasible spaces and the nonlinearity of optimization constraint functions. The key advantage of an optimization advisor is that it empowers less experienced users with the benefits of optimization techniques. the optimization advisor should be based upon a set of intelligent problem formulation heuristics. More specifically. In addition. central composite designs and latin hypercube designs. type of parameters (real. or mixed). Analysis tools related information such as simulation code type (linear or nonlinear). formal Design of Experiments (DOE) offers a systematic approach to study the effects of multiple variables/factors on product/process performance by providing a structured set of analyses in a design matrix. sensitivity based Taylor series linearization. fractional factorial designs (orthogonal arrays). magnitude of variable variance. number of design constraints. integer.

is the basis of the Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The basis of another type of approximation. Several variations of TS include A linear. and Bi -Level Integrated system Synthesis (BLISS). • Framework should provide support for parallel computing. Variable Complexity Model (VCM). Collaborative Optimization (CO). such as the robust optimization and reliability-based optimization. such as the inaccuraci s associated with simulation models. widely used in many MDO applications. and uncertainties in the desired level of product performance. is using two computational tools modeling the same physical phenomenon with different degrees of fidelity. Probabilistic-based optimization models. apart e from the method implementation and its performance. Global Sensitivity Equations (GSE) based Optimization. • Provide the ability to perform trade-off studies between different design responses. through GUIs and templates. including parallel invocations of simulation codes as well as subsystem optimizations and intelligent load balancing. The methods themselves are discussed briefly in th prior section. Multi-objective optimization procedure that utilizes compromi e programming (CP) s approaches and response surfaces should be available within the framework to assist exploration of efficient (Pareto) solutions and better decision making under multiple objectives. decomposition based MDO methods. l • Provide the ability to account for uncertainties in design using probabilistic constraints and robust design formulations. and hybrid approximations as well as two-point approximations which use function value and function gradients at the previous design point to account for the function curvature. such as. Another approach is to use gradients of the response function for constructing a Taylor Series Approximation. • Provide support to easy description and set up of MDO problems using formal. according to different quality requirements should be available for modeling such stochastic characteristics and design reliable products that are insensitive or tolerant to design variations. However. It is essential to provide a mechanism to quantify a variety of design variability (uncertainty). A VCM approximation is basically a formal way of keeping the scaling factors between the results of the two analysis tools and applying them to the outputs of the less expensive code when an "approximate" analysis is required. it is extremely important that the framework provide an easy way of describing and setting up the optimization problem. for use with these forma methods. . reciprocal. e variations of design parameters.

Component resistance is influenced by operating temperatures.15 .0 < 0 (component 2 reliability) The A-i-O problem has 8 design variables that are the following: 0. e shape and topology optimization capabilities.com) focus on Product Modeling and Ease of Tools and Process Integration across distributed and heterogeneous computing environments. I (www. Among the several commercials tools that specialize in Process Integration and Exploration..com) and OptiStruct from Altair Computing. (www.1 Electronic Packaging Design: The electronic packaging is a mu ltidisciplinary problem with coupling between electrical and thermal subsystems. the Java and C++ based AML (Automated Modeling Language) from TechnoSoft. Pareto curves and surfaces. The design data here include design variables. Inc.technosoft. The objective of the problem is to maximize the watt density for the electronic package subject to constraints. etc. For the A-i-O approach. Inc.0 Applications: 5. 1993. A combination of these different tools is required to effectively meet the requirements of a MDO framework.05 < heat sink width (x1) < 0.engineous.0 (branch current equality) g1 = Y11 – 85. object ives and constraints as well as response surfaces.altair. in the different problem solving capabilities. extensible for user addition of optimization solvers. The relative strength of Tcl/Tk based iSIGHT v5. • The framework should be easy to use in terms of user interface for MDO. iSIGHT’ problem solving capabilities s include Approximation Concepts.com) and ModelCenter v2.0 from Phoenix Integration. the optimization problem is given as follows: Maximize: Y1 (Watt Density) Subject to: h1 = Y4 – Y5 = 0. (www. More details of the problem can be obtained in Renaud. the temperatures depend on resistance. • Provide effective support for database management for through SQL (Structured Query Language) interface for data storage/access/manipulation both at the local (subsystem) and global (system) levels. (www. The constraints require the operating temperatures for the resistors to be below a threshold temperature and the current through the two resistors to be equal. Inc.0 from Engineous Software. 5.phoenix-int.0 < 0 (component 1 reliability) g2 = Y12 – 85.com) is nc.• Provide effective support of visualization of design data both at runtime and post processing stages. scalable for large scale problem solving and provide for robust performance. Design of Experiments and an Advisor based recommendation of Optimization search strategies while OptiStruct provids for sizing.

009 The Collaborative Optimization problem formulation for the Electronic Packaging problem is as follows: The system level optimization problem is stated as: Maximize: Z1 Subject to: J 1 < 0. Bounds on design variables. The BLISS system optimization problem is stated as: Find the set of system variables. Z12) that are the coupling 2 parameters between the 2 disciplines and physically represent the resistances and component temperatures.0001.01 < fin length (x ) < 0.0 0. The system level CO problem has 5 design variables that are coupling parameters: Z Z2. g2 = Y12 – 85. Z11. and Bounds on design variables. The thermal subsystem optimization task is given by: Minimize: J (where.0001. 1. Z3.4 & Y2.10 3 0.005 < fin width (x4) < 0. Y3. The thermal subsystem optimization task is given as: . and Bounds on design variables.0 < 0. The system level 1 optimization task has a total of 4 design variables (Z.8 & Y11. g2 = Y12 – 85.004 < temperature coefficient (x8) < 0.0 < resistance #1 (x5) < 1000.0 < 0.0 0.0 < 0. The electrical subsystem optimization task is given by: Minimize: J (where. The system level sensitivities are computed analytically.05 < heat sink length (x ) < 0. J1 = (Y11-Z11)2 + (Y12-Z12)2 + (Y2-Z2)2 + (Y3-Z3)2 + (Y1-Z1)2 ) 1 Subject to: h 1 = 0.0.0 < resistance #2 (x7) < 1000. Z11. Z3.0.0 < 0. g1 = Y11 – 85. Z12. i. i. J2 < 0. The thermal task includes 6 design variables: X i = 1.15 2 0. Z. J2 = (Y11-Z11)2 + (Y12-Z12)2 + (Y2-Z2)2 + (Y3-Z3)2 ) 2 Subject to: g 1 = Y11 – 85.05 10. The BLISS method formulation for the Electronic Packaging problem is as follows: The system level objective function is to maximize Watt Density (Y ). The thermal task includes 6 design variables: X i = 5.004 < temperature coefficient (x6) < 0. Y12. Maximize: Y1 (Watt Density) Subject to: Bounds on Z The 2 subsystem optimization problems are stated as follows.009 10.

0 ≤ 0 The thermal task has 4 design variables: X1i. etc. The BIP can also be thought as the "Body-In-White" with glass.). we report the total number of function evaluations. we report the sum of the number of function evaluations in each subsystem. CO. For A-i-O. fuel tank. IDF. and Harshness (NVH) requirements and conforming to Government-mandated crash survival regulations. We also account the average number of fixed-point iterations taken to achieve each MDA. i = 1. For BLISS. ∆X2 + (Y2-Z2)2 + (Y3 – Z3)2 Subject to: h 1 = Y4 – Y5 = 0. A trimmed body structure may be thought of as a vehicle without the suspension and power train sub-systems. including those require for finite-difference evaluations.4 The Electrical subsystem optimization task is given as: Maximize: φ= D(Y1.Maximize: φ= D(Y1. times the number of disciplines.0 ≤ 0 g 2 = Y12 − 85.X2).0 The Electrical task has 4 design variables: X2i.8 The Electronic Packaging problem was solved using the A -i-O. . cars have to be as light as possible while s meeting the Noise.2 Automotive Vehicle NVH and Crashworthiness Design: To be competitive on the today’ market. 4. Thus.X1). including those necessary to compute the finite-difference derivatives. and seats) and trim items (carpeting. For CO. i = 5. battery. ∆X1 + (Y11-Z11)2 + (Y12 – Z12)2 Subject to: g1 = Y11 − 85. different NVH models are used for different purposes so that the quality of the NVH is high and the cost is at minimum. including those taken forfinite-difference computation. For IDF. The BIP plays an important role in determining the dynamic characteristics of the vehicle. Noise. we report the total number of system analysis as well as the total number of all the subsystem/disciplinary analyses. the average number of function evaluations for each run of A-i-O is equal to the number of MDA times the average number of fixed -point iterations per MDA times the number of disciplines. Vibration. In car product s development process. hood. and the number of d iterations taken by the system-level optimization problem. A vehicle with a good NVH often results in a much higher customer’ satisfaction. and Harshness (NVH) is one of the most important attributes for car product development. The BIP is a trimmed body without all the closures (door. deck lid) and other sub-systems (steering column. and BLISS approaches and the results are provided in Table 1. we report the total number of multidisciplinary analyses (MDA). Vibration. A car body call Body-In-Prime ed (BIP) is used for this study.

128826 6085 0 0 0 124868 0 286 2 2484 0 The explicit finite element dynamic software RADIOSS was used for crush smulation. The lower surface is tangent to the surface . . The thickness design variables contain floor panels. . 1=AXISYM. The full scale NVH finite element model is shown in Figure 7. . . The normal modes were calculated under the free-free condition. . . . . . .000. . . . . NUMBER OF 3D SOLID ELEMENTS . The longitudinal axis of the ram (see Figure 8) is at a forward angle (side view) of 5 degrees below the horizontal. . .32 Hz. . The Crash finite element model is shown in Figure 8 and the summary of its characteristics is shown below: NUMBER OF NODAL POINTS. . The upper bounds for static torsion and static bending displacements are chosen as 3.g. . . .The BIP normal modes. 2=PLANE STRAIN . .. . The total number of shell elements is close to 68. . . i Some unnecessary parts in the NVH model are deleted and some missing parts are added in the roof crush model. . . . . . including 10 for backlite glasses and sheet metal thickness. .676 N/mm while the torsion stiffness calculated using a torque applied at the front shock tower locations was 9092 N m/Deg. . . 10% improvement from the initial design. . . . . .7 Hz and overall bending at 38.1 mm. ANALYSIS TYPE: 0=3D.000. A 72 inches by 30 inches square ram is added to perform the roof crush as specified by the FMVSS 216. . The finite element roof crush model for this study is converted from a NVH model. NUMBER OF 3D TRUSS ELEMENTS . The bending stiffness calculated using a load applied at the front rocker locations was 3. . in the front view projection. . of 25 degrees below the horizontal. . NUMBER OF 3D SHELL ELEMENTS (3 -NODES). shotgun and radiator support. . . NUMBER OF 3D BEAM ELEMENTS . NUMBER OF 3D SHELL ELEMENTS (4 -NODES) . . NUMBER OF PROPERTY SETS . NUMBER OF 2D SOLID ELEMENTS . very detailed side doors were added and the glasses are refined. 9 for the stiffness of conn ection between the backlite glass and structures.. The total number of nodes is about 69. The lateral axis is at a lateral outboard angle. Vehicle roof crush is a federally mandated requirement intended to enhance passenger protection during a rollover event. . The static bending analysis was conduced with front (yz and z) and rear (xz and xyz) shock towers constrained while for the static torsion rear shock tower supports (xz and xyz) and a mid point of the lower radiator support (z) were constrained. The free-free normal mode analysis show that the overall torsion at 26. . . backlite glass. . . i. . . e. . The total number of elements for roof crush is about 120.000. . .3 mm and 1.e. . . . and is parallel to the vertical plane hrough the vehicle’ t s longitudinal centerline. . . . . jacking/towing on quarter panel. . NUMBER OF 3D SPRING ELEMENTS. The test procedure is clearly defined in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS 216). . static bending and static torsion analyses were conducted using the MSC/NASTRAN. NUMBER OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS . . . . . . . The total number of design variables for the NVH model is 19. . . . The torsion frequency for the BIP free-free normal mode is to increase by 10% to 29. .9 Hz.

The multidisciplinary NVH -Crashworthiness Optimization problem can be speci fically stated as: Given the set of system (Z) and local (X) design variables. and. B-pillar. the NVH discipline has 29 local design variables while the crash discipline has 20 local design variables. . It involves using multiple approximation models. In this study.400 lb. As described in the FMVSS 216.240 N) or 1.5 times the vehicle weight. as well as handling of large I/O -intensive MSC. dynamic load balancing across the multiple hundred threads. A subset of these design variablesZ=10) ( are common to both the NVH and crash disciplines. The Origin 2000 platform provided an effective computing platform for the OMDAA process involving compute intensive analyses and methods. the deign s variables are primarily sizing (thickness) variables. the force generated by vehicle resistance must be greater than 5000 lb (22.32 Hz Crash Force at Interface 2 (Normal) > 24kN Bounds on the design variables.5 MPH. The door thickness and material yield stress parametes are chosen as the design variables.of the vehicle and initial contact point is on the longitudinal centerline of the lower surface of the ram and 10 inches from the forward most point of the centerline. C-pillar and roof thickness.3 mm Static bending displacement < 1. 2000]. The OMDAA solution procedure is executed on a SGI Origin 2000 High Performance Computing (HPC) server. referred to as OMDAA (Optimization by a Mix of Dissimilar A nalysis and Approximations) [Sobieszczanski-Sobieski et. through 5 inches of ram displacement. al. The Origin 2000 is a cache -coherent non-uniform access multiprocessor (ccNUMA) architecture where the memory is physically distributed among the nodes but is globally addressable to all the processors through the interconnection network.2 mm Frequency (Mode3) 26. located at the NASA Ames Research Center. The solution procedure is a piecewise approximation based optimization method. which ever is less. the ram normal speed was set to 7. with 256 processors. Find: ∆X and ∆Z Minimize: Weight of the Car Body Satisfy: Static torsion displacement < 3. The effectiveness is in terms of robustness of the operating system.. In the RADIOSS simulation. As mentioned earlier. A-pillar. spring stiffness. material yield stress parameters. sensitivity based approximation model for NVH responses and polynomial response surface approximation model for Crash responses.65 < ω3 < 29.Nastran and RADIOSS jobs. the roof crush resistant force was set to be 5. X and Z In this optimization task. r The common set of design variables (Z) for the NVH and roof crush problems are windshield.

The dilemma is that to optimize a vehicle as a system one needs to consider a few.0 Summary: An overview of selected Multidisciplinary Design Optimization methods have been presented to show how the formal methodology may help in solving the designer’ s dilemma. labeled Approximate. depends on the accuracy of the predictions the approximations make in regard to the behavior data requested by the optimizer. The latter are simply too timeconsuming to be available on-line to support directly the system level optimization. each pertaining to a physical phenomenon or a hardware part. The final design is a feasible design with a weight reduction of 15 kg relative to the initial design. while preserving the m athematical linkages (couplings) between the sub -optimizations . 5. The MDO methods solve the above dilemma by decomposing the system opimization into sub-optimizations. C pillar dimension. The result is a mix of changes in both directions. while variable #28. To incorporate optimization such as the one reported herein in the actual design process would require close scrutiny of the results after each OMDAA cycle and a free exercise of human judgment and interv ention in the process. The accuracy can be assessed by comparing the behavior predicted by the analysis performed at the outset of a new cycle with the predictions generated by the approximations in the pre vious cycle. the initial design is an infeasible design with NVH discipline Static Torsion constraint violations of over 10%. but to be correct that system -level analysis must also engage a very large number of locally important detailed design variables and subsystem analyses.The results in terms of the design variable and behavior function values are documented in Table 2. To make the problem tractable. system-level variables to evaluate a limited number of the vehicle principal characteristics. For example. The errors are relatively quite small attesting to the effectivene of the approximations used in this ss application. variable #33. It is by such a symbiosis of engineer's judgment with computational algorithm that superior designs can best be achieved. labeled Actual. The changes to the design itself may also be called for as suggested by physical insight in the process gained by examination of the intermediate results. has been reduced by 33 %. A pillar yield stress parameter. constraints. changes of the cross -section from one type to another say from a closed tube to an open channel. Convergence of optimization based on approximations. may be in order dependent whether the critical constraints are those of strength or stiffness. That intervention might include adding and removing design variables. As seen from Table 2. has been increased by 67 %. and those based on the polynomial crash response surface model. the conventional practice separates the system -level analysis and optimization from the detailed. such as OMDAA. and changes to the mathematical model as the non-linear crash process unfolds. for instance. component level design by substituting at the system level the statistical data and simplified analyses and estimates for the data that should be provided by the detailed analyses. Table 3 displays such comparisons by showing the data obtained by analysis. Table 2 also shows that the optimization procedure was very judicious in choosing which variables should increase or decrease.

6 -17. Gabriele. Edited by: N. pp. 8. O. C. D. No. September 2-4. Each of the few selected MDO methods reviewed in the paper approaches the above decomposition problem in a different manner that gives rise to a different execution algorithm unique to the method..” AIAA Journal. Advances in Structural Optimization. 1998. 1996. New Engineering Discipline”. Kroo. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kroo. Kodiyalam. November 1994. J. AIAA-98-0915.and the system-level optimization. “Bi Level Integrated System Synthesis with Response Surfaces. eliminating the need for substituting simplifications and y estimates for hard data. NV. “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: an Emerging. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. 1995. Reno. Number 1. 34. J. August 2000.0 References: 1. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. Jan. Louis.483 -496. Salas and J. A. Collaborative Optimization using Response Surface Estimation. AIAA Paper No. 31. E. September 1998.” SIAM Journal on Optimization. “Optimization of Coupled Systems: A Critical Overview of Approaches.). 32. 4(4). Sobieski and I. “Improved Coordination in Non -Hierarchic System Optimization. Balling and J. That opportunity is being assisted by availability of frameworks– software packages that integrate codes.” AIAA Journal. Vol. 2. “Problem Formulation for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. January 1998. Preservation of the couplings enables the system -level optimization and its underlying analysis to communicate with the detailed sub optimizations their anal ses. Kodiyalam. E. Cramer. Number 12. J. 9. Dennis. 38. E. 11. Hussaini.” Proceedings. P. J. 754-776. 2367 -2373. J. Vol. 6. 6. 3. Discussion of requirements for such frameworks has been included to offer assistance in future developments. However. R. 1994. pp. 1993. pp. Gabriele. pp.” AIAA Journal. J. Renaud and G. SIAM. 4. Shubin.” AIAA Journal.S. J. “Approximation In Non-Hierarchic System Optimization. 1. R.” Multidisciplinary Desig Optimization. Alexandrov n and M. 8. J. State of the Art. Lewis and G. A. M. P. R. I. Frank. S. S. Braun and I. Phase 1. they have a common denominator of creating opportunity for concurrent execution of numerical subtasks to compress the project time. “Optimization by Decomposition: A Step from nd Hierarchic to Non-hierarchic Systems. Y. R. J. Sobieszczanski Sobieski. 198 -205. NASA/CR-1998-208716. 1997. data. 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Vol. 2 NASA/USAF Symposium . “Development and Application of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture in a Multidisciplinary Design Environment. A. AIAA Paper No. Townsend. Herskovits (Ed. and Sobieski. and user interfaces. Evaluation of Methods for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO). No. Renaud and G. pp. D. St. NASA Contractor Report. AIAA-98-4740. 10. 5. Vol. MO. E. “Framework Requirements for MDO Application Development”. 7.

J. No. “Optimization of Car Body for Noise. “Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS). 1999.. 15. Jr. Hampton. Agte and R.. Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 41st Structures. 16. Also. AIAA Paper No. J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. Missouri. 14. AIAA. Haftka. J. “Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS).” The Aeronautical Journal. 98-4916. Hampton. 1 -23. J. August 1998.” NASA/TM-1998-208715. Virginia. 13. 12. To appear in AIAA Journal. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. J. August 1997. Louis. J. J. 1. 1988. NASA CP -3031. 1988. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/iSSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski. Kodiyalam. “Multidisciplinary Aerospace Design Optimization: Survey of Recent Developments. Atlanta. April 2000. and R. St. T. Yang. 14. Vol. J. S. Virginia. pp. Sandusky.on Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. September 1998. Agte and R. Jr. AIAA Paper Number: AIAA -2000-1521.” Structural Optimization. AIAA. “Multidisciplinary design optimization MDO methos d their synergy with computer technology in the design process. .” Proceedings. NASA TM-101494. Vibration and Harshness (NVH) and Crash”. NASA Langley Research Center. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski and R. Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Sandusky.

0 A general system Optimizer XD U1 µ 21 = F21 (U 1 ) Y21 = E 21 (µ 21 ) U1.Figure 1. U 2 Y12 = E 12 (µ 12 ) Analysis 1 µ 12 = F12 (U 2 ) Analysis 2 U2 Figure 2: A-i-O Model .

xs2 |x2-z2s|2 |y2-z2c|2 ------ JN* zN Subspace Optimizer 1 Min J1(x 1) = |x1-z1s|2 c + |y1-z1|2 s. µ21 µ 21 Y12 = E 12 X µ 12 µ 12 ( ) Analysis 1 U1 U2 Analysis 2 Y21 = E 21 X µ21 ( ) Figure 3: IDF Model z1 System Analysis J1* System Optimizer Min F(z) s.t.t. g2(x 2.Optimizer X D. µ12 .x s1) < 0 x 1. xs1 y1. N z2 J2* Subspace Optimizer 2 Min J2(x2) = + s. U2 . g1(x 1. g2 Subspace Analysis 1 Subspace Analysis 2 Subspace Analysis N Figure 4: CO Model . g1 Subspace Optimizer N s Min JN(x N) = |xN-zN|2 + |yN-zc |2 N s. Xµ21 U 1.t. Jj*(z) = 0. j = 1. Xµ12 . xsN yN.t. g N(x N.x s2) < 0 x2. gN y2.xsN) < 0 x N.

x2. Y3 THERMAL Y11. x3. x4 ELECTRICAL Y2. x6.Z) BBSA BB i BLISS cycle BBOPT BB j BBOPT BB i ∆X opt Optimum Sensitivity Analysis or RSM System Optimization ∆Z opt Update Variables Figure5: BLISS Model x5. D(Y. Y12 Y1 Figure 6: Data Flow in Electronic Packaging Problem .x8 x1.X). x7.Initialize X & Z System Analysis Y X = X o + ∆X opt Z = Zo + ∆Zopt Final Design Convergence BBSA BB j System Sensitivity Analysis D(Y.

Figure 7: NVH Model of Automotive Vehicle Figure 8: Roof Crush Finite Element Model of Automotive Vehicle .

29 -0.0 Weight (kg) Mode 3 Frequency (hz) Static Torsion (mm) Static Bending (mm) Crash Normal Force (kN) Internal Energy Table 3: NVH and Crash Approximation Model Errors .22D-03 Table 1: Electronic Packing Application – Results Response Name Response Values Actual 1522.289 -0.3 3.57 2617.73 29.9 % Error between Actual & Approximate Values 0.935 29.3 -2.Case A-i-O IDF CO Initial Design Objective 6836.3 6836.895 30.69 29.43 2400.0 +1.0 0.21880D-03 +0.89560D-01(3) 639720.289 Final Design Objective 639720.30 -0.32 3.32 3.00023 Work 264 8976 19872 (123 system iterations) 207 (5 system analyses) BLISS 6836.97 Approximate 1522.3 4.9 Final Design Max Constraint Violation +1.9 9.0 0.3 Initial Design Max Constraint Violation -2.3 6836.89560D-01 -0.0 653670.0 657162.0001 +0.

76 1.4 0.5 0.41 3627.7 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3681 0.8 0.8 0.95 1518.8876 2.76 1.5 0.0 0.0998 0.Number Attribute Name NVH Design Variables 1 Rear floor panel 2 Rear floor cross member 3 Front floor pan 4 Front floor inner 5 Jacking/towing 6 Quarter panel 7 Backlite glass 8 Rear tire cover 9 Shotgun 10 Radiator support 11 Top edge (x-component) 12 Top edge (y-component) 13 Top edge (z-component) 14 Bottom edge (x-component) 15 Bottom edge (y-component) 16 Bottom edge (z-component) 17 Side edges (x-component) 18 Side edges (y-component) 19 Side edges (z-component) Common Design Variables 20 Windshield 21 Roof Panel 22 Roof rail 23 Roof Cross Member Front 24 Roof Cross Member Rear 25 A Pillar 26 B Pillar 1 27 B Pillar 2 28 B Pillar 3 29 C Pillar Crash Design Variables 30 Front door thickness 31 Front door inner thickness 32 Rear door thickness 33 A-Pillar 1 34 A-Pillar 2 35 A-Pillar 3 Initial Design 0.6 1.51 629.0 3886.7944 0.1926 1.97 3632.0 3874.6 1.0 3628.207 0.0971 0.345 0.11 477.0 2734.345 0.37 1417.192 .0 Cycle 1 1.4 0.6 0.345 0.8 0.6 0.5 1193.8 0.3 1521.22 0.7788 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.24 1438.7 0.0 2.7 1.5 1.4 0.4 0.3 366.07 0.96 3873.207 0.6 0.2643 0.5 1.8 0.19 675.5 1.8876 2.0923 1.5 1070.76 1073.0 2.5 487.0 1.207 2.95 2733.4 0.0 0.8 3.75 1.8 0.41 478.59 3.8 1.0 1.7 0.75 484.30 513.5 0.8 0.5 0.52 1914.345 2.9 2733.192 0.6 0.9 0.6 1424.5 1.0 520.7 0.39 Cycle 2 1.35 0.6 0.

Objectives and Constraint: Initial and Optimized Values .207 0.3 3 Mode 3 (Hz) 26.345 MDO Objectives and Constraints related Responses: 1 NVH Weight (kg) 282.7 0.53 1240.32 4 Static Torsion3.70 2 Crash Weight (kg) 1255.31 Z displacement: (mm) (Violated) 6 Static Bending-0.192 38 Front door inner 1 0.345 0.43 2400.192 39 Front door inner 2 0.69 28.82 reaction at I/F 2 (kN) 8 Internal Energy 3015.79 2331.68 -3.97 -0.2 29.97 Z displacement: Maximum (mm) 7 Crash: NF – Normal 34.192 0.29 -3.97 Table 2: Design Variables.31 -0.67 (Violated) 3.345 0.36 B-Pillar 1 0.65 29.207 0.65 1240.345 37 B-Pillar 2 0.32 3.935 29.345 282.44 282.207 0.29 Z displacement: (mm) 5 Static Torsion-3.345 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful