AIAA Aerodynamic Design Optimization Discussion Group

Background

The aerodynamic optimization community has little to nothing in the way of benchmark problems with which to assess the utility of optimization methods and processes. As such, it suffers from a “Start with a Dog” principle in design method promotion, wherein the practitioner starts with a configuration that is unsuitable for the problem at hand then demonstrates extensive improvements obtained by using their favourite design method. Over the past several years, aerodynamic design optimization methods have flourished, however the scientific community lacks a basic set of benchmark aerodynamic test cases to compare and highlight the specific contributions of their approach.

Purpose

Provide a foundation for rational assessment of the multitudinous aerodynamic design optimization methods to problems of interest.

Stakeholders

• Aerodynamic Design Optimization Community.
• Aircraft Manufactures.
• Academia.

Organizing Committee

• Siva Nadarajah (Co-Chair), McGill University.
• Stephen LeDouc (Co-Chair), Boeing.
• Christian Allen, University of Bristol.
• Olivier Amoignon, Swedish Defence Research Agency.
• Gerald Carrier, ONERA.
• Jason Hicken, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
• Leifur Leifsson, Reykjavik University.
• Joaquim Martins, University of Michigan.
• Arthur Rizzi, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
• John Vassberg, Boeing.
• David Zingg, University of Toronto.

Product

Establish a series of increasingly complex set of benchmark problems suitable for exercising aerodynamic optimization methods in a constrained design space. The benchmark problems must be diverse enough to exercise methods in searches for both global and local optima for both single and multipoint optimization, while being realistic enough to exercise the types of constraints that the practitioner is likely to encounter. Moreover, in order to garner participation from industry, the problems should be general (or novel) enough that they do not require revelation of the design philosophy of the participants’ organizations.

Test Cases

1. Case 1: Drag Minimization of the NACA 0012 in Transonic Inviscid Flow.
2. Case 2: Drag Minimization of the RAE 2822 in Transonic Viscous Flow.
3. Case 3: Drag Minimization of a Rectangular Wing in Inviscid Subsonic Lifting Flow.
4. Case 4: Lift-Constrained Drag Minimization of the CRM Wing.
   1. Geometry File.
   2. Case 4.1: Lift-Constrained Drag Minimization of a Wing Allowing Section and Twist Variation.
   3. Case 4.2: Three-Point Wing Optimization to Minimize the Integral of C_D Over a Range of Aircraft Weights at a Fixed Mach Number and Altitude
   4. Case 4.3: Three-Point Wing Optimization to Minimize the Integral of C_D Over a Range of Mach numbers at a Fixed Aircraft Weight and Altitude
   5. Case 4.4: Three-Point Wing Optimization to Minimize the Integral of C_D Over a Range of Mach numbers at a Fixed Aircraft Weight with Altitude Varied to Maintain a Constant C_L Over The Range of Aircraft Mach Numbers
   6. Case 4.5: Nine-Point Wing Optimization to Minimize the Integral of C_D Over a Range of Aircraft Weights and Mach Numbers at a Fixed Altitude
5. Case 5: CRM Wing-Body-Tail Optimization at Flight Reynolds Number