See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/253650894

Reliability Based Multidisciplinary Optimization of Aeroelastic Systems with

Structural and Aerodynamic Uncertainties

Article  in  Journal of Aircraft · May 2013

DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

CITATIONS READS

16 520

2 authors:

Melike Nikbay Muhammet Nasıf Kuru

Istanbul Technical University Cukurova University
91 PUBLICATIONS   644 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a Nonlinear Sonic Boom Prediction Software View project

Computational Aeroelasticity Investigations For NATO-RTO-AVT-203 and Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melike Nikbay on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT
Vol. 50, No. 3, May–June 2013

Reliability Based Multidisciplinary Optimization of Aeroelastic

Systems with Structural and Aerodynamic Uncertainties

Melike Nikbay∗ and Muhammet N. Kuru†

Istanbul Technical University, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey
DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693
A reliability-based multidisciplinary optimization framework is constructed by coupling high-fidelity commercial
solvers for aeroelastic analysis and an in-house code developed for reliability analysis. The finite volume-based flow
solver Fluent is used to solve inviscid three-dimensional Euler equations, whereas three-dimensional solid models are
updated using Catia parametrically. A mesh-based parallel code coupling interface (MPCCI), is used to exchange the
pressure and displacement information between Fluent and Abaqus to perform a loosely coupled aeroelastic analysis.
The optimization criteria include both deterministic and probabilistic constraints with both structural and
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

aerodynamic uncertainties, such as in yield strength, Mach number, and angle of attack. To evaluate the probability
of failure for the probabilistic constraints a first-order reliability analysis method, the Hasofer–Lind iteration
method, is implemented in MATLAB to compute the most probable failure point solution. The integrated framework
is validated with structural problems and then extended to more realistic wing configurations with aeroelastic criteria.
The presented reliability-based multidisciplinary optimization process is proven to be fully automatic, modular, and
practical, which could find potential applications in industrial problems.

Nomenclature u_ = first time derivative of displacement

croot = chord of the wing root u
= second time derivative of displacement
ctip = chord of the wing tip v1 , v2 , v3 = velocity components of x, y, z

D = damping matrix directions, respectively
E = Young’s modulus W = conservative fluid state variables
E
⋅ = expectation operator XR = set of random variables in original space
E~ = total energy XRi = particular value of XR
F = flux vector z = objective function
Fa = aerodynamic force α = angle of attack
Fe = external force β = reliability index (safety index)
FXR x = cumulative distribution function of XR σ max = maximum stress of the wing
σ yield = yield strength
F~ 1 , F~ 2 , F~ 3 = Cartesian components of flux vector Λc4 = sweep at the quarter chord
fXR x = probability density function of XR λ = taper ratio
gs = set of inequality constraints λR = reliability

K = stiffness matrix ρ = fluid mass density
L
D = lift over drag value
M = Mach number

M = mass matrix
m = total mass of the wing I. Introduction
N det
N prob
P
=
=
=
number of deterministic inequality constraints
number of probabilistic inequality constraints
probability of failure
T HE design of aeroelastic systems for maximum performance
and minimum weight while attaining maximum reliability
has been a challenging multidisciplinary optimization problem.
p = pressure Aerospace structures have been designed traditionally by using
s = set of optimization parameters deterministic approaches based on Federal Aviation Administration
sL = lower bound of s regulations for a high level of safety. However, it is known that
sU = upper bound of s deterministic optimization techniques may lead to unreliable or
U = set of random variables in standard normal inefficient designs, because they cannot consider the uncertainties in
space different design parameters simultaneously. In engineering design,
u = structural displacement uncertainties related to geometries, material properties, manufactur-
umax = maximum displacement of the wing ing processes, and operating conditions are inevitable factors, which
should be accurately quantified and included while designing and
optimizing a realistic system for a required level of reliability and
Presented as Paper 2010-9187 at the 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary efficiency. For that reason, recently there is a growing interest in
Analysis and Optimization (MAO) Conference, Fort Worth, Texas, 13–15 replacing deterministic design approaches with uncertainty-based sto-
September 2010; received 4 October 2011; revision received 23 August 2012; chastic computations to produce more robust and efficient structures.
accepted for publication 3 December 2012; published online 23 April 2013. Two essential components of reliability-based design optimi-
Copyright © 2012 by Melike Nikbay. Published by the American Institute of zation (RBDO) are reliability analysis and optimization. Reliability
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. Copies of this paper may analysis focuses on analyzing the probabilistic constraints to ensure
be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the the reliability levels are satisfied, whereas optimization is seeking
$10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood for the optimal performance, which is subjected to the probabilistic
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 1542-3868/13 and $10.00 in
correspondence with the CCC. constraints.
*Associate Professor, Astronautical Engineering Department, Faculty of Extensive research has been done to explore various efficient
Aeronautics and Astronautics. Senior Member AIAA. reliability analysis techniques including sensitivity-based approxi-
† mation approaches in [1,2], most probable failure point (MPP)-based
Graduate Student, Informatics Institute, Computational Science and
Engineering, Maslak. approaches in [3–5], Monte Carlo simulations, and response surface
708
 NIKBAY AND KURU
model-based approaches in [6–8]. Among those, MPP-based ap-
proaches have attracted more attention, as they require relatively less
computational effort while still producing results with acceptable
accuracy compared to the other three approaches [9,10]. Another
research topic for RBDO is on the integration of reliability analysis
and optimization, using nested double-loop strategy or decoupled
double-loop strategy. Nested double-loop methods treat the reli-
ability analysis as the inner loop analyzing the probabilistic con-
straint satisfaction of which solutions are given to the outer optimizer
to locate the optimal solution iteratively. As a result, nested double-loop
methods are computationally expensive for a complex engineering
design [9,11,12]. Therefore, decoupled double-loop methods have
been developed to address the computational challenges as in [9,
12–17].
Integration of RBDO methodologies to aerospace engineering
applications has been a challenging research subject recently. Pettit
[18] presented general sources of uncertainty on aeroelastic response,
such as flutter flight testing, prediction of limit cycle oscillations, and
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693
design optimization with aeroelastic constraints, and reviewed
research challenges in this field. Allen and Maute [19] proposed a
computational methodology that both uses high-fidelity simulation
methods and accounts for uncertainties in design and operating
conditions within the design process of aeroelastic structures. Hosder
and Maddalena [20] presented an inexpensive nonintrusive
polynomial chaos (NIPC) method for the propagation of input
uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations.
Moreover, this NIPC approach has been applied to three different
problems, which were an inviscid oblique shock wave problem with
geometric uncertainty; an inviscid expansion wave problem with
geometric uncertainty; and a subsonic, two dimensional, laminar
boundary-layer flow over a flat plate with an uncertain freestream
dynamic viscosity. Lee et al. [21] performed a reliability analysis for
the aerodynamic analysis of a two-dimensional airfoil, a three-
dimensional wing, and a wing-body configuration by using moment
method. A stochastic spectral projection solver based on generalized
polynomial chaos expansion was applied to the uncertainty quan-
tification of stochastic compressible flows around a NACA 0012
airfoil due to a random freestream Mach number and angle of attack
in [22]. Recently, Missoum et al. [23] presented a methodology,
which constructed explicit flutter and subcritical limit cycle oscilla-
tion boundaries in terms of deterministic and random design variables
for the RBDO of systems with nonlinear aeroelastic constraints.
In this paper, a fully automatic, modular, and practical design
framework, which employs RBDO techniques with a multidiscipli-
nary code coupling approach based on high-fidelity CAD, CFD, and
computational structural dynamics (CSD) software, and fluid-structure
interface is developed and applied to aeroelastic optimization
problems. Deterministic optimization studies with a multidisciplinary
code coupling approach were presented in [24,25]. Present work is an
RBDO extension of the former multidisciplinary design optimization
framework in [24], so that day-to-day codes can be still used in an
attach/detach manner for realistic problems with stochastic nature.
II. Reliability-Based Design Optimization
A generic RBDO problem can be formulated as follows:
min fd; p; yd; p
gprob
i XR ; η ≥ 0; i  1; · · · ; N prob
gdet
j d; p; yd; p ≥ 0; j  1; · · · ; N det
d ≤d≤d
l u
(1)
where d denotes the design variables, and p denotes the fixed
parameters. The function yd; p is defined to predict performance
characteristics of the designed product. Probabilistic constraints are
represented with the superscript “prob”, whereas deterministic
constraints are represented with the superscript “det.” Moreover, XR
denotes the vector of continuous random variables with known (or
assumed) joint cumulative distribution function, FXR x. Determin-
istic parameters, also called the limit state parameters, are denoted by
709
η. Additionally, probabilistic constraint (gprob
i ≥ 0) can be written as
given below:
Pallowi ≥ Pi (2)
where Pi is the probability of failure due to ith failure mode at the
given design. On the other hand, Pallowi is the allowable probability of
failure for this failure mode. The probability of failure Pi is given by
Z
Pi  fXR x dx (3)
gprob
i <0
where fXR x denotes the joint probability density function of XR ,
and gprob
i < 0 represents the failure domain.
Equation (3) can not be evaluated analytically. When g has a
normal distribution, the probability of failure can be written as
P  1 − Φβ (4)
and geometrical illustration of the safety index β given in Eq. (5) can
be shown in Fig. 1:
μg
β  −Φ−1 1 − λR  (5)
σg
where Φ−1 is the inverse standard normal cumulative distribution
function, and subscript g represents a probabilistic inequality
constraint. From Fig. 1, it is seen that reliability λR is defined as the
probability that the probabilistic constraint is satisfied
g ≥ 0, and
reliability is desired to be greater than a target reliability.
In most cases, numerical methods are employed to approximate
the reliability index (β). Mean value first order second moment
(MVFOSM) is the simplest, least-expensive reliability method to
obtain the reliability index. Using Eq. (4) MVFOSM gives inaccurate
results when the number of variables increases to obtain similar scale;
in the multiple variables first-order reliability method (FORM) can
be used. FORM searches for the MPP on the limit state surface
gXR ; η  0 and also requires the transformation of the random
variables vector XR into the standard normal space as follows:
XRi − μXRi
Ui  (6)
σ XRi
where μXRi and σ XRi represent the mean (first raw moment) and
the standard deviation (second central moment) of XRi . After the
transformation shown in Fig. 2 the mean value point in the original
space (X space) is mapped into the origin of the normal space (U
space), so that the components of U are normally distributed with
zero means and unit variance and are statistically independent.
FORM employs a linear approximation of the limit state function at
the MPP and is considered to be accurate as long as the curvature is
not too large. When the input variables have nonnormal distributions,
the Rosenblatt transformation [26] can be used to get equivalent
normal distributions.
In RBDO, probabilistic constraint can be evaluated in two different
ways: either using reliability index approach (RIA) or performance
measure approach (PMA). Reliability analysis in RIA can be formu-
lated as follows:
Fig. 1 The probability density function of the limit state function.
 710 NIKBAY AND KURU

Fig. 2 Transformation of random variables to standard normal space.

Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

min kUk s.t. gU; η  0 (7) If the limit-state function is nonlinear the approximate limit-state
surface is obtained by linearizing the original limit-state function at
where reliability analysis in PMA is formulated as the inverse of the the mean value point. Therefore, this method is called the mean-value
reliability analysis in RIA: method, and the β0 given in Eq. (13) is called a MVFOSM reli-
ability index.
min gU s.t. kUk  βt (8) 4) After βk is found its direction cosine is computed with the
following equation:
Here, βt represents the target reliability index. Although the Hasofer–
Lind (HL) [5] method can be used for solving the optimization ∂gXk 
∂XRi σ XRi
R
problem in Eq. (7), advanced mean value and conjugate mean value
γ ki  cos θkXRi  cos θkUi  − s









































 2
(14)
methods presented in [27] are available to solve the optimization Pn ∂gXkR 
problem in Eq. (8). i1 ∂XRi σ XRi
In this work, probabilistic constraint is evaluated with RIA. The
HL [5] iteration method is employed to solve the optimization
problem in RIA.
5) Next, a new design point Xk1 R in original space and its
A. Hasofer–Lind Iteration Method corresponding set Uk1 in standard normal space are found as
The HL method for normally distributed variables was proposed
XkRi − μXRi
by Hasofer and Lind and then extended by Rackwitz and Fiessler to Uk1  βk cos θkXRi  (15)
include random variable distribution information, calling their ex-
i
σ XRi
tended method the Hasofer/Lind–Rackwitz/Fiessler (HL–RF) meth-
od [28]. Assuming that the limit-state surface with n-dimensional
Ri  μXRi  β σ XRi cos θXRi
Xk1
normally distributed and independent random variables XR is k k (16)

gXR   gfXR1 ; XR2 ; : : : ; XRn gT   0 (9)

6) Then, the new safety index βk1 is found using following
The initial step of the HL method starts with MVFOSM computation. equation:
In the MVFOSM method, the limit-state function is represented as
P
the first-order Taylor series expansion at the mean value point. The gUk1  − ni1 ∂gU
k1 

∂XRi σ XRi U i
k1
reliability analysis implemented in this work is as follows: βk1  s












































 2 (17)
1) Assuming that the variables XR are statistically independent the Pn ∂gUk1 
approximate limit-state function at the mean is written as i1 ∂XRi σ XRi

~ R  ≈ gμXR   ∇gμXR T XR − μXR 

gX (10)
and the direction cosine from Eq. (14).
7) Repeat steps 4 to 6 until the estimate of β converges.
~ R  is
2) The mean value of the approximate limit-state function gX 8) Compute the coordinates of the design point Xk1 R or MPP, XR .


In this work, the partial derivatives needed for direction cosine and
μg~ ≈ E
gμXR   gμXR  (11) β calculations will be computed by finite differencing, because
commercial codes are used to solve for structural and aerodynamic
where E
⋅ is the expectation operator. The standard deviation of the responses. These commercial codes will be treated as black box and
approximate limit-state function is run again with a small perturbation parameter from batch mode, so
that the numerical derivative needed in reliability analysis will be
s










































2

X n  automatically computed by forward differencing in HL iterations in
∂gμXR 
σ g~  σ (12) reliability analysis.
i1
∂XRi XRi
B. Validation of Reliability-Based Design Optimization Methodology
3) The initial reliability index β for iteration k  0 is computed as An in-house RBDO code is developed in MATLAB and validated
by a cantilever beam problem [29]. Figure 3 shows the cantilever
μg~
β0  (13) beam with a rectangular cross section subjected to a vertical load, PY ,
σ g~ and a lateral load, PX , at the tip. It is assumed that the beam has a fixed
 NIKBAY AND KURU 711

length of L  100.0 in: and that the cross-sectional dimensions of Table 1 Statistics of loads and material properties
the beam remain constant along the length of the beam. The design for the cantilever beam problem
objective is to prevent yielding due to normal stress while keeping the Random variable R, psi PX , lbf PY , lbf
weight of the beam low or, equivalently, the cross-sectional area,
Mean 40,000 500 1,000
w  t. We consider yielding at a corner of the fixed end of the beam, Standard deviation 2,000 100 100
where the normal stress (S) is maximum as a limit state, so that

600PY 600PX
S  (18) min F  w  t s.t. β ≥ βt  3.0
wt2 w2 t  
600PY 600PX
g R−S R−  (20)
  wt2 w2 t
600PY 600PX
g R−S R−  (19) In the first step, stress constraint is solved analytically as given in
wt2 w2 t
Eq. (19) and in the second step, Abaqus 6.7.1 is used to compute
where R is the random yield strength, S is the maximum normal stress solution with the purpose of building the high-fidelity optimi-
stress, and PX and PY are mutually independent random loads. zation framework for further studies. An in-house RBDO code is
Assume that there are scatters in PX , PY , and R, and they follow developed in MATLAB and integrated to handle the probabilistic
normal distributions with the following parameters as shown in constraint. An optimization workflow is prepared in Modefrontier to
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

Table 1. govern the optimization process as shown in Fig. 4. In this workflow

It is assumed that the manufacturing tolerances on the cross-
sectional width w and thickness t are relatively small and, therefore,
the dimensions will be treated as deterministic design variables. The
optimization problem is given as
Fig. 3 Cantilever beam problem.
the optimization variables (with their upper and lower bounds and
increments), scheduler, design of experiments (DOE), objectives,
constraints, output variables, and the software are defined. Once the
workflow is run it controls the optimization process automatically by
using the preprepared script files and models.
A solution of the present study took about 27 h 13 min using
Modefrontier on a workstation with Intel® Core™ 2 Quad CPU
Q8300 at 2.50 GHz processor with 2.00 GB of RAM on a Microsoft
Windows XP operating system. In this study, 16 DOEs are used.”Full
factorial” is employed to distribute DOE points. The Broyden-
Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno algorithm is used for attaining optimum
result. Finally a total number of 350 designs are generated for the

Fig. 4 Workflow of the reliability-based structural optimization problem: cantilever beam.

 712 NIKBAY AND KURU

Table 2 Optimization results for the cantilever beam where ρ is the fluid density; v1 , v2 , v3 are three velocities; and E~ is the
problem total internal energy per mass. The flux, F, ~ has three components, F~ 1 ,
w, in. t, in. β F  w  t; in:2 F~ 2 , and F~ 3 as follows:
Present study 2.40 3.96 3.00 9.52 0 1 0 1
Reference study [29] 2.45 3.89 3.00 9.52 ρv1 ρv2
B C B C
B ρv21  p C B ρv2 v1 C
B C B C
B C B C
F~ 1  B ρv1 v2 C F~ 2  B ρv22  p C
optimization problem. As a result, 67 unfeasible designs and 283 B C B C
B ρv v C B ρv v C
feasible designs are found. The results shown in Table 2 supplied by @ 1 3 A @ 2 3 A
the current framework agree well with the analytical stress solution E~  pv1 E~  pv2
and RBDO benchmarks in literature. 0 1
ρv3
B C
B ρv3 v1 C
III. Aeroelastic Analysis B C
B C
In this study, the MPCCI is used as an aeroelastic coupling F~ 3  B ρv3 v2 C (25)
B C
interface. The advantage of using MPCCI is that it facilitates the B ρv2  p C
@ 3 A
exchange of data between nonmatching mesh interfaces of CFD and
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

CSD codes. The staggered algorithm used in this study is given in
Fig. 5. The first arrow shows that CFD code sends the pressure data to
CSD code. The second arrow shows that CSD code calculates the
deformation of the structure under this pressure load. Then, the third
arrow shows that structural displacement values are sent to CFD
code, and the mesh is updated. Finally, by the fourth arrow, CFD code
starts a new flow analysis with the new boundary conditions.
Abaqus 6.7.1, a finite element analysis software, was used as a
linear, static structural solver. Equations of motion for a linear
structure can be written as follows:

Mfug


Dfug
_ 
Kfug  fFa g  fFe g (21)
The time derivatives of Eq. (21) are neglected, because a static
aeroelastic analysis of a cantilever wing will be performed. Also,
gravity is neglected, and only the aerodynamic forces are considered.
Therefore, the system of linear equations can be written as

Kfug  fFa g (22)
Abaqus 6.7.1 calculates displacements by using the aerodynamic loads
calculated from the flow solver Fluent. Fluent 6.3.26 can be employed
for modeling fluid flow both for structured and unstructured grids by
using the Navier–Stokes/Euler equations. A finite volume-based
approach is used to define the discrete equations. The fluid solver
solves the governing equations of continuity, momentum, and energy
simultaneously. In this study, the flow was assumed to be inviscid, and
the Euler equations in Eq. (23) were used. This is a valid approximation
for the high Reynolds number flows according to the Prandtl’s
boundary-layer analysis. Moreover, in [30], inviscid flow models
give acceptable results for maximizing the lift/drag optimization
problems in transonic cruise conditions. In conservative form, the
three-dimensional Euler equations are written as
∂w
 ∇ · Fw
~ 0 (23)
∂t
The conservative fluid state variable, w, is defined as
0 ρ 1
B ρv1 C
B C
w  B ρv2 C (24)
@ A
ρv3
E umax XR ; s
E~  pv3
where p is the fluid pressure.
IV. Reliability-Based Aeroelastic Optimization
of AGARD 445.6 Wing
In the final step of this study, RBDO is applied to an aeroelastic
optimization problem. The well-known AGARD 445.6 wing is
chosen as the wing structure. This wing is the first aeroelastic
configuration that is tested in [31] in the “transonic dynamics tunnel”
at the NASA Langley Research Center. The AGARD 445.6 wing is a
swept-back wing with a quarter-chord sweep angle of 45 deg. Cross
sections of the wing are NACA 65A004 airfoils. The wing has a
taper ratio of 0.66 and an aspect ratio of 1.65. Moreover, it is a
wall-mounted model made with laminated mahogany. The wings
parametric CAD model prepared with Catia V5 is given in Fig. 6.
There are two models of the AGARD 445.6 wing: solid and weak-
ened. In this study, the weakened model of the wing is used. The finite
element model in Abaqus is composed of 19,610 linear hexahedral
structural elements. The computational grid of the flow domain was
constructed in Gambit with 691,000 tetrahedral elements and 1.35 ×
108 faces. The flow is modeled with the Euler equations.
There are two objective functions in the problem: maximizing
the lift/drag ratio “L∕D” and minimizing wing mass “m”. For multi-
objective optimization problems the optimization driver will try to
find the Pareto optimal set. Deterministic aeroelastic optimization of
the AGARD 445.6 wing problem was presented formerly in [24] for
the freestream Mach number of 0.85 and the angle of attack of 5 deg.
In the present work, we consider a set of random variables for fluid
and structural domain XR 
σ yield M α , whereas uncertainties
in yield strength, Mach number, and angle of attack will be accounted
for in the reliability analysis. The probabilistic optimization problem
has two objectives, z1 s and z2 XR ; s, and can be formulated as
 
L
minfz1 sg; maxfz2 XR ; sg  minfmsg; max XR ; s
D
(26)
76 mm
gprob
1 XR ; s  − 1.0 ≥ 0 gprob
1 XR ; s ∈ R (27)

σ yield XR 
gprob
2 XR ; s  − 1.0 ≥ 0 gprob
2 XR ; s ∈ R (28)
σ max XR ; s

or by using reliability index

Fig. 5 Staggered algorithm for the aeroelastic coupling. βgprob

1 XR ; s ≥ 0 − βd ≥ 0 (29)
 NIKBAY AND KURU 713

Fig. 6 AGARD 445.6 wing geometry and finite element method model.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

βgprob will be used as N8.0; 0.4 MPa. For the RBDO problem, the
2 XR ; s ≥ 0 − βs ≥ 0 (30)
freestream Mach number was set to 0.85, and the angle of attack to
5 deg. The Mach number is treated with a normal distribution
S  fs ∈ R2 jsL ≤ s ≤ sU g N0.85; 0.03, and the angle of attack is treated as N5; 0.25 deg.
Here, βs and βd are the target reliability indices for stress and dis-
s  λ; Λ4c  0.1 ≤ λ ≤ 0.5 0° ≤ Λ4c ≤ 50° (31) placement constraints and chosen as to be 5.1993 for a probability of
failure of 10E-7. The actual reliability index values for the current
where ms is the total mass of the wing, DL XR ; s is the lift over drag design at each optimization iteration is calculated according to Eq. (17)
value for the wing, σ max XR ; s is the maximum Von Mises stress on and passed to the outer optimization loop as a constraint. The workflow
ctip
the wing, λ is the taper ratio defined as λ  croot , and Λc4 is the sweep for the above probabilistic optimization problem is given in Fig. 7.
value at the quarter-chord. In this study, the yield strength σ yield will Several commercial software codes were coupled during the
be treated as a random variable with a normal distribution, and σ yield optimization process in this problem. Fluent 6.3.26 is used to solve

Fig. 7 Reliability-based aeroelastic optimization workflow: AGARD 445.6 wing.

 714 NIKBAY AND KURU

Table 3 Paretos of AGARD 445.6 wing aeroelastic optimization with RBDO

Variables and criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sweep 8 16 8 10 10 18
Taper 0.225 0.275 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.325
CD 0.039 0.038 0.040 0.039 0.039 0.037
CL 0.454 0.447 0.457 0.454 0.451 0.438
βStress 6.133 5.444 6.323 6.045 5.858 5.233
σ yield (MPa) 6.109 6.484 6.031 6.152 6.221 6.628
MStress 0.913 0.927 0.911 0.912 0.910 0.933
αStress 5.823 5.740 5.853 5.828 5.809 5.703
βDisp 5.923 5.296 5.374 5.555 6.057 5.209
MDisp 0.928 1.009 0.924 0.928 0.928 0.936
αDisp 6.333 5.000 6.193 6.228 6.369 6.087
L∕D 11.539 11.713 11.534 11.561 11.576 11.767
Mass, kg 1.116 1.182 1.085 1.116 1.149 1.252
Improvement of mass −39.0% −35.4% −40.7% −39.0% −37.2% −31.6%
Improvement of L∕D 0.7% 2.2% 0.7 0.9% 1.0% 2.7%
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693

inviscid three-dimensional Euler equations, Gambit to generate the
fluid domain mesh generator, and Catia V5-R16 to model the param-
etric three-dimensional solid. Abaqus 6.7.1 was driven to compute
the structural response of the aeroelastic system. MPCCI 3.0.6 was
employed to exchange the pressure and displacement information
between Fluent and Abaqus. Modefrontier 4.0 was treated as a multi-
objective and multidisciplinary optimization software to automate
the workflow. In Fig. 7, the optimization variables (their limits and
increments), optimization algorithm (scheduler), DOE, objectives,
constraints, output variables, and the software are defined. At every
optimization iteration, the workflow is run from the beginning with
the changes in design.
The workflow shown in Fig. 7 is run with 12 DOEs with “Sobol
Sequence,” where the multi objective genetic algorithm II (MOGA II)
is used for attaining optimum result. Finally, a total number of 43
designs are generated for the optimization problem. A solution of the
problem took about 215 h 40 min on a workstation with an Intel Core
2 Quad CPU 6700 at 2.40 GHz processor with 2 GB of RAM on a
Microsoft Windows XP operating system. Twenty-three feasible
designs and 20 unfeasible designs were found. As a result, six designs
are found in the Pareto front set for this optimization problem. These
Paretos are demonstrated in Table 3. The design, which corresponds
to Pareto 3 in Table 3, is chosen as optimum design because of its
minimum mass value, satisfactory L∕D ratio, while still satisfying
the target reliability index constraints.
The selected Pareto design 3 gives approximately a 40.7%
decrease in mass and 0.7% increase in L∕D ratio with respect to the
reference values of 1.831 kg and 11.4589. All feasible designs are
shown in mass vs L∕D ratio space in Fig. 8, where the regression line,
which shows the relationship between objective functions for the
feasible design points, is demonstrated. As it is seen from the
regression line in Fig. 8 the L∕D values are increasing while mass
values are increasing.
V. Conclusions
In this work, a reliability index approach (RIA) is implemented
in an in-house-developed reliability-based design optimization
(RBDO) code and integrated into a multidisciplinary optimization
framework composed of high-fidelity commercial software. In this
computational framework, a finite volume-based flow solver Fluent
is used to solve inviscid three-dimensional Euler equations, and Catia
is treated as a parametric three-dimensional solid modeler. Abaqus,
a structural finite element method solver, is driven to compute the
structural response of the aeroelastic system. A mesh-based parallel
code coupling interface (MPCCI), is used to exchange the pressure
and displacement information between Fluent and Abaqus to
perform a loosely coupled aeroelastic analysis. Modefrontier is
employed as a multi-objective and multidisciplinary optimization
driver to control the optimization workflow. The optimization criteria
include probabilistic constraints with both structural and aero-
dynamic uncertainties. A first-order reliability analysis method, the
HL iteration method, is implemented in MATLAB to compute the
most probable failure point (MPP) solution. The RBDO meth-
odology is validated with an example from the literature and then
applied to an aeroelastic optimization problem for the AGARD 445.6
wing. In the final application, random variation in structural and
aerodynamic parameters, such as in yield strength, Mach number,
and angle of attack are considered. The presented reliability-based
multidisciplinary optimization process is proven to be fully auto-
matic, modular, and practical, which could find potential applications
in industrial problems.

Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) through the 3501 National
Young Researchers Career Development Program for the project
titled “Analysis and Reliability Based Design Optimization of Fluid-
Structure Interaction Problems Subject to Instability Phenomena”
under grant No. 105M235. The writers would like to thank to Istanbul
Technical University Informatics Institute High Performance Com-
puting Laboratory for providing mesh-based parallel code coupling
interface (MPCCI) licenses.

References
[1] Eggert, R. J., “Quantifying Design Feasibility Using Probabilistic
Feasibility Analysis,” 1991 ASME Advances in Design Automation,
Vol. 32, New York, NY, 1991, pp. 235–240.
[2] Parkinson, A., Sorensen, C., and Pourhassan, N., “General Approach for
Fig. 8 Mass vs L∕D ratio space. Robust Optimal Design,” Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 115,
 NIKBAY AND KURU
No. 1, 1993, pp. 74–80.
doi:10.1115/1.2919328
[3] Hohenbichler, M., Gollwitzer, S., and Kruse, W., “New Light on First-
and Second-Order Reliability Methods,” Structural Safety, Vol. 4, No. 4,
1987, pp. 267–284.
doi:10.1016/0167-4730(87)90002-6
[4] Koyluoglu, H. U., and Nielsen, S. R. K., “New Approximations for
SORM Integrals,” Structural Safety, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1994, pp. 235–246.
doi:10.1016/0167-4730(94)90031-0
[5] Hasofer, A. M., and Lind, N. C., “Exact and Invariant Second-Moment
Code Format,” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
Vol. 100, No. 1, 1974, pp. 111–121.
[6] Chen, W. J., Allen, K., and Tsui, K., “Procedure for Robust Design:
Minimizing Variations Caused by Noise Factors and Control Factors,”
Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 118, No. 4, 1996, pp. 478–485.
doi:10.1115/1.2826915
[7] Sues, R. H., Oakley, D. R., and Rhodes, G. S., “Multidisciplinary
Stochastic Optimization,” 10th Conference on Engineering Mechanics,
Boulder, CO, 21–24 May 1995.
[8] Koch, P. N., Simpson, T. W., and Allen, J. K., “Statistical Approxi-
Downloaded by ISTANBUL TEKNIK UNIIVERSTESI on May 28, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C031693
mations for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: The Problem of
Size,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1999, pp. 275–286.
doi:10.2514/2.2435
[9] Zou, T., and Mahadevan, S., “A Direct Decoupling Approach for
Efficient Reliability-Based Design Optimization,” Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2006, pp. 190–200.
doi:10.1007/s00158-005-0572-7
[10] Liu, H., Chen, W., and Sheng, J., “Application of the Sequential
Optimization and Reliability Assessment Method to Structural
Design Problems,” Proceedings of DETC’03 ASME 2003 Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference, Paper DETC2003/DAC-48710Chicago, IL,
2–6 Sept. 2003.
[11] Yang, R., and Gu, L., “Experience with Approximate Reliability-Based
Optimization Methods,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
Vol. 26, No. 1, 2004, pp. 152–159.
doi:10.1007/s00158-003-0319-2
[12] Du, X., and Chen, W., “Sequential Optimization and Reliability
Assessment Method for Efficient Probabilistic Design,” Journal of
Mechanical Design, Vol. 126, No. 2, 2004, pp. 225–233.
doi:10.1115/1.1649968
[13] Thanedar, P. B., and Kodiyalam, S., “Structural Optimization Using
Probabilistic Constraints,” Proceedings of the 32nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference,
AIAA Paper 1991-0922-CP, New York, NY, 8–10 April 1991.
[14] Tu, J., Choi, K. K., and Park, Y. H., “Design Potential Method for Robust
System Parameter Design,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2001,
pp. 667–677.
doi:10.2514/2.1360
[15] Chen, X., Hasselman, T. K., and Neill, D. J., “Reliability Based
Structural Design Optimization for Practical Applications,” 38th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materi-
als Conference and Exhibit, and AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures
Forum, AIAA Paper 1997-1403, Kissimmee, FL, 1997.
[16] Royset, J. O., Der Kiureghian, A., and Polak, E., “Reliability-Based
Optimal Structural Design by the Decoupling Approach,” Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 73, No. 3, 2001, pp. 213–221.
doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00048-5
View publication stats
715
[17] Youn, B., Choi, K., and Park, Y., “Hybrid Analysis Method for
Reliability-Based Design Optimization,” Journal of Mechanical
Design, Vol. 125, No. 2, 2003, pp. 221–232.
doi:10.1115/1.1561042
[18] Pettit, C. L., “Uncertainty Quantification in Aeroelasticity: Recent
Results and Research Challenges,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 5,
2004, pp. 1217–1229.
doi:10.2514/1.3961
[19] Allen, M., and Maute, K., “Reliability Based Design Optimization of
Aeroelastic Structures,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
Vol. 27, No. 4, 2004, pp. 228–242.
doi:10.1007/s00158-004-0384-1
[20] Hosder, S., and Maddalena, L., “Non-Intrusive Polynomial Chaos for
the Stochastic CFD Study of a Supersonic Pressure Probe,” AIAA Paper
2009-1129, 2009.
[21] Lee, J., Kang, H. Y., Kwon, J. H., and Kwak, B. M., “Reliability of
Aerodynamic Analysis Using a Moment Method,” International
Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2009,
pp. 495–502.
doi:10.1080/10618560902984422
[22] Chassaing, J.-C., and Lucor, D., “Stochastic Investigation of Flows
About Airfoils at Transonic Speeds,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5,
2010, pp. 938–950.
doi:10.2514/1.42637
[23] Missoum, S., Dribusch, C., and Beran, P., “Reliability Based Design
Optimization of Nonlinear Aeroelasticity Problems,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2010, pp. 992–998.
doi:10.2514/1.46665
[24] Nikbay, M., Oncu, L., and Aysan, A., “Multidisciplinary Code Coupling
for Analysis and Optimization of Aeroelastic Systems,” Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2009, pp. 1938–1944.
doi:10.2514/1.41491
[25] Nikbay, M., Yanangonul, A., Oncu, L., and Kocas, M., “Multi-Objective
and Gradient Based Structural Design Optimization of an Aircraft
Wing,” Second International Conference on Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization and Applications, ASMDO, Gijon, Spain, 2–5 Sept. 2008.
[26] Rosenblatt, M., “Remarks on a Multivariate Transformation,” Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1952, pp. 470–472.
doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729394
[27] Youn, B., and Choi, K., “A New Response Surface Methodology for
Reliability-Based Design Optimization,” Computers and Structures,
Vol. 82, Nos. 2–3, 2004, pp. 241–256.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2003.09.002
[28] Choi, S. K., Grandhi, R. V., and Canfield, R. A., Reliability-Based
Structural Optimization, Springer, 2007.
[29] Sues, R., Aminpour, M., and Shin, Y., “Reliability-Based Multi-
disciplinary Optimization for Aerospace Systems,” Proceedings of the
42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2001-1521, Seattle, WA,
16–19 April 2001.
[30] Barcelos, M., and Maute, K., “Aeroelastic Design Optimization for
Laminar and Turbulent Flows,” Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 197, Nos. 19–20, 2008, pp. 1813–
1832.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2007.03.009
[31] Yates, E., “AGARD Standard Aeroelastic Configurations for Dynamic
Response I-Wing 445.6,” AGARD Rept. No. 765, 1985.