An Investigation of Higher-order Multi-objective Optimisation for 3D Aerodynamic Shape Design

Abstract

We investigate the performance of different variants of a suitably tailored Tabu Search optimisation algorithm on a higher-order design problem. We consider four objective func- tions to describe the performance of a compressor stator row, subject to a number of equality and inequality constraints. The same design problem has been previously investigated through single-, bi- and three-objective optimisation studies. However, in this study we explore the capabilities of enhanced variants of our Multi-objective Tabu Search (MOTS) optimisation algorithm in the context of detailed 3D aerodynamic shape design. It is shown that with these enhancements to the local search of the MOTS algorithm we can achieve a rapid exploration of complicated design spaces, but there is a trade-off be- tween speed and the quality of the trade-off surface found. Rapidly explored design spaces reveal the extremes of the objective functions, but the compromise optimum areas are not very well explored. However, there are ways to adapt the behaviour of the optimiser and maintain both a very efficient rate of progress towards the global optimum Pareto front and a healthy number of design configurations lying on the trade-off surface and exploring the compromise optimum regions. These compromise solutions almost always represent the best qualitative balance between the objectives under consideration. Such enhancements to the effectiveness of design space exploration make engineering design optimisation with multiple objectives and robustness criteria ever more practicable and attractive for modern advanced engineering design. Finally, new research questions are addressed that highlight the trade-offs between intelligence in optimisation algorithms and acquisition of qualita- tive information through computational engineering design processes that reveal patterns and relations between design parameters and objective functions, but also speed versus optimum quality. © 2012 by the authors. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.