57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 2016
DOI: 10.2514/6.2016-0674
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Overview of the Optimized Integrated Multidisciplinary Systems Program

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to the fluid nature of the initial design process, it is not recommended to use high fidelity analysis design tools, such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), at this stage as they can be unnecessarily costly [4,54]. What is required is a tool that strikes a balance between sufficient accuracy and computational cost [55][56][57][58]. Piperni et al [59] and Zhang et al [60] have argued that the level of fidelity that should be delivered by the models is mostly determined at the development stage, which the design process aims to enhance.…”
Section: Particles Selection Schema On I-mopso Interfacementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Due to the fluid nature of the initial design process, it is not recommended to use high fidelity analysis design tools, such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), at this stage as they can be unnecessarily costly [4,54]. What is required is a tool that strikes a balance between sufficient accuracy and computational cost [55][56][57][58]. Piperni et al [59] and Zhang et al [60] have argued that the level of fidelity that should be delivered by the models is mostly determined at the development stage, which the design process aims to enhance.…”
Section: Particles Selection Schema On I-mopso Interfacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the fluid nature of the initial design process, it is not recommended to use high fidelity analysis design tools, such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), at this stage as they can be unnecessarily costly [4,54]. What is required is a tool that strikes a balance between sufficient accuracy and computational cost [55][56][57][58].…”
Section: Automated Optimisation Framework (Non-interactive)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the review of paper I, the majority of authors abstain from specifying the development stage that they are working on, while at the same time, there is general tendency where the choice of tools is based on availability rather than suitability. Overall, it is stressed that the MDO tools should be able to capture the correct physics of the problem (Reuter et al, 2016), but also to be as computationally efficient as possible in order to enable even faster design evaluations (Henderson et al, 2012). To this end, it can be seen that a prevalent trend is to build modular frameworks that can adapt to different fidelity requirements, whereas it can be argued that the main gap herein is the lack of a complete list regarding the available software solutions (see Figure 16).…”
Section: Level Of Fidelitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [43,44], the authors reported developing a strategy that used non-interactive and interactive techniques, respectively, to formulate the design problem and improve the optimisation speed. To deliver a sufficient level of fidelity to the DM at very fast computational times, the low fidelity flow solver Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL) was used to capture the physics of the problem [45][46][47][48]. Improving the ability of the developed method to accelerate the search while retaining all the useful information in the design space was the main area of work.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The flow solver used to evaluate worthwhile solutions is the Athena Vortex Lattice (AVL) [51,52]. Many codes utilize Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) for aerodynamic characteristics calculations, but AVL is the most well-known and provides the most accurate and efficient results when compared with other aerodynamic analysis software employing the same method [45][46][47][48]52]. In addition, AVL code is easy to use and capable of manipulating a large number of design parameters within a short computational time and limited cost.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%