Multidisciplinary Aircraft Conceptual Design Optimization Considering Fidelity Uncertainties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aircraft conceptual design traditionally utilizes simplified analysis methods and empirical equations to establish the basic layout of new aircraft. Applying optimization methods to aircraft conceptual design may yield solutions that are found to violate constraints when more sophisticated analysis methods are introduced. The designer's confidence that proposed conceptual designs will meet their performance target is limited when conventional optimization approaches are utilized. Therefore, there is a need for an optimization approach that takes into account the uncertainties that arise when traditional analysis methods are used in aircraft conceptual design optimization. This research introduces a new aircraft conceptual design optimization approach that utilizes the concept of Reliability Based Design Optimization (RBDO). RyeMDO, a framework for multi-objective, multi-disciplinary RBDO was developed for this purpose. The performance and effectiveness of the RBDO-MDO approaches implemented in RyeMDO were evaluated to identify the most promising approaches for aircraft conceptual design optimization. Additionally, an approach for quantifying the errors introduced by approximate analysis methods was developed. The approach leverages available historical data to quantify the uncertainties introduced by approximate analysis methods in two engineering case studies: the conceptual design optimization of an aircraft wing box structure and the conceptual design optimization of a commercial aircraft. The case studies were solved with several of the most promising RBDO-MDO integrated approaches. The proposed approach yields more conservative solutions and estimates the risk associated with each solution, enabling designers to reduce the likelihood that conceptual aircraft designs will fail to meet objectives later in the design process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".