Low Fidelity Analysis Based Optimization of 3D-Duct using MDO-Framework

Amitay Isaacs
PM Mujumdar
K Sudhakar
Research Scientist
Professor
Professor
Centre for Aerospace Systems Design & Engineering
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
R Jolly
TG Pai
Dy. Project Director (Aerodynamics)
Project Director (TD)
Aeronautical Development Agency, Bangalore
Air intakes in propulsion systems of combat aircraft are 3D-Ducts. Design of these ducts
is important for efficient and safe operation of the propulsion system. A constrained
optimization of such a duct using low fidelity analysis is attempted, as a prelude to a
study based on CFD analysis. Analysis modules available with designers are integrated
with each other and the optimizer using a MDO Framework, which is under
development. A special parameterization scheme is evolved to represent the complex
geometry of the duct in terms of a small number of design variables. The duct is
optimized for maximum pressure recovery subject to geometric constraints. Results
indicate up to 1.5% improvement in pressure recovery through optimization, when
starting from a set of arbitrarily prescribed initial designs
Nomenclature

Acronyms
ADA
- Aeronautical Development Agency
CASDE - Center for Aerospace Systems Design and Engineering
CFD
- Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFSQP - C Feasible Sequential Quadratic Programming
IIT
- Indian Institute of Technology
MDO - Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
MFL
- Mean Flow Line
SEP
- Specific Excess Power
3D
- 3-Dimensional
Symbols
A
- Duct cross sectional area, taken normal to MFL. Function of x. (m2)
D
- Drag
L
- Length of the duct along x-axis (m)
M
- Mach number
p
- point on MFL
P
- Perimeter of cross section taken normal to MFL. Function of x. (m)
Po
- Total pressure (Pa)
r
- Equivalent duct radius (m)
R
- Radius of curvature (m)
T
- Thrust
To
- Total temperature (K)
x
- Longitudinal location along the x-axis (m)

y, z
d-avg
w

- coordinate axes, which along with x-axis form a right handed system. The
geometry of an aircraft is symmetric about the x-z plane.
- Average diffusion angle. Function of x (degree)
- Local wall angle. Function of x and circumferential location (degree)
- Ratio of specific heats

Subscripts
en
- Duct entry station
ex
- Duct exit station
m
- Merger station

- Free stream

Introduction
An aircraft with air breathing engine needs air intakes to capture and supply the required
airflow to the propulsion system. For maximizing performance, this must be achieved in
a manner that maximizes the engine thrust while minimizing the drag of the intake
system. Maximum installed thrust requires maximization of total pressure recovery, the
ratio of total pressure at the engine face to that of free stream. Its significance cannot be
overstated since 1% loss in total pressure recovery typically results in 1.6% loss in net
installed thrust of a turbojet engine and 0.4% increase in fuel flow rate for a given thrust
[1]. Significant total pressure loss may occur at the duct entry and in the approaching
flow field at the two extremes of the speed spectrum; at very low speeds due to pre-entry
losses and at supersonic speeds due to shock system. However, during subsonic cruise,
which typically constitutes a major portion of flight, the main source of loss is the
internal flow within the intake duct. This arises due to skin friction along the duct walls,
mixing loss at the merger of ducts and loss arising out of local pockets of flow separation
inside the duct.
Aircraft with engines embedded in the fuselage typically have Y-shaped intake ducts
which are symmetrical about their central plane. The two arms of the Y merge at a
station, beyond which the duct is a single symmetrical tube. The two arms of the Y are
typically ducts with double bends (S-shaped). The present paper focuses on the design of
such Y-ducts. In what follows the word duct will be used in this context and will refer
to one half of the symmetric Y-duct.
Flow distortion can manifest as steady state and time variant velocity and total pressure
variations across duct cross section. Swirl is a measure of non-axial flow velocity
components, both radial and circumferential. An S-shaped duct typically generates flow
distortion and swirl [2]. Distortion and swirl can undermine engine life and cut into
engine stall margins. Engine manufacturer always prescribes maximum acceptable levels
of distortion and swirl coefficients for an engine. A good duct design can attenuate flow
distortion experienced at intake entry to lower levels at the duct exit.

A conventional air intake duct is a subsonic diffuser, with its exit area matched to the size
of engine compressor face. The duct area at entry is often the minimum area of duct and
is chosen as a compromise between total pressure recovery at low forward speeds and
intake spillage drag at high speeds [3].
An intake duct thus has its area constrained at the two ends (entry and exit) and its length
prescribed from aircraft layout consideration. Duct design is thus an exercise in arriving
at the geometry of duct between prescribed entry and exit stations i.e. entry and exit
station cross-section shape and their longitudinal locations are given. The objective is to
maximize total pressure recovery for one or more design operating conditions under the
constraints of acceptable distortion and swirl coefficients at the compressor face even
during the most severe maneuver anticipated.
Low Fidelity Analysis
A procedure based on a set of geometric criteria is used in industry for quick design of
ducts that are free from undesirable phenomenon like flow separation, rapid boundary
layer growth due to excessive diffusion rates or acute bends, both locally and globally.
These criteria are based on past experience. For estimating the total pressure loss in the
duct, a simple procedure based on skin friction losses, taking into account duct internal
wetted area, average diffusion rate and Reynolds number is used. These procedures are
collectively called low fidelity analyses in this paper and are described below. The
geometry of the duct, specified in terms of a Mean Flow Line (defined below) and the
distribution of cross-section area normal to the MFL, plays an important role in
evaluating the low fidelity criteria. Once a base-line duct is arrived at, designers can
invoke CFD and experimental tools for fine-tuning the design.
1. Mean Flow Line (MFL): It is the line joining the centroids of cross sections of the
duct along the length taken normal to MFL itself. Hence an iterative approach is
required to determine MFL of a given duct.
2. Average Diffusion Angle, d-avg : Cross-section area of the duct normal to its MFL is
calculated from entry to exit. Average diffusion angle at any station is defined as the
angle between the MFL and the wall of a straight axi-symmetric duct with equivalent
area distribution. It is good practice to keep the average diffusion angle at any station
less than 3 degrees (d-avg 3o).
3. Radius of Curvature in space of the MFL, R: The criterion for acceptable design is
that R should be greater than 6 times the equivalent duct radius, r, at any location
along the duct. Equivalent duct radius is defined as,
r=

A/

(1)

where A is the local cross sectional area.

4. Local Wall Angle, w: At each location on the duct wall, a local normal to the duct
surface is defined. One tangent to the duct at that location will be contained in the
plane of local cross section normal to MFL. The other orthogonal tangent along the
flow direction will form an angle with the local MFL. This is called the local wall

angle. It is good practice to keep wall angle everywhere to be less than 6 degrees (w
6o).
5. Total Pressure Recovery: The input parameters required for computing total pressure
recovery are duct geometry parameters (cross sectional area A and perimeter P) along
the duct length and operating conditions (Mach number, To, Po at entry). The rate of
change of Mach number (averaged over the cross section) with respect to axial
distance is a function of area, perimeter and skin friction coefficient, Cf and is given
by
M3{1 + 12 ( 1) M2} P
dM
Cf
=
2(1 M2 ) A
dX

{1 + 12 ( 1) M2} M dA
(1 M2 ) A
dX

(2)

Skin friction coefficient, Cf, is calculated as a function of Mach number and

Reynolds number based on distance along duct axis [4]. The length to diameter ratio
of intake ducts is very low, generally between 2 to 4. Hence, the distance along the
duct is the correct choice for reference length for Reynolds number and not the
hydraulic diameter. P and A are known functions of x. Equation 2 can thus be
integrated using any numerical scheme (the Runge-Kutta Gill fourth order method is
used in this study). Solution of the equation yields Mach number along the duct
length. The pressure recovery between the exit and entry stations is then computed
as,

Pex
A M
= en en
Pen
Aex M ex

{ 1 + 12 ( 1) M ex2 }3
{ 1 + 12 ( 1) M en2 }3

(3)

Design Problem
Pressure recovery, distortion & swirl are important performance measures for an intake
system. Low fidelity analysis for distortion and swirl for arbitrary 3D-Ducts do not exist.
Pressure recovery however can be computed with good accuracy using low fidelity
analysis for a duct that is free from pockets of separation. Simple geometry based criteria
described above promises ducts without separation pockets. This then forms the basis of
design. The design problem can now be stated as,
Find the duct geometry that will,
Maximize,
Pressure recovery
Subject to,
d-avg - 3 0
6r- R0
w - 6 0
Note that R, r, w are all functions of the longitudinal distance, x, from duct entry to duct
exit. Further, for any cross section taken normal to MFL at station x, w is also a
function of circumferential location around the section.

Several geometry based non-interference constraints can also exist, to ensure that the duct
generated does not intersect other physical parts of aircraft. This will depend on the
layout for a particular aircraft.
In the problem considered in this paper, the duct entry and exit are located at xen= 0
meters and xex = 3.927 meters respectively and their shapes are shown in Fig. 1. Cross
sectional area at entry is, Aen = 0.1683 m2. The symmetric half of the cross-section at exit
is semi-circular in shape with radius, rex = 0.3885 meters and area, Aex = 0.237 m2. The
two limbs of the Y-shape merge at x = 2.6 meters. The section beyond the merger station
will be referred to as the merger section of the duct.

Exit

Entry

Figure
Figure21:: Entry and Exit cross-sections
To summarize, the present design uses only low fidelity analysis and will form a precursor to subsequent design studies using higher fidelity analysis.

Parameterization
Duct design aims to arrive at the duct geometry, i.e., definition of the duct surface from
entry to exit station, S(x,y,z), xen x xex. It is important to parameterize the duct with
a small number of parameters, which will permit exploring a reasonable family of ducts
and yet keep the problem tractable. An optimization problem will use these parameters as
design variables. The present parameterization is aimed at future studies that will use
high fidelity CFD codes and hence demand very small number of design variables.
MFL Design Variables
The MFL of the duct is a space curve. To parameterize the MFL, a philosophy based on
the representation of the curve as a family of cubic splines has been adopted. In the
present study the shape of the curve is derived from two cubic splines as shown in Fig. 2.
The following conditions are applied on the cubic splines.

The two cubic spline segments are C0, C1 and C2 continuous.

The slope of the MFL at the entry is zero and at the merger it is defined by the merger
cross-section

Specified
y(Lm/2), z(Lm/2)

y2, z2

y, z

pm

y1, z1
pen
0

Lm

Lm/2

Figure 2. Mean Flow Line parameterization

In Fig. 2 pen and pm are the centroids of entry and merger cross-sections and Lm denotes
the length of the duct from entry to merger along x-axis. The MFL space curve is
represented as cubic splines for y and z coordinates as functions of x. The equations for
cubic splines for y and z coordinates are:
y1(x) = A10 + A11 x + A12 x2 + A13 x3
y2(x) = A20 + A21 x + A22 x2 + A23 x3

z1(x) = B10 + B11 x + B12 x2 + B13 x3

z2(x) = B20 + B21 x + B22 x2 + B23 x3

(4)

At x=Lm/2, the y and z coordinates are controlled by parameters y and z respectively as

y(Lm/2) = y(pen) + (y(pm) y(pen)) * y
z(Lm/2) = z(pen) + (z(pm) z(pen)) * z

0<y<1
0<z<1

(5)

The coefficients Aij and Bij in equations (4) are determined from the conditions on the
cubic splines stated above in conjunction with equations (5), to yield a representation of
the MFL entirely in terms of y and z.
Area Design Variables
The area of the cross-sections is varied monotonically from entry and exit sections.
A(x) = Aen + (Aex Aen) * (x)

0<(x)<1

(6)

The parameter is varied along the length of the duct by treating it as a function of the x
coordinate of the centroid at that cross-section. The variation is chosen as piecewise cubic
as shown in Fig. 3, following the parameterization philosophy described in the previous
sub-section. At one-thirds length and two-thirds length respectively, the value of is
prescribed as 1 and 2. The segmewnt-wise variation of is prescribed as
(x) =

0 x < L/3
L/3 x 2L/3
2L/3 < x L

C10 + C11 x + C12 x2 + C13 x3

C20 + C21 x + C22 x2 + C23 x3
C30 + C31 x + C32 x2 + C33 x3

(7)

pex

1
pen
0

L/3

2L/3

Figure 3. Area parameter

variation
Using the boundary and continuity conditions on the coefficients Cij in equation (7) can
be expressed entirely in terms of 1 and 2. To find the area of any cross-section, first we
find the value of corresponding to the x-coordinate of the centroid of that cross-section
and then interpolate between entry cross-section area and exit cross-section area using
equation (6).
Similar to area of the cross-section, the shape of the cross-section is also interpolated
between shapes of entry and exit cross-sections. The duct is represented as a set of crosssections at discrete x, each cross-section being a piecewise linear curve with equal
number of points. The shape of the cross-section is obtained by interpolation of
coordinates or corresponding points between entry and exit curves.
In the merging section the shape of the cross-section is considered circular with the area
as prescribed by the area variation coefficients. The geometry of the duct is developed
separately in the merging section and S-section. In the merging section, cross-section
location is fixed and thus MFL is fixed. Care is taken to ensure that cross-sections are
normal to the MFL. After merging section is defined, MFL for the S-section is calculated.
Then cross-sections are interpolated from the shapes of entry and exit cross-sections.
Three ducts and their corresponding parameters are given in Fig. 4.
Software and Integration
The optimizer used is CFSQP (C - Feasible Sequential Quadratic Programming)
developed at University of Maryland, College Park [5]. The parameterization and
geometry generator module was developed at CASDE as a C-code. This C-code is
expected to further evolve to generate volume-grids for the duct for a CFD analysis. The
low fidelity analysis for pressure recovery is a FORTRAN code from the Aeronautical
Development Agency (ADA). The FORTARN code is small and could easily have been
converted to C and tightly coupled to the parameterization code. However, in this
collaborative exercise between IIT Bombay and ADA, Bangalore the aim was to abstract
analysis modules as Input-Output systems and use them as legacy codes. The MDOFramework [6] under development at CASDE was therefore used to integrate the C and
FORTRAN based analysis modules and the CFSQP optimizer.

Y = 0.1, Z = 0.1, 1 = 0.1, 2 = 0.1

Y = 0.9, Z = 0.9, 1 = 0.9, 2 = 0.9

Y = 0.5, Z = 0.5, 1 = 0.3, 2 = 0.7

Fig. 4 Sample duct shape generated with the parameterization
A typical flow chart of this process is shown in Figure 5. During each cycle the optimizer
writes the design vector, which in this case will be the values of 4 parameters, to the data
server. The C-code for parameterization will read these values and generates duct
geometry. It also calculates all values required for geometry based duct quality criteria
and input data required by pressure recovery module and writes these into a file. The
pressure recovery module executes after this, which reads the wetted perimeter (P) and
cross section area (A) for several stations along x from the file; while Mach number, To
and Po at entry are defined as constants. The pressure recovery module writes the
pressure recovery to data server. CFSQP reads all functions it requires from data server
and completes the cycle.
Design Process, Results & Discussion
The design problem has now been stated completely by identifying;
1. (Design) Variables that designer can control to investigate designs.

2. Constraints that are to be met to give a family of feasible designs.

3. A goodness criterion or objective function (pressure recovery) that can compare
various designs
4. Methods for evaluating the constraints and objective functions for any given
design.
XD (y , z , 1 , 2 )

CFSQP

XD

Parametrization

R, r, w

DATA Server

Pre-recovery, R, r, w

File : x(i), P(i), A(i)

Pressure
Recovery

Pre-recovery

Figure 5: Data Flow for Analysis

Integrated software that links two separate codes viz. one that generates the geometry and
computes all geometry quantities to evaluate constraints and another that computes the
objective function is available.
It now rests with the designer to decide on the strategy to design, i.e. arrive at the values
of design variables. Since the problem is in 4 dimensions, simple parametric studies
presented graphically to bring out best designs are not easily applicable. But the problem
can equally easily be solved by exhaustive search as follows.
Grid the 4-D space using a fine mesh, say 10 levels for each variable. One would be
looking at 104 designs in this exhaustive search strategy. In simple nested DO LOOPs
one can assess all these designs; eliminate designs that violate one or more constraints
and output only designs that satisfy all constraints. A simple (UNIX) sort can arrange
designs in their descending goodness to reveal the best design. If designer is not satisfied
with the resolution of 10 levels, he can zoom in to investigate a small region around the
best design located. The present study using low fidelity analysis requires 60
milliseconds of CPU time on Pentium IV 1.6 GHz machine for evaluating one design.
Total CPU time taken for the exhaustive search strategy will be 600 Seconds. The present
3-D Duct design study is a first step towards a more ambitious design study that will

finally use higher fidelity analysis like a CFD package (STAR-CD is under
consideration). Analysis of one design using STAR-CDTM takes 3.5 hours on a
COMPAQ HPC 160 with 833 MHz Alpha Processors, 32 GB Memory. This Compaq
cluster has 16 CPUs. Total time taken for exhaustive search using STAR-CD will thus be
4 CPU-years (or 0.25 machine-years if all 16 CPUs are used in parallel to investigate 16
different designs). But most gradient-based optimization strategies are not amenable to
such parallelism. This clearly is not an acceptable time scale for 3D-Duct design.
Strategies that can shrink this time are clearly welcome.
Consider the proposed coupling of analysis routines to CFSQP, a popular opimization
package. CFSQP requires the initial design to be specified, from where the optimizer
starts its search. Several initial designs were investigated to see where the optimization
leads. Table 1 below summarises the findings.
Initially the design point is taken as cruise, M = 0.8 at 11000 meter pressure altitude at
ISA+15o C. The entry conditions for the duct corresponding to this are Mentry = 0.52, Po =
34.5 kPa and To = 261.3 K.
Table 1 Results of the optimization study
Initial Design

Optimum Design
2

Press.
Recover
y

Nobj

NCon

Press.
Recovery

1.

0.9

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.9738

0.61

0.31

1.0

1.0

0.9797

267

323

2.

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.5

0.9689

0.61

0.31

1.0

1.0

0.9797

61

114

3.

0.9

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.9652

0.61

0.35

1.0

1.0

0.9797

337

345

4.

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.1

0.9746

0.61

0.33

1.0

1.0

0.9797

166

181

5.

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.9687

0.61

0.35

1.0

1.0

0.9797

185

136

6.

0.7

0.3

0.9

0.7

0.9781

0.61

0.35

1.0

1.0

0.9797

86

190

7.

0.7

0.3

0.5

0.9

0.9756

0.61

0.31

1.0

1.0

0.9797

152

157

8.

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.9652

0.62

0.36

1.0

1.0

0.9796

966

967

Initial designs at rows 1 to 7 all terminate at same optimum design. This optimum design
has 1 = 2 = 1.0, indicating that the duct has its entire diffusion over the first one third of
its length (L/3) and has constant area over its last two-thirds length. Increase in cross
sectional area reduces dynamic pressure but increases perimeter. The former effect is
dominant and hence an increase in area improves pressure recovery. 1 = 2 = 1.0 at
optimum indicates that increase in area over the first 1/3 length does not violate any
constraint on diffusion. Rows 1 to 8 of the Table show that the optimum designs differ
slightly in terms of the value of Z. But the optimum value of pressure recovery is almost

This is trade mark of the CFD package marketed by CSM, Bangalore

10

same for all these optima, indicating a region over which pressure recovery is very flat
along the direction of Z (or insensitivity of pressure recovery to Z)
The optimization process has yielded improvement of up to 1.5% (row 3 of Table) in
pressure recovery in some cases and only 0.2% (row 6 of Table) at the other extreme
case. It should be realized that if the initial design is close to or exactly same as the
optimum design then improvement in pressure recovery can be negligible or zero.
Each 1% pressure recovery translates to 1.6% improvement in thrust, and 0.4% reduction
in fuel flow rate. Hence, 1.5% improvement in pressure recovery means 2.4% increase in
thrust and 0.6% reduction in fuel flow rate. The design point that is selected for this
optimization study corresponds to cruise at 11 km, M=0.8. The engine is at part throttle
rating (T=D) and Specific Excess Power is zero. The advantage of improved pressure
recovery is reduced fuel flow rate for same thrust. The total fuel saved for a 1 hour cruise
with 0.6% reduced fuel flow rate is 6 kg, and not very significant.
The above optimization study was for cruise condition. If maximum SEP condition is
considered, then M = 0.8, sea level and ISA+15o C, with entry conditions as Mentry =
0.55, Po = 154.5 kPa and To = 342.0 K. If this is used as design point the actual values
of pressure recoveries improve, compared to cruise condition. But levels of improvement
realized by the design process are similar, i.e. 1.4% improvement in pressure recovery.
The maximum SEP condition has (T-D)/T approximately 0.7. A 1.4% improvement in
pressure recovery will mean 3.2% improvement in SEP, which is significant
Note the number of evaluations of objective function, Nobj, and number of evaluations of
constraints, Ncon, that were required to arrive at the optimum. These are far fewer than
that required for exhaustive search. Consider now use of higher fidelity analysis, say
STAR-CD. If pressure recovery were to be evaluated 337 times by STAR-CD (each run
taking 3.5 hrs) it would have taken 49 CPU-days (or 3 machine-days, ie. use of all 16
CPUs). Clearly this is more realistic a time that a design process can take. However
several technical issues need to be addressed while using a commercial CFD package like
STAR-CD which include software integration, gradient evaluation, etc. An ongoing study
addresses these issues through Design of Experiments/Response Surface Methodology
[7,8] or Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments [8] along with Variable
Complexity Methods [9].
References
1. Pai, T.G. Intake-Airframe Integration and Engine Intake Compatibility for Combat
Aircraft, AR & DB Lecture, Proc. Of the 52nd Annual General Meeting of the
Aeronautical Society of India, Agra, January 2001.
2. Seddon, J and Goldsmith, E.L. Intake Aerodynamics, pp 309, Collins Professional
and Technical Books, 1985.

11

3. Jolly, R., Sudhakar, K. and Damodran K.A. A Synthesis of Procedures for Selecting
the Geometric Features of an Air Intake for M=0 to 1.8, Journal of Aeronautical
Society of India, Vol.38 No.4, November 1986.
4. The Compressible 2-D Turbulent Boundary Layer, both with and without Heat
Transfer, on a Smooth Flat Plate, with Application to Wedges, Cylinders and
Cones, Engineering Sciences Data Unit 68020, ESDU International, London UK
1999-2002. http://www.esdu.com
5. Craig Lawrence, Jian L Zow and Andre Tits, "User's Guide for CFSQP Version 2.5
- A C-Code for Solving (Large Scale) Constrained Nonlinear (Minimax)
Optimization Problem, Generating Iterates Satisfying All Inequality Constraints",
Electrical Engineering Department and Institute for Systems Research, University of
Maryland, College Park, http://64.238.116.66/aemdesign/download-cfsqp/cfsqp-manual.pdf;
http://64.238.116.66/aemdesign/FSQPframe.htm

6.

Amitay Isaacs, "Framework for Data Exchange - User Manual Version 1.0", Centre
for Aerospace Systems Design & Engineering, IIT Bombay, December 2001.
http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/MDO/infrastr/Framework-Ver-1.pdf

7. Douglas C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th Edition, John

Wiley & Sons, 2001
8. Giunta, Anthony A., "Aircraft Multidisciplinary Design Optimization using Design
of Experiments Theory and Response Surface Modeling Methods," Report No. MAD
97-05-01, MAD Center, Department of Aerospace & Ocean Engineering Virginia
Polytechnic and State University, May 1996.
9. N. M. Alexandrov, R. M. Lewis, C. R. Gumbert, L. L. Green and P. A. Newman,
"Optimization With Variable-Fidelity Models Applied to Wing Design", 38th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, AIAA 2000-0841, January
10-13, 2000.

12