The design process of an autonomous underwater vehicle requires mathematical model of subsystems or disciplines such as guidance and control, payload, hydrodynamic, propulsion, structure, trajectory and performance and their interactions. In early phases of design, an autonomous underwater vehicle is often encountered with a high degree of uncertainty in the design variables and parameters of system. These uncertainties present challenges to the design process and have a direct effect on the autonomous underwater vehicle performance. Multidisciplinary design optimization is an approach to find both optimum and feasible design, and robust design is an approach to make the system performance insensitive to variations of design variables and parameters. It is significant to integrate the robust design and the multidisciplinary design optimization for designing complex engineering systems in optimal, feasible and robust senses. In this article, we present an improved multidisciplinary design optimization methodology for conceptual design of an autonomous underwater vehicle in both engineering and tactic aspects under uncertainty. In this methodology, uncertain multidisciplinary feasible is introduced as uncertain multidisciplinary design optimization framework. The results of this research illustrate that the new proposed robust multidisciplinary design optimization framework can carefully set a robust design for an autonomous underwater vehicle with coupled uncertain disciplines.
MartinsJRRALambeAB.Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J2013; 51: 2049–2075.
2.
BelegunduAHalbergEYukishMet al. Attribute-based multidisciplinary optimization of undersea vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 8th symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA, 6–8 September 2000. Reston, VA: AIAA.
3.
YukishMBennettLSimpsonT.Requirements on MDO imposed by the undersea vehicle conceptual design problem. In: Proceedings of the 8th symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA, 6–8 September 2000. Reston, VA: AIAA.
4.
CharlesDMTimothyWSPaulHKet al. Multidisciplinary design optimization testbed based on autonomous underwater vehicle design. In: Proceedings of the 9th symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Atlanta, GA, 4–6 September 2002. Reston, VA: AIAA.
5.
ToddWBRamanaVGMatthewERet al. System level optimization of undersea vehicles subject to mission performance. In: Proceedings of the 12th multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, 10–12 September 2008. Victoria, British Columbia Canada, VA: AIAA.
6.
ZhangYPZhangJYYingWJ.Torpedo guidance system multidisciplinary design based on IDF. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on intelligent human-machine systems and cybernetics, Hangzhou, China, 26–27 August 2013. New York: IEEE.
7.
LuoWLyuW.An application of multidisciplinary design optimization to the hydrodynamic performances of underwater robots. Ocean Eng2015; 104: 686–697.
8.
TaguchiGRafanelliAJ.Taguchi on robust technology development: bringing quality engineering upstream. J Electron Packaging1994; 116: 161.
9.
MavrisDVBandteODeLaurentisDA.Robust design simulation: a probabilistic approach to multidisciplinary design. J Aircraft1999; 36(1): 298–397.
10.
DuXChenW.Methodology for managing the effect of uncertainty in simulation-based systems design. AIAA J2000; 38(8): 1471–1478.
11.
ChenWAllenJKTsuiKLet al. A procedure for robust design: minimizing variations caused by noise factors and control factors. J Mech Des1996; 118(4): 478–485.
12.
ChenJXiaoRZhongY.A response surface based hierarchical approach to multidisciplinary robust optimization design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2005; 26: 301–309.
13.
DiezMPeriD.Robust optimization for ship conceptual design. Ocean Eng2010; 37: 966–977.
14.
ZamanKMahadevanS.Robustness-based design optimization of multidisciplinary system under epistemic uncertainty. AIAA J2013; 51(5): 1021–1031.
15.
NguyenNVMaximTParkHet al. A multidisciplinary robust optimization framework for UAV conceptual design. Aeronaut J2014; 118(1200): 123–142.
16.
KhairulATapabrataRSreenathaGA.A new robust design optimization approach for unmanned underwater vehicle design. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2012; 226: 235–249.
17.
FritsA.Formulation of an integrated robust design and tactics optimization process for undersea weapon systems. PhD Thesis, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2004.
18.
McAllisterCD.Uncertainty propagation in multidisciplinary design optimization. PhD Thesis, Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, The Graduate School, The Pennsylvania State University, 2002.
19.
AllenJKSeepersadCChoiHet al. Robust design for multiscale and multidisciplinary applications. J Mech Des2006; 128: 832.
20.
YaoWChenXLuoWet al. Review of uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods for aerospace vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci2011; 47(6): 450–479.
21.
AudetCHSavardGZghalW.Multiobjective optimization through a series of single-objective formulations. SIAM J Optimiz2008; 19: 188–210.
22.
MavrotasG.Effective implementation of the ε-constraint method in multi-objective mathematical programming problems. Appl Math Comput2009; 213: 455–465.
MarlerRTAroraJS.The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Struct Multidiscip O2010; 41(6): 853–862.
25.
HollandJH.Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975.
26.
KennedyJEberhartR.Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the international conference on neural networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995, vol. 4, pp.1942–1948. New York: IEEE.
27.
DebKPratapAAgarwalSet al. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE T Evolut Comput2002; 6: 182–197.
28.
SierraMRCoello CoelloCA.Multi-objective particle swarm optimizers: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Int J Comput Intell Res2006; 2: 287–308.
29.
RaoSS.Engineering optimization: theory and practice. 4th ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Sons, 2009.
30.
BobberRJ.Approximation to the directivity index. Washington, DC: Naval Research Laboratory, 1974.
31.
UrickRJ.Principles of underwater sound. 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 1983.
32.
WaiteAD.Sonar for practicing engineers. 3rd ed.New York, NY: John Wiley & sons, 2002.
33.
PasterDL.Importance of hydrodynamic considerations for underwater vehicle design. Oceans1986; 18: 1413–1422.
34.
HoernerSFBorstHV.Fluid-dynamic lift: practical information on aerodynamic and hydrodynamic lift. 2nd ed.Hoerner LA, 1985.
35.
HoakDEFinckRD.USAF stability and control DATCOM. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 1978.
BryantAR.Hydrostatic pressure buckling of a ring-stiffened tube. NCRE Report no. 306, 1954. Naval Construction Research Establishment (NCRE).
38.
BS 5500:1980. British standard specification for unfired fusion welded pressure vessels, 1980. Dunfermline, Scotland, October 1954.
39.
AllottaBPugiLBartoliniFet al. Preliminary design and fast prototyping of an autonomous underwater vehicle propulsion system. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2015; 229(3): 248–272.
40.
AllottaBPagliaiMPugiL.Reconfigurable propulsion systems for the inspection of off-shore power generation plants. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on environment and electrical engineering, Florence, 7–10 June 2016. New York: IEEE.
