J. of T h e r m a l Science Vol.8, No.

Genetic Algorithms Development for Multiobjective

Design Optimization of Compressor Cascade

Jun LI
V e n t u r e L a b o r a t o r y , G r a d u a t e School, K y o t o I n s t i t u t e of Technology, M a t s u g a s a k i , S a k y o - k u , K y o t o
606-8585, J a p a n

Koji Morinishi Nobuyuki Satofuka

D e p a r t m e n t of M e c h a n i c a l a n d S y s t e m E n g i n e e r i n g , K y o t o I n s t i t u t e o f Technology, M a t s u g a s a k i ,
S a k y o - k u , K y o t o 606-8585, J a p a n

Aerodynamic optimization design of compressor blade shape is a design challenge at present because it
is inherently a multiobjective problem. Thus, multiobjective Genetic Algorithms based on the multi-
branch simulated annealing selection and collection of Pareto solutions strategy have been developed
and applied to the optimum design of compressor cascade. The present multiobjective design seeks high
pressure rise, high flow turning angle and low total pressure loss at a low inlet Mach number. Pareto
solutions obtain the better aerodynamic performance of the cascade than the existing Control Diffusion
Airfoil. From the Pareto solutions, the decision maker would be able to find a design that satisfies his
design goal best. The results indicate that the feasibility of multiobjective Genetic Algorithms as a
multiple objectives optimization tool in the engineering field.

Keywords: multiobjective optimization, genetic algorithms, Pareto optimal set, com-

pressor cascade, design.

INTRODUCTION ary layer separation and shock wave. Thus, trade-

Turbomachinery, especially compressor cascade,
optimum design presents a grand challenge to numer-
ical optimization. The goal of compressor cascade de-
sign is to produce the highest pressure rise with the
lowest total pressure loss at the constant flow condi-
tion. Parameter of pressure rise is an important per-
formance parameter of compressor. The higher pres-
sure rise at the given flow condition, the better perfor-
mance of compressor. But, higher pressure rise may
lead to large adverse pressure gradients and bound-
Received, 1999.
off between high pressure rise and low total pressure
loss must come to the best comprise. The design of
compressor is inherently a multiobjective optimization
problem. In addition, aerodynamic performance anal-
ysis of compressor cascade is computer intensive and
the resulting aerodynamic performance is very sensi-
tive to geometry shape of the cascade, therefore, a
robust multiobjective optimization algorithms is in-
dispensable to this research field.
Development of aerodynamic design methods for
compressor cascade has always been of strong interest.
Successful design methods have been reported [1,2] and
most of them are based on an inverse design through
 Jun LI et al. Genetic Algorithms Development for Multiobjective Design Optimization of Compressor Cascade
a prescribed pressure distribution. However, this ap-
proach leaves the problem of specifying an appropriate
pressure distribution to designers at large. An arbi-
trarily target pressure distribution may correspond-
ingly yield an unrealistic geometry. On the other
hand, it is very difficult to decide geometry con-
straints. So, direct problem design is applied in this
paper. Direct problem design is formed by coupling
aerodynamic analysis method with numerical opti-
mization method. They optimize a given aerodynamic
objective function by iterating directly on the geome-
try.
Genetic Algorithms(GAs) [3] axe known to be ro-
bust and have been enjoying increasing popularity
in the field of numerical optimization, multiobjective
optimization [4,5] in particular, in recent years. Multi-
objective problems seek to optimize components of a
vector valued objective function. Unlike the single ob-
jective optimization, the solution of the multiobjective
problem is not a single point, but a family of points
known as Pareto optimal set. Each point in this set
is optimal in the sense that no improvement can be
obtained in one objective component that does not
lead to degradation in at least one of the remaining
components.
GAs can search for many Pareto optimal solutions
in parallel by tile Paxeto criteria in the constant popu-
lation of the solutions [a] . GAs can be very efficient, if
they can sample solutions uniformly from the Pareto
optimal set. Since GAs are inherently robust, the com-
bination of efficiency and robustness makes them very
attractive for solving multiobjective problems. There
have many applications in the aerodynamic optimum
design using different multiobjective GAs. Such as
multidisciplinaxy optimum design of the wing using
niching and elitist models of GAs [6] multiobjective
optimization of airfoil and wing design through hy-
brid GAs [7] and direct problem design of compressor
cascade using multiobjective GAs based on Fonseca-
Fleming's Paxeto-based ranking and fitness sharing
techniques Is] .
The Multiple Objectives Genetic Algorithms (MO-
GAs) based on the multi-branch simulated annealing
selection and collection of Paxeto solutions strategy
have been developed in this paper. To demonstrate
the feasibility of the present algorithms, the two objec-
tives and three objectives of mathematical test func-
tions are used. The obtained Pareto solutions are sam-
159
pled from the analysis Pareto optimal set uniformly.
Then, the present MOGAs have been applied to the
multiobjective optimum design of the compressor cas-
cade. Pareto solutions obtain the better aerodynamic
performance of cascade than the existing Control Dif-
fusion Airfoil (CDA)[9]. From the Paxeto solutions,
the decision maker would be able to find a design that
satisfies his design goal best. The results indicate that
the feasibility of the present MOGAs as a multiple ob-
jectives optimization tool in the engineering field.
M U L T I P L E O B J E C T I V E S G E N E T I C ALGO-
RITHMS (MOGAs)
Solving a multiple objectives problem generally re-
quires the identification of Pareto optimal set, a con-
ception introduced by V. Pareto, a prominent Italian
economist at the end of the past century (1896). A
solution is said Paxeto optimal, or non dominated, if,
starting from that point in the design space, the value
of any of the objective functions can not improved
without deteriorating at least one of the others. All
potential solutions to the multiple objective problem
can thus be classified into dominated and non domi-
nated (Paxeto optimal) solutions. The set of non dom-
inated, solutions of a multiple objectives problem is
nanmd as Paxeto front or Pareto optimal set [4].
Therefore, it is the most important for the solution
of multiple objectives problem to find the Paxeto op-
timal set. To define the notion of domination, let us
think about the following problem:
Min: f ( ~ = {fl(~?), f2(:~), . . . , f~(£)}
where ~ is a vector of m decision variables.
Suppose xi and 37j are solutions of the f(~?). Zi
is said to be dominated by ~?j, there exist Vk C
X , . . . , m , f ( ~ i ) ~ f ( £ j ) and 3if(e~) ~ f ( e j ) . We of-
ten say that f ( x i ) is partially less than f ( £ j ) . £ i is
said to be non dominated if there does not exist any
£j in all the potential solutions that dominates £~.
All non dominated solutions Z"i of multiple objec-
tives problem can make up Paxeto optimal set. If a
solution belongs to the Paxeto optimal set, it is im-
possible to improve one of the objectives without de-
teriorating some of the others.
GAs are applied to solve multiple objectives prob-
lem using Paxeto criteria to drive the evolution of the
population. The characterizing feature of multiple ob-
jectives GAs is thus the introduction of Pareto criteria
160
in the m e t h o d used for individuals selection. Then
through selecting individuals in reproduction phase
according to Pareto criteria, the Pareto optimal set
of multiple objectives problem can be developed.
In this paper, a new type of Multiple Objectives
Genetic Algorithms (MOGAs) have been developed.
Various techniques used in the M O G A s are to be in-
troduced briefly in the following:
1. C o d i n g , C r o s s o v e r a n d M u t a t i o n
The binary representation is traditionally used in
GAs. The binary alphabet offers the m a x i m u m num-
bers of the schemata per bit of information of any
coding. In addition, the binary coding facilitates the-
oretical analysis and allows elegant genetic operators.
Thus, binary coding m e t h o d is adopted in the MO-
GAs.
In the MOGAs, the one point crossover operator [3]
is used. Non-uniform m u t a t i o n [1°] is adopted and
work on the word level of the binary code. T h a t is to
say, mutation performed directly on the integer range
from 0 to 2 n - l , n being the number of bit adopted
for each variable. In this case, the binary string is
converted into an integer list, m u t a t i o n operator is
applied and then the list is converted back into a bit
string.
2. M u l t i - B r a n c h Simulated Annealing Selec-
tion
In MOGAs, selection operator plays an i m p o r t a n t
role for obtaining the optimization results of the mul-
tiobjective problem. The m u l t i - b r a n c h simulated an-
nealing selection [11] has been presented and used for
the individuals selection. Multi branch selection ap-
proach is organized so that designs compete on one
of multiobjective. As the name implies, one branch
of the selection measure designs on the first objective,
the second branch evaluates individuals on the second
objective and so on. To do this, the individuals are
selected randomly from the population of current gen-
eration on the first fitness using simulated annealing
selection. This continues until the numbers of selected
individuals come up to the fixed number. T h e n the
process is repeated with individuals competing on the
second objective. Selection process continues until in-
dividuals selected on the last objective.
In the multi-branch simulated annealing selection,
there are certain guarantees about the selection pro-
Journal of Thermal Science, Vol. 8, No.3, 1999
cess, even though individuals are randomly chosen
from the population. In each branch of selection, in-
dividuals are selected without replacement, so t h a t all
individuals will have one chance to compete on each
objective. T h a t is to say, all individuals of current
generation compete multiple times according to the
numbers of objectives. This feature provide the same
pressure toward individuals on each objective. This
can maintain diversity t h a t is needed to represent a
spectrum of design across the Pareto optimal set.
3. P a r e n t s S e l e c t i o n S t r a t e g y
The extended elitism strategy is adopted to parent
selection. T h a t is, the assigned percentage of parents
come from the actual set of Pareto solutions of local
generation. These Pareto solutions can directly turn
into parents without undergoing genetic operation.
The other percentage of parents come from individ-
uals via genetic operation. After multi-branch sim-
ulated annealing selection has been finished, the as-
signed percentage of parents' pool is full. Individuals
in the pool are then m a t e d in crossover and m u t a t i o n
operation to form offspring. These children eventually
become the parents of next generation. The parent se-
lection strategy is shown in Fig.1.
1.0 \
..........................................................................................................................................
b
Percentage picked from Pareto front I
m
e-
0.8 (\ .....................!......................................................................................................................i
t'~
Percentage selected for the first objetive ]
0.6 using the first branch selection
0
I
0.4
.o Percentage selected for the second objetive
0.2
using the second branch selection
0.0 >
generation
Fig.1 Parents selection strategy for two
objectives optimization
4. C o l l e c t i o n s o f t h e P a r e t o S o l u t i o n s
Many solutions of multiobjective problem are mea-
sured during the run of the MOGAs. The goal of
multiobjective design is to find a range of Pareto solu-
tions t h a t approximate the Pareto optimal set of prob-
 Jun LI et al. Genetic Algorithms Development for Multiobjective Design Optimization of Compressor Cascade 161

lem. Therefore, any feasible, Pareto solutions should
be stored during the run of the MOGAs, not just the
Pareto solutions from the last generation. In this way,
a large number of solutions can be found that repre-
sent the Pareto optimal set [12].
The collection of these individuals begins with the
starting generation. The Pareto solutions which are
selected using Pareto criteria in the generation are
stored in special list. In subsequent generation, the
Pareto solutions are identified. These are then com-
pared with the stored list. If individuals currently in
the list do not dominate a fresh identified individual,
this fresh individual is added to the list. Similarly,
if the fresh identified individual dominate those cur-
rently in the list, the dominated individuals are re-
moved from the list. In this manner, all Pareto solu-
tions ever encountered during the run of the MOGAs
are stored in this special list.
A 16 bits string is adopted as a binary coding for
the variables representation. Probability of crossover
is selected as 1.00 and probability of mutation works
at 0.02. The population size equals 100 and evolve 50
generations. The results are shown in Fig.2. Fig.2(a)
shows the results which are obtained in the last gen-
eration. The obtained Pareto solutions are all dis-
tributed along the Pareto optimal set, but they can
not sampled uniformly from the Pareto optimal set.
The results are obtained with collection Pareto solu-
tions strategy and shown in Fig.2(b) and the Pareto
optimal set of the test function is almost uniformly
covered by the set of solutions found.
10 - c ~ ' ~ ~ ~ _
0.8
0.6

MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
0.4

The multiobjective problems were selected to

0.2
demonstrate the capabilities of the present MOGAs.
The mathematical test functions have been tested,
0 , 0 . . . . I . . . . I , , , l I o , , [ I . . . .
then compressor cascade optimization design using 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
MOGAs has been presented in this section. L
(a)
1. M a t h e m a t i c a l T e s t F u n c t i o n s
1.O
Multiobjective optimization method with better
performance should have the following two charac-
0.8
teristics. The first is that the solutions obtained are
Pareto solutions. The second is that they are uni-
formly sampled from the Pareto optimal set [13]. 0.6

The use of mathematical test functions for perfor-

mance evaluation of the algorithms, in the case of mul- 0.4
tiobjective optimization, is not as clearly established
as for single objective optimization. As an example, 0.2
let us consider the problem of the maximization of
mathematical test function which is taken from the 0.0
Ref.[14].
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ]5
fl
Maximize: f l = x, f2 = Y
(b)
Subject to: x 2 + y2 < 1 and 0 < x < 1,
0_<y_<l Fig.2 Results of the test function
Multiple optimization seeks to optimize the com- with two objectives
ponents of a vector valued objective function. The
Pareto optimal set of this test case is a quarter arc of In order to increase the difficulty of the problem,
the circle X 2 -~- y2 = 1 at 0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1. let us extend above test function into three objective
162 Journal of Thermal Science, Vol. 8, No.3, 1999

problem, T h a t is, a third objective f3 has been added
in the test function. In this way, the dimensions of the
search space are increased by one order of magnitude.
Maximize: ft =x, f2=Y, fa=z
Subject to: x 2 q_ y2 q_ z 2 < 1 and 0 < x < 1,
0_<y_<l, 0<z<l
T h e Pareto optimal set of.this test case is a 1/8
spherical surface of the sphere x 2 + y2 + z 2 = 1 at
O<x<l,O<_y<_l,0<z<l.
T h e same parameters of the M O G A s for above test
function are used for this three objective function.
But, compare to the previous case, population size
was increased to 200 individuals and evolve 80 gen-
erations, due to the larger search space of the prob-
lem. Fig.3 illustrates the results concerning the set of
Pareto optimal obtained. It is apparent t h a t the large
range of the exact Pareto optimal set is covered by
the obtained solutions. The results of the above test
functions indicate the feasibility and excellent search
performance for the Pareto solutions of the present
MOGAs.
the larger flow turning angle can cause flow separation
and corresponding larger total pressure loss.
The present multiobjective problem can be de-
scribed as follows:
Function 1: Maximize pressure rise (outlet pressure
by inlet pressure)
Function 2: Minimize total pressure loss
Function 3: Maximize flow turning angle
Subject to: De hailer number to be greater t h a n
0.72 (outlet flow velocity by inlet flow velocity) Maxi-
m u m airfoil thickness to be the same as t h a t of CDA [91
To obtain the values of the objective function of
compressor cascade, the Euler equations solver has
been applied to simulate the cascade flow field. The
C - t y p e grid is used, where 151 points are used in the
streamwise direction and 25 points are used in the di-
rection normal to the airfoil surface.
The given flow condition is set to inlet Mach number
of 0.25, inlet flow angle of 40.0 deg., blade stagger
angle of 14.4 deg., and the pitch of cascade of 0.5988,
similar to Ref.[9]. The present numerical m e t h o d can

1.0

0.8

0.6

1.0 ) OA
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.6 1.0
,q 0.8
O.z i!.6
O. +0.4 v_ % , .+L(':".~ ~ 11)
r ~ ; % . ..... ~ 08
0 ,~0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 u.~ \ ~ - ~ 0.4 _
l

Fig.3 Results of the test function with three objectives from different direction

2. Compressor Cascade Optimization Design
Goal of the compressor cascade design is to produce
the highest pressure rise at the lowest total pressure
loss and maximized the flow turning angle in a given
flow condition. Flow turning angle is an important pa-
r a m e t e r in the design process. In general, the pressure
rise increase as the flow turning angle increase. But,
there is a limitation of the flow turning angle because
accurately obtain the pressure coefficients of the CDA
airfoil and agree with the experiment [9]. The B-spline
function has been used for representation of compres-
sor cascade shape. In this work, 13 control points are
adopted to change the pressure surface and the other
13 points for the suction surface. The control points
for leading edge and trailing edge do not change dur-
ing the optimization process. We can only change y
 Jun LI et al. Genetic Algorithms Development for Multiobjective Design Optimization of Compressor Cascade 163

direction coordinate value of the control points and Fig.5 shows variations of airfoil geometry shape of
keep x direction coordinates constant. Pareto solutions. To increase pressure rise, the airfoil
In this optimization process, the 60 individuals are tends to have a smaller curvature. However, in or-
evolved 60 generations. The optimization experiment der to increase flow turning angle, the airfoil should
work on the Tempest2 Work Station which CPU is has a larger curvature. In addition, during numeri-
the DEC Alpha AXP21164A. The convergence crite- cal analysis of cascade performance, generation of the
rion is that the fitness do not improve for 5 genera- C-type grid for cascade restrict the limitation of vari-
tions. Fig.4 shows that the Pareto solutions of the ables and also limit the search space. Above reasons
present MOGAs after 45 generations. Each axis is prove the difficulty in meeting both of these objectives.
linearly scaled according to the maximum and mini- Table 1 summarizes the performance of airfoil designs
mum fitness values. From Fig.4(b), with the pressure including the CDA performance. Fig.6 shows the cor-
rise increase, the total pressure loss also decrease in responding performance plane. The Pareto solution
some extent. However, when the pressure rise reach with the highest pressure rise is found to give better
the fixed high value, the total pressure loss will in- performance than CDA in all three objectives. Fig.7
crease with the pressure rise increase. We can see the illustrates the airfoil that has relatively high pressure
pressure rise versus flow turning angle in Fig.4(c), so, rise and relatively low total pressure loss. These re-
it is very difficult to increase both fitness values. sults confirm that the present MOGAs is able to
find improved designs.

1.0
//• '~ I 0.8
1.0
0.6
1.O-i ~ o~
,, .

0.81 / '~'° oo° ~0.4 "q . 0.6

~ 0O OQ
0.6 ~-o.2 Y< " ""
I ) .o--. ~o.o
0.4 4 / ~,oo,eDo g].o 0.4I • ..._eeDo
~_
O. 2t / -% 'oo ~ 6 4 < " - g 0.2 ' @0 ,,~ ,
0 . ~ 0-2 0.0 .............. I .... I -
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
f~ f, (P2/P, )

t.0 1.O
°l
0.8 0.8

,-. 0.6
c~
v
a% 0.6
IP i
0.4 @ 0.4 e~

0.2 0.2
• ,,~,,~ t,o o-g-. ~ *~ Q*
0.0 i i i i i . . . . i . . . . i . . . . i , , , ~
w 0 . 0 - , , , ' . . . . , . . . . , , , , , i , , , ,

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
L (~/P,)

Fig.4 Pareto solutions in the objective space

164 Journal of Thermal Science, Vol. 8, No.3, 1999

T a b l e 1 Comparison of cascade airfoil performance

CASE P2/P1 w B(deg.)
CDA 1.0193 0.0331 38.0
Highest P2/P1 1.0199 0.0288 39.8
Lowest w 1.0196 0.0282 39.6
Highest B 1.0185 0.0396 46.3
Higher P~/P1 & lower w 1.0198 0.0284 41.2

High P2/Pl Point ( P2/Px )

I ] I :.". ......... Lower w

I : I '~h - ' - - - H i g h e s t B
1 ~ ~ - - - --- Higher Pz/PI
I ~ }~ ',',', ~, ~wer W
Low w

oint (B)

Point (W

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

X/CL

F i g . 5 Variation of Pareto solutions F i g . 6 Performance plane of Pareto solutions

compared with t h a t of CDA

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5 CDA
o Higher t:'2/P1 & Lower w

--].0 , , L L I L L , , I , , , , I , , , , I , , , ;
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/CL

F i g . 7 Comparison of higher P2/P1 & lower w with CDA

B a s e d on t h e m u l t i - b r a n c h s i m u l a t e d a n n e a l i n g se-
CONCLUSIONS
l e c t i o n a n d collection of P a r e t o s o l u t i o n s s t r a t e g y , t h e
As a r e s u l t of t h i s effort, several conclusions have MOGAs have b e e n d e v e l o p e d in t h i s p a p e r . The
b e e n m a d e on t h e M O G A s for m u l t i p l e o b j e c t i v e p r o b - p r e s e n t M O G A s c a n b e d e m o n s t r a t e d as t h e useful
lem. t o o l s for t h e m u l t i p l e o b j e c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o b -
 Jun LI et al. Genetic Algorithms Development for Multiobjective Design Optimization of Compressor Cascade
lems. The Pareto optimal set approximated for the
test functions were fairly good in comparison to the
analytical results. In addition, compressor cascade
multiobjective design problem also proved their op-
timization performance.
This work has illustrated that the multi-branch sim-
ulated annealing selection operator in the MOGAs can
provide a practical and successful means for multiob-
jective design. This method can provide the same se-
lection pressure for each objectives of design problem
and can keep diversity of the population. Coupling
parent selection strategy, this selection method can
efficiently improve optimization performance of the al-
gorithms for multiobjective designs.
Collection of the Pareto solutions strategy play an
important role for the Pareto solutions of the multi-
objective problems. The results shows that obtained
Pareto solutions can uniformly covered the analyti-
cal Pareto optimal set for the mathematical test func-
tions.
The solutions of the compressor cascade design sug-
gests that it is difficult to design an airfoil satisfying
high pressure rise and high flow turning angle. From
the Pareto solutions computed, the decision maker is
able to find a design that meet his design goal best.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor
OBAYASHI, Shigeru who provided many references
on the multiobjective GAs applications of his research
achievements.
The first author are grateful for Professor MAT-
SUMOTO, Tsuguo for supporting him to work in the
Venture Laboratory of Kyoto Institute of Technology.
REFERENCES
[1] Hobbs, D.E. and Weingold, H.D., "Development of
Controlled Diffusion Airfoils for Multistage Compressor
Application," Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, 106, pp.271-278, (1984).
[2] Dunker, R., et al., "Redesign and Performance Analy-
sis of a Transonic Axial Compressor Stator and Equiva-
lent Plane Cascades with Subsonic Controlled Diffusion
Blades," Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, 106, pp.279-287, (1984).
165
[3] Goldberg, D.E., "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Op-
timization, and Machine Learning," Addison-Wesley,
(1989).
[4] Quagliarella, D., Vicini A., "Coupling Genetic Algo-
rithms and Gradient Based Optimization Techniques, in
Quagliarella, D. et al., editors, Genetic Algorithms and
Evolution Strategies in Engineering and Computer Sci-
ence, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK, pp.289-309, (1997).
[5] Obayashi, S., "Aerodynamic Optimization with Evolu-
tionary Algorithms," Inverse Design and Optimisation
Methods, Von Karman Institute Lecture Series, (1997).
[6] Obayashi, S., Takahashi, S. and Takeguchi, Y., Nich-
ing and Elitist Models for MOGAs, in A.E. Eiben, M.
Schoenauer, and H.- P. Schuefel, editors, Parallel Prob-
lem Solving From Nature-PPSNV, Amsterdam, Hol-
land, Springer- Verlag, pp.260-269, (1998).
[7] Vicini A., Quagliarella, D., "Airfoil and Wing Design
Through Hybrid Optimization Strategies," AIAA paper
98-2729, (1998).
[8] Obayashi, S., Tsukahara, T. and Nakamura, T., "Cas-
cade Airfoil Design by Multiobjective Genetic Al-
gorithms," Second International Conference on Ge-
netic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations
and Applications, IEE Conference Publication No.446,
Glasgow, UK, (1997).
[9] Elazar, Y. and Shreeve, R.P., Viscous Flow in a Con-
trolled Diffusion Compressor Cascade with Increasing
Incidence," Journal of Turbomachinery, 112, pp.256-
266, (1990).
[10] Michalewicz, Z., Genetic Algorithms -t- Data Structures
= Evolution Programs, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1992).
[11] LI, J. and Satofuka, N., "Optimum Aerodynamic
Design Using Whole Annealing Genetic Algorithms,"
Computational Fluid Dynamics Journal, 8, No.2, Spe-
cial Issue, (1999).
[12] William A. Crossley, Andrea M. Cook, David W. Fan-
joy, Vipperla B. Venkayya, "Using the Two-Branch
Tournament Genetic Algorithm for Multiobjective De-
sign," AIAA Journal, 37, No.2, pp.261-267, (1999).
[13] Obayashi, S., Aerodynamic Inverse Optimisation Prob-
lems (chapter 9), in Zalzala, A.M.S. and Fleming, P.J.
Eds., Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems, IEE,
London, pp.203-228, (1997).
[14] Obayashi, S., Takahashi, S., Fejtek, Ian, "Transonic
Wing Design by Inverse Optimization Using MOGA,"
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the
Computational Fluid Dynamics Society of Canada,
Quebec, pp.II-41-46, (1998).