Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization on Unstructured Meshes

Published byDoris Patrick Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization on Unstructured Meshes"— Presentation transcript:

1 Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization on Unstructured Meshes
Giampietro Carpentieri Delft university of technology, Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS, Delft, The Netherlands September 14, 2007

2 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

3 RAE2822  =2, Mach =0.73 -60 % Lift Relative max thickness
Upper nose radius Lower nose radius Trailing edge angle 30% reduction 10% reduction

4 RAE2822  =2, Mach =0.73 Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle
Pressure, RAE2822 Pressure, OPTIMIZED Final CL = (1 + h) CL0 = ( x10-5 ) CL  CL = % CL0 Constraints Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle 0.40 -5.0x10-5 -1.1x10-2 -3.6x10-1 -9.9x10-1 -6.4x10-2

5 NACA64A410  =0, Mach =0.75 -86 % Lift Relative max thickness
Upper nose radius Lower nose radius Trailing edge angle 10% reduction

6 NACA64A410  =0, Mach =0.75 Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L.
Pressure, NACA64A410 Pressure, OPTIMIZED Constraints Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle 0.14 -6.5x10-5 -2.3x10-3 -4.4 -1.7x10-1 -9.9x10-3

7 NACA0012  =2, Mach =0.75 -90% Lift Relative max thickness
Upper nose radius Lower nose radius Trailing edge angle 10% reduction

8 NACA0012  =2, Mach =0.75 Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle
Pressure, NACA0012 Pressure, OPTIMIZED Constraints Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle 0.1 -6.4x10-6 -1.1x10-3 -1.1x10-2 -3.15 -4.4x10-1

9 NACA0012  =2, Mach =1.5 -71% Lift Relative max thickness
Upper nose radius Lower nose radius Trailing edge angle 50% reduction 90% reduction

10 NACA0012  =2, Mach =1.5 Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle
Pressure, NACA0012 Pressure, OPTIMIZED 1% c Nose close-up Constraints Drag Lift Thickness Nose U. Nose L. TE Angle 0.29 -8.8x10-5 -6.5x10-4 -5.0x10-3 -6.0x10-3 -6.6

11 NACA64A410, Cm CONSTRAINT Optimized, no Cm constraint
Optimized, Cm constraint

12 ONERA @  =3.6 Mach =0.84 INITIAL PRESSURE OPTIMIZED
Shock strength reduced

13 ONERA @  =3.6 Mach =0.84 Starting from the ONERA wing:
1) WING-L = 2 times the lift of the ONERA wing; 2) WING-R = WING-L optimized for Drag reduction. WING-L WING-R

14 ONERA XZ PLANE XY PLANE ROOT TIP TIP ROOT LE TE TE ONERA WING-L WING-R

15 Airfoil sections WING-L WING-R ROOT HALF SPAN TIP

16 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

17 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

18 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

19 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

20 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

21 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

22 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

23 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

24 OPTIMIZER SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT
Functionals OPTIMIZER Shape Parameters Gradients SHAPE PARAMETERIZATION GEOMETRIC SENSITIVITIES GRADIENT ASSEMBLY Boundary displacement Adjoint variables MESH DEFORMATION IF GRADIENT ADJOINT SOLVER Updated mesh Flow variables FLOW SOLVER IF GRADIENT

25 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

26 Median-dual discretization
Control volume for node i MESH DUAL MESH

27 Euler equations Conservative form
Conservative variables Inviscid flux vector Conservative form Finite-volume discretization, i=1,Nodes Residual = Sum of Numerical fluxes

28 Numerical fluxes = Roe averages Numerical flux (interface ij) =Roe’s approximate Riemann solver Farfield Boundary flux Wall

29 MUSCL scheme Primitive variables reconstruction at mid-point of edge ij = Venkatakrishnan’s limiter = Least squares/Green Gauss gradient = Primitive variable 2nd order accuracy: evaluate flux with reconstructed variables

30 Implicit solution Compact form Discretize time + Defect correction
Low-order residual Backward Euler with approximate Jacobian Matrix of volume/local delta_t Local delta_t increased according to CFL update discrete norm

31 Low-order Jacobian

32 Linear system At each iteration n, solve the linear system iteratively
= Preconditioner = Linear residual Iterates k times until 1 order of magnitude reduction is satisfactory (c=0.1)

33 Symmetric Gauss-Seidel preconditioning
No preparatory work or sparse matrix data format required. Preconditioner applied by means of a forward and a backward sweeps on the nodes Sub-matrices of , and : Forward solve Backward solve and can be computed on-the-fly  matrix-free preconditioning

34 2D Test Cases (AGARD) RAE2822 – Mach = 0.75  = 3.0

35 2D Test Cases (AGARD) NACA0012 – Mach = 0.8  = 1.25

36 2D Test Cases (AGARD) NACA0012 – M = 0.85  = 1.0

37 Onera-M6 wing & DLR-F6 wing body

38 Comparison with Edge,  =3.6 Mach =0.84
y/b = 20% y/b = 45% y/b = 95% Edge is the flow solver of the FOI (Swedish Defence Research Agency)

39 Onera-M6 convergence history
Average number of linear iterations = 6 Lift is converged after 50 iterations

40 Comparison with Edge,  =0 Mach =0.75
y/b = 15% y/b = 40% y/b = 85%

41 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

42 Sensitivity Analysis   Parameter
Functional (e.g., lift, drag or pitch moment) State equation (steady solution) Sensitivity wrt Equation Cost Primal, Linearized Flow sensitivity Dual, Adjoint Adjoint variables

43 Continuous vs Discrete approach
Major difficulties of the Discrete approach are - the differentiation; and - the transposition. It is not trivial to implement an adjoint code that has the same memory and CPU-time requirements as that of the original flow solver.

44 Definitions Gradient Limiters Vectors of length N (number of nodes)
Reconstructed left states Reconstructed right states Numerical fluxes Vectors of length E (number of edges) The residuals vector can be written as where and To simplify the derivation, the limiters are neglected:

45 Adjoint assembly After chain rule and transposition, the LHS of the adjoint equation may be written as 1st order part 2nd order part

46 Topology of the matrices
column e Differentiation of the numerical fluxes EDGES row e EDGES Differentiation of the reconstruction operator column i column i row e row e EDGES EDGES NODES NODES

47 sub matrices The numerical flux Jacobian is approximated, the Roe matrix is frozen Inverse of Transformation matrix, evaluated with averaged variables Transformation matrix, evaluated with reconstructed variables Since and

48 Matrix-free assembly IN OUT RES_DIFF
Given the adjoint variables, the differentiated residual routine compute the matrix-vector products; Only the original edge-based data structure is used. The differentiated gradient routine completes the assembly: IN OUT The transposed gradient takes a multi-component vector as input and gives a vector as output, it is the reverse of the gradient routine.

49 Example: Green-Gauss LINEARIZED ADJOINT Gathering Scaling Gathering
OUT OUT Gathering Scaling Gathering Scaling

50 Solution of the adjoint equations
The Adjoint equation is linear 2nd order Jacobian is poorly diagonally dominant  Linear solver fails Solution: use the same scheme as for the flow equations, i.e., Constrained shape optimization may require more than one adjoint solution, one for each functional

51 Simultaneous solution of the Adjoints
NJ adjoint equations have the same Jacobian. One has to solve a linear system with multiple RHS: Simultaneously solution gives appreciable time saving compared to sequential solutions. Time saving is obtained since the matrix terms are expensive to evaluate

52 CPU-time stored on-the-fly
CPU time Flow = CPU time Adjoint CPU time Adjoint = 8.5% more CPU time Flow CPU-time savings of simultaneous Adjoint solutions compared to sequential solutions: 2 Adjoints = 25%; 3 Adjoints = 33%. 2 Adjoints = 45%; 3 Adjoints = 60%.

53 CPU-time stored on-the-fly CPU time Flow = CPU time Adjoint

54 Storage requirements Flow solver: storage requires 2.7 times more memory than matrix-free; Storage: 3 Adjoints require 1.4 times more memory than flow solver; Matrix-free: 3 Adjoints require 2.1 times more memory than flow solver.

55 Visualization of the Adjoint variables
Mach = 1.2  = 7.0 Mach number Some algebra shows that E.g., the 3rd adjoint variable of the lift reads It is the lift sensitivity wrt vertical momentum !

56 Exact vs approx Adjoint code
Due to the approximations (fluxes and limiters), the sensitivity is not exact, error ~ 1-2% In 2D, if the gradient is included, the approximated adjoint code produces almost the same results as the exact code. Only when the gradient is neglected, the optimization stalls. small differences no differences

57 Verification of the Adjoint code
Exact and approximate Adjoint: Primal and dual sensitivities must converge to the same value. Exact Adjoint only: Quadratic convergence must be obtained for Newton’s iterations.

58 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

59 Mesh deformation = Boundary displacement according to shape parameterization = Volume mesh displacement Given  compute Spring analogy solved by Jacobi iterations: is stiffness of edge ij, inverse of edge length

60 Gradient and geometric sensitivities
Since  after the Adjoint compute Mesh coordinates , Mesh metrics , Boundary deformations , Limiters , Gradient Coordinates depend on shape parameter: Residuals depend on coordinates: Chain rule  Each term is a differentiated subroutine. In 2D source code generated by Tapenade is used. In 3D finite differences are used (temporarily).

61 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

62 Chebyschev polynomials
Shape can be parameterized using orthogonal Chebyschev polynomials. Basis function Parameter/Design variable First basis, k=0, resembles an airfoil shape.

63 Nose radius and TE angle
The derivatives of the polynomial read 1st 2nd where It is possible to evaluate the TE angle (1st derivative) and the curvature radius:

64 Shape approximation Quadratic Error Function Gradient Hessian
The set of parameters that minimize the error reads

65 Number of basis functions
Maximum difference between the approximation and the original coordinates. In the case of: 1) unit chord airfoils; and 2) finite-volume solvers that use linear boundary representations, it is recommended that A lower error may results in discrepancies between the flow computed on the original and on the approximated airfoils.

66 Approximation of airfoils
WHITCOMB BWB-F BWB-W EPPLER NACA0012 ONERA RAE2822 NASA-HSNLF NLR7301

67 Parameterization of Wing Displacements
In the case of wings, it is more convenient to parameterize the displacements: = dimensionless chord-wise coordinate where = dimensionless span-wise coordinate The coefficients change along the span-wise direction as: There are a total of N x M design variables

68 1- Numerical results 2- Optimization framework 3- Flow solver 4- Adjoint solver 5- Gradient, Geometric sensitivities and mesh deformations 6- Shape Parameterization 7- Optimizer

69 Problem Statement Minimize function with equality/inequality constraints and bounds on the variables Objective function, scaled drag coefficient Relative maximum thickness constraint Upper nose radius constraint Lower nose radius constraint Trailing edge angle constraint Lift equality constraint

70 Sequential Linear Programming
Linearization point Center of the circle Optimum Linearized problem Optimum Non-Linear problem It lies outside of the feasible design space It lies inside the feasible design space The optimum may be approached from the feasible region by moving to the center of the largest circle that fits into the linearized design space.

71 The method of centers A Liner Programming problem is obtained for the vector The new design is then updated as In practice, move limits + reduction factors must be introduced for underconstrained problem, which has the tendency to be unbounded after linearization. I.e., smaller bounds are used for the vector s:

72 Thank you for your interest

Download ppt "Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization on Unstructured Meshes"

Similar presentations

Steady-state heat conduction on triangulated planar domain May, 2002

Steady-state heat conduction on triangulated planar domain May, 2002
Yi Heng Second Order Differentiation Bommerholz – 14.08.2006 Summer School 2006.

Yi Heng Second Order Differentiation Bommerholz – Summer School 2006.
Adjoint-based Unsteady Airfoil Design Optimization with Application to Dynamic Stall Karthik Mani Brian Lockwood Dimitri Mavriplis University of Wyoming.

Adjoint-based Unsteady Airfoil Design Optimization with Application to Dynamic Stall Karthik Mani Brian Lockwood Dimitri Mavriplis University of Wyoming.
Chapter 2 Solutions of Systems of Linear Equations / Matrix Inversion

Chapter 2 Solutions of Systems of Linear Equations / Matrix Inversion
Isoparametric Elements Element Stiffness Matrices

Isoparametric Elements Element Stiffness Matrices
CFD II w/Dr. Farouk By: Travis Peyton7/18/2015 Modifications to the SIMPLE Method for Non-Orthogonal, Non-Staggered Grids in k- E Turbulence Flow Model.

CFD II w/Dr. Farouk By: Travis Peyton7/18/2015 Modifications to the SIMPLE Method for Non-Orthogonal, Non-Staggered Grids in k- E Turbulence Flow Model.
A Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on 3D Unstructured Meshes Dimitri J. Mavriplis Department of Mechanical Engineering University.

A Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on 3D Unstructured Meshes Dimitri J. Mavriplis Department of Mechanical Engineering University.
Engineering Optimization

Engineering Optimization
EULER Code for Helicopter Rotors EROS - European Rotorcraft Software Romuald Morvant March 2001.

EULER Code for Helicopter Rotors EROS - European Rotorcraft Software Romuald Morvant March 2001.
Algebraic, transcendental (i.e., involving trigonometric and exponential functions), ordinary differential equations, or partial differential equations...

Algebraic, transcendental (i.e., involving trigonometric and exponential functions), ordinary differential equations, or partial differential equations...
July 11, 2006 Comparison of Exact and Approximate Adjoint for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization ICCFD 4 July 10-14, 2006, Ghent Giampietro Carpentieri and.

July 11, 2006 Comparison of Exact and Approximate Adjoint for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization ICCFD 4 July 10-14, 2006, Ghent Giampietro Carpentieri and.
MATH 685/ CSI 700/ OR 682 Lecture Notes

MATH 685/ CSI 700/ OR 682 Lecture Notes
Solving Linear Systems (Numerical Recipes, Chap 2)

Solving Linear Systems (Numerical Recipes, Chap 2)
By S Ziaei-Rad Mechanical Engineering Department, IUT.

By S Ziaei-Rad Mechanical Engineering Department, IUT.
Engineering Optimization – Concepts and Applications Engineering Optimization Concepts and Applications Fred van Keulen Matthijs Langelaar CLA H21.1

Engineering Optimization – Concepts and Applications Engineering Optimization Concepts and Applications Fred van Keulen Matthijs Langelaar CLA H21.1
Solution of linear system of equations

Solution of linear system of equations
Coupled Fluid-Structural Solver CFD incompressible flow solver has been coupled with a FEA code to analyze dynamic fluid-structure coupling phenomena CFD.

Coupled Fluid-Structural Solver CFD incompressible flow solver has been coupled with a FEA code to analyze dynamic fluid-structure coupling phenomena CFD.
Isoparametric Elements Element Stiffness Matrices

Isoparametric Elements Element Stiffness Matrices
Sparse Matrix Algorithms CS 524 – High-Performance Computing.

Sparse Matrix Algorithms CS 524 – High-Performance Computing.
Steady Aeroelastic Computations to Predict the Flying Shape of Sails Sriram Antony Jameson Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University First.

Steady Aeroelastic Computations to Predict the Flying Shape of Sails Sriram Antony Jameson Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University First.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google