CFD Optimisation Case Studies With STAR-CD and STAR-CCM+

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.
2]
[SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT]
012497 DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES AND IDENTIFICATION OF BREAKTHROUGH
TECHNOLOGIES IN AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING SIMULATION - AUTOSIM
Summary
CFD Optimisation case studies
with STAR-CD and STAR-CCM+
David J. Eby, Preetham Rao, Advanced Methods Group, Plymouth, MI USA
Presented by Fred Mendona, CD-adapco London, UK
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]
Outline
Introduction
(Design) Optimisation & CFD
CAD embedded verses CAD integration
Examples:
Static mixer
Water jacket
Manifold
Fuel sloshing in a tank
Summary
Ill try to put emphasis on:
Best practices
Breakthrough Technologies - enablers
Design Optimization with CFD?
If you currently use CFD in your design process, you are already performing optimization.
Can design optimization be combined with CFD simulations?
Current engineering design cycle is manual optimization with CFD.
If you believe in manual optimization, develop a methodical design optimization
approach.
Ingredients required to develop a methodical design optimization approach:
Accurate models (confidence).
Efficient models.
Automation of model construction (integration).
Automation of solution post-processing (integration).
Application of theoretical optimization framework (integration).
Introduction
Design Optimization can be defined as:
The search for Design Variable values that improve a set of Design
Criteria.
Design Variable examples:
The radius of a duct, or
Shape control vertices of a turbine blade.
Design Criterion examples:
The efficiency of a turbine, or
The crashworthiness of a vehicle.
Design Criteria are functions that are dependent upon the Design Variables.
Introduction
Optimization algorithms:
Gradient-based
Strengths: quick convergence.
Weaknesses: cannot escape local minima, requires convexity.
Design of Experiment / Response Surface Method
Strengths: quickly evaluate behaviour of design space, similar to
typical design processes.
Weaknesses: small number of design variables, assumes functional
form of design space.
Evolutionary
Strengths: design space can be multi-modal, non-convex.
Weaknesses: requires a large number of evaluations.
Hybrid
Combines multiple optimization approaches.
Introduction
Optimisation algorithms:
Requires multiple design evaluations.
Performance of an optimisation algorithm.
Number of required design evaluations.
Choice of design variables.
Computational resources for multiple CFD analyses.
Common Day CFD simulations (6-12 hours, regardless of time period).
Introduction (enabler): CAD-integration
CFD
CAD CFD
CAD
CAD-t r ansl at i on
CAD-embeddi ng
Polyhedral Meshing (enabler)
Optimize more, for less with polyhedra:
Improved accuracy over tetrahedra.
Improved convergence over tetrahedra.
Improved efficiency over tetrahedra.
Fully automated construction for
complex geometries.
Polyhedral vs. Tetrahedral Meshing
(mesh dependencies best practice)
Efficiency + Accuracy + Easy-of-Use = Optimisation
3
4
5
6
7
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Number of Cells
D
e
l
t
a

P

(
k
P
a
)
POLY
TET
MESHDEPENDENCY
43.25hours
10hours
1.6hours
<3%error
6.3hours
>5%error
Introduction (best practice procedure)
Overall design optimization methodology for Common Day CFD simulations (6-12 hours
per evaluation):
Verify CFD baseline model (confidence).
Use engineering intuition to select design variables.
Define design criteria.
Perform design of experiment.
Fit response surfaces to STAR-CD outputs.
Approximate design criteria with response surfaces.
Verify accuracy of response surfaces (confidence).
Explore design space evaluating approximate design criteria from response
surface.
Verify accuracy of results (confidence).
Introduction
Process Integration requires the automation of:
Model building tool(s), simulation tool(s), and post-processing tool(s).
Automation reduces man effort, maximizes compute effort.
Optimisation driver can be modeFrontier, Optimus, HyperSTUDY, iSIGHT FD...
Process Integration with
Multiple Load Cases
File Parsing with
Teach iSIGHT to
modify the input files
for STAR-Design (CAD)
for each load case
File Parsing with
Teach iSIGHT to
extract the mass flow
rate from the STAR-CD
output (mass flow rate)
Mixer Problem Design Variables

A grid of rectangular bars is placed in a circular pipe near the inlet to enhance
the mixing of the fluid (water) at the outlet.
Design variables: Angles between

the bars for three sets of crosses
(three in each set)
Side view
(from +x)
Static Mixer
Utilize symmetry plane.
Additional inlet - passive scalar (tracer) released.
Passive scalar follows the fluid but does not affect the flow.
Uniform velocity profile at the
inlet. Velocities are equal for both
inlets.
Monitored passive scalar
concentration at a section near
outlet.
Static Mixer
!----------------------------------------------------
body,move,0, -5, 0, 19, 20, 16, 17, 1, 2
workplane,create,face,118
workplane,select,2
body,rotate, 14,45,1,1.0781e-17,-7.77915e-18,2.5,-9.79275,0.117462
body,rotate, 2,45,1,1.0781e-17,-7.77915e-18,2.5,-9.79275,0.117462
body,rotate, 11,45,1,1.0781e-17,-7.77915e-18,2.5,-9.79275,0.117462
body,rotate, 13,-45,1,1.0781e-17,-7.77915e-18,2.5,-9.79275,0.117462
body,rotate, 1,-45,1,1.0781e-17,-7.77915e-18,2.5,-9.79275,0.117462
body,rotate, 10,-45,1,1.0781e-17,-7.77915e-18,2.5,-9.79275,0.117462
workplane,select,3
tool,command,modelbroker
tool,command,procad
body,unite,30,31

Movie (mesh)
Mesh and Design Variation
Objective and Constraint
Objective:
Minimize standard deviation of passive scalar concentration at the section.
Constraint: Minimum pressure drop from inlet pressure <= 6000 pa.
( )
A
dA
A
water area

=
2

A
dA
A
water
scalar passive
_
=
Pressure Variation for Each Design (Animation)
Scalar Concentration for Each Design (Animation)
Velocity Magnitudes
Initial
Optimized
Scalar Concentrations
Initial
Optimized
=0.08857
dp =5727 Pa.
=0.46824
dp =5911 Pa.
Flowseparatesfrom
wallinoptimizeddesign
andpromotesmixing

>
>

Manifold Optimization
Design Variables:
6 cylinder cross section radii
Swirl inducer thickness
Design criteria:
Objective uniform mass flow through each cylinder (minimize variance
between each cylinder)
Constraint pressure drop less than prescribed value
Manifold Optimization
iSIGHT optimization:
Sequential response surface approximation
11 evaluations
Pressure drop constraint satisfied
Mass flow variance between cylinders decreased by 12%
Center cylinder radii decreased
Swirl inducer thickness important
Water Jacket Optimization
1
2
3
( )
=
12
1
2
i
i
m
m m
12
12
1
=
=
i
i
m
m
Design Variables:
Fuel rail to water jacket cross section size
Design criteria:
Variance of mass flow
through each
cylinder
Explore Response Surface
Response Surfaces
Water Jacket Results
Decreased variance by 44% compared to the base case using a DOE study
5
1
9
.
Baseline
Worst Best
Variation of Velocity Magnitude at the Exit for each Design
Water Jacket Optimization
Near uniform flow through each cylinder
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank
Transient Volume of Fluid (VOF) free surface simulation
Tank is decelerated from 22 to 0 MPH over 1 second.
4 CPU hours per evaluation on single 3 GHz processor.
14 gallon tank full.
150,304 polyhedral cells (~500,00 tetrahedral cells)
Grid morphing
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank Design Variables
4 Design Variables:
Each baffle has a constant number of cutouts and cutout radii
Design Criteria:
Minimize peak total force transmitted across tank to chassis
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank DOE Results
Veryhigh
peakforce
Lowestpeak
force
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank Design 12
Free surface leap frogs over baffles
Slapping of free surface causes extremely high peak force
Surface tension included
Free surface climbs the inlet,
Formation of air bubbles,
Buoyancy included
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank Response Surface Modelling
The sloshing of liquids in tanks can cause complex peak discontinuous forces.
The relationship between the design variables and design criteria for sloshing liquids can
be non-convex and multimodal.
Often, an over-specified least-square linear response surface will capture trends in the
space.
In addition, the outlier response of design 12 is due to sloshing, slapping, slamming and
leap frogging.
If fuel gently rolls over baffles, then the relationship between baffle radii and peak force
should be better behaved.
We will therefore ignore the response of design 12 and refit a linear least square model to
the data.
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank Explore Response Surface
Approximated peak forces
Optimized with response surfaces
Best design -1, 1, -1, -1
Approximated peak force: 131 N.
Fuel Sloshing in a Tank Verify Final Improved Design
Improved design :
Approximated force: 131 N, calculated force: 136 N.
Reduced force by 43% with respect to design 12 (worst)
Reduced force by 6% with respect to design 10 (best)
Fuel gently rolls over baffles
Summary CAE trends survey (interim findings)
CFD Design Optimisation
Simulation automisation set-up costs 350% more than a single analysis
Allows to analyse O[50] designs
Return of Investment (RoI) = order 10
CFD Topology Optimisation?
Optimal topology nominally comes from a SINGLE simulation
Costs 50% more to set-up
Return of Investment (RoI) = order 100

CFD Optimisation Case Studies With STAR-CD and STAR-CCM+

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CFD Optimisation Case Studies With STAR-CD and STAR-CCM+

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.

Mixer Problem Design Variables

Design variables: Angles between

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2]

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi