Aerodynamic Design Optimization Studies at CASDE

Amitay Isaacs, D Ghate, A G Marathe, Nikhil Nigam, Vijay Mali, K Sudhakar, P M Mujumdar

Centre for Aerospace Systems Design and Engineering Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Bombay http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in
SAROD 2003 1

About CASDE
5 years old Masters program in Systems Design & Engineering MDO MAV Modeling & Simulation Workshops/CEPs/Conferences
SAROD 2003 2

Optimization Studies Overview

Concurrent aerodynamic shape & structural sizing of wing

FEM based aeroelastic design MDO architectures WingOpt software

Propulsion system

Engine sizing & cycle design Intake duct design using CFD

SAROD 2003

Intake Design - Background

Duct design practice of late 80s based on empirical rules Problem Revisited using formal optimization and high fidelity analysis
Study evolved with active participation of ADA (Dr. T.G. Pai & R.K.Jolly)
SAROD 2003 4

Problem Formulation
Objective/Constraints Pressure Recovery Distortion Swirl

Entry Exit Location and shape (Given)

Optimum geometry of duct from Entry to Exit ?

SAROD 2003 5

Design Using CFD - Issues

Simulation Time

CFD takes huge amounts of time for real life problems Design requires repetitive runs of disciplinary analyses Parametric geometry modeling Grid generation CFD solution Objective/Constraint function evaluation Optimization Finite difference step size (??), (NDV + 1) analyses required Exact formulations Automatic differentiation (ADIFOR), Adjoint method, Complex step method All require source code
6

Integration & Automation

Gradient Information

SAROD 2003

Flow Solver
Distortion & Swirl calculation requires NS solution In-house NS Solver

Analytical gradients possible Easy to integrate Gradients using finite difference only Difficult to integrate

Commercial Solvers (STAR-CD, FLUENT)

FLUENT Inc. S-shaped non-diffusing duct Results validated with a NASA test case (Devaki Ravi Kumar & Sujata Bandyopadhyay)

SAROD 2003

Strategies
Reducing Time

Parameterization Variable fidelity to shrink the search space Surrogate modeling Meshing Parallel computing Continuation Wrapping executables and user interfaces Offline analysis (Surrogate models) semiautomatic
8

Integration & Automation

SAROD 2003

Our Strategy

Variable fidelity Response Surface based design using FLUENT

SAROD 2003

Our Methodology
CFD analysis at DOE points

DOE in reduced space

RS for PR & DC60

Low fidelity Analysis Parametrization

Constraints

Optimization

SAROD 2003

10

Parametrization
Y Z

Duct Centerline

Control / Design Variables

Ym, Zm AL/3, A2L/3

Cross Sectional Area
SAROD 2003

X
11

Parametrization
Y Z

Duct Centerline

Control / Design Variables

Ym, Zm AL/3, A2L/3

Cross Sectional Area
SAROD 2003

X
12

Typical 3D-Ducts

SAROD 2003

13

Duct Design - Low Fidelity

Low Fidelity Design Rules (Constraints)

X2-MAX

Wall angle < 6 Diffusion angle < 3 6 * Equivalent Radius < ROC of Centerline

X2-MIN X1-MIN

X1-MAX

Objective function: pressure recovery

No low fidelity analysis for distortion or swirl

SAROD 2003

14

Optimization Process Low Fidelity

SAROD 2003

15

Automation for CFD

Clustering Parameters
Generation of entry and exit sections using GAMBIT
Mesh file

Duct Parameters (1, 2, y, z)

Generation of structured volume grid using parametrization
Entry & Exit sections

Conversion of file format to CGNS using FLUENT

Continuation Solution

Conversion of structured grid to unstructured format

Unstructured CGNS file

CFD Solution using FLUENT

CFD Solution

End-to-end (Parameters to DC60) automated CFD Cycle.

DC60

Objective/Constraints evaluation Using UDFs (FLUENT)

16

SAROD 2003

Automation for Design

Duct Parameters (1, 2, y, z)
Generation of structured volume grid using parametrization

Entry & Exit sections

Optimization
Continuation Solution

Conversion of structured grid to unstructured format

Unstructured CGNS file

CFD Solution using FLUENT

CFD Solution

DC60

Objective/Constraints evaluation Using UDFs (FLUENT)

17

SAROD 2003

Results: Total Pressure Profile

SAROD 2003

18

Design Space Reduction

Optimized duct from low fidelity P PLOSS DC60 (0.61, 0.31, 1.0, 1.0) 1.42 6.19 Infeasible duct (0.1, 0.31, 0.2, 0.6) 2.0 16.28 Poor duct (-0.4, 1.5, 0.3, 0.6) 3.53 24.21

P Parameters; PLOSS Total Pressure Loss

SAROD 2003 19

Optimization Post-processing
Distortion Analysis

where, PA0 - average total pressure at the section, P60min - minimum total pressure in a 600 sector, q - dynamic pressure at the cross section. User Defined Functions (UDF) and scheme files were used to generate this information from the FLUENT case and data file. Iterations may be stopped when the distortion values stabilize at the exit section with reasonable convergence levels.

DC60 = (PA0 P60min) /q

SAROD 2003

20

Continuation Method
Methodology

Store the solution in case & data files Open the new case (new grid) with the old data file Setup the problem Solution of (0.61 0.31 1 1) duct slapped on (0.1 0.31 0.1 0.1)
3-decade-fall 6-decade-fall Journal file Duct Parameters Generate new case file

Without continuation With continuation

4996 1493

9462 6588

Percentage time saving

70%

30%

Old Data file

FLUENT Solution

Huge benefits as compared to the efforts involved!!!

SAROD 2003 21

Simulation Time
Strategies

Continuation Method Parallel execution of FLUENT on a 4-noded Linux cluster

Time per CFD Run

Time for simulation has been reduced to around 20%.

Serial Parallel
Slapping

20

40

60

80

100

Time (hrs)

SAROD 2003

22

Sequential (Multipoint) Response Surface Approximations

SAROD 2003

23

Sequential (multipoint) Response Surface Methodology

Response Surfaces generated in sub-domains around multiple points Surfaces used to march to optimum

SAROD 2003

24

Wing aerodynamic design problem

Planform fixed 2 spanwise stations 4 variables for camber 3 variables for geometric pretwist Maximize cruise L/D Lift constraint
SAROD 2003 25

Design Problem Statement

Maximize Sub. to L/D CL = .312 -5 r + m 5 -5 r + m + t 5 .001 h1 .1 .001 h2 .1

with side constraints, .05 x1 .33; .05 x2 .33; -2 r 5 -2 m 5 -2 t 5

SAROD 2003

26

Design Tools
Lift Calculation: CL from VLM Drag Calculation: CD0 from a/c data CDi from VLM DOE: Design Expert

D-optimality Criterion

Response Surfaces: Design Expert

quadratic/cubic

Optimizers : FFSQP
SAROD 2003 27

Overall Design Procedure

SAROD 2003

28

Results - Arbitrary Starting Point 1

SAROD 2003

29

Results - Arbitrary Starting Point 2

SAROD 2003

30

Observations
Quadratic model found better than cubic model in subspaces. Global model inadequate.

Cost of D-optimality significant

SRSA seems to work well!

SAROD 2003

31

GRADIENT INFORMATION BY AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION OF CFD CODES

SAROD 2003

32

User Supplied Analytical Gradients

Analysis Code in Fortran Manually extract sequence of mathematical operations Manually differentiate mathematical functions - chain rule FORTRAN source code that can evaluate gradients
SAROD 2003

Code the complex derivative evaluator in Fortran

33

Automatic Differentiation for Analytical Gradients

Analysis Code in FORTARN

Automatically parse and extract the sequence of mathematical operations

Use symbolic math packages to automate derivative evaluation

FORTRAN source code that can evaluate gradients

SAROD 2003

Automatically code the complex derivative evaluator in Fortran

34

Automatic Differentiation for Analytical Gradients

Complex Analysis Code in FORTARN

Euler
FORTRAN source code that can evaluate gradients
SAROD 2003

Automated Differentiation Package eg. ADIFOR & ADIC

35

Comparison of Derivative Calculation Finite Difference vs ADIFOR

d(L/D) / d using ADIFOR Value 1.12 5.48 5.09 7.17 5.44 0.70 3.06 -0.38 -0.52 38.10 -0.40 4.44 4.11 -1.20 -1.23 2.46 -1.18 1.73

=0.2
% Error =0.02 Value % Error =0.002

d(L/D) / d using Finite Difference

Value
% Error Value

5.45
0.61 5.56 1.54

-0.41
7.08 -0.67 77.25

-1.18
1.56 -1.02 15.09
36

=0.0002
% Error
SAROD 2003

Optimization - ADIFOR vs FD
Single design variable unconstrained optimization problem

Find for max. L/D for Onera M6 wing

Same starting point; FD step size 0.002 init ADIFOR FD

1.060 1.060

opt
2.810 2.810

L/Dopt
11.99 11.99

Calls
15 17

Time
(min.)

424 111

SAROD 2003

37

Thank You Please visit www.casde.iitb.ac.in for details and other information

SAROD 2003

38

Thank You
http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/mdo/3d-duct/

Problem Statement

Ambient conditions: 11Km altitude Inlet Boundary Conditions

Total Pressure: 34500 Pa Total Temperature: 261.4o K Hydraulic Diameter: 0.394m Turbulence Intensity: 5% Outlet Boundary Conditions Static Pressure: 31051 Pa (Calculated for the desired mass flow rate) Hydraulic Diameter: 0.4702m Turbulence Intensity: 5%

SAROD 2003

40

Duct Parameterization
Geometry of the duct is derived from the Mean Flow Line (MFL)

MFL is the line joining centroids of crosssections along the duct Any cross-section along length of the duct is normal to MFL

Cross-section area is varied parametrically Cross-section shape in merging area is same as the exit section
SAROD 2003 41

MFL Design Variables - 1

Mean flow line (MFL) is considered as a piecewise cubic curve along the length of the duct between the entry section and merging section
y(Lm/2), z(Lm/2) specified y(x), z(x) y2, z2 Cmerge
r

Centry 0

y1, z1
Lm/2 Lm x

Lm : x-distance between the entry and merger section

y1, y2, z1, z2 : cubic polynomials for y(x) and z(x)

SAROD 2003 42

MFL Design Variables - 2

y1(x) = A0 + A1x + A2x2 + A3x3, y2(x) = B0 + B1x + B2x2 + B3x3 z1(x) = C0 + C1x + C2x2 + C3x3, z2(x) = D0 + D1x + D2x2 + D3x3

y1(Lm) = y2 (Lm), y1 (Lm) = y2 (Lm), y1 (Lm) = y2 (Lm) z1(Lm) = z2 (Lm), z1 (Lm) = z2 (Lm), z1 (Lm) = z2 (Lm) y1 (Centry) = y2 (Cmerger) = z1 (Centry) = z2 (Cmerger) = 0

The shape of the MFL is controlled by 2 parameters which control the y and z coordinate of centroid at Lm/2 y(Lm/2) = y(0) + (y(L) y(0)) y 0 < y < 1 z(Lm/2) = z(0) + (z(L) z(0)) z 0 < z < 1
SAROD 2003 43

Area Design Variables 1

Cross-section area at any station is interpolated from the entry and exit crosssections A(x) = A(0) + (A(Lm) A(0)) * (x) corresponding points on entry and exit sections are linearly interpolated to obtain the shape of the intermediate sections and scaled appropriately Psection = Pentry + (Pexit - Pentry) *

SAROD 2003

44

Area Design Variables - 2

variation is given by piecewise cubic curve as function of x
(Lm/3) and (2Lm/3) is specified (x) 1 0 0 Lm/3 2Lm/3 Lm 0 < 1 1 2 2< 1 x 2

A0 + A1x + A 2x2 + A3x3 B0 + B1x + B2x2 + B3x3 C0 + C1x + C2x2 + C3x3

SAROD 2003

45

Turbulence Modeling
Relevance: Time per Solution Following aspects of the flow were of interest:

Boundary layer development Flow Separation (if any) Turbulence Development S-shaped duct Circular cross-section Doyle Knight, Smith, Harloff, Loeffer
Baldwin-Lomax model (Algebraic model)

Literature Survey

Computationally inexpensive than more sophisticated models Known to give non-accurate results for boundary layer separation etc.

Devaki Ravi Kumar & Sujata Bandyopadhyay (FLUENT Inc.)

k- realizable turbulence model

Two equation model

SAROD 2003

46

Turbulence Modeling
Standard k- model

(contd.)

Turbulence Viscosity Ratio exceeding 1,00,000 in 2/3 cells

Realizable k- model

Shih et. al. (1994) C is not assumed to be constant A formulation suggested for calculating values of C1 & C Computationally little more expensive than the standard k- model

Total Pressure profile at the exit section (Standard k-

model)

SAROD 2003

47

Results
Mass imbalance: 0.17% Energy imbalance: 0.06% Total pressure drop: 1.42% Various turbulence related quantities of interest at entry and exit sections: Entry Exit
Turbulent Kinetic Energy (m2/s2) Turbulent Viscosity Ratio 124.24 5201.54 45.65 3288.45

y+ at the cell center of the cells adjacent to boundary throughout the domain is around 18.

SAROD 2003

48

Flow Separation

SAROD 2003

49

Flow Separation

SAROD 2003

50