SAROD 2003 1

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 2

About CASDE

5 years old Master’s program in Systems Design & Engineering MDO MAV Modeling & Simulation Workshops/CEPs/Conferences

SAROD 2003 3

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 4

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 5

Problem Formulation

Entry Exit Location and shape (Given)

Optimum geometry of duct from Entry to Exit ?

Objective/Constraints

• Pressure Recovery• Distortion• Swirl

SAROD 2003 6

Design Using CFD - Issues

Simulation Time CFD takes huge amounts of time for real life problems Design requires repetitive runs of disciplinary

analyses

Integration & Automation Parametric geometry modeling Grid generation CFD solution Objective/Constraint function evaluation Optimization

Gradient Information Finite difference – step size (??), (NDV + 1) analyses

required Exact formulations – Automatic differentiation

(ADIFOR), Adjoint method, Complex step method – All require source code

SAROD 2003 7

Flow Solver

Distortion & Swirl calculation requires NS solutionIn-house NS Solver

Analytical gradients possible Easy to integrate

Commercial Solvers (STAR-CD, FLUENT…) Gradients using finite difference only Difficult to integrate

FLUENT Inc. S-shaped non-diffusing duct Results validated with a NASA test case

(Devaki Ravi Kumar & Sujata Bandyopadhyay)

SAROD 2003 8

Strategies

Reducing Time Parameterization Variable fidelity to shrink the search space Surrogate modeling Meshing Parallel computing Continuation

Integration & Automation Wrapping executables and user interfaces Offline analysis (Surrogate models) – semi-

automatic

SAROD 2003 9

Our Strategy

Variable fidelity Response Surface based design using FLUENT

SAROD 2003 10

Our Methodology

Parametrization

Low fidelity Analysis

DOE in reduced space

CFD analysis at DOE points

RS for PR & DC60

OptimizationConstraint

s

SAROD 2003 11

Parametrization

Y

X

Z

XDuct Centerline

A

X

Control / Design Variables

• Ym, Zm

• AL/3, A2L/3

Cross Sectional Area

SAROD 2003 12

Y

X

Z

XDuct Centerline

A

X

Control / Design Variables

• Ym, Zm

• AL/3, A2L/3

Cross Sectional Area

Parametrization

SAROD 2003 13

Typical 3D-Ducts

SAROD 2003 14

Duct Design - Low Fidelity

Low Fidelity Design Rules (Constraints) Wall angle < 6° Diffusion angle < 3° 6 * Equivalent Radius

< ROC of Centerline

Objective function: pressure recovery

No low fidelity analysis for distortion or swirl

X1-MIN

X2-MIN

X2-MAX

X1-MAX

SAROD 2003 15

Optimization Process – Low Fidelity

SAROD 2003 16

Automation for CFD

Generation of entry and exit sections using GAMBIT

Clustering Parameters

Conversion of file format to CGNS using FLUENT

Mesh file

Generation of structured volume grid using parametrization

Duct Parameters(β1, β2, αy, αz)

Entry & Exit sections

Conversion of structured grid to unstructured format

Unstructured CGNS file

CFD Solution using FLUENT

End-to-end (Parameters to DC60)

automated CFD Cycle. Objective/Constraints evaluationUsing UDFs (FLUENT)

DC60

CFD Solution

ContinuationSolution

SAROD 2003 17

Automation for Design

Generation of structured volume grid using parametrizationEntry & Exit

sections

Conversion of structured grid to unstructured format

CFD Solution using FLUENT

Objective/Constraints evaluationUsing UDFs (FLUENT)

DC60

Optimization

Duct Parameters(β1, β2, αy, αz)

ContinuationSolution

Unstructured CGNS file

CFD Solution

SAROD 2003 18

Results: Total Pressure Profile

SAROD 2003 19

Design Space Reduction

6.19

1.42

(0.61, 0.31, 1.0, 1.0)

Optimized duct from low fidelity

24.2116.28DC60

3.532.0PLOSS

(-0.4, 1.5, 0.3, 0.6)

(0.1, 0.31, 0.2, 0.6)

P

Poor ductInfeasible duct

P – Parameters; PLOSS – Total Pressure Loss

SAROD 2003 20

Optimization Post-processing

Distortion Analysis DC60 = (PA0 – P60min) /q

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.

SAROD 2003 21

Huge benefits as compared to the efforts involved!!!

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

Without continuation 4996 9462

With continuation 1493 6588

Percentage time saving 70% 30%

Continuation Method

Generate new case file

FLUENT Solution

Duct Parameters

OldData

file

Journal

file

SAROD 2003 22

Simulation Time

Strategies Continuation Method Parallel execution of FLUENT on a 4-

noded Linux cluster

Time for simulation has been reduced to around 20%.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Time (hrs)

Time per CFD Run

Serial

Parallel

Slapping

SAROD 2003 23

Sequential (Multipoint)Response Surface Approximations

SAROD 2003 24

Sequential (multipoint) Response Surface Methodology

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

SAROD 2003 25

Wing aerodynamic design problem

Planform fixed2 spanwise stations4 variables for camber3 variables for geometric pre-twistMaximize cruise L/D Lift constraint

SAROD 2003 26

Design Problem Statement

Maximize L/D Sub. to CL = .312

-5 r + m 5 -5 r + m + t 5

with side constraints, .05 x1 .33; .001 h1 .1

.05 x2 .33; .001 h2 .1

-2 r 5 -2 m 5 -2 t 5

SAROD 2003 27

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 28

Overall Design Procedure

SAROD 2003 29

Results - Arbitrary Starting Point 1

SAROD 2003 30

Results - Arbitrary Starting Point 2

SAROD 2003 31

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 32

GRADIENT INFORMATION BY

AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION OF

CFD CODES

SAROD 2003 33

User Supplied Analytical Gradients

AnalysisCode in Fortran

Manually extractsequence of mathematical

operations

Code the complex derivative evaluator

in Fortran

Manually differentiatemathematical

functions - chain rule

FORTRANsource code

that can evaluategradients

SAROD 2003 34

Automatic Differentiation for Analytical Gradients

Automatically parse and extract the sequence

of mathematical operations

Use symbolic math packages to automate derivative evaluation

Automatically code the complex

derivative evaluator in Fortran

AnalysisCode in FORTARN

FORTRANsource code

that can evaluategradients

SAROD 2003 35

Automatic Differentiation for Analytical Gradients

Complex AnalysisCode in FORTARN

FORTRANsource code

that can evaluategradients

Automated Differentiation

Packageeg. ADIFOR

&ADIC

Euler

SAROD 2003 36

1.12 3.06 4.11

d(L/D) / d using ADIFOR 5.48 -0.38 -1.20

d(L/D) / d using Finite Difference

=0.2

Value 5.09 -0.52 -1.23

% Error 7.17 38.10 2.46

=0.02Value 5.44 -0.40 -1.18

% Error 0.70 4.44 1.73

=0.002Value 5.45 -0.41 -1.18

% Error 0.61 7.08 1.56

=0.0002

Value 5.56 -0.67 -1.02

% Error 1.54 77.25 15.09

Comparison of Derivative Calculation Finite Difference vs ADIFOR

SAROD 2003 37

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 optL/Dopt Calls Time

(min.)

ADIFOR

1.060 2.810 11.99 15 424

FD 1.060 2.810 11.99 17 111

SAROD 2003 38

Thank You

Please visitwww.casde.iitb.ac.in

for details and other information

Thank You

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

SAROD 2003 40

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 41

Duct Parameterization

Geometry of the duct is derived from the Mean Flow Line (MFL) MFL is the line joining centroids of

cross-sections 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 42

MFL Design Variables - 1Mean flow line (MFL) is considered as a piecewise cubic curve along the length of the duct between the entry section and merging section

x

y(x), z(x)

0 LmLm/2

y(Lm/2), z(Lm/2) specified

Centry

Cmerger

y1, z1

y2, z2

Lm : x-distance between the entry and merger section

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

SAROD 2003 43

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)) αy 0 < αy < 1

• z(Lm/2) = z(0) + (z(L) – z(0)) αz 0 < αz < 1

SAROD 2003 44

Area Design Variables – 1Cross-section area at any station is interpolated from the entry and exit cross-sections

•A(x) = A(0) + (A(Lm) – A(0)) * β(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) * β

SAROD 2003 45

Area Design Variables - 2

A0 + A1x + A2x2 + A3x3 0 β < β1

B0 + B1x + B2x2 + B3x3 β1 β β2

C0 + C1x + C2x2 + C3x3 β2< β 1

β =

x

β(x)

0 LmLm/30

1

2Lm/3

β1

β2

β(Lm/3) and β(2Lm/3) is specified

β variation is given by piecewise cubic curve as function of x

SAROD 2003 46

Turbulence ModelingRelevance: Time per SolutionFollowing aspects of the flow were of interest:

Boundary layer development Flow Separation (if any) Turbulence Development

Literature Survey S-shaped duct Circular cross-section Doyle Knight, Smith, Harloff, Loeffer

Baldwin-Lomax model (Algebraic model) 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 47

Turbulence Modeling (contd.)

Standard k- model Turbulence Viscosity Ratio

exceeding 1,00,000 in 2/3 cells

Realizable k- model Shih et. al. (1994) Cμ is not assumed to be

constant A formulation suggested

for calculating values of C1 & Cμ

Computationally little more expensive than the standard k- model

Total Pressure profile at the exit section (Standard k- model)

SAROD 2003 48

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)

124.24 45.65

Turbulent Viscosity Ratio 5201.54 3288.45

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

SAROD 2003 49

Flow Separation

SAROD 2003 50

Flow Separation