A comparison of optimization-based approaches for a model computational aerodynamics design problem

https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(92)90174-WGet rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to compare three optimization-based methods for solving aerodynamic design problems. We use the Euler equations for one-dimensional duct flow as a model problem. The optimization methods are (i) the black-box method with finite difference gradients, (ii) a modification where gradients are found by an algorithm based on the implicit function theorem, and (iii) an all-atonce method where the flow and design variables are simultaneously altered. The three methods are applied to the model problem and compared for efficiency, robustness, and implementation difficulty. We also show that the black-box (implicit gradient) method is equivalent to applying the “variational” or “optimal control” approach to design optimization directly to the discretized analysis problem, rather than to the continuous problem as is usually done. The black-box method with implicit gradients seems to provide a good compromise of features, and can be retrofitted to most existing analysis codes to turn them into design codes. Although the all-at-once method was found to be less robust than the black-box methods, when it succeeded it was considerably more efficient.

References (20)

  • G.R. Shubin et al.

    J. Comput. Phys.

    (1981)
  • J.W. Slooff
  • M.D. Salas et al.
  • A.B. Stephens et al.

    J. Comput. Phys.

    (1974)
  • P. Embid et al.

    SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput.

    (1984)
  • C. de Boor

    A Practical Guide to Splines

    (1985)
  • J. Lorenz

    Math. Comput.

    (1986)
  • A.N. Tikhonov et al.

    Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems

    (1977)
  • J.E. Dennis et al.

    Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations

    (1983)
  • P.E. Gill et al.

    Practical Optimization

    (1982)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (80)

  • Analysis of finite-volume discrete adjoint fields for two-dimensional compressible Euler flows

    2022, Journal of Computational Physics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Discrete and continuous adjoint methods are well established methods to efficiently calculate derivatives of aerodynamic functions with respect to numerous design parameters. Adjoint-based derivatives and adjoint-fields are commonly used for local shape optimization [2–6], goal-oriented mesh adaptation [7–14], flow control [15,16], meta-modelling [17], receptivity-sensitivity-stability analyses [18], and data assimilation [19]. These methods are often used for the linear analysis of non-linear conservation laws where the adjoint is defined as the dual to the linearized equations around a given solution to the direct non-linear problem.

  • Discrete adjoint of fractional-step incompressible Navier-Stokes solver in curvilinear coordinates and application to data assimilation

    2019, Journal of Computational Physics
    Citation Excerpt :

    The boundary conditions for the discrete adjoint equations are straightforward to derive and implement, compared to those of the continuous variant. Since the first application for quasi-one-dimensional compressible Euler equations [19], this approach has been developed for more complex problems. For example, Mani & Mavriplis derived the discrete adjoint of unsteady compressible Euler equations with deforming meshes [20]; Nielsen et al. extended the formulation to three-dimensional unsteady compressible RANS equations on overset grids [21]; de Pando et al. developed adjoint operators for the linearized Navier-Stokes solvers which are generated by an efficient algorithm that they proposed [22].

  • State-of-the-art in aerodynamic shape optimisation methods

    2018, Applied Soft Computing Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    The adjoint form of the sensitivity information is particularly efficient for aerodynamic optimisation applications as the number of cost functions (outputs) is small, while the number of design variables (inputs) is relatively larger. The discrete adjoint method (as opposed to continuous adjoint method) is generally favoured in aerospace-based optimisation as it ensures that sensitivities are exact with respect to the discretised objective function [81,82]. The implementation of the adjoint method for the governing equations of the flow analysis can often be difficult to derive and require direct manipulation; adjoint methods require much more involved detailed knowledge of the computational domain.

  • Dual consistency and functional accuracy: A finite-difference perspective

    2014, Journal of Computational Physics
    Citation Excerpt :

    In the continuous-adjoint approach, associated with Jamesonʼs pioneering work in aerodynamic shape optimization [4], the adjoint PDE is first derived from the primal3 PDE and functional; subsequently, the primal and adjoint PDEs are discretized independently. In the discrete-adjoint approach, see e.g. [16,17], the discretized primal PDE and functional are used to derive the linear system for the adjoint variables. In the PDE-constrained optimization literature, the discrete-adjoint approach (resp.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text