# Problem with airfoil shape optimization

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

May 31, 2013, 10:25
Problem with airfoil shape optimization
#1
Member

Roberto Pieri
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Milan
Posts: 57
Rep Power: 5
Hi developers,

I have a problem related to shape optimization(objective function DRAG and contraint on LIFT). After one step of optimization, the drag coefficient of modified airfoil is higher than the undeformed case. Attached below you can find the picture of the deformed surface.

I think this is caused by wrong shape sensitivities, actually, performing deformation following the gradients (the first with DRAG objective function, the second with LIFT), aerodynamics coefficients are not reduced as you can see:
• undeformed Cl = 1.0903975881, Cd = 0.0144672429
• deformed(DRAG) Cl = 1.0913637969, Cd = 0.0144798238
• deformed(LIFT) Cl = 1.0835264954, Cd = 0.0150110962

Configuration file and mesh: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ile%26Mesh.zip
Attached Files
 DEFORMAZIONEopt-eps-converted-to.pdf (6.8 KB, 41 views)

May 31, 2013, 10:29
#2
Member

Trent Lukaczyk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 6
Quote:
 Originally Posted by robyTKD Hi developers, I have a problem related to shape optimization(objective function DRAG and contraint on LIFT).
Hi roby, can you please describe your shape optimization case? Makes it easier to interpret the config file..

 May 31, 2013, 10:33 #3 Member   Roberto Pieri Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Milan Posts: 57 Rep Power: 5 Yes. OPT_OBJECTIVE= DRAG*0.001 OPT_CONSTRAINT= ( LIFT>1.09 )*0.001 Design variables are Hicks-Henne function on top and bottom of the airfoil. DEFINITION_DV= ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.05 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.10 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.15 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.20 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.25 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.30 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.35 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.40 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.45 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.50 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.55 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.60 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.65 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.70 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.75 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.80 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.85 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.90 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 0, 0.95 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.05 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.10 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.15 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.20 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.25 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.30 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.35 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.40 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.45 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.50 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.55 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.60 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.65 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.70 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.75 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.80 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.85 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.90 ); ( 1, 1.0 | AIRFOIL | 1, 0.95 ) If you need somethin more just ask. Roberto

 May 31, 2013, 10:35 #4 Member   Trent Lukaczyk Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Stanford, CA Posts: 75 Rep Power: 6 ah i meant more of the physical case. what conditions, geometry etc?

 May 31, 2013, 10:39 #5 Member   Roberto Pieri Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Milan Posts: 57 Rep Power: 5 Airfoil NACA0012, Navier-Stokes with Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. Flow conditions are the following: M = 0.15 Re = 6E6 AoA = 10 deg T = 300 K

 June 2, 2013, 17:23 #6 Super Moderator   Thomas D. Economon Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Stanford, CA Posts: 260 Rep Power: 5 Hi Roberto, One thing we have seen in the past is that the ordering of the line elements making up the airfoil in the mesh file can be reversed (depends on the mesh generator, since there is no standard), and this causes the direction of the gradient/deformation to be reversed. One thing that you can try in order to fix this is to simply flip the connectivity in the mesh file for the airfoil marker. For example, if the first line element in the airfoil is MARKER_TAG= airfoil MARKER_ELEMS=200 3 199 0 try changing it to MARKER_TAG= airfoil MARKER_ELEMS=200 3 0 199 and perform this change for the rest of the line elements making up the airfoil marker as well. We will implement an automatic fix for this soon. Hope this helps, Tom

 June 13, 2013, 19:13 #7 Member   Roberto Pieri Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Milan Posts: 57 Rep Power: 5 Thank you Tom, this seems to be one of the problems related to my "bad" shape optimization. Elements on the airfoil were non-uniformly oriented, then a simply change of orientation was not enough. But giving them the same orientation things seems to work (in laminar regime). I am trying to set the turbulent case on the new mesh to see if things work with the introduction of Spalart-Allmaras model. I will post news as soon as possible. Best regards, Roberto

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post praveen SU2 Shape Design 10 October 7, 2013 21:21 mhessen_aziz NUMECA 0 March 26, 2012 05:16 orion FLUENT 3 February 2, 2012 17:16 DoHander Main CFD Forum 0 April 28, 2011 22:28 zonexo Main CFD Forum 1 May 27, 2006 15:16

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17.