CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > SU2 Shape Design

Adjoint sensitivities at Mach 1.0 and above

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 3, 2013, 21:09
Default Adjoint sensitivities at Mach 1.0 and above
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 5
amphy404 is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I'm running the continuous adjoint solver for the naca0012 airfoil from the provided test case in the SU2 package.
I am manually comparing the adjoint sensitivities produced against finite differences.
I have noticed that for Mach 1 and above that the adjoint sensitivities do not match with finite differences.

Is there something that I need to change in the test case configuration other than just the Mach number?

Do I need to define different boundary conditions in the farfield, such as supersonic inlet and supersonic outlet conditions?


Thank you in advance,
KW
amphy404 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 12, 2013, 04:07
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Thomas D. Economon
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 260
Rep Power: 5
economon is on a distinguished road
Hi KW,

As you know, obtaining good agreement between continuous adjoint and finite difference gradients can often be tricky business. The results can be very mesh dependent, very sensitive to the level of numerical dissipation used in the primal and adjoint problems, and the finite difference step size must also be selected carefully.

In order to obtain good agreement, you might consider running an array of finite difference step sizes for the problem (the finite_differences.py script assumes 1e-4 by default, but can be adjusted with the '-s' option). You may also want to try a different/finer mesh which is better suited for the particular problem (note that the shock(s) will be in a different location) or to adjust the levels of artificial dissipation if you are using the JST scheme, for instance. The current far-field boundary condition implementation can handle the supersonic conditions.

Hope some of these suggestions help. Thanks for using SU2, and all the best,
Tom
economon is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 12, 2013, 21:27
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 5
amphy404 is on a distinguished road
Thank you Tom.

I will give those suggestions a try.
amphy404 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:23.