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

unsteady rans optimization of NACA64A010

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   February 23, 2014, 07:06
Default unsteady rans optimization of NACA64A010
  #1
New Member
 
何建东
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
hejiandong is on a distinguished road
Dear developers:

I tried to run the test case of unsteady rans optimization of pitching NACA64A010 but finally failed.

because the sensitivity of many points are too large and finally collapsed at the begin of second optimization loop..

i want to ask if the test case has been tested?
hejiandong is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 11, 2014, 02:38
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,

Yes, this test case has worked in the past. However, this is a very active research area at the moment. If you haven't already, you might try the files that are available in the test cases folder under TestCases/optimization_rans/pitching_naca64a010/.

All the best,
Tom
economon is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 26, 2014, 22:02
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Eduardo Molina
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 6
EMolina is on a distinguished road
Hi Tom.

I succesfully performed the pitching naca64a10 euler optmization. And I noticed that the objective function to minimize, for example DRAG, is actually the mean value of this objective function over time. I would like to change this objective function to be the standard deviation not the mean value.That is, the code is doing right, the average of the objective function is decreasing, but after each iteration of the design space, the value of the standard deviation increases.

I searched the part of the code where the mean of the objective function is calculated for unsteady adjoint optimizations and I have not found. If it is possible, I would like your help on where I could perform this modification in the code.

Thank you in advance.

Eduardo
EMolina is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 2, 2014, 09:29
Default
  #4
New Member
 
何建东
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
hejiandong is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by economon View Post
Hi,

Yes, this test case has worked in the past. However, this is a very active research area at the moment. If you haven't already, you might try the files that are available in the test cases folder under TestCases/optimization_rans/pitching_naca64a010/.

All the best,
Tom
Dear Tom

I have performed TestCases/optimization_rans/pitching_naca64a010/ with the newest version of SU2, but the averaged drag coefficient increased up to 10 times of original configuration in the second optimization loop. and the thickness increased almost two times of the original configuration. is there any problem of the code?
hejiandong is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 8, 2014, 03:37
Default
  #5
Super Moderator
 
Thomas D. Economon
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 260
Rep Power: 5
economon is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I do not expect that anything significant has changed related to the unsteady adjoint recently. However, sometimes small changes can affect the performance of the shape design process, since there are so many different components at work.

To help figure out what is going on, can you check that the gradient computed by the continuous adjoint method is approximately on the order of a small deformation relative to the airfoil chord length (1-2% chord, for instance)? If the values are large, you can scale the objective & gradient in the opt. portion of the config file so that the first step of the optimizer remains feasible, i.e., the airfoil doesn't invert or cause the mesh deformation code to fail.

Cheers,
Tom
economon is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 10, 2014, 22:10
Default
  #6
New Member
 
何建东
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
hejiandong is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by economon View Post
Hi,

I do not expect that anything significant has changed related to the unsteady adjoint recently. However, sometimes small changes can affect the performance of the shape design process, since there are so many different components at work.

To help figure out what is going on, can you check that the gradient computed by the continuous adjoint method is approximately on the order of a small deformation relative to the airfoil chord length (1-2% chord, for instance)? If the values are large, you can scale the objective & gradient in the opt. portion of the config file so that the first step of the optimizer remains feasible, i.e., the airfoil doesn't invert or cause the mesh deformation code to fail.

Cheers,
Tom
Dear Tom

I have attached my cfg file and history project file, I,m sure that the mesh deformation is successfully running, and after the second loop, the time averaged drag coefficient began to decrease. however, after 10 optmization loops, drag coefficient is still larger than baseline configuration.

I will also give a try to further scale the opt_obj.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 8]S281SBX0G_[17H(LAZ]HP.jpg (43.0 KB, 23 views)
Attached Files
File Type: txt history_project.plt.txt (4.1 KB, 3 views)
File Type: txt turb_NACA64A010cfg.txt (19.0 KB, 3 views)
hejiandong is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 14, 2014, 09:14
Default
  #7
New Member
 
何建东
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
hejiandong is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by hejiandong View Post
Dear Tom

I have attached my cfg file and history project file, I,m sure that the mesh deformation is successfully running, and after the second loop, the time averaged drag coefficient began to decrease. however, after 10 optmization loops, drag coefficient is still larger than baseline configuration.

I will also give a try to further scale the opt_obj.
I found that maybe the problem is sensitivity of geometry can not converged in unsteady adjoint, this figure become larger and large even after lots of steps. however, in steady cases, everything seems OK , anyone can give me some suggestions? thanks a lot!

Another things to mention is that this figure of unsteady adjoint became negative while the according steady case of NACA64- A010 is positive numbers.
hejiandong is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 17, 2014, 00:05
Default
  #8
New Member
 
何建东
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
hejiandong is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by economon View Post
Hi,

I do not expect that anything significant has changed related to the unsteady adjoint recently. However, sometimes small changes can affect the performance of the shape design process, since there are so many different components at work.

To help figure out what is going on, can you check that the gradient computed by the continuous adjoint method is approximately on the order of a small deformation relative to the airfoil chord length (1-2% chord, for instance)? If the values are large, you can scale the objective & gradient in the opt. portion of the config file so that the first step of the optimizer remains feasible, i.e., the airfoil doesn't invert or cause the mesh deformation code to fail.

Cheers,
Tom
Dear Tom

I have scaled the opt.portion. But it seems not the problem.
Like what i posted above, time averaged drag coefficient increased in first loop and decreased in following loops. but after 12 loops, optimization terminated, the final configuration and drag coefficient is almost the same as baseline configuration...so it is more like that i was carrying a inverse design problem rather than drag reduce optimization..

Another thing to mention is that only in first loop, the code run the adjoint calculation! that is only in DSN_001, I can find the adjoint information.

Hopes your response!!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg QQ??20140417115311.jpg (17.9 KB, 9 views)
Attached Files
File Type: txt turb_NACA64A010.cfg.txt (19.1 KB, 1 views)
File Type: txt history_project.plt.txt (6.9 KB, 0 views)
hejiandong is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 24, 2014, 05:23
Default
  #9
Super Moderator
 
Thomas D. Economon
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 260
Rep Power: 5
economon is on a distinguished road
Hi,

Just wanted to say that I plan to run this case again soon for a paper. Hopefully, I will be able to get back to you relatively soon with more details on this case...

Cheers,
Tom
economon is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 24, 2014, 09:21
Default
  #10
New Member
 
何建东
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
Rep Power: 4
hejiandong is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by economon View Post
Hi,

Just wanted to say that I plan to run this case again soon for a paper. Hopefully, I will be able to get back to you relatively soon with more details on this case...

Cheers,
Tom
Thanks a lot!!

I also found that unsteady rans optimization can work on euler grid.

Now i have another question, i want to run SU2 in our computer clusters, however the code can only run on the control cluster, because the linux system only installed on control cluster. maybe i need some script or other method to apply the code on computation clusters. can u give me some advice?
hejiandong 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RANS optimization of Onera M6 wing diwakaranant SU2 Shape Design 8 October 21, 2013 14:57
Testcase for shape optimization using RANS simualtion diwakaranant SU2 Shape Design 1 April 18, 2013 13:27
Difference between URANS and unsteady RANS LD696 Main CFD Forum 0 November 3, 2010 12:13
prob. with unsteady RANS using Finite Rate Chem James FLUENT 4 May 16, 2006 06:29
Unsteady RANS - contradiction?? Fred Uckfield Main CFD Forum 3 February 25, 2002 16:52


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:45.