|December 23, 2013, 18:22||
Inaccurate gradient results from continuous Adjoint method
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1Rep Power: 0
I'm studying global optimization methods.
Currently, I consider airfoil design as the application.
However, I have found inaccurate gradient results when I use the continuous Adjoint method which is enclosed in the SU2-Suite.
Here is the information of the airfoil design.
Mach number = 0.75
Design variables= 5 Hicks-Henne bump functions on the upper surface of the airfoil
In order to measure the accuracy of the Adjoint method,
I considered 2 bump functions, and compared gradient values
from the Adjoint method and finite difference method.
All computation conditions(grid, # of CPUs, etc) were same except the method.
The above is the two plots.
White and red plots were each calculated using the finite difference and the Adjoint method.
As you can see, the overall trends and the magnitudes of the plots are different each other.
Since step size for the finite difference method was selected by some tests,
I think the finite difference method is accurate.
What makes the difference? Is this a limitation of the Adjoint method?
|January 11, 2014, 23:08||
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 301Rep Power: 5
If you have a while, please take a look at
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Inaccurate animation or inaccurate results?||niraj12321||ANSYS||1||August 10, 2010 13:33|
|Fluent 6.3.26 vs 12.1 and partition method||Anorky||FLUENT||0||April 27, 2010 10:55|
|Comparison: Finite Volume Method vs. Analytic Method||m-fry||Main CFD Forum||1||April 20, 2010 14:40|
|why dynamic mesh method give wrong results?||weiyang1980||Main CFD Forum||0||September 22, 2009 21:06|
|SIMPLE Algorithm & Conjugate Gradient Method||Abhijit Tilak||Main CFD Forum||7||March 20, 2001 01:01|