|
[Sponsors] |
May 31, 2013, 11:25 |
Problem with airfoil shape optimization
|
#1 |
Member
Roberto Pieri
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Milan
Posts: 57
Rep Power: 14 |
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:
Configuration file and mesh: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ile%26Mesh.zip |
|
May 31, 2013, 11:29 |
|
#2 |
Member
Trent Lukaczyk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 15 |
||
May 31, 2013, 11:33 |
|
#3 |
Member
Roberto Pieri
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Milan
Posts: 57
Rep Power: 14 |
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, 11:35 |
|
#4 |
Member
Trent Lukaczyk
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 75
Rep Power: 15 |
ah i meant more of the physical case. what conditions, geometry etc?
|
|
May 31, 2013, 11:39 |
|
#5 |
Member
Roberto Pieri
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Milan
Posts: 57
Rep Power: 14 |
Airfoil NACA0012, Navier-Stokes with Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model.
Flow conditions are the following:
|
|
June 2, 2013, 18:23 |
|
#6 |
Super Moderator
Thomas D. Economon
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Stanford, CA
Posts: 271
Rep Power: 14 |
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, 20:13 |
|
#7 |
Member
Roberto Pieri
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Milan
Posts: 57
Rep Power: 14 |
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 |
|
March 7, 2022, 17:18 |
|
#8 |
New Member
jose daniel
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 6 |
You can find the optimal airfoil shape (minimizing the drag) but fulfilling a target lift coefficient on this website: https://aeroptimal.com/airfoil . The methodology is under review in journals. The CFD method employs OpenFOAM.
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Problem with FFD-based shape optimization: all gradients are zero | praveen | SU2 Shape Design | 10 | October 7, 2013 22:21 |
optimization problem | mhessen_aziz | Fidelity CFD | 0 | March 26, 2012 06:16 |
Student in need of help! 2-D airfoil problem | orion | FLUENT | 3 | February 2, 2012 17:16 |
Shape optimization | DoHander | Main CFD Forum | 0 | April 28, 2011 23:28 |
solving airfoil like square cylinder problem? | zonexo | Main CFD Forum | 1 | May 27, 2006 16:16 |