On the proper treatment of grid sensitivities in continuous adjoint methods for shape optimization

Abstract The continuous adjoint method for shape optimization problems, in flows governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, can be formulated in two different ways, each of which leads to a different expression for the sensitivity derivatives of the objective function with respect to the control variables. The first formulation leads to an expression including only boundary integrals; it, thus, has low computational cost but, when used with coarse grids, its accuracy becomes questionable. The second formulation comprises a sum of boundary and field integrals; due to the field integrals, it has noticeably higher computational cost, obtaining though higher accuracy. In this paper, the equivalence of the two formulations is revisited from the mathematical and, particularly, the numerical point of view. Internal and external aerodynamics cases, in which the objective function is either the total pressure losses or the force exerted on a solid body, are examined and differences in the computed gradients are discussed. After identifying the reason behind these discrepancies, the adjoint formulation is enhanced by the adjoint to a (hypothetical) grid displacement model and the new approach is proved to reproduce the accuracy of the second adjoint formulation while maintaining the low cost of the first one.

[1]  Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou,et al.  A continuous adjoint method with objective function derivatives based on boundary integrals, for inviscid and viscous flows , 2007 .

[2]  F. Menter.  Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications , 1994 .

[3]  E. Andres,et al.  Domain versus boundary computation of flow sensitivities with the continuous adjoint method for aerodynamic shape optimization problems , 2012 .

[4]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Aerodynamic design via control theory , 1988, J. Sci. Comput..

[5]  Arthur Stück,et al.  Adjoint complement to viscous finite-volume pressure-correction methods , 2013, J. Comput. Phys..

[6]  P. Spalart.  A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows , 1992 .

[7]  K. Giannakoglou,et al.  Continuous Adjoint Methods for Turbulent Flows, Applied to Shape and Topology Optimization: Industrial Applications , 2016 .

[8]  Enrique Zuazua,et al.  Systematic Continuous Adjoint Approach to Viscous Aerodynamic Design on Unstructured Grids , 2007 .

[9]  E. Nielsen,et al.  Using an Adjoint Approach to Eliminate Mesh Sensitivities in Computational Design , 2005 .

[10]  Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou,et al.  Optimal Flow Control and Topology Optimization Using the Continuous Adjoint Method in Unsteady Flows , 2015 .

[11]  D. Mavriplis.  Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on Three-Dimensional Unstructured Meshes , 2007 .

[12]  D. Spalding,et al.  A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows , 1972 .

[13]  W. K. Anderson,et al.  Aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured grids with a continuous adjoint formulation , 1997 .

[14]  D. Zingg,et al.  Mesh Movement for a Discrete-Adjoint Newton-Krylov Algorithm for Aerodynamic Optimization , 2007 .

[15]  Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou,et al.  Continuous adjoint approach to the Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model for incompressible flows , 2009 .

[16]  Antony Jameson,et al.  Reduction of the Adjoint Gradient Formula in the Continuous Limit , 2003 .

[17]  K. Giannakoglou,et al.  The continuous adjoint approach to the k–ω SST turbulence model with applications in shape optimization , 2015 .

[18]  Frank Thiele,et al.  Optimal Control of Unsteady Flows Using a Discrete and a Continuous Adjoint Approach , 2011, System Modelling and Optimization.

[19]  Carlos Lozano,et al.  Discrete surprises in the computation of sensitivities from boundary integrals in the continuous adjoint approach to inviscid aerodynamic shape optimization , 2012 .