Continuous and discrete adjoints to the Euler equations for fluids

Adjoints are used in optimization to speed-up computations, simplify optimality conditions or compute sensitivities. Because time is reversed in adjoint equations with first order time derivatives, boundary conditions and transmission conditions through shocks can be difficult to understand. In this article we analyze the adjoint equations that arise in the context of compressible flows governed by the Euler equations of fluid dynamics. We show that the continuous adjoints and the discrete adjoints computed by automatic differentiation agree numerically; in particular the adjoint is found to be continuous at the shocks and usually discontinuous at contact discontinuities by both. Introduction In optimization adjoints greatly speed-up computations; the technique has been used extensively in CFD for optimal control problems and shape optimization (see [14, 20, 24, 17, 11] and their bibliographies). Because time is reversed in adjoint equations and because convection terms operate in the opposite direction, boundary conditions and transmission conditions through shocks can be difficult to understand. Automatic differentiation in reverse mode [10],[13] automatically generates the adjoint equations so the problem does not arise because boundary conditions are set by the adjoint generator. But the problem then is to understand and make sure that there is a limit when the mesh size tends to zero and that this limit agrees with the continuous solution. Answering these questions is important for design of supersonic airplanes because shocks are involved; a good case study is the design of airplaines with the least sonic boom at ground level. Several investigations have been done already (see B. Mohammadi et al [20], S. Kim et al [15], A. Loseille et al [19], M. Nemec [23], Natarajah et al.[21, 22] and the bibliography therein) and automatic ∗ Sent for publication to J. Numer. Methods. in Fluid. Mech. †INRIA, 78153 Le Chesnay, France (frederic.alauzet@inria.fr) ‡UPMC-ParisVI, LJLL, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, F-75005 (pironneau@ann.jussieu.fr)

[1]  M. Nemec,et al.  Parallel Adjoint Framework for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Component-Based Geometry , 2011 .

[2]  B. Stoufflet,et al.  Shape optimization in computational fluid dynamics , 1996 .

[3]  S. Osher,et al.  Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes,II , 1989 .

[4]  Andreas Griewank,et al.  Algorithm 755: ADOL-C: a package for the automatic differentiation of algorithms written in C/C++ , 1996, TOMS.

[5]  Alain Dervieux,et al.  Mixed-element-volume MUSCL methods with weak viscosity for steady and unsteady flow calculations , 2000 .

[6]  J. Steger,et al.  Flux vector splitting of the inviscid gasdynamic equations with application to finite-difference methods , 1981 .

[7]  V. Guinot Approximate Riemann Solvers , 2010 .

[8]  R. LeVeque Approximate Riemann Solvers , 1992 .

[9]  Olivier Pironneau,et al.  Applied optimal shape design , 2002 .

[10]  Frédéric Alauzet,et al.  High Order Sonic Boom Modeling by Adaptive Methods , 2009 .

[11]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  SONIC BOOM REDUCTION USING AN ADJOINT METHOD FOR WING-BODY CONFIGURATIONS IN SUPERSONIC FLOW , 2002 .

[12]  Laurent Hascoët,et al.  TAPENADE 2.1 user's guide , 2004 .

[13]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  Sonic Boom Reduction Using an Adjoint Method for Supersonic Transport Aircraft Configurations , 2003 .

[14]  Frédéric Alauzet,et al.  Fully anisotropic goal-oriented mesh adaptation for 3D steady Euler equations , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[15]  Frédéric Alauzet,et al.  High-order sonic boom modeling based on adaptive methods , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[16]  P. Roe Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes , 1997 .

[17]  Michael B. Giles,et al.  Discrete Adjoint Approximations with Shocks , 2003 .

[18]  Paul-Henry Cournède,et al.  Positivity statements for a mixed-element-volume scheme on fixed and moving grids , 2006 .

[19]  A. V. Fursikov,et al.  Optimal control of distributed systems , 1999 .

[20]  S. Ulbrich,et al.  CONVERGENCE OF LINEARISED AND ADJOINT APPROXIMATIONS FOR DISCONTINUOUS SOLUTIONS OF CONSERVATION LAWS . PART 1 : LINEARISED APPROXIMATIONS AND LINEARISED OUTPUT FUNCTIONALS , 2010 .

[21]  A. Jameson,et al.  Design Optimization of High-Lift Configurations Using a Viscous Continuous Adjoint Method , 2002 .

[22]  Stefan Ulbrich,et al.  Adjoint-based derivative computations for the optimal control of discontinuous solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws , 2003, Syst. Control. Lett..

[23]  Stefan Ulbrich,et al.  Convergence of Linearized and Adjoint Approximations for Discontinuous Solutions of Conservation Laws. Part 1: Linearized Approximations and Linearized Output Functionals , 2010, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[24]  Stefan Ulbrich,et al.  A Sensitivity and Adjoint Calculus for Discontinuous Solutions of Hyperbolic Conservation Laws with Source Terms , 2002, SIAM J. Control. Optim..

[25]  Max Gunzburger,et al.  Perspectives in flow control and optimization , 1987 .