Adjoint methods for car aerodynamics

The adjoint method has long been considered as the tool of choice for gradient-based optimisation in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It is the independence of the computational cost from the number of design variables that makes it particularly attractive for problems with large design spaces. Originally developed by Lions and Pironneau in the 70’s, the adjoint method has evolved towards a standard tool within the development processes of the aeronautical industries. Its uptake in the automotive industry, however, lags behind. The first systematic applications of adjoint methods in automotive CFD have interestingly not taken place in the classical shape design arena, but in a relatively young discipline of sensitivity-based optimisation: fluid dynamic topology optimisation. While being an established concept in structure mechanics for decades already, its transfer to fluid dynamics took place just ten years ago. We demonstrate that specifically for ducted flow applications, like airducts for cabin ventilation or engine intake ports, it constitutes a very powerful tool and has matured over the last years to a level that allows its systematic usage for various automotive applications. To drive adjoint-based shape optimisation to the same degree of maturity and robustness for car applications is the subject of ongoing research collaborations between academia and the car industry. Achievements and challenges encountered during these efforts are presented.

[1]  Azeddine Kourta,et al.  Drag reduction by pulsed jets on strongly unstructured wake: towards the square back control , 2011 .

[2]  Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou,et al.  CONTINUOUS ADJOINT METHODS IN SHAPE , TOPOLOGY , FLOW-CONTROL AND ROBUST OPTIMIZATION Open Source CFD International Conference , London 2012 , 2012 .

[3]  Carsten Othmer,et al.  CFD OPTIMIZATION VIA SENSITIVITY-BASED SHAPE MORPHING , 2011 .

[4]  Kai-Uwe Bletzinger,et al.  The Vertex Morphing method for node-based shape optimization , 2014 .

[5]  Andreas Griewank,et al.  Achieving logarithmic growth of temporal and spatial complexity in reverse automatic differentiation , 1992 .

[6]  R. Giering,et al.  Computation of topological sensitivities in fluid dynamics: Cost function versatility , 2006 .

[7]  Alexandros S. Zymaris,et al.  OPTIMAL LOCATION OF SUCTION OR BLOWING JETS USING THE CONTINUOUS ADJOINT APPROACH , 2010 .

[8]  Thomas Rung,et al.  Adjoint-Based Sensitivity Analysis for Buoyancy-Driven Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations with Heat Transfer , 2012 .

[9]  C. Othmer,et al.  Multi-Objective Adjoint Optimization of Intake Port Geometry , 2012 .

[10]  Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou,et al.  Adjoint wall functions: A new concept for use in aerodynamic shape optimization , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[11]  C. Othmer,et al.  Implementation of a continuous adjoint for topology optimization of ducted flows , 2007 .

[12]  K. Giannakoglou,et al.  Adjoint-based constrained topology optimization for viscous flows, including heat transfer , 2013 .

[13]  Rainald Löhner,et al.  Checkpointing Schemes for Adjoint Methods and Strongly Unsteady Flows , 2012 .

[14]  Rainald Löhner,et al.  An Adjoint-Based Design Methodology for CFD Optimization Problems , 2003 .

[15]  O. Sigmund,et al.  Topology optimization of channel flow problems , 2005 .

[16]  O. Pironneau On optimum design in fluid mechanics , 1974 .

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

[18]  J. Petersson,et al.  Topology optimization of fluids in Stokes flow , 2003 .

[19]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Minimal Repetition Dynamic Checkpointing Algorithm for Unsteady Adjoint Calculation , 2009, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[20]  A. Jameson,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE CONTINUOUS AND DISCRETE ADJOINT APPROACH TO AUTOMATIC AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION , 2000 .

[21]  J. Alonso,et al.  A Coupled-Adjoint Method for Aerodynamic and Aeroacoustic Optimization , 2012 .

[22]  C. Othmer A continuous adjoint formulation for the computation of topological and surface sensitivities of ducted flows , 2008 .

[23]  Sinisa Krajnovic,et al.  Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Pipe Using the Adjoint Method , 2012 .

[24]  E. de Villiers,et al.  Application of Detached-Eddy Simulation for Automotive Aerodynamics Development , 2009 .

[25]  J. Lions Optimal Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations , 1971 .

[26]  Gunther Ramm,et al.  Some salient features of the time - averaged ground vehicle wake , 1984 .

[27]  Stefan Becker,et al.  Active flow control on a 1:4 car model , 2014 .

[28]  Kai-Uwe Bletzinger,et al.  In-plane mesh regularization for node-based shape optimization problems , 2014 .

[29]  Christof Hinterberger,et al.  Automatic Geometry Optimization of Exhaust Systems Based on Sensitivities Computed by a Continuous Adjoint CFD Method in OpenFOAM , 2010 .

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

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

[32]  Claus Wagner,et al.  Shape Optimization of Train Head Cars using Adjoint-based Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2012 .

[33]  M. Bendsøe,et al.  Topology Optimization: "Theory, Methods, And Applications" , 2011 .

[34]  Erik Wassen,et al.  Active Drag Control for a Generic Car Model , 2007 .

[35]  Oliver Moos,et al.  Bionic Optimization of Air-Guiding Systems , 2004 .