1 / 42

A Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on 3D Unstructured Meshes

A Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on 3D Unstructured Meshes. Dimitri J. Mavriplis Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Wyoming Laramie, WY. Motivation. Adjoint techniques widely used for design optimization

mshaw
Télécharger la présentation

A Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on 3D Unstructured Meshes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Discrete Adjoint-Based Approach for Optimization Problems on 3D Unstructured Meshes Dimitri J. Mavriplis Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Wyoming Laramie, WY

  2. Motivation • Adjoint techniques widely used for design optimization • Enables sensitivity calculation at cost independent of number of design variables • Continuous vs. Discrete Adjoint Approaches • Continuous: Linearize then discretize • Discrete: Discretize then Linearize

  3. Motivation • Continuous Approach: • More flexible adjoint discretizations • Framework for non-differentiable tasks (limiters) • Often invoked using flow solution as constraint using Lagrange multipliers

  4. Motivation • Discrete Approach: • Reproduces exact sensitivities of code • Verifiable through finite differences • Relatively simple implementation • Chain rule differentiation of analysis code • Transpose these derivates • (transpose and reverse order) • Includes boundary conditions

  5. Discrete Adjoint Approach • Relatively simple implementation • Chain rule differentiation of analysis code • Enables application to more than just flow solution phase • Nielsen and Park: “Using an Adjoint Approach to Eliminate Mesh Sensitivities in Computational Design”, AIAA 2005-0491: Reno 2005. • Generalize this procedure to multi-phase simulation process

  6. Generalized Discrete Sensitivities • Consider a multi-phase analysis code: • L = Objective(s) • D = Design variable(s) • Sensitivity Analysis • Using chain rule:

  7. Tangent Model • Special Case: • 1 Design variable D, many objectives L • Precompute all stuff depending on single D • Construct dL/dD elements as:

  8. Adjoint Model • Special Case: • 1 Objective L, Many Design Variables D • Would like to precompute all left terms • Transpose entire equation:

  9. Adjoint Model • Special Case: • 1 Objective L, Many Design Variables D • Would like to precompute all left terms • Transpose entire equation: precompute as:

  10. Shape Optimization Problem • Multi-phase process:

  11. Tangent Problem (forward linearization) • Examine Individual Terms: • : Design variable definition (CAD) • : Objective function definition

  12. Tangent Problem (forward linearization) • Examine Individual Terms:

  13. Sensitivity Analysis • Tangent Problem: • Adjoint Problem

  14. Tangent Problem • 1: Surface mesh sensitivity: • 2: Interior mesh sensitivity: • 3: Residual sensitivity: • 4: Flow variable sensitivity: • 5: Final sensitivity

  15. Adjoint Problem • 1: Objective flow sensitivity: • 2: Flow adjoint: • 3:Objective sens. wrt mesh: • 4: Mesh adjoint: • 5: Final sensitivity:

  16. Flow Tangent/Adjoint Problem:Step 2 or 4 • Storage/Inversion of second-order Jacobian not practical • Solve using preconditioner [P] as:

  17. Flow Tangent/Adjoint Problem • Solve using preconditioner [P] as: • [P] = First order Jacobian • Invert iteratively by agglomeration multigrid • Only Matrix-Vector products of dR/dw required

  18. Second-Order Jacobian • Can be written as: • q(w) = 2nd differences, or reconstructed variables • Evaluate Mat-Vec in 2 steps as: • Mimics (linearization) of R(w) routine Reconstruction 2nd order residual

  19. Second-Order Adjoint • Can be written as: • q(w) = 2nd differences, or reconstructed variables • Evaluate Mat-Vec in 2 steps as: • Reverse (linearization) of R(w) routine

  20. Memory Savings Store component matrices But: q=w for 1st order

  21. Storage Requirements • Reconstructed from preconditioner [P]=1st order • Trivial matrix or reconstruction coefficients • Symmetric Block 5x5 (for art. dissip. scheme) Store or reconstruct on each pass (35% extra memory)

  22. Mesh Motion • Mesh motion: solve using agg. multigrid • Mesh sensitivity: solve using agg. multigrid • Mesh adjoint: solve using agg. multigrid

  23. Modular Multigrid Solver • Line-Implicit Agglomeration Multigrid Solver used to solve: • Flow equations • Flow adjoint • Mesh Adjoint • Mesh Motion • Optionally: • Flow tangent • Mesh sensitivity

  24. Step 3: Matrix-Vector Product AND/OR • dR/dx is complex rectangular matrix • R depends directly and indirectly on x • R depends on grid metrics, which depend on x • Mat-Vec only required once per design cycle

  25. Tangent Problem • 1: Surface mesh sensitivity: • 2: Interior mesh sensitivity: • 3: Residual sensitivity: • 4: Flow variable sensitivity: • 5: Final sensitivity

  26. Adjoint Problem • 1: Objective flow sensitivity: • 2: Flow adjoint: • 3:Objective sens. wrt mesh: • 4: Mesh adjoint: • 5: Final sensitivity:

  27. Step 3: Tangent Model • Linearize grid metric routines, residual routine • Call in same order as analysis code

  28. Step 3: Adjoint Model • Linearize/transpose grid metric routines, residual routine • Call in reverse order

  29. General Approach • Linearize each subroutine/process individually in analysis code • Check linearization by finite difference • Transpose, and check duality relation • Build up larger components • Check linearization, duality relation • Check entire process for FD and duality • Use single modular AMG solver for all phases

  30. General Duality Relation • Analysis Routine: • Tangent Model: • Adjoint Model: • Duality Relation: • Necessary but not sufficient test • Check using series of arbitrary input vectors

  31. Drag Minimization Problem • DLR-F6 Wing body configuration • 1.12M vertices, 4.2M cells

  32. Drag Minimization Problem • DLR-F6 Wing body configuration • Mach=0.75, Incidence=1o , Re=3M

  33. Drag Minimization Problem • Mach=0.75, Incidence=1o , CL=0.673 • Convergence < 500 MG cycles, 40 minutes on 16 cpus (cluster)

  34. Drag Minimization Problem • Adjoint and Tangent Flow Models display similar convergence • Related to flow solver convergence rate • 1 Defect-Correction Cycle : 4 (linear) MG cycles

  35. Drag Minimization Problem • Mesh Motion and Adjoint Solvers Converge at Similar Rates • Fast convergence (50 MG cycles) • Mesh operations < 5% of overall cpu time

  36. Drag Minization Problem • Smoothed steepest descent method of Jameson • Non-optimal step size • Objective Function Decreases Monotonically

  37. Drag Minization Problem • Objective Function Decreases Monotonically • Corresponding decrease in Drag Coefficient • Lift Coefficient held approximately constant

  38. Drag Minimization Problem • Substantial reduction in shock strength after 15 design cycles • CD: 302 counts  288 counts : -14 counts • Wave drag

  39. Drag Minimization Problem • Surface Displacements = Design Variable Values • Smooth • Mostly on upper surface

  40. Drag Minimization Problem • Total Optimization Time for 15 Design Cycles: 6 hours on 16 cpus of PC cluster • Flow Solver: 150 MG cycles • Flow Adjoint: 50 Defect-Correction cycles (x 4 MG) • Mesh Adjoint: 25 MG cycles • Mesh Motion: 25 MG cycles

  41. Conclusions • Given multi-phase analysis code can be augmented be discrete adjoint method • Systematic implementation approach • Applicable to all phases • Modular and verifiable • Mimics analysis code at all stages • No new data-structures required • Minimal memory overheads (50% over implicit solver) • Demonstrated on Shape Optimization • Exendable to more complex analyses • Unsteady flows with moving meshes • Multi-disciplinary

  42. Future Work • Effective approach for sensitivity calculation • Investigate more sophisticated optimization strategies • Investigate more sophisticated design parameter definitions and ways to linearize these (CAD based) • Multi-objective optimizations in parallel • Farming out multiple analyses simultaneously

More Related