07.02.2013 Views

Optimization and Computational Fluid Dynamics - Department of ...

Optimization and Computational Fluid Dynamics - Department of ...

Optimization and Computational Fluid Dynamics - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3 Mathematical Aspects <strong>of</strong> CFD-based <strong>Optimization</strong> 67<br />

B ≈Lpp −LpyA −1 cp − (LpyA −1 cp) ⊤ + c ⊤ p A−⊤ LyyA −1 cp<br />

is recommended. Let us compare this with the SQP-formulation <strong>of</strong> equation<br />

(3.12) in the separability framework<br />

⎡ ⎤⎛<br />

⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞<br />

⎣<br />

Lyy Lyp c ⊤ x<br />

Lpy Lpp c ⊤ p<br />

cx cp 0<br />

⎦⎝<br />

∆y<br />

∆p⎠<br />

= ⎝<br />

∆λ<br />

−L ⊤ y<br />

−L ⊤ p<br />

−c<br />

⎠ ,<br />

⎝ yk+1<br />

p k+1<br />

λ k+1<br />

⎠ =<br />

⎝ yk<br />

p k<br />

λ k<br />

⎠+τ· ⎝ ∆y<br />

∆p⎠<br />

. (3.23)<br />

∆λ<br />

Because <strong>of</strong> the triangular structure <strong>of</strong> the system matrix in Eqs. (3.21) or<br />

(3.22), the reduced SQP formulation is much more modular than the full SQP<br />

formulation (3.23). This is the reason why the matrices in Eqs. (3.21) or (3.22)<br />

are used as pre-conditioner in large scale linear-quadratic optimal control<br />

problems [2] or as pre-conditioners in Lagrange-Newton-Krylov methods as<br />

discussed in [3, 4]. Indeed, one observes for the (iteration) matrix<br />

⎡<br />

M = I − ⎣<br />

0 0 c⊤ x<br />

0 Bc⊤ p<br />

cx cp 0<br />

⎤<br />

⎦<br />

−1⎡<br />

Lyy Lyp c⊤ x<br />

⎣<br />

Lpy Lpp c ⊤ p<br />

cx cp 0<br />

the fact that M �= 0 in general, but M 3 = 0, which is the basis <strong>of</strong> the<br />

convergence considerations in [23].<br />

Now, let us discuss CFD-optimization in the context <strong>of</strong> one-shot aerodynamic<br />

shape optimization as in [20, 21]. The typical problem formulation<br />

there is<br />

min f(y,p) (drag) (3.24)<br />

y,p<br />

s.t. c(y,p) = 0 (CFD-model) (3.25)<br />

h(y,p) ≥ 0 (lift constraint) (3.26)<br />

where y collects the state variables <strong>of</strong> an Euler or Navier-Stokes flow model<br />

<strong>and</strong> p is a finite-dimensional vector parameterizing the shape <strong>of</strong> a part <strong>of</strong> an<br />

aircraft by means <strong>of</strong> a suitable spline family. The lift constraint h is a scalar<br />

valued function. Additionally, one <strong>of</strong>ten also has to treat a pitching moment<br />

constraint, which is also a scalar valued function. Engineering knowledge tells<br />

us that the lift constraint will be active at the solution. Therefore, we can<br />

formulate the constraint right from the beginning in the form <strong>of</strong> an equality<br />

constraint. In this context, a full SQP-approach as in equation (3.23) reads<br />

⎡<br />

⎤⎛<br />

⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞<br />

⎢<br />

⎣<br />

Lyy Lyp h ⊤ x c⊤ x<br />

Lpy Lpp h⊤ p c⊤ p<br />

hx hp 0 0<br />

cx cp 0 0<br />

∆y<br />

⎥⎜<br />

⎥⎜∆p<br />

⎟<br />

⎦⎝∆μ⎠<br />

∆λ<br />

=<br />

⎜<br />

⎝<br />

−L⊤ y<br />

−L⊤ p<br />

−h<br />

−c<br />

⎟<br />

⎠ ,<br />

⎤<br />

⎦<br />

y<br />

⎜<br />

⎝<br />

k+1<br />

pk+1 μk+1 λk+1 ⎟<br />

⎠ =<br />

y<br />

⎜<br />

⎝<br />

k<br />

pk μk λk ∆y<br />

⎟ ⎜<br />

⎟<br />

⎠ + τ · ⎜∆p<br />

⎟<br />

⎝∆μ⎠<br />

∆λ<br />

.<br />

(3.27)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!