Advertisement

OpenFOAM® pp 389-399 | Cite as

A Review of Shape Distortion Methods Available in the OpenFOAM\(^{\textregistered }\) Framework for Automated Design Optimisation

  • Steven DanielsEmail author
  • Alma Rahat
  • Gavin Tabor
  • Jonathan Fieldsend
  • Richard Everson
Chapter

Abstract

Parametrisation of the geometry is one of the essential requirements in shape optimisation, and is a challenging subject when carrying out a automated procedure. It is critically important to maintain the consistency of the shape and grid quality between each evaluation, while providing flexibility for a wide range of shapes using the same parameterisation of the geometry. The sensitivity of the grid to the changes to the geometry must be at a minimum during this process. This contribution presents a review of the grid distortion and regeneration methods available within the OpenFOAM\(^{\textregistered }\) framework which can be utilised for shape optimisation. The objective of this contribution is to compare the effectiveness of these methods in the automated procedure and to provide suggestions for improvements. Special attention is given to three major factors involving shape optimisation: automation of model abstraction, automation of grid deformation or regeneration and robustness.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant (reference number: EP/M017915/1) for the University of Exeter’s College of Engineering, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences.

References

  1. 1.
    Daniels, S.J. Rahat, A.A.M. Everson, R.M. Tabor, G.R. and J.E. Fieldsend. A suite of computationally expensive shape optimisation problems using computational fluid dynamics. In 15th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN2018, 15th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN2018, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99259-4_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caputo, A. Pelagagge, P. and Salini, P.: Heat exchanger design based on economic optimisation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 28, 1151–1159 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catmull, E. Clark, J.: Recursively generated B-spline surfaces on arbitrary topological meshes. Comput. Aided Des. 10(6), 350–355 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Back, T. Fogel, D.B. and Michalewicz, Z.: Evolutionary computation 1: Basic algorithms and operators. Taylor and Francis, Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire United Kingdom (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt, J. Stoevesandt, B.: Dynamic mesh optimization based on the spring analogy. First Symposium on OpenFOAM\(^{\textregistered }\) in Wind Energy. 2, (2014)  https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20140203001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McRae, D. and Laflin, K.: Dynamic grid adaption and grid quality In: Thompson, J. Soni, B. Weatherhill, N. (eds) Handbook of grid generation, chap 34. CRC Press, London. United Kingdom (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petropoulou, S.: Industrial optimisation solutions based on OpenFOAM\(^{\textregistered }\) technology. V European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ECCOMAS CFD 2010), Lisbon, Portugal. 14-17 June (2010).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fabritius, B. Tabor, G.: Improving the quality of finite volume meshes through genetic optimisation. Eng. Comput. 32, 425–440 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-015-0423-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tezduyar, T. Sathe, S. Schwaab, M. Conklin, B.: Arterial fluid mechanics modeling with the stabilized space time fluid structure interaction technique. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids. 57, 601–629 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jasak, H. Tukovic, Z.: Automatic mesh motion for the unstructured Finite Volume Method. Trans. of FAMENA 30(2), 1–20 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jasak, H.: Dynamic mesh handling in OpenFOAM\(^{\textregistered }\). 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Orlando, Florida. January (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jarpner, C.: Projection of a mesh on a .stl surface. Chalmers University of Technology. (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rypi, D. Bittnar, Z.: Generation of computational surface meshes of STL models. J. Comp. Appl. Math. 192, 148–151 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2005.04.054MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jasak, H. Rigler, D. Tukovic, Z. Design and implementation of Immersed Boundary Method with discrete forcing approach for boundary conditions. In: 11th. World Congress on Computational Mechanics - WCCM XI 5th. European Congress on Computational Mechanics - ECCM V 6th European Congress on Computational Fluid Dynamics - ECFD VI, Barcelona; Spain. (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samareh, J.A.: Geometry and grid/mesh generation issues for CFD and CSM shape optimisation. Opt. Eng. 6, 21–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Daniels
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alma Rahat
    • 1
  • Gavin Tabor
    • 1
  • Jonathan Fieldsend
    • 1
  • Richard Everson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations