Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

Using FLUENT in

Design &
Optimization

Devendra Ghate, Amitay Isaacs,


K Sudhakar, A G Marathe, P M Mujumdar

Centre for Aerospace Systems Design and Engineering


Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT Bombay
http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/

Outline
CFD in design
Problem statement
Duct parametrization
Flow solution
Results
Conclusion
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Using CFD in Design


Simulation Time

CFD is takes huge amounts of time for real life problems


Design requires repetitive runs of disciplinary analyses

Integration

With optimizer
With other disciplinary analyses (e.g. grid generator)

Automation

No user interaction should be required for simulation

Gradient Information

No commercial CFD solvers provide gradient information


Computationally expensive and problematic (
)
to get gradient information for CFD solvers (finite
difference, automatic differentiation)
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Methodology
Problem Specification
New parameters
Parametrization
Geometry Generation
Optimization using
Surrogate Models
(RSM, DACE)

Grid Generation

CFD problem setup

Flow Solution
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Methodology
Problem Specification
New parameters
Parametrization
Geometry Generation
Optimization using
Surrogate Models
(RSM, DACE)

Grid Generation

CFD problem setup

FLUENT
Flow Solution
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

3-D Duct Design Problem


Pressure Recovery
Distortion
Swirl
Entry
Exit
Location and shape known

Geometry of duct from Entry to Exit ?


FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Parametrization
Y

Duct
Centerline

Control / Design
Variables

Cross Sectional Area

Ym, Zm
AL/3, A2L/3

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Parametrization
Y

(contd.)

Duct
Centerline

Control / Design
Variables

Cross Sectional Area

Ym, Zm
AL/3, A2L/3

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Typical 3D-Ducts

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

Grid Generation
Clustering Parameters

Complete grid generation process is


automated and does not require
human intervention
Complete control over

Distance of the first cell from the wall

Clustering

Number of grid points

Generation of entry and exit


sections using GAMBIT
Mesh file

Conversion of file format to


CGNS using FLUENT
Entry & Exit sections

Grid parameters

Generation of structured volume


grid using parametrization

Conversion of structured grid


to unstructured format
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

10

Turbulence Modeling
Relevance: Time per Solution
Following aspects of the flow were of interest:

Boundary layer development


Flow Separation (if any)
Turbulence Development

Literature Survey

Doyle Knight, Smith, Harloff, Loeffer


Circular cross-section
S-shaped duct

Baldwin-Lomax model (Algebraic model)


Computationally inexpensive than more sophisticated models
Known to give non-accurate results for boundary layer separation etc.

k- realizable turbulence model

Two equation model


Study by Devaki Ravi Kumar & Sujata Bandyopadhyay (FLUENT
Inc.)

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

11

Turbulence Modeling

(contd.)

Standard k- model

Turbulence Viscosity Ratio


exceeding 1,00,000 in 2/3
cells

Realizable k- model

Shih et. al. (1994)


C is not assumed to be
constant
A formulation suggested
for calculating values of
C1 & C
Computationally little
more expensive than the
standard k- model

Total Pressure profile at the


exit section (Standard k-

model)

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

12

Distortion Analysis
DC60 = (PA0 P60min) /q
where,
PA0 - average total pressure at the section,
P60min- minimum total pressure in a 600
sector, q
- dynamic pressure at the cross
section.
User Defined Functions (UDF) and scheme files
were used to generate this information from the
FLUENT case and data file.
Iterations may be stopped when the distortion
values stabilize at the exit section with
reasonable convergence levels.
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

13

Parallel Execution
Parallel mode of operation in FLUENT
16-noded Linux cluster
Portable Batch Systems for
scheduling
Batch mode operation of FLUENT (g)
Scale up depends on grid size
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

14

Results: Total Pressure


Profile

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

15

Results

(contd.)

Mass imbalance: 0.17%


Energy imbalance:0.06%
Total pressure drop:
1.42%
Various turbulence related quantities of interest at entry
and exit sections:

Turbulent Kinetic
Energy
Turbulent Viscosity
Ratio

Entry

Exit

124.24

45.65

5201.54

3288.45

y+ at the cell center of the cells adjacent to boundary


throughout the domain is around 18.

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

16

Slapping
Methodology

Store the solution in case & data files


Open the new case (new grid) with the old data file
Setup the problem
Solution of (0.61 0.31 1 1) duct slapped on (0.1 0.31 0.1 0.1)

3-decade-fall

6-decade-fall

Without slapping

4996

9462

With slapping

1493

6588

Percentage time
saving

70%

30%

These are huge benefits as compared to the efforts involved.


FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

17

Conclusion
Time for simulation has been
reduced to around 20% using
parallel computation and
slapping.

Time per CFD Run


Serial Run

Parallel Run
Slapping

20

40

60

80

100

Time (hrs)

Process of geometry & grid generation has been automated requiring


no interactive user input

FLUENT has been customized for easy integration into an optimization


cycle

CFD analysis module ready for inclusion in optimization for a real life
problem
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

18

Future Work
Further exploration and
improvement of slapping
methodology
Identification and assessment of
optimum optimization algorithm

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

19

Thank You
http://www.casde.iitb.ac.in/mdo
/3d-duct/

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

21

Problem Statement

A diffusing S-shaped duct


Ambient conditions: 11Km altitude
Inlet Boundary Conditions
Total Pressure:
34500 Pa
Total Temperature: 261.4o K
Hydraulic Diameter: 0.394m
Turbulence Intensity: 5%
Outlet Boundary Conditions
Static Pressure: 31051 Pa (Calculated for the desired mass flow rate)
Hydraulic Diameter: 0.4702m
Turbulence Intensity: 5%
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

22

Duct Parameterization
Geometry of the duct is derived
from the Mean Flow Line (MFL)

MFL is the line joining centroids of


cross-sections along the duct
Any cross-section along length of the
duct is normal to MFL

Cross-section area is varied


parametrically
Cross-section shape in merging
area is same as the exit section
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

23

MFL Design Variables - 1


Mean flow line (MFL) is considered as
a piecewise cubic curve along the
length of the duct between the entry
m/2), z(Lm/2) specified
sectiony(L
and
merging section C
merger

y2, z2

y(x), z(x)
y1, z1

Centry
0

Lm/2

Lm

Lm : x-distance between the entry and merger section


y1, y2, z1, z2 : FLUENT
cubic polynomials
for2003
y(x) and z(x)
CFD Conference

24

MFL Design Variables - 2

y1(x) = A0 + A1x + A2x2 + A3x3, y2(x) = B0 + B1x + B2x2 + B3x3

z1(x) = C0 + C1x + C2x2 + C3x3, z2(x) = D0 + D1x + D2x2 + D3x3

y1(Lm) = y2 (Lm), y1 (Lm) = y2 (Lm), y1 (Lm) = y2 (Lm)


z1(Lm) = z2 (Lm), z1 (Lm) = z2 (Lm), z1 (Lm) = z2 (Lm)
y1 (Centry) = y2 (Cmerger) = z1 (Centry) = z2 (Cmerger) = 0
The shape of the MFL is controlled by 2 parameters which
control the y and z coordinate of centroid at Lm/2
y(Lm/2) = y(0) + (y(L) y(0)) y

0 < y < 1

z(Lm/2) = z(0) + (z(L) z(0)) z

0 < z < 1

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

25

Area Design Variables 1


Cross-section area at any station is interpolated
from the entry and exit cross-sections

A(x) = A(0) + (A(Lm) A(0)) * (x)


corresponding points on entry and
exit sections are linearly interpolated
to obtain the shape of the intermediate
sections and scaled appropriately
Psection = Pentry + (Pexit - Pentry) *
FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

26

Area Design Variables - 2


variation is given by piecewise cubic curve as function of x
(Lm/3) and (2Lm/3) is specified
(x)

1
0
0

Lm/3

2Lm/3

Lm

A0 + A1x + A2x2 + A3x3

0 < 1

B0 + B1x + B2x2 + B3x3

1 2

C0 + C1x + C2x2 + C3x3

2 < 1

FLUENT CFD Conference 2003

27