Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 675–694 | Cite as

Multi-point aerodynamic shape optimization of cars based on continuous adjoint

  • E. M. Papoutsis-KiachagiasEmail author
  • V. G. Asouti
  • K. C. Giannakoglou
  • K. Gkagkas
  • S. Shimokawa
  • E. Itakura
Industrial Application


This article presents a continuous adjoint-enabled, gradient-based optimization tool for multi-point, multi-objective industrial optimization problems and its application to the shape optimization of a concept car. Apart from the adjoint to the incompressible Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, the adjoint to the Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model equation is also solved, in order to support the optimization with accurate gradients. Part of the mathematical development related to the sensitivity derivative terms resulting from the differentiation of the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) variant of the Spalart–Allmaras model when using an adjoint formulation consisting of field integrals is presented for the first time in the literature. In the industrial application, two operating points are considered, corresponding to two flow velocity angles with respect to the car symmetry plane, with a different objective (drag and yaw moment coefficients) for each of them. With the aforesaid targets, the Pareto front of optimal solutions is computed and discussed. Each point on this front is computed by minimizing a single objective function, resulting from the linear combination of the objective functions defined on the different operating points, using appropriate weights. Finally, some of the Pareto front members are re-evaluated using delayed detached eddy simulation (DDEs). The overall optimization tool is developed in the open-source CFD toolbox OpenFOAM.


Continuous adjoint Multi-objective optimization Multi-point optimization Automotive shape optimization 



  1. Ahmed S, Ramm G, Faltin G (1984) Some salient features of the time-averaged ground vehicle wake. In: SAE international congress and exposition, SAE international.
  2. Ashton N, West A, Lardeau S, Revell A (2016) Assessment of RANS and DES methods for realistic automotive models. Comput Fluids 128:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blacha T, Gregersen M, Islam M, Bensler H (2016) Application of the adjoint method for vehicle aerodynamic optimization. In: SAE 2016 world congress and exhibition, pp 2016-01-1615Google Scholar
  4. de Villiers E, Othmer C (2012) Multi-objective adjoint optimization of intake port geometry. In: SAE 2012 world congress and exhibition, pp 2012-01-0905Google Scholar
  5. Frink N (1996) Assessment of an unstructured-grid method for predicting 3-D turbulent viscous flows. In: AIAA Paper 1996-0292 34th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Germanou L, Papoutsis-Kiachagias E, Delacroix A, Giannakoglou K (2016) Defroster nozzle shape optimization using the continuous adjoint method. In: ECCOMAS Congress 2016, VII European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering, Crete island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  7. Giles M, Pierce N (1997) Adjoint equations in CFD: duality, boundary conditions and solution behaviour. In: AIAA Paper 1997-1850 13th fluid dynamics conference, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  8. Gkaragkounis K, Papoutsis-Kiachagias E, Giannakoglou K (2018) The continuous adjoint method for shape optimization in Conjugate Heat Transfer problems with turbulent incompressible flows. Appl Therm Eng 140:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Han T, Kaushik S, Karbon K, Leroy B, Mooney K, Petropoulou S, Papper J (2016) Adjoint-driven aerodynamic shape optimization based on a combination of steady state and transient flow solutions. SAE Int J Passenger Cars - Mech Syst 9(2):695–709Google Scholar
  10. He P, Mader C, Martins J, Maki K (2018) An aerodynamic design optimization framework using a discrete adjoint approach with openFOAM. Comput Fluids 168:285–303MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Hinterberger C, Olesen M (2010) Automatic geometry optimization of exhaust systems based on sensitivities computed by a continuous adjoint CFD method in OpenFOAM. In: SAE 2010 world congress and exhibition, pp 2010-01-1278Google Scholar
  12. Hinterberger C, Olesen M (2011) Industrial application of continuous adjoint flow solvers for the optimization of automotive exhaust systems In: ECCOMAS thematic conference - CFD & optimization, Antalya, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  13. Hojjat M, Stavropoulou E, Bletzinger K (2014) The vertex morphing method for node-based shape optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 268:494–513MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopf A, Bartsch G, Krämer F, Weber C (2017) CFD topology and shape optimization for port development of integrated exhaust manifolds. In: WCX 17: SAE world congress experience, pp 2017-01-1339Google Scholar
  15. Jameson A (1988) Aerodynamic design via control theory. J Sci Comput 3:233–260CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamm W (1933) Anforderungen an Kraftwagen bei Dauerfahrten. ZVDI 77:1129–1133Google Scholar
  17. Kapellos C, Hartmann M (2018) A continuous adjoint framework for vehicle aeroacoustic optimization. In: Inter-noise 2018, impact of noise control engineering, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  18. Kavvadias I, Papoutsis-Kiachagias E, Giannakoglou K (2015) On the proper treatment of grid sensitivities in continuous adjoint methods for shape optimization. J Comput Phys 301:1–18MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Keanway G, Martins J (2016) Multipoint aerodynamic shape optimization investigations of the common research model wing. AIAA J 54(1):113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubota M, Tokuda S, Noguchi Y (2016) Development of CFD inverse analysis technology using the transient adjoint method and its application to engine in-cylinder flow. SAE Int J Engines 9(2):675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mueller L, Alsalihi Z, Verstraete T (2012) Multidisciplinary optimization of a turbocharger radial turbine. ASME J Turbomach 135(2):021022–1,021022–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Najian Asl R, Shayegan S, Geiser A, Hojjat M, Bletzinger K (2017) A consistent formulation for imposing packaging constraints in shape optimization using vertex morphing parametrization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 56(6):1507–1519MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nocedal J, Wright S (1999) Numerical optimization. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Othmer C (2014) Adjoint methods for car aerodynamics. J Math Ind 4(6):1–23MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Papadimitriou D, Giannakoglou K (2007) A continuous adjoint method with objective function derivatives based on boundary integrals for inviscid and viscous flows. Comput Fluids 36(2):325–341CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Papoutsis-Kiachagias E, Giannakoglou K (2016) Continuous adjoint methods for turbulent flows, applied to shape and topology optimization: industrial applications. Arch Comput Methods Eng 23(2):255–299MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Papoutsis-Kiachagias E, Magoulas N, Mueller J, Othmer C, Giannakoglou K (2015a) Noise reduction in car aerodynamics using a surrogate objective function and the continuous adjoint method with wall functions. Comput Fluids 122:223–232MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Papoutsis-Kiachagias E, Porziani S, Groth C, Biancolini M, Costa E, Giannakoglou K (2015b) Aerodynamic optimization of car shapes using the continuous adjoint method and an RBF morpher. In: EUROGEN 2015, 11th international conference on evolutionary and deterministic methods for design, optimization and control with applications to industrial and societal problems, Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Piegl L, Tiller W (1997) The NURBS book. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt S, Schulz V (2008) Pareto-curve continuation in multi-objective optimization. Pac J Optim 4 (2):243–257MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt S, Ilic C, Schulz V, Gauger N (2013) Three-dimensional large-scale aerodynamic shape optimization based on shape calculus. AIAA J 51(11):2615–2627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spalart P, Deck S, Shur M, Squires K, Strelets M, Travin A (2006) A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 20(3):181–195CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Spalart P, Allmaras S (1992) A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In: AIAA Paper 1992-0439 30th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  34. Tokuda S, Kubota M, Noguchi Y (2013) Development of CFD shape optimization technology using the adjoint method and its application to engine intake port design. SAE Int J Engines 6(2):833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verma I, Hill C, Xu M (2018) Multi-objective adjoint optimization of flow-bench port geometry. In: SAE WCX world congress experience, pp 2018-01-0772Google Scholar
  36. Wang Q, Moin P, Iaccarino G (2009) Minimal repetition dynamic check-pointing algorithm for unsteady adjoint calculation. SIAM J Sci Comput 31(4):2549–2567MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang D, He L, Li Y, Wells R (2010) Adjoint aerodynamic design optimization for blades in multistage turbomachines—part II: Validation and application. ASME J Turbomach 132(2):1–11Google Scholar
  38. Zymaris A, Papadimitriou D, Giannakoglou K, Othmer C (2009) Continuous adjoint approach to the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model for incompressible flows. Comput Fluids 38(8):1528–1538CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. M. Papoutsis-Kiachagias
    • 1
    Email author
  • V. G. Asouti
    • 1
  • K. C. Giannakoglou
    • 1
  • K. Gkagkas
    • 2
  • S. Shimokawa
    • 3
  • E. Itakura
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Mechanical Engineering, Parallel CFD & Optimization UnitNational Technical University of Athens (NTUA)AthensGreece
  2. 2.Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA, Technical CenterZaventemBelgium
  3. 3.Toyota Motor CorporationToyotaJapan

Personalised recommendations