Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 447–488 | Cite as

Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using First and Second Order Adjoint and Direct Approaches

  • Dimitrios I. Papadimitriou
  • Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper focuses on discrete and continuous adjoint approaches and direct differentiation methods that can efficiently be used in aerodynamic shape optimization problems. The advantage of the adjoint approach is the computation of the gradient of the objective function at cost which does not depend upon the number of design variables. An extra advantage of the formulation presented below, for the computation of either first or second order sensitivities, is that the resulting sensitivity expressions are free of field integrals even if the objective function is a field integral. This is demonstrated using three possible objective functions for use in internal aerodynamic problems; the first objective is for inverse design problems where a target pressure distribution along the solid walls must be reproduced; the other two quantify viscous losses in duct or cascade flows, cast as either the reduction in total pressure between the inlet and outlet or the field integral of entropy generation. From the mathematical point of view, the three functions are defined over different parts of the domain or its boundaries, and this strongly affects the adjoint formulation. In the second part of this paper, the same discrete and continuous adjoint formulations are combined with direct differentiation methods to compute the Hessian matrix of the objective function. Although the direct differentiation for the computation of the gradient is time consuming, it may support the adjoint method to calculate the exact Hessian matrix components with the minimum CPU cost. Since, however, the CPU cost is proportional to the number of design variables, a well performing optimization scheme, based on the exactly computed Hessian during the starting cycle and a quasi Newton (BFGS) scheme during the next cycles, is proposed.

Keywords

AIAA Paper Adjoint Equation Adjoint Method Total Pressure Loss Adjoint Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lighthill MJ (1945) A new method of two-dimensional aerodynamic design. Aeronautical Research Council Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McFadden GB (1979) An artificial viscosity method for the design of supercritical airfoils. New York University Report C00-3077-158 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis L (1991) Handbook of genetic algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michalewicz Z (1994) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bäck T (1996) Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. Evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms. Oxford University Press, Oxford MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bäck T (1996) Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bertsekas DP (1996) Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods, 1st edn. Athena Scientific, Nashua Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertsekas DP (1999) Nonlinear programming, 2nd edn. Athena Scientific, Nashua MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gill PE, Murray W, Wright MH (1981) Practical optimization. Academic, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luenberger DG (2003) Linear and nonlinear programming, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fletcher R (1988) Practical methods of optimization, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin Y (2003) A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation. Soft Comput 9:3–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang GG, Shan S (2006) Review of metamodelling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. Trans ASME, J Mech Des 129(4):370–380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    El-Beltagy MA, Nair PB, Keane AJ (1999) Metamodeling techniques for evolutionary optimization of computationally expensive problems: Promises and limitations. In: GECCO99, genetic and evolutionary computation conference, Orlando, July 1999 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giannakoglou K (2002) Design of optimal aerodynamic shapes using stochastic optimization methods and computational intelligence. Int Rev J Prog Aerosp Sci 38:43–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lions JL (1971) Optimal control of systems governed by partial differential equations. Springer, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pironneau O (1974) On optimum design in fluid mechanics. J Fluid Mech 64:97–110 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pironneau O (1984) Optimal shape design for elliptic systems. Springer, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jameson A (1988) Aerodynamic design via control theory. J Sci Comput 3:233–260 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jameson A, Reuther J (1994) Control theory based airfoil design using the Euler equations. AIAA Paper 94-4272 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jameson A (1995) Optimum aerodynamic design using CFD and control theory. AIAA Paper 95-1729 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jameson A, Pierce N, Martinelli L (1998) Optimum aerodynamic design using the Navier-Stokes equations. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 10:213–237 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson WK, Nielsen E (2001) Sensitivity analysis for Navier-Stokes equations on unstructured grids using complex variables. AIAA J 39(31):56–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lyness JN, Moler CB (1967) Numerical differentiation of analytic functions. In: ACM 22nd national conference Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martins R, Kroo IM, Alonso J (2000) An automated method for sensitivity analysis using complex variables. AIAA Paper 2000-0689 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Squire W, Trapp G (1998) Using complex variables to estimate derivatives of real functions. SIAM Rev 10(1):110–112 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Newman JC, Anderson WK, Whitfield DL (1998) Multidisciplinary sensitivity derivatives using complex variables. Tech Rep MSSU-COE-ERC-98-08 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nielsen EJ, Kleb WL (2005) Efficient construction of discrete adjoint operators on unstructured grids by using complex variables. AIAA Paper 2005-0324 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Courty F, Dervieux A, Koobus B, Hascoët L (2003) Reverse automatic differentiation for optimum design: from adjoint state assembly to gradient computation. Optim Methods Softw 18(5):615–627 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Griewank A (1989) On automatic differentiation. In: Mathematical programming: recent developments and applications. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hovland P, Mohammadi B, Bischof C (1997) Automatic differentiation of Navier–Stokes computations. Technical Report MCS-P687-0997, Argonne National Laboratory Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Juedes D (1991) A taxonomy of automatic differentiation tools. In: Automatic differentiation of algorithms: theory, implementation, and application. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 315–329 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bischof C, Carle A, Corliss G, Griewank A, Hovland P (1991) ADIFOR Generating derivative codes from Fortran programs. Report CRPC-TR91185-S, Center for Research and Parallel Computation, Rice University Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Giering R, Kaminski T (1998) Recipes for adjoint code construction. ACM Trans Math Softw 24:437–474 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berz M (1990) The DA precompiler DAFOR. Technical Report, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Horwedel J (1991) GRESS a preprocessor for sensitivity studies of Fortran programs. AIAA Paper 91-005 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Faure C (2005) An automatic differentiation platform: Odyssée. Future Gener Comput Syst 21(8):1391–1400 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stephens B (1991) Automatic differentiation as a general-purpose numerical tool. PhD thesis, School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, UK Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shiriaev D, Griewank A, Utke J (1996) A user guide to ADOL–F: automatic differentiation of Fortran codes. IOKOMO-04-1995 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rhodin A (1997) IMAS–integrated modeling and analysis system for the solution of optimal control problems. Comput Phys Commun 107:21–38 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Christianson B (1992) Automatic Hessians by reverse accumulation. J Numer Anal 12:135–150 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bischof C, Roh L, Mauer-Oats A (1997) ADIC An extensible automatic differentiation tool for ANSI-C. Preprint ANL/MCS-P626-1196, Argonne National Laboratory Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Griewank A, Juedes D, Mitev H, Utke J, Vogel O, Walther A (1996) ADOL-C: a package for the automatic differentiation of algorithms written in C/C++. ACM Trans Math Softw 22(2):131–167 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pierce NA, Giles MB (2000) An introduction to the adjoint approach to design. Flow Turbul Combust 65(3–4):393–415 MATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nadarajah S, Jameson A (2000) A comparison of the continuous and discrete adjoint approach to automatic aerodynamic optimization. AIAA Paper 2000-0667 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nadarajah S, Jameson A (2001) Studies of the continuous and discrete adjoint approaches to viscous automatic aerodynamic shape optimization. AIAA Paper 2001-2530 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1994) A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. Rech Aerosp (1):5–21 Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Roe P (1981) Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J Comput Phys 43:357–371 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2007) A continuous adjoint method with objective function derivatives based on boundary integrals for inviscid and viscous flows. J Comput Fluids 36:325–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Anderson WK, Venkatakrishnan V (1997) Aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured grids with a continuous adjoint formulation. AIAA Paper 97-0643 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Anderson WK, Venkatakrishnan V (1997) Aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured grids with a continuous adjoint formulation. Comput Fluids 28:443–480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Asouti VG, Zymaris AS, Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2008) Continuous and discrete adjoint approaches for aerodynamic shape optimization with low Mach number preconditioning. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 57:1485–1504 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Arian E, Salas MD (1997) Admitting the inadmissible: adjoint formulation for incomplete cost functionals in aerodynamic optimization. NASA/CR-97-206269, ICASE Report No 97-69 Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Baysal O, Ghayour K (2001) Continuous adjoint sensitivities for optimization with general cost functionals on unstructured meshes. AIAA J 39(1) Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jameson A, Kim S (2003) Reduction of the adjoint gradient formula in the continous limit. AIAA Paper 2003-0040 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Denton JD (1993) Loss mechanisms in turbomachines. ASME Paper 93-GT-435 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Davies MRD, O’Donnell FK, Niven AJ (2000) Turbine blade entropy generation rate, part I: the boundary layer defined. ASME Paper 2000-GT-265 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    O’Donnell FK, Davies MRD (2000) Turbine blade entropy generation rate, part II: the measured loss. ASME Paper 2000-GT-266 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2006) Compressor blade optimization using a continuous adjoint formulation. ASME TURBO EXPO, GT2006/90466, Barcelona Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2007) Total pressure losses minimization in turbomachinery cascades, using a new continuous adjoint formulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part A: J Power Energy 222(6):865–872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Papadimitriou DI, Zymaris AS, Giannakoglou KC (2005) Discrete and continuous adjoint formulations for turbomachinery applications. In: UROGEN 2005, international conference proceedings, Munich, September 2005 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2006) A continuous adjoint method for the minimization of losses in cascade viscous flows. AIAA Paper 2006-0049 Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kim SK, Alonso JJ, Jameson A (2000) Two-dimensional high-lift aerodynamic optimization using the continuous adjoint method. AIAA Paper 2000-4741 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kim SK, Alonso JJ, Jameson A (2002) Design optimization of high-lift configurations using a viscous continuous adjoint method. AIAA Paper 2002-0844 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Leoviriyakit K, Jameson A (2003) Aerodynamic shape optimization of wings including planform variations. AIAA Paper 2003-0210 Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Leoviriyakit K, Kim S, Jameson A (2003) Viscous aerodynamic shape optimization of wings including planform variations. AIAA Paper 2003-3498 Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Leoviriyakit K, Kim S, Jameson A (2004) Aero-structural wing planform optimization using the Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA Paper 2004-4479 Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Leoviriyakit K, Jameson A (2005) Multi-point wing planform optimization via control theory. AIAA Paper 2005-0450 Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Giles MB, Pierce NA (1997) Adjoint equations in CFD: duality, boundary conditions and solution behaviour. AIAA Paper 97-1850 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Giles MB, Pierce NA (1998) On the properties of solutions of the adjoint Euler equations. In: 6th ICFD conference on numerical methods for fluid dynamics, Oxford, UK, 1998 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Harbeck M, Jameson A (2005) Exploring the limits of transonic shock-free airfoil design. AIAA Paper 2005-1041 Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Reuther J, Alonso JJ, Rimlinger MJ, Jameson A (1999) Aerodynamic shape optimization of supersonic aircraft configurations via an adjoint formulation on distributed memory parallel computers. Comput Fluids 28:675–700 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nadarajah S, Kim SK, Jameson A, Alonso JJ (2002) Sonic boom reduction using an adjoint method for supersonic transport aircraft configuration. In: Symposium transsonicum IV, international union of theoretical and applied mechanics, September 2–6, 2002, DLR Gottingen, Germany Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Nadarajah S, Jameson A, Alonso JJ (2002) Sonic boom reduction using an adjoint method for wing-body configurations in supersonic flow. AIAA Paper 2002-5547 Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Alonso JJ, Kroo IM, Jameson A (2002) Advanced algorithms for design and optimization of quiet supersonic platform. AIAA Paper 2002-0144 Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Nadarajah S, Jameson A, Alonso JJ (2002) An adjoint method for the calculation of remote sensitivities in supersonic flow. AIAA Paper 2002-0261 Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Taasan S, Kuruvila G, Salas MD (1992) Aerodynamic design and optimization in one-shot. AIAA Paper 91-005 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kuruvila G, Taasan S, Salas MD (1995) Airfoil design and optimization by the one-shot method. AIAA Paper 95-0478 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hazra SB (2004) An efficient method for aerodynamic shape optimization. AIAA Paper 2004-4628 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hazra S, Schulz V, Brezillon J, Gauger N (2005) Aerodynamic shape optimization using simultaneous pseudo-timestepping. J Comput Phys 204(1):46–64 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hazra SB, Schulz V (2006) Simultaneous pseudo-timestepping for aerodynamic shape optimization problems with state constraints. SIAM J Sci Comput 28(3):1078–1099 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Held C, Dervieux A (2002) One-shot airfoil optimisation without adjoint. Comput Fluids 31:1015–1049 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dadone A, Grossman B (2000) Progressive optimization of inverse fluid dynamic design problems. Comput Fluids 29:1–32 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Dadone A, Grossman B (2003) Fast convergence of inviscid fluid dynamic design problems. Comput Fluids 32:607–627 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Soto O, Lohner R (2004) On the computation of flow sensitivities from boundary integrals. AIAA Paper 04-0112 Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Jameson A, Shankaran S, Martinelli L (2003) A continuous adjoint method for unstructured grids. AIAA Paper 2003-3955 Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kim S, Leoviriyakit K, Jameson A (2003) Aerodynamic shape and planform optimization of wings using a viscous reduced adjoint gradient formula. In: 2nd MIT conference on computational fluid and solid mechanics, Cambridge, MA, June 17–20, 2003 Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Othmer C, de Villiers E, Weller HG (2007) Implementation of a continuous adjoint for topology optimization of ducted flows. AIAA Paper 2007-3947 Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mohammadi B, Pironneau O (2001) Applied shape optimization for fluids. Clarendon, Oxford MATHGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mohammadi B, Pironneau O (2004) Shape optimization in fluid mechanics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 36:255–279 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Soto O, Lohner R (2001) CFD shape optimization using an incomplete-gradient adjoint formulation. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 51:735–753 MATHGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Soto O, Lohner R (2000) CFD optimization using an incomplete-gradient adjoint approach. AIAA Paper 00-0666 Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Soto O, Lohner R (2000) CFD shape optimization using an incomplete-gradient adjoint approach. In: ECCOMAS, Barcelona, September 2000 Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Soto O, Lohner R (2001) General methodologies for incompressible flow design problems. AIAA Paper 01-1061 Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Soto O, Lohner R (2002) A mixed adjoint formulation for incompressible rans problems. AIAA Paper 02-0451 Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kim HJ, Sasaki D, Obayashi S, Nakahashi K (2001) Aerodynamic optimization of supersonic transport wing using unstructured adjoint method. AIAA J 39(6) Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Nielsen EJ, Park MA (2005) Using an adjoint approach to eliminate mesh sensitivities in computational design. AIAA Paper 2005-0491 Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Mavriplis DJ (2005) Formulation and multigrid solution of the discrete adjoint for optimization problems on unstructured meshes. AIAA Paper Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mavriplis DJ (2006) A discrete adjoint-based approach for optimization problems on three-dimensional unstructured meshes. AIAA Paper Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Nielsen EJ, Anderson WK (2002) Recent improvements in aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured meshes. AIAA J 40(6):1155–1163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nielsen EJ, Anderson WK (2001) Recent improvements in aerodynamic design optimization on unstructured meshes. AIAA Paper 2001-0596 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Elliot J, Peraire J (1996) Aerodynamic design using unstructured meshes. AIAA Paper 96-1941 Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Elliot J, Peraire J (1997) Aerodynamic optimization using unstructured meshes with viscous effects. AIAA Paper 97-1849 Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Elliot J, Peraire J (1997) Practical 3d aerodynamic design and optimization using unstructured meshes. AIAA J 35(9):1479–1485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Pulliam TH, Nemec M, Holst TL, Zingg DW (2003) Comparison of genetic and adjoint methods for multi-objective viscous airfoil optimizations. AIAA Paper 2003-0298 Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Elliot J, Peraire J (1998) Constrained, multipoint shape optimisation for complex 3d configurations. Aeronaut J 102(1017):365–376 Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Martins JRRA, Alonso JJ, Reuther JJ (2005) A coupled-adjoint sensitivity analysis method for high-fidelity aero-structural design. Optim Eng 6(1):33–62 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Leoviriyakit K, Jameson A (2004) Case studies in aero-structural wing planform and section optimization. AIAA Paper 2004-5372 Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Leoviriyakit K, Jameson A (2004) Aero-structural wing planform optimization. AIAA Paper 2004-0029 Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Nadarajah S, Jameson A (2002) Optimal control of unsteady flows using a time accurate method. AIAA Paper 2002-5436 Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Nadarajah S, McMullen M, Jameson A (2002) Non-linear frequency domain based optimum shape design for unsteady three-dimensional flow. AIAA Paper 2002-2838 Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Nadarajah S, Jameson A (2002) Optimum shape design for unsteady three-dimensional viscous flows using a non-linear frequency domain method. AIAA Paper 2002-2838 Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Campobasso MS, Duta MC, Giles MB (2001) Adjoint methods for turbomachinery design. In: ISOABE conference, 2001 Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Duta MC, Giles MB, Campobasso MS (2002) The harmonic adjoint approach to unsteady turbomachinery design. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 40(3–4):323–332 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Campobasso MS, Duta MC, Giles MB (2003) Adjoint calculation of sensitivities of turbomachinery objective functions. AIAA J Propuls Power 19(4) Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Giannakoglou KC, Papadimitriou DI (2006) Formulation and application of the continuous adjoint method in aerodynamics and turbomachinery. Von-Karman institute lecture series Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Anderson WK, Bonhaus DL (1997) Aerodynamic design on unstructured grids for turbulent flows. NASA Technical Memorandum Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Anderson WK, Bonhaus DL (1999) Airfoil design on unstructured grids for turbulent flows. AIAA J 37(2):185–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Nielsen EJ, Lu J, Park MA, Darmofal DL (2004) An implicit exact dual adjoint solution method for turbulent flows on unstructured grids. Comput Fluids 33:1131–1155 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Sherman LL, Taylor III AC, Green LL, Newman PA, Hou GW, Korivi VM (1996) First- and second-order aerodynamic sensitivity derivatives via automatic differentiation with incremental iterative methods. J Comput Phys 129:307–331 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2007) Direct, adjoint and mixed approaches for the computation of Hessian in airfoil design problems. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 56:1929–1943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Papadimitriou DI, Giannakoglou KC (2007) Computation of the Hessian matrix in aerodynamic inverse design using continuous adjoint formulations. Comput Fluids 37:1029–1039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Tortorelli D, Michaleris P (1994) Design sensitivity analysis: overview and review. Inverse Probl Eng 1(1):71–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Hou GW, Sheen J (1993) Numerical methods for second-order shape sensitivity analysis with applications to heat conduction problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 36:417–435 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Le Dimet FX, Navon IM, Daescu DN (2002) Second-order information in data assimilation. Mon Weather Rev 130(3):629–648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Veerse F, Auroux D, Fisher M (2000) Limited-memory BFGS diagonal preconditioners for a data assimilation problem in meteorology. Optim Eng 1:323–339 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Daescu DN, Navon IM (2003) An analysis of a hybrid optimization method for variational data assimilation. Int J Comput Fluid Dyn 17(4):299–306 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Arian E, Taasan S (1999) Analysis of the Hessian for aerodynamic optimization: inviscid flow. Comput Fluids 28(7):853–877 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios I. Papadimitriou
    • 1
  • Kyriakos C. Giannakoglou
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical University of Athens (NTUA)AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations