Engineering with Computers

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 15–29 | Cite as

A novel engineering tool for creative design of fluid systems

  • Peter E. Johnson
  • Daniel A. Ashlock
  • Kenneth M. Bryden
Original Article

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics is not often used early in the conceptual design stage of product development due to the lengthy computation times involved with solving complex computational fluid dynamics models. At this early stage, design options are being explored and significant changes are common, and therefore updated solutions must be found quickly to make these models effective. Because of this, computational fluid dynamics models are often reduced to analysis tools used later in the process and are used for refinement rather than for creative engineering design. This paper presents a novel method to create computational fluid dynamics models that can be used earlier in the engineering design process. The key aspects of analysis models used in the initial, creative phase of design are the ability to make changes and re-analyze the altered model quickly. Typically, computational fluid dynamics analysts choose to re-analyze the entire altered model to maintain the same level of accuracy. This can take a significant amount of time because the entire domain must be recalculated. Much of this time is devoted to fine-tuning the model, i.e., improving the accuracy of details of the domain that are sometimes non-essential to the bulk characteristics of the flowfield. However, in the early stage of the design process, decisions are often made based on the large-scale behavior of the fluid flow; fine details are often inconsequential. We have taken advantage of this premise to decrease the turnaround time required to re-analyze a computational fluid dynamics model using the Adaptive Modeling by Evolving Blocks Algorithm. The Adaptive Modeling by Evolving Blocks Algorithm is a genetic programming-based optimization program that segregates a flowfield and places minimal cost solvers in regions with simple flow dynamics while placing full-scale computational fluid dynamics solvers in the more complex regions to preserve accuracy. The program evolves the combined segregation scheme and solver placement until a reliably accurate, faster multi-solver model is found. Substantial reductions in solution times have been found in some cases. The results show an improvement in the speed of the multi-solver when compared with a single-model solution with no significant loss of accuracy.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics Evolutionary computation Genetic programming Multi-solver Optimization Design 

References

  1. 1.
    Akilli H, Levy EK, Sahin B (2001) Gas–solid behavior in a horizontal pipe after a 90° vertical-to-horizontal elbow. Powder Technol 116:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson DK, Kozlak MJ (2002) Leveraging physical and computation flow modeling techniques in the optimization of commercial selective catalytic reduction system designs. In: Proceedings of the 2002 international joint power generation conferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angeline PJ (1997) Subtree crossover: building block engine or macromutation? In: Proceedings of the second annual conference: genetic programming 1997, pp 9–17Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashlock D (2006) Evolutionary computation for modeling and optimization. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashlock DA, Bryden KM, Johnson PE, McCorkle DS (2002) Improving data segregation with a graph based evolutionary algorithm, intelligent engineering systems through artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of the artificial neural networks in engineering conference (ANNIE 2002), pp 417–422Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batista LS (2010) A new self-adaptive approach for evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chellapilla K (1997) Evolving computer programs without subtree crossover. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(3):209–216Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degroote J, Annerel S, Vierendeels J (2010) A multi-solver quasi-newton method for the partitioned simulation of fluid-structure interaction. IOP conference series: materials science and engineering 10(1):1–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Degroote J, Vierendeels J (2011) Multi-solver Algorithms for the partitioned simulation of fluid–structure interaction. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200:2195–2210CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drashansky T (1995) A software architecture of collaborating agents for solving PDEs. Master of Science thesis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferziger JH, Kline SJ, Avva RK, Bordalo SN, Tzuoo K-L (1988) Zonal modeling of turbulent flows—philosophy and accomplishments. In: Proceedings of the international centre for heat and mass transfer, pp 800–817Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang G, Bryden KM (2005) Introducing virtual engineering technology into interactive design process with high-fidelity models. In: Proceedings of the 2005 winter simulation conference 1958–1967Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang G, Bryden KM, Vasquez E, Avancha R (2004) Using CFD to model coal roping phenomenon in coal transport systems. In: Proceedings of 2004 ASME Power, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Power Division (Publication) PWR, pp 755–761Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jayachandran J, Corns S (2010) A comparative study of diversity in evolutionary algorithms. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson NG, Karthikeyan B, Ashlock DA, Bryden KM (2006) AMoEBA image segmentation: modeling of individual Voronoi tessellations. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE world congress on computational intelligence, Vancouver, Canada, pp 7480–7486Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson PE (2003) AMoEBA: the adaptive modeling by evolving blocks algorithm. Dissertation, Iowa State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson PE, Bryden KM, Ashlock DA, Vasquez E (2001) Evolving cooperative partial functions for data summary and interpolation. In: Proceedings of the artificial neural networks in engineering conference (ANNIE 2001): intelligent engineering systems through artificial neural networks, pp 405–410Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson PE, Bryden KM, Ashlock DA (2003) Inverse solution of a heat conduction problem using evolutionary data segregation techniques. American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2003 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, computer and information in engineering division (Publication) CED, 8(75–80)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson PE, Bryden KM, Ashlock DA (2003) Solution of a 2-D inverse heat conduction problem using evolutionary data segregation techniques. In: Proceedings of the artificial neural networks in engineering conference (ANNIE 2003): intelligent engineering systems through artificial neural networks, pp 315–320Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson PE, Bryden KM, Ashlock DA (2004) Using evolutionary data segregation techniques to reduce the computation time needed to design piping flow using CFD. In: Proceedings of the artificial neural networks in engineering conference (ANNIE 2004): intelligent engineering systems through artificial neural networks, pp 433–438Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joubarne E, Guibault F (2011) 3D metric-based anisotropic mesh adaptation for vortex capture. Math Comput Simul 82(1):163–180CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kinnear KE (ed) (1994) Advances in genetic programming (complex adaptive systems). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kinnear KE, Angeline PJ (eds) (1996) Advances in genetic programming, vol 2 (complex adaptive systems). The MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koza JR (1994) Genetic programming II. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koza JR (1999) Genetic programming III. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liang L, Stevens JG, Farrell JT (2009) A dynamic multi-zone partitioning scheme for solving detailed chemical kinetics in reactive flow computations. Combust Sci Technol 181:1345–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCorkle DS, Bryden KM, Carmichael CG (2003) A new methodology for evolutionary optimization of energy systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng (2.651) 192(44–46):5021–5036Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moujaes SF, Deshmukh S (2006) Three-dimensional CFD predictions and experimental comparison of pressure drop of some common pipe fittings in turbulent flow. J Energy Eng 132(2):61–66Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Niksa S, Liu G, Felix LG, Vann Bush P (2002) Advanced CFD Post-processing for pulverized fuel flame structure and emissions. In: Proceedings of the 2002 international joint power generation conferenceGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poli R, McPhee NF (2003) General schema theory for genetic programming with subtree-swapping crossover: Part I. Evol Comput 11(1):53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poli R, McPhee NF (2003) General schema theory for genetic programming with subtree-swapping crossover: Part II. Evol Comput 11(2):169–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenhead L (ed) (1963) laminar boundary layers. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmatz MA (1987) Simulation of viscous flows by zonal solution of the euler, boundary-layer, and Navier–Stokes equations. Zeitschrift fuer Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung/Journal of Flight Sciences and Space Research 11(4–5):281–290Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmatz MA, Mannoyer F, Wanie KM (1989) Numerical simulation of transonic wing flows using a zonal euler, boundary-layer, Navier–Stokes approach. Zeitschrift fuer Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung/Journal of Flight Sciences and Space Research 13(6):377–384Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spector L, Langdon WB, O’Reilly UM, Angeline PJ (eds) (1999) Advances in genetic programming advances in genetic programming. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wanie KM, Schmatz MA, Mannoyer F (1987) A close coupling procedure for zonal solutions of the Navier–Stokes, Euler, and boundary-layer equations. Zeitschrift fuer Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung/Journal of Flight Sciences and Space Research 11(6):347–359Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wuthrich S, Sawley ML, Perruchoud G (1996) The coupled Euler/boundary layer method as a design tool for hypersonic re-entry vehicles. Zeitschrift fuer Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung/Journal of Flight Sciences and Space Research 20(3):137–144Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang Q, Schroder W, Meinke M (2010) A zonal RANS-LES method to determine the flow over a high-lift configuration. Comput Fluids 39:1241–1253CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter E. Johnson
    • 1
  • Daniel A. Ashlock
    • 2
  • Kenneth M. Bryden
    • 3
  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringValparaiso UniversityValparaisoUSA
  2. 2.MathematicsUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  3. 3.Mechanical EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations