2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2004.10.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aerodynamic shape optimization using simultaneous pseudo-timestepping

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 91 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
62
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…ASO problems in compressible viscous flow were also performed using simultaneous pseudo-time stepping (Hazra et al, 2005). Hazra et al (2005) could optimize airfoil surface by use of a preconditioner for convergence acceleration which stems from the reduced sequential quadratic programming (SQP) methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…ASO problems in compressible viscous flow were also performed using simultaneous pseudo-time stepping (Hazra et al, 2005). Hazra et al (2005) could optimize airfoil surface by use of a preconditioner for convergence acceleration which stems from the reduced sequential quadratic programming (SQP) methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hazra et al (2005) could optimize airfoil surface by use of a preconditioner for convergence acceleration which stems from the reduced sequential quadratic programming (SQP) methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors have effectively used these methods in the field of aerodynamics design, see e.g. [6,7]. Using these methods, the complete shape optimization problem can be solved at an equivalent cost of roughly 5 to 10 forward flow simulations.…”
Section: The Optimization Approach To Divertor Target Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [3][4][5][6] we have applied the method for solving aerodynamic shape optimization problems without additional state constraints and in [7][8][9] applied the method to problems with additional state constraints. The overall cost of computation in all the applications has been between 2 -8 times as that of the forward simulation runs, whereas in traditional gradient methods the cost of computation is between 30 -60 forward simulation runs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%