2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2015.06.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient shape optimization for fluid–structure interaction problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…f (1) is the inviscid MF-surrogate with predictions the closest to the viscous ones, albeit with the least dependences on the trimming parameters compared to the other inviscid surrogates b f (2,3) , which exhibit more noticeable dependences on the optimization variables. In contrast, the viscous MF-surrogates b f (4) and b f (5) have predictions in close agreement to each other over the whole domain ⌦. This proximity is not surprising since, compared to b f (4) , the construction of b f (5) incorporates just a few evaluations of the objective function f (5) , based on a more refined mesh and a different boundary flow conditions, but the same physical models otherwise.…”
Section: Optimization Resultsmentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…f (1) is the inviscid MF-surrogate with predictions the closest to the viscous ones, albeit with the least dependences on the trimming parameters compared to the other inviscid surrogates b f (2,3) , which exhibit more noticeable dependences on the optimization variables. In contrast, the viscous MF-surrogates b f (4) and b f (5) have predictions in close agreement to each other over the whole domain ⌦. This proximity is not surprising since, compared to b f (4) , the construction of b f (5) incorporates just a few evaluations of the objective function f (5) , based on a more refined mesh and a different boundary flow conditions, but the same physical models otherwise.…”
Section: Optimization Resultsmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Efficient Global Optimization (EGO) strategies [1] have been used in various application domains, and many works demonstrated their applicability for the optimization of complex systems with costly objective function evaluation [2]. Examples of applications are the aerodynamic drag reduction [3], the vibration reduction for rotating aircraft [4], the optimization of Fluid-Structure Interactions (FSI) problems [5] and the sail trimming optimization [6]. In a nutshell, the EGO method builds a statistical surrogate model of the costly objective function f to be optimized, usually a Gaussian Processes [7] (GP), and a statistical criterion accounting for the Expected Improvement (EI), often referred to as merit function, is maximized to select a new design point.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GP models have also been found especially appealing for optimization, in the framework of the Efficient Global Optimization (EGO) [10] method, because their statistical nature allows to provide both a prediction of the objective function, in terms of model mean, and an error estimate, in terms of model variance. EGO strategies have been used in several engineering applications, such as aerodynamic drag reduction of transonic wings [11], vibration reduction for rotating aircrafts [12,13], optimization of FSI problems [14] and sail trimming optimization [15]. The EGO efficiency has been demonstrated for the optimization of complex systems with costly objective function evaluations [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [17] a partitioned approach for a NURBS-parametrized shape optimization problem is studied. In the recent work [18] the authors propose a reduced order model, based on a sequential quadratic programming approach, to accelerate the shape optimization process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%