Adaptive Euler - resolution of the Grand Challenge of aerodynamics: first principles, automated computation and error control in FEniCS, validation in HLPW, and prototype development toward aeroelasticity and FSI
Johan Jansson (jjan@kth.se), key collaboration with Kristoffer Wingstedt (SAAB)
http://icarusmath.com
http://digitalmath.org (research environment)
*Leonhard Euler [1707-1783] one of the greatest mathematicians in history.
[W-030 = Johan Jansson's Icarus/KTH team]
"As good as it gets" statement from NASA
https://hiliftpw.larc.nasa.gov/Workshop4/presentations.html
Slotnick, J. P., Khodadoust, A., Alonso, J., Darmofal, D., Gropp, W., Lurie, E., & Mavriplis, D. J. (2014). CFD vision 2030 study: a path to revolutionary computational aerosciences (No. NF1676L-18332).
The use of CFD in the aerospace design process is severely limited by the inability to accurately and reliably predict turbulent flows with significant regions of separation.
See also Certification by Analysis 2040 - we already now, 10-20 years ahead of time cover key aspects.
Goal: Automatically generate the program, mesh and solution from PDE/model (residual) and goal functional $M(U)$ (e.g. drag).
First principles - Euler equations for fluid - slip boundary condition
Automated symbolic differentiation in FEniCS - Automated linearization as part of GLS stabilization
# Automated linearization using derivative r_SD0 = derivative(d*inner(grad(u1)*u1, grad(u2)*u2)*dx, u1, u) r_SD1 = derivative(r_SD0, u2, v) r_SD1 = replace(r_SD1, { u1: u, u2: u }) # Manual linearization r_SDA = r_SD1 r_SDM = d*inner(grad(u)*u, grad(v)*u)*dx
Same values to machine precision.
FEniCS component structure
Note that Adaptive Euler depends on DOLFIN, FFC, PETSc (linear algebra), etc. large and global Open Source communities similar to Linux
We have good contact with PETSc (linear algebra) development team (Matt Knepley), and with e.g. recent large community around NURBS/spline FEM (David Kamensky).
HiLiftPW4 Prediction of CL and CD pre-stall within 5%, and CM for all angles and CL and CD at stall within 10%, spefically also predicts pitch-break.
Mesh-independent under adjoint-based adaptive error control
HiLiftPW4 CP plot for 21.5deg
Consistent with 5% accuracy vs. exp in forces, which are simply integrated CP.
Note oscillatory CP in in-board separation wake at A.
Solving the reproducibility crisis with Digital Math - "The Modern Scientific Paper". More detailed presentation and results:
http://digitalmath.tech/hiliftpw4-aiaa
Adaptive Euler Simple Wing: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1rTTABf21r8Dd0pJLxNvFfsPSBl6q2H9t?usp=sharing
Adaptive Euler Simple Wing ALE with elastic mesh smoothing: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1WD8JOQxnvcCixCrf2YXAm13pariYf1ti?usp=sharing
Adaptive Euler HLPW5 Case 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 preliminary forces
Our Adaptive Euler team achieved the target of prediction of key CLmax quantity within 2% of experiment in a blind setting (we did not have access to experimental data. Only 3 teams in WMLES group achiieved this: Adaptive Euler, Volcano (previous NASA branch chief) and PowerFlow. We also captured the key separation and stall phenomenon. Our performance is 300x cheaper than RANS and 1000x cheaper than WMLES.
Adaptive Euler HLPW5 Case 2.4 preliminary adaptive forces aoa=19.7
Variance CL and CD: ~3% 180k-230k vertices (appx. 5% increase of num. vertices each adaptive iter.)
Activity: Verification and uncertainty estimation.
Hypothesis: Mesh-cónverged forces already on coarsest starting mesh for all angles (iter_00).
Validation against oil flow for separation mechanism at stall angle (HLPW3)
The separation mechanism and validation looks similar for HLPW4 and 5
Our Adaptive Euler team achieved the target of prediction of key CLmax quantity within 2% of experiment in a blind setting (we did not have access to experimental data. Only 3 teams in WMLES group achiieved this: Adaptive Euler, Volcano (previous NASA branch chief) and PowerFlow. We also captured the key separation and stall phenomenon. Our performance is 300x cheaper than RANS and 1000x cheaper than WMLES.
Adaptive Euler HLPW5 forces blind validation and comparison to other participants
We observe a significant interaction of the wake with the tail at aoa=23.6 . We also observe a significant difference of appx. 15% in CM between "full span" and "half span", which we interpret as a "blockage effect".
This appears to be in principle a "buffeting" phenomenon.
We observe a significant interaction of the wake with the tail at aoa=23.6 . We also observe a significant difference of appx. 15% in CM between "full span" and "half span", which we interpret as a "blockage effect".
This appears to be in principle a "buffeting" phenomenon.
Cylinder Re=Infinite starting from u=0
Resolution of D'Alembert's paradox: with unsteady Euler potential solution first establishes, but is unstable and develops into streamwise vortex solution, with non-zero drag close to experiment (see slides before)
Cylinder Re sweep from Re=4e3 to Re=Infinite (e.g. 1e7+)
Cylinder Re sweep from Re=4e3 to Re=Infinite (e.g. 1e7+)
Movie of velocity and motion Adaptive Euler PAPA prototype
Movie of elastic smoother mesh motion Adaptive Euler ALE
def epsilon(v): return 0.5*(grad(v) + grad(v).T) rsmoother = inner(1.0/h*epsilon(wmeshvel), epsilon(vv))*dx + \ gamma*nm*dot(wmeshvel - wmeshvelf, vv)*ds + gamma*im*dot(wmeshvel, vv)*dx newtonIteration(rsmoother, wmeshvel)
Try and edit yourself! Adaptive Euler Simple Wing ALE with elastic mesh smoothing: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1WD8JOQxnvcCixCrf2YXAm13pariYf1ti?usp=sharing
Daumas, L., Chalot, F., Forestier, N., & Johan, Z. (2009). Industrial use of linearized CFD tools for aeroelastic problems. IFASD, 54, 21-25.
“The Galerkin/least-squares (GLS) formulation introduced by Hughes and Johnson, is a full space-time finite element technique …”
Preliminary Adaptive Euler Compressible - qualitative validation against Adaptive Euler Incompressible HLPW5 aoa=19.7
Unified Continuum Fluid-Structure Interaction of flapping in FEniCS, simplified setting for conceptual purpose
With the Adaptive Euler/FEniCS Open Source technology we reliably predict your aerodynamic design based on first principles. You can trust the results, and use them for decisions, optimization, redesign, etc.
General FEniCS framework for reliably and automatically predicting/simulating any mathematical model: fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, electromagnetics, chemistry, multi-physics, etc.
Easy and straightforward to yourself modify, inspect, extend. For example, you can very easily modify the Adaptive Euler FEniCS formulation into a standard WMLES formulation with explicity friction and turbulence modeling and also run that.
Good validation at the highest level and at the same time 300x-1000x faster and cheaper than the best CFD in the world: RANS and WMLES in NASA/AIAA High Lift Prediction Workshop, "zero" computational cost.
Plug-in component in your CAE/aero workflow, can reuse CAD, mesh generation, visualization.
We can provide reliable first-principles aero-data for any aircraft, e.g. certification of full aircraft, drones, new aircraft concepts, etc.
"Transient adjoint" indicates where design should be modified for maximum gain.
Contact: Johan Jansson jjan@kth.se
http://digitalmath.tech
http://icarusmath.com
Problem: Publications are not reproducible
KI President Ottersen describes the problem concisely;
We are in the midst of what some have called a research reproducibility crisis. While scientific discovery and complexity are developing at an unprecedented speed, less than 50% of scientific research studies can be reliably replicated. Left unchecked, this troubling fact may threaten our ability to generate sound, evidence-based knowledge that meets society’s needs. It is time to look beyond the traditional measures of quality and re-examine the very concept of quality itself.
NASA Transform to Open Science (TOPS):
https://science.nasa.gov/open-science/transform-to-open-science
"Lowering barriers to entry for historically excluded communities"
"Increasing opportunities for collaboration while promoting scientific innovation, transparency, and reproducibility.
Illustration: In school one may not only give the answer to a problem - "show your work!".
In research it is often not possible to see or reproduce how the answer was derived or constructed. Why is this so?
"Reproducibility of scientific results in the EU", Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), 2020
Excerpts from the EU report:
Second, there is a perceived deliberateness, or at least carelessness, in scientific production due to competitive pressures. A growing proportion of scientists are perceived as – willingly or unwittingly – bending some of the basic premises of the scientific method to produce ‘fast science’ or even ‘make believe science’ – facts and theories that are declared true but are dubious or even false. This rests more on the structure of incentives of science-making, embedded in culture and practice, than on deliberate attempts to ‘cheat’. The need for results to be reproducible, and the tangible steps needed to make them so, may help results be trustworthy and keep scientists honest.
Possible remedies:
[...]
Sharing of data, protocols, materials, software, codes, and other tools underlying publications; Transparency of analysis and modelling;
Possible actions:
[...]
17. Fund the testing and R&I development of automatic systems of compliance for reproducibility before publication;
[...]
24. Ensure that Horizon Europe provisions encourage and support
reproducibility (see list of possible actions, above);
25. Employ and police guidelines early in the grant application phase to anchor journal practices;
etc.
Reproducibility in the digital age
Lorena Barba, a professor at George Washington University in Washington, D. C., says in Physics World:
What we are calling for is changing those norms to give importance to the full set of digital objects that are part of a scientific study and acknowledging that the scientific paper is insufficient today in its methods section to include all of the information needed for another researcher to confirm the results or build from those results.
The technology exists to achieve this, there have been technical solutions since the 80s and 90s.
In the US there are now guidelines for requiring the publication of the "digital objects" (Open Source), in the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Professor Barba has been a leader in these developments.
Zenodo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenodo) has become a standard resource in science for publishing “data sets”. For each submission, a persistent digital object identifier (DOI) is minted, which makes the stored items easily citeable. Zenodo is based on the Open Source project Invenio.
KTH Library is active in developing an Invenio/Zenodo-framework for supporting reproducibility.
Reproducibility in scientific modeling
With Invenio/Zenodo, DOIs can be acquired for both the source code and generated data for a scientific model, allowing this material to be easily cited. The material may then be shared while avoiding questions about ownership of the intellectual property.
However, just publishing a “data set” or even an archive of the source code, does not guarantee or make scientific results reproducible. It may still take an enormous effort to actually re-run the computations (e.g. lacking familiarity with required software, access to computing resources, etc.), and you do not know before you invest that effort how reproducible the results are (e.g. limited or missing methodology sections).
Reproducibility requires transparency. A lack of transparency in experiments creates a barrier to inclusivity and accessibility in science.
We present the Digital Math framework as the foundation for modern science based on constructive digital mathematical computation.
Ubiquitous High Performance Computing: "Copy a lab"
Easily accessible - “copy our lab at zero cost - rerun experiment in seconds 1-click in web browser”
Advantage of digital and simulation over experiments
Solving the reproducibility crisis with Digital Math - "The Modern Scientific Paper". More detailed presentation and results:
http://digitalmath.tech/hiliftpw4-aiaa
Cylinder Re=Infinite starting from u=0
Resolution of D'Alembert's paradox: with unsteady Euler potential solution first establishes, but is unstable and develops into streamwise vortex solution, with non-zero drag close to experiment (see slides before)
Cylinder Re sweep from Re=4e3 to Re=Infinite (e.g. 1e7+)
Cylinder Re sweep from Re=4e3 to Re=Infinite (e.g. 1e7+)
http://digimat.tech    Johan Jansson jjan@kth.se
Our automated framework with high-level math notation now de-facto world standard, and is now available in a web-based environment (see above). Predict, visualize, inspect, modify the math source code interactively at the highest echelon in the world, e.g. electric aircraft in the Vinnova ELISE project above.
Learn Digital Math from scratch in our DigiMat program.
1. Emphasis on physics-based, predictive modeling:
Predictive - first-principles, parameter-free, adjoint-based adaptivity
2. Management of errors and uncertainties resulting from all possible sources:
Same as 1, additionally automatically generates low-level source code from math notation
3. A much higher degree of automation in all steps of the analysis process:
Same as 1 and 2
4. Ability to effectively utilize massively parallel, heterogeneous, and fault-tolerant HPC architectures:
Extremely cheap and fast performance (less than 200 core hours),
5. Flexibility to tackle capability- and capacity-computing tasks in both industrial and research environments
Same as 4
6. Seamless integration with multidisciplinary analyses that will be the norm in 2030
Digital Math/FEniCS general framework for PDE (FSI etc.)
You're welcome to get involved!
Try yourself, modify, extend!
http://digitalmath.tech/hiliftpw4-aiaa
Commercial cooperation:
http://icarusmath.com
Any questions, ideas, comments:
jjan@kth.se
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6925366593916936192/
https://twitter.com/UlrikaLindstr/status/1517133800999858176
Adjoint velocity $\hat{\phi}$ and Residual $R(\hat{U})$ (left column)
Coarse starting mesh and Refined mesh 5 adapt. it. (right column)
Adaptive error control for fixed aoa=7
Both CD and CL within 5% of exp, CM within 10%, mesh-independent
Cylinder Re sweep from Re=4e3 to Re=Infinite (e.g. 1e7+)
CD and CL within 4%
DrivAer standard automotive benchmark with transient adjoint
The methodology is a Direct FEM simulation of the first principle equations, here in multi-phase incompressible form, where we include constitutive laws for a Newtonian fluid and Neo-Hookean solid.
These first principle equations are discretized by the Direct FEM approach, meaning Galerkin-Least-Squares (GLS) stabilization with shock-capturing.
The Galerkin part of the method is formulated as below in FEniCS notation:
F_G = z*inner(u, grad(rho))*nu*dx F_G += z*(inner(rho*grad(u)*u + grad(p),v) - theta*inner(sigma, grad(v)) + \ nnu*inner(grad(u),grad(v)) - rho*dot(f,v))*dx F_G += z*(inner(dot(u, grad(sigma)) + \ theta*(2*rho*mumu*epsilon(u) + grad(u)*sigma + sigma*grad(u).T), y))*dx
Master thesis by Linde van Beers supervised by Johan Jansson.
Reference left, Digital Math RFS simulatiom right. Captures drag force \ to within 10%, captures features.
CD and CL within 4%
Adaptive error control for fixed aoa=21.5 (fine surface mesh)
CD, CL and CM within 10% of exp, mesh-independent
Snapshot of adjoint solution (green) for aoa=21.5
Showing sensitivity in nacelle and wing-root region
Snapshot of adjoint solution (green) for aoa=21.5
Showing sensitivity in nacelle and wing-root region
Cylinder Re sweep from Re=4e3 to Re=Infinite (e.g. 1e7+)
Adaptive Euler Unified Compressible Mach=0.2
Adaptive Euler Unified Compressible Mach=0.7
Adaptive Euler Unified Compressible Mach=2.0
Adaptive Euler Unified Compressible
Glider Optimal Sustainable Mobility
Project Glider develops a world-unique and efficient mobility solution based on gliding for the transport of people and goods. With gliding, neither energy storage (petrol, battery, etc.) nor engine is required on the craft, which brings enormous gains in weight, cost, complexity and durability. Gliding has been used militarily (largely during WWII) and today is mostly used for recreation. We see that gliding has great potential for large-scale sustainable movement of goods and people, as a sustainable mobility system for society.
Aviation today accounts for 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and the share is expected to increase to 15-27% by 2050. We are already a leader in electric flight research through our role in the ELISE project. Gliders mean even greater opportunities for sustainable mobility in that the problem of energy storage on the craft is eliminated.
Glider Optimal Sustainable Mobility
The technical idea is that the gliders are launched by e.g. an electric car or truck, or by an electric induction-based “launcher” similar to the established railgun technology used e.g. to launch aircraft from carriers. The glider aircraft can then glide 100km-200km, and can then be relaunched, or be provided with energy by induction at “energy stations”, eliminating the need for landing and relaunch.
A design variant can be that the glider aircraft have solar panels and a simple electric propulsion. With the efficient aerodynamics provided by our Adaptive Euler simulation-based design, and potentially by leveraging Ground Effect - giving appx. 2x higher efficiency, it appears possible to achieve “infinite range” with a simple solar-based solution.