Optimization of a static mixing device using the continuous adjoint to a two-phase mixing model

The continuous adjoint method is formulated and utilized for the optimization of a static mixing device. The CFD tool used for the simulations is based on a two-phase model governing flows of two miscible fluids. The formulation of the corresponding continuous adjoint problem is presented and the co...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Optimization and engineering 2020-06, Vol.21 (2), p.631-650
Main Authors: Alexias, Pavlos, Giannakoglou, Kyriakos C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Computational fluid dynamics
Computer simulation
Control
Engineering
Environmental Management
Financial Engineering
Manufacturability
Mathematics
Mathematics and Statistics
Multiple objective analysis
Operations Research/Decision Theory
Optimization
Pareto optimization
Pressure loss
Research Article
Systems Theory
Two phase flow
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The continuous adjoint method is formulated and utilized for the optimization of a static mixing device. The CFD tool used for the simulations is based on a two-phase model governing flows of two miscible fluids. The formulation of the corresponding continuous adjoint problem is presented and the computed gradients are utilized in an optimization loop. In specific, a multi-objective optimization problem is formulated and solved for maximum mixture uniformity at the outlet and minimum total pressure losses inside a static mixing device. The weighted sum of these two quantities of interest is the objective function to be minimized by solving a single-objective problem. Through the solution of a number of optimization problems, with different weights each, the Pareto front of optimal solutions is computed. Two optimization approaches are employed taking the manufacturability of the final shape into consideration, giving rise to different optimal designs to be discussed and compared. Differences in the efficiency and the optimal shapes between the two approaches are thoroughly discussed and compared.
ISSN:1389-4420
1573-2924
DOI:10.1007/s11081-019-09466-x