Application of a General Discrete Adjoint Method for Draft Tube Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Automatic optimization is becoming increasingly important in turbomachinery design to improve the performance of machine components and Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) play a very important role in this task. The main drawback of EAs is the large number of evaluations that are required to obtain an “optimal” result. Consequently, in order to keep the computational time in an affordable frame for design purposes, either the mesh size has to be limited, thus reducing the resolution of the flow phenomena, or the number of free parameters must be kept small. Adjoint optimization does not suffer from these restrictions, i.e. the optimization time is not affected by the number of parameters. The computational effort for the adjoint method scales only with the grid size and is usually in the range of two times the CFD simulation alone. In this paper, a discrete adjoint method based on a coupled pressure based RANS solver is presented and applied to draft tube optimization. The adjoint solver is general and can therefore deal with any turbulence model supported by the CFD solver as well as any boundary condition, including mixing planes and mesh interfaces needed for multi-stage simulations. Furthermore, there is no restriction on the choice of objective function. The adjoint method is first applied to a baseline draft tube geometry and then again to its EA optimized geometry where the objective function was the minimization of losses in the draft tube. To reduce the complexity for this proof of concept but still including multiple operating points in the optimization, only peak efficiency and full-load were optimized simultaneously. The adjoint optimization can significantly improve the draft tube performance in both cases (baseline and EA optimization). The interplay between local and global optimization seems to be a promising strategy to find optimal geometries for multi-operating point/multi-objective optimization and will be further investigated in subsequent research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".