Abstract

Adjoint shape optimization has enabled physics-based optimal designs for aerodynamic surfaces. Additive manufacturing (AM) makes it possible to manufacture complex shapes. However, there has been a gap between optimal and manufacturable surfaces due to the inherent limitations of commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes to implement geometric constraints during adjoint computation. In such cases, the design sensitivities are exported and used to perform constrained shape modifications using parametric information stored in computer aided design (CAD) files to satisfy manufacturability constraints. However, modifying the design using adjoint methods in CFD solvers and performing constrained shape modification in CAD can lead to inconsistencies due to different shape parameterization schemes. This paper describes a method to enable the simultaneous optimization of the fluid domain and impose AM manufacturability constraints, resolving one of the key issues of geometry definition for isogeometric analysis. Similar to a grid convergence study, the proposed method verifies the consistencies between shape parameterization techniques present within commercial CAD and CFD software during mesh movement as a part of the adjoint shape optimization routine. By identifying the appropriate parameters essential to a shape optimization study, the error metric between the different parameterization techniques converges to demonstrate sufficient consistencies for justifiable exchange of data between CAD and CFD. For the identified shape optimization parameters, the error metric to measure the deviation between the two parameterization schemes lies within the AM laser-powder bed fusion (L-PBF) process tolerance. Additionally, comparison for subsequent objective function calculations between iterations of the optimization loop showed acceptable differences within 1% variation between the modified geometries obtained using the two parameterization schemes. This method provides justification for the use of multiphysics guided adjoint design sensitivities computed in CFD software to perform shape modifications in CAD to incorporate AM manufacturability constraints during the shape optimization loop such that optimal designs are also additively manufacturable.

1 Introduction

Gradient-based shape optimization using the adjoint method has been used to effectively compute design sensitivities in the case of complex objective functions with a large number of design variables [16]. Several applications including heat transfer [79], microfluidic flow [1013], structural optimization [1418], and aerodynamic optimization [1929] have used the adjoint method to achieve optimal geometries through high-fidelity computational modeling.

Manufacturing and testing these novel, optimal geometries using traditional manufacturing methods can be challenging and expensive. The advent of additive manufacturing (AM) processes has empowered engineers with wider design flexibility. AM provides the opportunity to rapidly prototype and fabricate optimized geometries obtained from high-fidelity optimization routines employing sophisticated computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and adjoint solvers. Complex shapes such as lattice geometries, internal channels, and free-form geometries can be manufactured using AM. In 2020, 29% of all AM system sales revenue was contributed by aerospace, turbine, and helicopter industries [30]. The market potential of metal AM in the field of aerospace has been predicted to grow to $3.187 billion by 2025 at a compounded annual growth rate of 20.24% [31]. Therefore, there is growing interest in incorporating AM methods to fabricate novel, optimal designs. However, whether it is traditional or additive manufacturing, there are limitations to what can be produced [3235]. Current and past adjoint optimization literature did very little to address the limitations of manufacturing. While there are papers that make use of geometric constraints imposed during adjoint optimization, the full ability of the computer aided design (CAD) parameterizations has not been used to incorporate process-specific manufacturability constraints [3643]. CAD parameterizations are favorable for manufacturing because select parameterizations result in continuous surfaces that have been shown to accept geometric constraints that are reflective of manufacturability limitations [44].

While simultaneously optimizing a flow quantity using the adjoint method and imposing AM constraints, a key consideration is the difference in the parametrization schemes used by commercially available, high-fidelity adjoint CFD tools and the parameterization scheme that exists within CAD. Various kinds of shape parametrization schemes exist for different applications and their importance in shape optimization have been highlighted by Samareh [45]. Commercial CFD software typically use radial basis functions (RBFs) that discretize the geometry into elements and morph the mesh with respect to a given set of handles or control points [4650], whereas CAD typically uses nonuniform rational basis splines (NURBS), which is a continuous representation for surfaces [5154]. Currently, imposing geometric constraints during RBF-based mesh morphing remains a challenge within commercial software, which leads to creation of features such as sharp edges that might be optimal as per the numerical approximation of the computed solution but might be challenging, or even impractical, to reproduce during fabrication. NURBS surfaces handle such issues and ensure smoothness during deformation in addition to providing an exact representation of complex, freeform geometries that might result from such shape optimization routines. Several researchers [5558] have proposed various methods of incorporating NURBS-based mesh morphing. However, implementation of the proposed methods has yet to be integrated with commercially available CFD software. Thus, in the current state of the process, the adjoint shape gradients are computed on the mesh defined by the RBF interpolation function where a point set controls the shape of the geometry under consideration. These shape gradients are then exported and used to guide shape changes in CAD. The use of different parameterization schemes used in CFD and CAD makes it challenging to exchange data to automate the process of simultaneously optimizing flow using CFD and imposing manufacturability constraints.

The objective of this study is to develop a method to enable simultaneous optimization of flow fields using the adjoint method and impose design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) constraints. This objective was achieved by augmenting a commercial CFD adjoint routine to externally modify CAD geometry and impose DfAM constraints that are incompatible with current commercial solvers. The key challenge of geometry definition was resolved by ensuring consistencies in the adjoint-guided shape deformation between NURBS-interpolated surfaces in CAD and RBF-interpolated surfaces within a commercially available CFD. Showing that this consistency in surface deformation lies within AM laser-powder bed fusion (L-PBF) process tolerances justifies the use of the adjoint shape gradients computed on an RBF interpolated surface within a commercially available CFD solver to externally modify a NURBS interpolated surface within CAD to ensure that the optimal design is also additively manufacturable. The graphical abstract highlighting the elements of the study is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
Graphical abstract for this study
Fig. 1
Graphical abstract for this study
Close modal

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the proposed methodology of augmenting a commercial CFD adjoint shape optimization routine while emphasizing on shape parameterization consistencies, Sec. 3 demonstrates a test case on a simplified airfoil geometry, Sec. 4 presents the analysis on a complex airfoil geometry within the fuel injector of an industry relevant gas turbine engine, and Sec. 5 discusses the concluding statements and future work.

2 Methodology

The methodology's core motivation was the integration of CAD-based DfAM constraints into physics-guided shape optimization. This section examines the current adjoint shape optimization routines within commercial CFD solvers, followed by delineating the steps to augment them with DfAM constraints. Additionally, this discussion addresses the assumptions and premises essential for ensuring consistency, forming the basis for justifying the exchange of information between software during the augmentation process.

2.1 Adjoint Computational Fluid Dynamics Shape Optimization Setup.

The software star-ccm+ 2021.3 was used to demonstrate the augmentation process of the adjoint shape optimization routine. This software was chosen because of its widespread use to perform multifidelity physics simulations for rapid industry adoption. The process of adjoint shape optimization consists of the following steps:

  1. Defining the design variables: The CAD file containing the fluid domain is imported. The inlets, outlets, and walls are assigned the initial and boundary conditions. The design variables are defined by importing a .csv table containing the three-dimensional coordinates of the control points for the surfaces to be modified. Most commercial software impose an RBF-based interpolation between the control points and the surface to be modified during the shape optimization routine [59].

  2. Meshing: To accommodate the scale of the simulation domain while minimizing the computational time, structured prism cells were used for the near-wall regions while polyhedral meshing was used for the free-stream flow regions.

  3. Setting up the primal solver: The primal solution establishes the relationship between the input design and the resulting flow variables by satisfying the principles of a physical continuum. The primal solver was set up for configuring a steady, non-reacting Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulation to satisfy the mass and momentum conservation. The κε turbulence model was used. The working fluid was defined as low-velocity incompressible air with constant density. Both the test cases used the same physics set up with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. The simulations were run for a user-specified number of iterations to achieve proper convergence in all simulations.

  4. Setting up the adjoint solver: The adjoint solver computes the sensitivities of an objective function, which is a flow field variable, with respect to the geometry to either maximize or minimize its value. To represent a custom region of interest (ROI) over which the objective function was computed, a flag-based field function was created to compute flow quantities of interest and defined as the adjoint objective function. The adjoint solver was set to run for a specified number of iterations until the residuals converged.

  5. Computing mesh sensitivity: The mesh sensitivity is computed using the primal and adjoint results. The mesh sensitivity provides the change in the objective function because of changes in the mesh geometry and is represented as dJ/dX where J is the objective function and X represents the mesh vertices. When using design variables for mesh deformation, the mesh sensitivity is combined with the shape parameterization scheme being used to ensure a computationally efficient mesh movement operation. As discussed earlier, most commercial CFD solvers, uses RBF to parameterize the mesh movement. Therefore, the shape sensitivity is computed as
    (1)
    where α is the control points that are used to parameterize the mesh movement and dX/dα is the relationship between the control points and the mesh vertices (RBF in this case).
  6. Deforming the mesh: The mesh is deformed by modifying the control points and obtaining new control points using
    (2)
    Like any gradient-based optimization, a scalar step size is added to avoid over-shooting the optimal solution and specifically to avoid large mesh deformations in this case. The sign of the step-size also determines if the optimizer maximizes or minimizes the objective function. The objective function is maximized for a positive step size and minimized for a negative step size.

Steps 3–6 are repeated until the objective function is optimized, resulting in an optimized geometry.

2.2 Augmenting the Adjoint Shape Optimization Routine.

During a standard adjoint shape optimization routine, there is limited provision in current commercial solvers to impose geometric constraints while deforming the mesh. Therefore, to simultaneously optimize fluid flow using the multiphysics adjoint while imposing DfAM constraints, augmentation of the standard adjoint shape optimization routine is proposed. After computing the shape sensitivities as described in step 6 of the adjoint shape optimization routine, the shape sensitivities along with the control point locations were exported from the CFD software. These shape sensitivities, combined with the defined step size, provide displacement vectors which were used to modify the CAD parametric data externally and obtain a modified CAD geometry. Since the modification is performed externally, the DfAM constraints can be incorporated as a CAD operation followed by re-inserting the modified CAD into the CFD adjoint shape optimization loop. The proposed method for augmentation of the adjoint shape optimization loop is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
Adjoint shape optimization loop in star-ccm+
Fig. 2
Adjoint shape optimization loop in star-ccm+
Close modal

During the proposed augmentation process, two key considerations were addressed. The first consideration was to automate the CAD modification process to enable re-insertion of the modified CAD into the CFD adjoint shape optimization loop. The second consideration was to ensure that the control point displacement data exported from the CFD solver would result in a consistent shape change in CAD despite different parameterization schemes used in both operations.

2.2.1 Automating the Computer Aided Design Modification.

The CAD modification was automated in Python using the NURBS-Python (geomdl) library [60]. To define a NURBS surface, the control point coordinates, degrees of polynomials, and knot vectors need to be specified [61]. These parameters are available through the initial graphics exchange specifications (IGES) file format under the “Type 128” data header [62]. The NURBS control point coordinates for the surfaces to be modified were extracted from the IGES file and defined as the design variables as defined in step 1 of the adjoint CFD shape optimization setup. Reading the control point coordinates stored in the IGES file, modifying each point using the displacement vectors from CFD software, and replacing the modified control points in the IGES file resulted in a modified CAD geometry. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3. Additionally, the IGES file format is a standard exchange file format that can be directly imported into CFD software for meshing. Since the input to the CFD software was the flow domain, the IGES file of the flow domain was used to extract the NURBS parameters and automate the CAD modification process. Having full control over the CAD parameterized geometry enabled the creation and enforcement of NURBS-based DfAM constraints during the Python modification step. The formulation of DfAM constraints like limits on thin walls and overhang angles has been discussed in detail in a separate publication along with ensuring geometric continuities during CAD shape modification [63].

Fig. 3
Illustration of CAD file modification using Python
Fig. 3
Illustration of CAD file modification using Python
Close modal

2.2.2 Ensuring Consistencies Between Computer Aided Design and Computational Fluid Dynamics Shape Changes.

As discussed, to augment the existing adjoint shape optimization process the control points from CAD must be defined within the CFD solver. Further, the adjoint shape sensitivities computed within the CFD solver must be used to externally modify the CAD geometry using Python while imposing DfAM constraints. The first step to ensure consistencies during shape change was defining the CAD NURBS control points as design variables in the CFD software. Since the adjoint shape sensitivities were computed on the NURBS control points, the displacement values for each control point were directly used to obtain the new set of NURBS control points. However, despite sharing the same control point coordinates, most commercial CFD solvers, use RBF to interpolate the underlying surface during mesh deformation. Therefore, the same displacement for colocated control points did not trivially imply the same resultant shape change due to different parameterization schemes.

Expanding on the shape sensitivity calculations as mentioned in step 5 of the adjoint CFD shape optimization routine, Samareh [45] discussed that in CFD, during mesh morphing the adjoint gradient is enforced on the mesh and underlying surface geometry using
(3)
where V is the volumetric mesh grid, X is the surface mesh, and S is the surface being optimized. The last term on the right-hand side, S/dα is dependent on the shape parameterization function. For commercial CFD solvers, RBF is the interpolation scheme, and this can be expressed as
(4)
whereas for CAD the interpolation is NURBS-based and can be expressed as
(5)

In Eqs. (4) and (5), the first three terms on the right-hand side are built into the grid generation tools that are specific to the commercial software package. Hence, for a given geometry, it is the same in both cases. Therefore, if it can be shown that for αRBF = αNURBS, if SRBF/αRBFSNURBS/αNURBS, then (dJ/dα)RBF(dJ/dα)NURBS. For the scope of this paper, the manufacturability tolerance using AM L-PBF was defined as the critical value within which the difference between SRBF/αRBF and SNURBS/αNURBS were considered insignificant. The AM L-PBF process tolerance was identified as 250 μm [64] for Inconel-based alloys, which are the choice of alloys for fabrication of gas turbine hot-section components. Thus, if |SRBF/αRBFSNURBS/αNURBS|<250μm, then (dJ/dα)RBF(dJ/dα)NURBS.

Both RBF [6568] and NURBS [6973] have been studied extensively. Researchers have found that increasing the number of control points improves the accuracy of surface representation and provides better local control. This trend suggests that with fewer control points, each control point's displacement affects a larger area of the surface, leading to more significant variations between the two interpolation schemes (RBF and NURBS) for the same displacement on colocated control points. Conversely, with a higher number of control points, each surface point moves independently, resulting in minimal variation between the two schemes. By selecting an appropriate distribution of control points, the difference in errors between the interpolation schemes can be kept within the tolerance of the AM L-PBF process. Like a grid resolution study in CFD, a NURBS resolution study helps verify the assumptions being made during parameter selection for such shape optimization routines. With the difference between the two modified surfaces lying within the AM process tolerance, the reproducibility of both designs during the manufacturing process is indistinguishable. Showing this assumption justifies the use of the adjoint gradient computed on a high-resolution RBF parameterized geometry in CFD to modify the same high resolution NURBS parameterized geometry in CAD. One of the main advantages of using the adjoint method is that the computation time is independent of the number of design variables being used and rather depends on the complexity of the objective function being computed. This warrants the use of a sufficiently large number of design variables that balance the tradeoff between maintaining shape consistencies between CFD and CAD while being computationally efficient during CAD modification and DfAM constraint calculation.

To understand how the parameter selection affected the consistencies in shape changes between CFD and CAD, the two relevant parameters identified were the number of control points used as design variables and the step size of optimization. Geomagic Design X was used to obtain custom NURBS parameterization of designs to study the effect of number of control points. Step sizes of 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 μm were chosen to study the effect of step size.

Geomagic Control X [74], an advanced inspection software, was used to compare the CAD and CFD deformations. The sampling ratio was set to 100%, which enforced the computation of deviations between all points of the measured geometry Pm = 〈xm, ym, zm and its projection on the surface PR = 〈xR, yR, zR〉. Using the projection along the shortest normal vector from the measured points to the reference geometry, it created a three-dimensional deviation map using the formula
(6)

where GV = 〈xm − xR, ym − yR, zm − zR〉.

The reference geometries in this case were the IGES files generated in Python after adding the displacements from the CFD software, and the measured geometry were the STL files exported from the CFD software after the RBF based mesh deformation was performed. In order to account for a surface averaged quantity, the error metric (ε) was defined as the root-mean-squared (RMS) difference between the RBF and NURBS surfaces were calculated using the formula
(7)

In addition to the RMS value, the maximum difference was also noted to account for the extreme deviations between the two surfaces.

3 Demonstration of Test Case Using an Airfoil Geometry

A simple airfoil geometry was chosen for performing an initial test to study the difference between NURBS- and RBF-based surface modifications with respect to number of control points and step sizes. Different NURBS configurations of the airfoil were created with 96, 128, and 640 control points each. The adjoint shape optimization was setup in the CFD software as described in Sec. 2.1 with the objective of maximizing the lift to drag ratio by changing the airfoil geometry using the control points. The primal solution was computed over 500 iterations and the adjoint solution was computed over 250 iterations. The step sizes were enforced during the mesh deformation stage after the first loop of primal and adjoint computations. The STLs of the RBF morphed mesh were exported from the CFD software along with the displacement vectors computed on the control points that were used to create the NURBS modified CAD geometry. The error metric for all configurations of number of control points and step sizes are shown in Fig. 4. As expected, it was observed that increasing the refinement of the control point set resulted in reduction of the error metric between the RBF and NURBS surfaces, thus displaying convergence. For all configurations, increasing step size resulted in increasing the error metric between the NURBS and RBF deformed shapes. However, for a larger number of control points, the error metric was below the AM L-PBF process tolerance for step sizes under 25 μm. Thus, having a greater number of control points provides the opportunity to use a larger step size while still ensuring consistencies between the two parametrization schemes remain under the AM L-PBF process tolerances. Using larger step sizes allows for fewer optimization loops, reducing the total computational time for the optimization. However, using a significantly large step size could lead to overshooting the optimal solution and mesh intersection errors. Thus, it is important to refine the step size selection process to choose the step size based on the tradeoff between computational time and solution accuracy.

Fig. 4
Effect of increasing number of control points on RMS difference between RBF and NURBS for a test airfoil geometry
Fig. 4
Effect of increasing number of control points on RMS difference between RBF and NURBS for a test airfoil geometry
Close modal

4 Minimizing Flame Flashback Propensity for an Industrial Gas Turbine

To test the methodology on a gas-turbine relevant case study with sufficiently complex geometry parts suitable for AM L-PBF fabrication, we considered the issue of shape optimization to minimize the flame flashback propensity in an industrial gas turbine combustor. Due to rising environmental concerns such as climate change [75,76], there is an increasing trend within the energy sector to evaluate the use of alternative fuels for production of cleaner energy. One of the most promising alternative fuels has been the incorporation of hydrogen (H2) in natural gas to reduce CO2 emissions [77]. However, introduction of H2 in the fuel mix leads to an increase in the turbulent flame speed. Flashback occurs when the flame propagates toward the upstream gases at velocities higher than the incoming flow velocity. This propagation propensity is the highest along the turbulent boundary layer region near the edge of the center body where the flame sits [7885]. For this study, the chosen objective function was to maximize the volume-averaged velocity magnitude of the turbulent boundary layer region around the edge of the center body of the fuel injector. The maximization was to be achieved by modifying the shape of the external airfoil surfaces of the swirler vanes.

The baseline geometry of the swirler vanes was reverse engineered to fit 850 NURBS surface patches using Geomagic Design X. Each NURBS surface patch consisted of 64 control points (8 × 8 bidirectional net) with a degree-three polynomial in the u- and v-directions in order to maintain C2 continuity along the surface, resulting in 54,400 total control points. These points were also defined as the RBF control points in star-ccm+. Both parameterized geometries are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
NURBS parameterized vanes in CAD (left): RBF parameterized vanes in CFD (right)
Fig. 5
NURBS parameterized vanes in CAD (left): RBF parameterized vanes in CFD (right)
Close modal

The injector design under consideration represented an annular configuration of axisymmetric swirler vanes with a proprietary nonaxisymmetric fuel delivery mechanism to accommodate industrial complexity. Furthermore, in order to investigate any effects of the upstream and downstream flow on the adjoint computation, the flow domain of the experimental test rig for an axisymmetric section of the turbine engine was modeled for the simulations. Surfaces representing the inlets for air and fuel were defined as mass flow inlets, the outlet for the exhaust was defined as a pressure outlet, and the remaining surfaces including the vanes were defined as adiabatic walls. A grid convergence study was performed using seven different mesh sizes ranging in a total cell size of 2–26 million cells. The final adaptive mesh representation contained ∼4.5 million cells and was achieved through a base size of 4 mm with varying custom meshing controls applied from the combustor section with a value of 10% (0.4 mm) of the base size to add refinement in the swirler regions to a value of 250% (10 mm) relative to the base size for the regions in the exhaust region. The turbulent boundary layer thickness for the given flow conditions was calculated as 3 mm using the Blasius wall friction profile as described in Ref. [78]. A 1:10 ratio for thickness to length ratio of the annulus region was used to represent the ROI to compute the adjoint objective function value. The mesh configuration with the objective function ROI is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
Mesh setup with custom controls (percentage of base size) and objective function region definition shown using the illustration of the fuel injector design
Fig. 6
Mesh setup with custom controls (percentage of base size) and objective function region definition shown using the illustration of the fuel injector design
Close modal

The flow solver was setup using steady RANS with the while imposing the κε turbulence model. A fully premixed flow of 0.0632 kg/s preheated at 523 K entered the inlet to maintain a bulk flow velocity of 40 m/s in the main duct. The boundary conditions were matched as per Ref. [86].

The optimization was performed for one loop using the adjoint CFD shape optimization method as well as the augmented method with external CAD modification. The primal solution was computed over 1500 iterations to achieve residual convergence for flow and the adjoint solution was computed over 500 iterations to achieve residual convergence for the objective function. The CFD adjoint shape optimization was performed through batch parallel processing using Penn State's ROAR supercomputing cluster using 96 cores. The primal solution took 1.5 h for 1500 iterations. The meshing, adjoint solver, computation of mesh sensitivity, and mesh deformation took 15, 45, 6, and 8 min, respectively. Modification of the IGES CAD file using Python was performed on a laptop notebook with four cores, 16 GB RAM and took 225 s from reading the file to creating the modified file.

Figure 7 shows the graph of error metric of the RBF and NURBS vanes surfaces for increasing step sizes. It was observed that for the chosen configuration of 54,400 control points the error metric between the two results of modified surfaces was below the AM L-PBF process tolerance of 250 μm for all step sizes. The maximum RMS difference observed was 0.0701 mm for the step size of 100 μm, while the minimum RMS difference was 0.0472 mm for the step size of 1 μm. Additionally, Fig. 8 shows the maximum difference between RBF and NURBS surfaces obtained from the CFD software and Python, respectively. It was found that the maximum difference between RBF and NURBS modified surfaces lied below the AM L-PBF process tolerance of 250 μm for step sizes less than 50 μm. The maximum values were affected by the large magnitudes of the adjoint gradients that were present in high sensitivity zones of the objective function with respect to the geometry. Overall, 25 μm was determined to be the largest step size using which the maximum difference between NURBS and RBF were consistent within AM L-PBF process tolerances.

Fig. 7
Effect of increasing step size on RMS difference between RBF and NURBS geometries; differences lies within AM L-PBF process tolerances
Fig. 7
Effect of increasing step size on RMS difference between RBF and NURBS geometries; differences lies within AM L-PBF process tolerances
Close modal
Fig. 8
Effect of increasing step size on maximum deviation between NURBS and RBF surfaces
Fig. 8
Effect of increasing step size on maximum deviation between NURBS and RBF surfaces
Close modal

In addition to showing geometric consistencies, the objective function changes due to the different parameterizations were also investigated. The CAD modified flow domain was re-imported into the CFD software's adjoint shape optimization loop. The objective function evolution for this modified flow domain and the baseline flow domain. The temperature profiles for a plane section of the flow region were also compared between the adjoint CFD shape optimization and the augmented method after re-inserting the CAD modified flow domain. This comparison was performed by exporting the coordinates of the mesh vertices for the plane section geometry of the NURBS and the RBF deformed flow domains and its associated physical quantities in a .csv file. Since the NURBS modified flow domain had to be re-imported and remeshed, the coordinates of the mesh vertices slightly varied from the baseline. Thus, for each mesh vertex, the closest mesh vertex in the baseline plane section was found and their associated physical quantities were compared.

Figure 9 shows the evolution of the objective function for the baseline (RBF deformation) and the NURBS modified flow domain restarted after the first loop shape changes. The objective function for both geometries were consistent within 1% variation with the value of the volume averaged velocity magnitude computed over the objective function region for the baseline optimization loop being 64.1 m/s and for the NURBS parameterized geometry of the equivalent shape change being 64.5 m/s. The subsequent loops showed consistent values for each shape change. Additionally, the NURBS modification resulted in a much smoother shape change for the same adjoint gradients and step size as compared with the RBF modification that had sharper edges.

Fig. 9
Consistencies between objective function computed for RBF and NURBS deformed geometries
Fig. 9
Consistencies between objective function computed for RBF and NURBS deformed geometries
Close modal

The net effect of the shape changes on the physical quantities after solving the primal physics on both NURBS and RBF modified geometries is shown in Fig. 10. The velocity magnitude and axial velocity plots were compared for both the shape changes. For this comparison, the values compared at corresponding vertices between the two shapes were mostly zero. The small non-zero difference values of the quantities were attributed to the minor shape changes between the two parameterization schemes. The larger non-zero difference values of the quantities were an artifact of the variability between different iterations within the residual convergence region of the solution approximation. The arguments that supported this claim were that the large variations were isolated mesh vertices and most of the instances were observed upstream of the swirler where no geometric changes were made or in regions where the mesh size was relatively coarse and hence any change in values were an artifact of small variations within the residual convergence region and remeshing differences. Additionally, the difference in the pressure drop computed across the injector between the RBF and NURBS modified geometry was 0.188%. Thus, the physical quantities obtained using NURBS deformed geometries were consistent with RBF deformed geometries while providing a smoother shape and a standardized CAD exchange file format.

Fig. 10
Velocity magnitude (top) and axial velocity (bottom) plots compared for RBF and NURBS deformed geometries showing CFD consistencies
Fig. 10
Velocity magnitude (top) and axial velocity (bottom) plots compared for RBF and NURBS deformed geometries showing CFD consistencies
Close modal

5 Conclusion

This study proposed a method to enable simultaneous optimization of flow field and imposing DfAM constraints by justifying the use of adjoint gradients computed on RBF parameterized surfaces in CFD to guide the movement of NURBS parameterized surfaces in CAD as a motivation to perform constrained isogeometric optimization. Using a test case, it was verified that like a CFD grid resolution study, a NURBS control point density resolution study needs to be performed to obtain a sufficient middle ground between surface modification consistency and computational efficiency. The results of an adjoint shape optimization of the baseline swirler vanes geometry in CFD using RBF compared to NURBS modification in CAD showed that the RMS difference between the surfaces were consistent within the AM L-PBF process tolerances for all step sizes. It also showed that the maximum difference between the two surfaces were consistent within the AM L-PBF process tolerance below step sizes of 25 μm. To consolidate consistency in CFD behavior, the objective function value computed for both geometries were within 1% of each other as well as the physical quantities computed using the CFD primal solver were within residual convergence tolerances. The process for external modification of the CAD surfaces added minimal computation overhead, however, the resubmission of the modified geometry in the optimization loop within the CFD software added additional computational time due to remeshing of the newly imported geometry. This additional step added a 8.92% increase in computation time per optimization loop, which can be significant for problems requiring more number of loops to converge to a solution and for complex/large geometry mesh setups. Therefore, this warrants the current and future integration of NURBS into CFD flow software to not only enable NURBS-based design constraints but also improved computational efficiency.

Currently, the adjoint solver can accept limited flow field variables and user defined operations as the objective function and largely uses simplified steady nonreacting RANS physics models to compute those. Moreover, the shape change caused by imposing DfAM constraints can be favorable or against the displacements due to the adjoint physics depending on the geometry, chosen objective function, build orientation, and other dominating factors. The future work scope includes defining and imposing such DfAM constraints using the NURBS representation in the design loop to obtain novel optimal geometries and study its effects on the adjoint objective function. With developments in commercial solvers, more complex models will be compatible as adjoint cost functions in the future to address critical issues such as emission control, fuel flexibility, and management of thermoacoustic instabilities to enhance gas turbine performance through combustor design modifications. The method proposed can also be used to compare different parameterization schemes and show similar justifications across different commercial finite element solvers for a wide range of applications. As AM process tolerances improve, the error metric will become smaller to justify the use of different parameterization schemes. However, the adoption of NURBS-based mesh movement being integrated directly into commercial solvers would facilitate the justification of data exchange between finite element solvers and CAD programs. The proposed method augments a commercial finite element adjoint shape optimization routine and shows justification to exchange data to ensure that optimal designs are additively manufacturable for a wide range of applications.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the U.S. Department of Energy University Turbine Systems Research (DoE UTSR) Program Grant No. DE-FE0031806 under contract monitor Mark Freeman. The authors would also like to thank Jinming Wu, Pratikshya Mohanty, and Drue Seksinsky for their help in setting up the simulations.

Funding Data

  • U.S. Department of Energy University Turbine Systems Research (DoE UTSR) Program (Grant No. DE-FE0031806; Funder ID: 10.13039/100000015).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and supporting the findings of this article are obtainable from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Nomenclature

J =

objective function

npoints =

number of points

Pm =

points on the measured surface

PR =

points on the reference surface

S =

geometric surface

SNURBS =

surface define using NURBS

SRBF =

surface defined using radial basis function

V =

volumetric grid

X =

surface grid

xm =

x-coordinate of the measured surface

xR =

x-coordinate of the reference surface

ym =

y-coordinate of the measured surface

yR =

y-coordinate of the reference surface

zm =

z-coordinate of the measured surface

zR =

z-coordinate of the reference surface

α =

design variables

αNURBS =

control point coordinates for NURBS surface

αRBF =

control point coordinates for RBF surface

References

1.
Adjei
,
R. A.
,
Wang
,
W. Z.
, and
Liu
,
Y. Z.
,
2019
, “
Aerodynamic Design Optimization of an Axial Flow Compressor Stator Using Parameterized Free-Form Deformation
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
141
(
10
), p.
101015
.10.1115/1.4044692
2.
Pietropaoli
,
M.
,
Ahlfeld
,
R.
,
Montomoli
,
F.
,
Ciani
,
A.
, and
D'Ercole
,
M.
,
2017
, “
Design for Additive Manufacturing: Internal Channel Optimization
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
139
(
10
), p.
102101
.10.1115/1.4036358
3.
Nielsen
,
E. J.
, and
Park
,
M. A.
,
2006
, “
Using an Adjoint Approach to Eliminate Mesh Sensitivities in Computational Design
,”
AIAA J.
,
44
(
5
), pp.
948
953
.10.2514/1.16052
4.
Nielsen
,
E. J.
, and
Kleb
,
W. L.
,
2006
, “
Efficient Construction of Discrete Adjoint Operators on Unstructured Grids Using Complex Variables
,”
AIAA J.
,
44
(
4
), pp.
827
836
.10.2514/1.15830
5.
Giles
,
M. B.
, and
Pierce
,
N. A.
,
2000
, “
An Introduction to the Adjoint Approach to Design
,”
Flow, Turbul. Combust.
,
65
(
3/4
), pp.
393
415
.10.1023/A:1011430410075
6.
Giles
,
M. B.
,
Duta
,
M. C.
,
Müller
,
J. D.
, and
Pierce
,
N. A.
,
2003
, “
Algorithm Developments for Discrete Adjoint Methods
,”
AIAA J.
,
41
(
2
), pp.
198
205
.10.2514/2.1961
7.
Kametani
,
Y.
,
Fukuda
,
Y.
,
Osawa
,
T.
, and
Hasegawa
,
Y.
,
2020
, “
A New Framework for Design and Validation of Complex Heat Transfer Surfaces Based on Adjoint Optimization and Rapid Prototyping Technologies
,”
J. Therm. Sci. Technol.
,
15
(
2
), p.
JTST0016
.10.1299/jtst.2020jtst0016
8.
Morimoto
,
K.
,
Suzuki
,
Y.
, and
Kasagi
,
N.
,
2010
, “
Optimal Shape Design of Compact Heat Exchangers Based on Adjoint Analysis of Momentum and Heat Transfer
,”
J. Therm. Sci. Technol.
,
5
(
1
), pp.
24
35
.10.1299/jtst.5.24
9.
Wang
,
C. Z.
,
Nagisetty
,
K. R.
,
Montanari
,
F.
, and
Hill
,
D. C.
,
2015
, “
Application of Adjoint Solver to Optimization of Fin Heat Exchanger
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2015-43293.10.1115/GT2015-43293
10.
Chen
,
X.
, and
Li
,
T.
,
2017
, “
A Novel Design for Microfluidic Chamber Based on Reverse Flow Optimization
,”
Eng. Comput. (Swansea, Wales)
,
34
(
8
), pp.
2723
2730
.10.1108/EC-08-2016-0284
11.
Zhou
,
T.
,
Liu
,
T.
,
Deng
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
L.
,
Qian
,
S.
, and
Liu
,
Z.
,
2017
, “
Design of Microfluidic Channel Networks With Specified Output Flow Rates Using the CFD-Based Optimization Method
,”
Microfluid. Nanofluid.
,
21
(
1
), pp.
1
8
.10.1007/s10404-016-1842-y
12.
Kungurtsev
,
P. V.
, and
Juniper
,
M. P.
,
2019
, “
Adjoint-Based Shape Optimization of the Microchannels in an Inkjet Printhead
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
,
871
, pp.
113
138
.10.1017/jfm.2019.271
13.
Bockelmann
,
H.
, and
Barz
,
D. P. J.
,
2015
, “
Optimised Active Flow Control for Micromixers and Other Fluid Applications: Sensitivity- vs. Adjoint-Based Strategies
,”
Comput. Fluids
,
106
, pp.
93
107
.10.1016/j.compfluid.2014.09.047
14.
Duta
,
M. C.
,
Campobasso
,
M. S.
,
Giles
,
M. B.
, and
Lapworth
,
L. B.
,
2006
, “
Adjoint Harmonic Sensitivities for Forced Response Minimization
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
128
(
1
), pp.
183
189
.10.1115/1.2031227
15.
Akgün
,
M. A.
,
Haftka
,
R. T.
,
Wu
,
K. C.
,
Walsh
,
J. L.
, and
Garcelon
,
J. H.
,
2001
, “
Efficient Structural Optimization for Multiple Load Cases Using Adjoint Sensitivities
,”
AIAA J.
,
39
(
3
), pp.
511
516
.10.2514/2.1336
16.
Martins
,
J. R. R. A.
,
Alonso
,
J. J.
, and
Reuther
,
J. J.
,
2005
, “
A Coupled-Adjoint Sensitivity Analysis Method for High-Fidelity Aero-Structural Design
,”
Optim. Eng.
,
6
(
1
), pp.
33
62
.10.1023/B:OPTE.0000048536.47956.62
17.
Jensen
,
J. S.
,
Nakshatrala
,
P. B.
, and
Tortorelli
,
D. A.
,
2014
, “
On the Consistency of Adjoint Sensitivity Analysis for Structural Optimization of Linear Dynamic Problems
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
,
49
(
5
), pp.
831
837
.10.1007/s00158-013-1024-4
18.
Chittick
,
I. R.
, and
Martins
,
J. R. R. A.
,
2008
, “
Aero-Structural Optimization Using Adjoint Coupled Post-Optimality Sensitivities
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
,
36
(
1
), pp.
59
70
.10.1007/s00158-007-0200-9
19.
Pini
,
M.
,
Persico
,
G.
,
Pasquale
,
D.
, and
Rebay
,
S.
,
2015
, “
Adjoint Method for Shape Optimization in Real-Gas Flow Applications
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
137
(
3
), p.
032604
.10.1115/1.4028495
20.
Baysal
,
O.
, and
Eleshaky
,
M. E.
,
1992
, “
Aerodynamic Design Optimization Using Sensitivity Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics
,”
AIAA J.
,
30
(
3
), pp.
718
725
.10.2514/3.10977
21.
He
,
P.
,
Mader
,
C. A.
,
Martins
,
J. R. R. A.
, and
Maki
,
K. J.
,
2018
, “
An Aerodynamic Design Optimization Framework Using a Discrete Adjoint Approach With OpenFOAM
,”
Comput. Fluids
,
168
, pp.
285
303
.10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.04.012
22.
Thomas
,
J. P.
,
Hall
,
K. C.
, and
Dowell
,
E. H.
,
2005
, “
Discrete Adjoint Approach for Modeling Unsteady Aerodynamic Design Sensitivities
,”
AIAA J.
,
43
(
9
), pp.
1931
1936
.10.2514/1.731
23.
Wang
,
D. X.
, and
He
,
L.
,
2010
, “
Adjoint Aerodynamic Design Optimization for Blades in Multistage Turbomachines-Part I: Methodology and Verification
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
132
(
2
), p.
021011
.10.1115/1.3072498
24.
Elliott
,
J.
, and
Peraire
,
J.
,
1997
, “
Practical Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Design and Optimization Using Unstructured Meshes
,”
AIAA J.
,
35
(
9
), pp.
1479
1485
.10.2514/2.271
25.
Truong
,
A. H.
,
Oldfield
,
C. A.
, and
Zingg
,
D. W.
,
2008
, “
Mesh Movement for a Discrete-Adjoint Newton-Krylov Algorithm for Aerodynamic Optimization
,”
AIAA J.
,
46
(
7
), pp.
1695
1704
.10.2514/1.33836
26.
Jameson
,
A.
, and
Kim
,
S.
,
2003
, “
Reduction of the Adjoint Gradient Formula for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Problems
,”
AIAA J.
,
41
(
11
), pp.
2114
2129
.10.2514/2.6830
27.
Nielsen
,
E. J.
, and
Anderson
,
W. K.
,
2002
, “
Recent Improvements in Aerodynamic Design Optimization on Unstructured Meshes
,”
AIAA J.
,
40
(
6
), pp.
1155
1163
.10.2514/2.1765
28.
Kim
,
H. J.
,
Sasaki
,
D.
,
Obayashi
,
S.
, and
Nakahashi
,
K.
,
2001
, “
Aerodynamic Optimization of Supersonic Transport Wing Using Unstructured Adjoint Method
,”
AIAA J.
,
39
(
6
), pp.
1011
1020
.10.2514/2.1441
29.
Luo
,
J.
,
Xiong
,
J.
,
Liu
,
F.
, and
McBean
,
I.
,
2011
, “
Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Design Optimization of a Turbine Blade by Using an Adjoint Method
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
133
(
1
), p.
011026
.10.1115/1.4001166
30.
AMPOWER
,
2023
, “
AMPOWER Report on the Additive Manufacturing Market
,” AMPOWER, Hamburg, Germany, accessed Feb. 23, 2023, https://additive-manufacturing-report.com/
31.
Blakey-Milner
,
B.
,
Gradl
,
P.
,
Snedden
,
G.
,
Brooks
,
M.
,
Pitot
,
J.
,
Lopez
,
E.
,
Leary
,
M.
,
Berto
,
F.
, and
Du Plessis
,
A.
,
2021
, “
Metal Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace: A Review
,”
Mater. Des.
,
209
, p.
110008
.10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110008
32.
Bralla
,
J. G.
, 1999,
Design for Manufacturability Handbook, 2nd ed.
,
McGraw-Hill Education
,
New York
.
33.
Laranci
,
P.
,
Bidini
,
G.
,
Zampilli
,
M.
,
Fantozzi
,
F.
,
D'alessandro
,
B.
, and
Forcella
,
F.
,
2015
, “
Improving Lifetime and Manufacturability of an RQL Combustor for Microturbines: Design and Numerical Validation
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2015-43543.10.1115/GT2015-43543
34.
Shukor
,
S. A.
, and
Axinte
,
D. A.
,
2009
, “
Manufacturability Analysis System: Issues and Future Trends
,”
Int. J. Prod. Res.
,
47
(
5
), pp.
1369
1390
.10.1080/00207540701589398
35.
Zamboni
,
G.
,
Banks
,
G.
, and
Bather
,
S.
,
2016
, “
Gradient-Based Adjoint and Design of Experiment CFD Methodologies to Improve the Manufacturability of High Pressure Turbine Blades
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2016-56042.10.1115/GT2016-56042
36.
Agromayor
,
R.
,
Anand
,
N.
,
Pini
,
M.
, and
Nord
,
L. O.
,
2022
, “
Multirow Adjoint-Based Optimization of NICFD Turbomachinery Using a Computer-Aided Design-Based Parametrization
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
144
(
4
), p.
041008
.10.1115/1.4052881
37.
Damigos
,
M. G.
, and
De Villiers
,
E.
,
2021
, “
Imposing C0 and C1 Continuity Constraints During CAD‐Based Adjoint Optimization
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
,
93
(
8
), pp.
2468
2485
.10.1002/fld.4983
38.
Damigos
,
M. G.
,
Papoutsis‐Kiachagias
,
E. M.
, and
Giannakoglou
,
K. C.
,
2021
, “
Adjoint Variable‐Based Shape Optimization With Bounding Surface Constraints
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
,
93
(
3
), pp.
590
609
.10.1002/fld.4900
39.
Su
,
X.
,
Ma
,
C.
, and
Yuan
,
X.
,
2019
, “
Adjoint-Based Geometrically Constrained Aerodynamic Optimization of a Transonic Compressor Stage
,”
J. Therm. Sci.
,
28
(
5
), pp.
850
861
.10.1007/s11630-019-1141-5
40.
Xu
,
S.
,
Timme
,
S.
,
Mykhaskiv
,
O.
, and
Müller
,
J. D.
,
2017
, “
Wing-Body Junction Optimisation With CAD-Based Parametrisation Including a Moving Intersection
,”
Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
,
68
, pp.
543
551
.10.1016/j.ast.2017.06.014
41.
Xu
,
S.
,
Jahn
,
W.
, and
Müller
,
J.-D.
,
2014
, “
CAD-Based Shape Optimisation With CFD Using a Discrete Adjoint
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
,
74
(
3
), pp.
153
168
.10.1002/fld.3844
42.
Banović
,
M.
,
Mykhaskiv
,
O.
,
Auriemma
,
S.
,
Walther
,
A.
,
Legrand
,
H.
, and
Müller
,
J. D.
,
2018
, “
Algorithmic Differentiation of the Open Cascade Technology CAD Kernel and Its Coupling With an Adjoint CFD Solver
,”
Optim. Methods Software
,
33
(
4–6
), pp.
813
828
.10.1080/10556788.2018.1431235
43.
Xu
,
S.
,
Radford
,
D.
,
Meyer
,
M.
, and
Müller
,
J. D.
,
2015
, “
CAD-Based Adjoint Shape Optimisation of a One-Stage Turbine With Geometric Constraints
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2015-42237.10.1115/GT2015-42237
44.
Hu
,
S. M.
,
Li
,
Y. F.
,
Ju
,
T.
, and
Zhu
,
X.
,
2001
, “
Modifying the Shape of NURBS Surfaces With Geometric Constraints
,”
CAD Comput.-Aided Des.
,
33
(
12
), pp.
903
912
.10.1016/S0010-4485(00)00115-9
45.
Samareh
,
J. A.
,
2001
, “
Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques for High-Fidelity Multidisciplinary Shape Optimization
,”
AIAA J.
,
39
(
5
), pp.
877
884
.10.2514/2.1391
46.
Allen
,
C. B.
, and
Rendall
,
T. C. S.
,
2013
, “
CFD-Based Optimization of Hovering Rotors Using Radial Basis Functions for Shape Parameterization and Mesh Deformation
,”
Optim. Eng.
,
14
(
1
), pp.
97
118
.10.1007/s11081-011-9179-6
47.
Jakobsson
,
S.
, and
Amoignon
,
O.
,
2007
, “
Mesh Deformation Using Radial Basis Functions for Gradient-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization
,”
Comput. Fluids
,
36
(
6
), pp.
1119
1136
.10.1016/j.compfluid.2006.11.002
48.
Gagliardi
,
F.
, and
Giannakoglou
,
K. C.
,
2019
, “
A Two-Step Radial Basis Function-Based CFD Mesh Displacement Tool
,”
Adv. Eng. Software
,
128
, pp.
86
97
.10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.11.011
49.
Morris
,
A. M.
,
Allen
,
C. B.
, and
Rendall
,
T. C. S.
,
2008
, “
CFD-Based Optimization of Aerofoils Using Radial Basis Functions for Domain Element Parameterization and Mesh Deformation
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
,
58
(
8
), pp.
827
860
.10.1002/fld.1769
50.
MacKman
,
T. J.
, and
Alleny
,
C. B.
,
2009
, “
Adaptive Sampling for CFD Data Interpolation Using Radial Basis Functions
,”
AIAA
Paper No. 2009-3515.10.2514/6.2009-3515
51.
Hamri
,
O.
,
Léon
,
J. C.
,
Giannini
,
F.
, and
Falcidieno
,
B.
,
2010
, “
Software Environment for CAD/CAE Integration
,”
Adv. Eng. Software
,
41
(
10–11
), pp.
1211
1222
.10.1016/j.advengsoft.2010.07.003
52.
Ma
,
W.
, and
Kruth
,
J. P.
,
1998
, “
NURBS Curve and Surface Fitting for Reverse Engineering
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
14
(
12
), pp.
918
927
.10.1007/BF01179082
53.
Duvigneau
,
R.
,
2020
, “
CAD‐Consistent Adaptive Refinement Using a NURBS‐Based Discontinuous Galerkin Method
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
,
92
(
9
), pp.
1096
1117
.10.1002/fld.4819
54.
Hughes
,
T. J. R.
,
Cottrell
,
J. A.
, and
Bazilevs
,
Y.
,
2005
, “
Isogeometric Analysis: CAD, Finite Elements, NURBS, Exact Geometry and Mesh Refinement
,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
,
194
(
39–41
), pp.
4135
4195
.10.1016/j.cma.2004.10.008
55.
Tao
,
J.
,
Sun
,
G.
,
Si
,
J.
, and
Wang
,
Z.
,
2017
, “
A Robust Design for a Winglet Based on NURBS-FFD Method and PSO Algorithm
,”
Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
,
70
, pp.
568
577
.10.1016/j.ast.2017.08.040
56.
Veysset
,
J.
,
Jannoun
,
G.
,
Coupez
,
T.
, and
Hachem
,
E.
,
2015
, “
Immersed NURBS for CFD Applications
,”
New Challenges in Grid Generation and Adaptivity for Scientific Computing
(SEMA SIMAI Springer Series, Vol. 5),
Springer
,
Cham, Switzerland
, pp.
139
160
.
57.
Ebrahimi-Fizik
,
A.
,
Lakzian
,
E.
, and
Hashemian
,
A.
,
2019
, “
Entropy Generation Analysis of Wet-Steam Flow With Variation of Expansion Rate Using NURBS-Based Meshing Technique
,”
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
,
139
, pp.
399
411
.10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.010
58.
Ebrahimi-Fizik
,
A.
,
Lakzian
,
E.
, and
Hashemian
,
A.
,
2020
, “
Numerical Investigation of Wet Inflow in Steam Turbine Cascades Using NURBS-Based Mesh Generation Method
,”
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer
,
118
, p.
104812
.10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2020.104812
59.
Siemens
,
2022
, “
Simcenter Star-CCM+ Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation
,” Siemens Software, Plano, TX, accessed Oct. 17, 2022, https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/global/en/products/simcenter/STAR-CCM.html
60.
Bingol
,
O. R.
, and
Krishnamurthy
,
A.
,
2019
, “
NURBS-Python: An Open-Source Object-Oriented NURBS Modeling Framework in Python
,”
SoftwareX
,
9
, pp.
85
94
.10.1016/j.softx.2018.12.005
61.
Piegl
,
L.
, and
Tiller
,
W.
,
1997
,
The NURBS Book
,
Springer
,
Berlin, Germany
.
62.
Reed
,
K.
,
Harrod
,
D.
, and
Conroy
,
W.
,
1990
,
The Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) Version 5.0
,
NIST
,
Gaithersburg, MD
.
63.
Jalui
,
S.
,
O'Connor
,
J.
,
Xuan
,
Y.
, and
Manogharan
,
G.
,
2024
, “
A Novel Restrictive DfAM Framework for NURBS-Based Adjoint Shape Optimization for Metal AM
,” epub.10.2139/ssrn.4903423
64.
Gruber
,
S.
,
Grunert
,
C.
,
Riede
,
M.
,
López
,
E.
,
Marquardt
,
A.
,
Brueckner
,
F.
, and
Leyens
,
C.
,
2020
, “
Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy and Tolerances of Powder Bed Based and Nozzle Based Additive Manufacturing Processes
,”
J. Laser Appl.
,
32
(
3
), p.
032016
.10.2351/7.0000115
65.
Majdisova
,
Z.
, and
Skala
,
V.
,
2017
, “
Radial Basis Function Approximations: Comparison and Applications
,”
Appl. Math. Modell.
,
51
, pp.
728
743
.10.1016/j.apm.2017.07.033
66.
Jung
,
J. H.
,
Gottlieb
,
S.
,
Kim
,
S. O.
,
Bresten
,
C. L.
, and
Higgs
,
D.
,
2010
, “
Recovery of High Order Accuracy in Radial Basis Function Approximations of Discontinuous Problems
,”
J. Sci. Comput.
,
45
(
1–3
), pp.
359
381
.10.1007/s10915-010-9360-7
67.
Noh
,
J. Y.
,
Fidaleo
,
D.
, and
Neumann
,
U.
,
2000
, “
Animated Deformations With Radial Basis Functions
,”
Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, VRST
, Seoul, South Korea, Oct. 22–25, pp.
166
174
.10.1145/502390.502422
68.
Botsch
,
M.
, and
Kobbelt
,
L.
,
2005
, “
Real-Time Shape Editing Using Radial Basis Functions
,”
Comput. Graphics Forum
,
24
(
3
), pp.
611
621
.10.1111/j.1467-8659.2005.00886.x
69.
Brujic
,
D.
,
Ainsworth
,
I.
, and
Ristic
,
M.
,
2011
, “
Fast and Accurate NURBS Fitting for Reverse Engineering
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
54
(
5–8
), pp.
691
700
.10.1007/s00170-010-2947-1
70.
Ghaly
,
W. S.
, and
Mengistu
,
T. T.
,
2003
, “
Optimal Geometric Representation of Turbomachinery Cascades Using NURBS
,”
Inverse Probl. Eng.
,
11
(
5
), pp.
359
373
.10.1080/1068276031000086778
71.
Wang
,
S.
,
Xia
,
Y.
,
Wang
,
R.
,
You
,
L.
, and
Zhang
,
J.
,
2019
, “
Optimal NURBS Conversion of PDE Surface-Represented High-Speed Train Heads
,”
Optim. Eng.
,
20
(
3
), pp.
907
928
.10.1007/s11081-019-09425-6
72.
Piegl
,
L.
,
1989
, “
Modifying the Shape of Rational B-Splines. Part 1: Curves
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
21
(
8
), pp.
509
518
.10.1016/0010-4485(89)90059-6
73.
Piegl
,
L.
,
1989
, “
Modifying the Shape of Rational B-Splines. Part 2: Surfaces
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
21
(
9
), pp.
538
546
.10.1016/0010-4485(89)90014-6
74.
3D Systems,
2022
, “
3D Compare Statistics Control X
,” 3D Systems, Cary, NC, accessed Oct. 17, 2022, https://support.3dsystems.com/s/article/3D-Compare-Statistics-Control-X?language=en_US
75.
Hammerle
,
R. H.
,
Shiller
,
J. W.
, and
Schwarz
,
M. J.
,
1991
, “
Global Climate Change
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
113
(
3
), pp.
448
455
.10.1115/1.2906251
76.
Houghton
,
J. T.
,
Jenkins
,
G. J.
, and
Ephraums
,
J. J.
,
1990
,
Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment
,
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
, UK.
77.
Cong
,
L.
, and
Dagaut
,
P.
,
2009
, “
Experimental and Detailed Modeling Study of the Effect of Water Vapor on the Kinetics of Combustion of Hydrogen and Natural Gas, Impact on NOx
,”
Energy Fuels
,
23
(
2
), pp.
725
734
.10.1021/ef800832q
78.
Eichler
,
C.
, and
Sattelmayer
,
T.
,
2011
, “
Experiments on Flame Flashback in a Quasi-2D Turbulent Wall Boundary Layer for Premixed Methane-Hydrogen-Air Mixtures
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
133
(
1
), p.
011503
.10.1115/1.4001985
79.
Björnsson
,
Ó. H.
,
Klein
,
S. A.
, and
Tober
,
J.
,
2021
, “
Boundary Layer Flashback Model for Hydrogen Flames in Confined Geometries Including the Effect of Adverse Pressure Gradient
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
143
(
6
), p. 061003.10.1115/1.4048566
80.
Hoferichter
,
V.
,
Hirsch
,
C.
, and
Sattelmayer
,
T.
,
2017
, “
Prediction of Confined Flame Flashback Limits Using Boundary Layer Separation Theory
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
139
(
2
), p.
021505
.10.1115/1.4034237
81.
Kalantari
,
A.
,
Sullivan-Lewis
,
E.
, and
McDonell
,
V.
,
2016
, “
Flashback Propensity of Turbulent Hydrogen-Air Jet Flames at Gas Turbine Premixer Conditions
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
138
(
6
), p.
061506
.10.1115/1.4031761
82.
Sattelmayer
,
T.
,
Mayer
,
C.
, and
Sangl
,
J.
,
2016
, “
Interaction of Flame Flashback Mechanisms in Premixed Hydrogen-Air Swirl Flames
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
138
(
1
), p.
011503
.10.1115/1.4031239
83.
Lin
,
Y. C.
,
Daniele
,
S.
,
Jansohn
,
P.
, and
Boulouchos
,
K.
,
2013
, “
Turbulent Flame Speed as an Indicator for Flashback Propensity of Hydrogen-Rich Fuel Gases
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
135
(
11
), p.
111503
.10.1115/1.4025068
84.
Fritz
,
J.
,
Kröner
,
M.
, and
Sattelmayer
,
T.
,
2004
, “
Flashback in a Swirl Burner With Cylindrical Premixing Zone
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
126
(
2
), pp.
276
283
.10.1115/1.1473155
85.
Eichler
,
C.
,
Baumgartner
,
G.
, and
Sattelmayer
,
T.
,
2012
, “
Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Boundary Layer Flashback Limits for Premixed Hydrogen-Air Flames Confined in Ducts
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
134
(
1
), p.
011502
.10.1115/1.4004149
86.
Li
,
J.
,
Kwon
,
H.
,
Seksinsky
,
D.
,
Doleiden
,
D.
,
O'Connor
,
J.
,
Xuan
,
Y.
,
Akiki
,
M.
, and
Blust
,
J.
,
2022
, “
Describing the Mechanism of Instability Suppression Using a Central Pilot Flame With Coupled Experiments and Simulations
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
144
(
1
), p.
011015
.10.1115/1.4052384