基于边界图神经网络的翼型压力分布预测

Predicting airfoil pressure distribution using boundary graph neural networks

摘要 Abstract

代理模型对于复杂升力面设计优化过程中的快速准确表面压力和摩擦预测至关重要。本研究专注于利用图神经网络(GNNs)预测二维翼型的压力分布,充分利用其处理非参数化几何形状的能力。我们引入了仅在表面网格上运行的边界图神经网络(B-GNNs),并与之前基于体积网格的体积GNNs的工作进行了比较。所有训练和评估均使用airfRANS(雷诺平均纳维-斯托克斯)数据库完成。我们展示了全局不可压缩流约束在GNNs中进行全互连通信的重要性,以确保预测的准确性。研究表明,向B-GNNs提供基于局部物理特性的输入特征,例如近似的局部雷诺数$\mathrm{Re}_x$和由平板法代码计算的无粘压分布,可以实现模型大小减少83%,训练集大小减少87%,同时达到相同的分布内预测精度。我们进一步调查了B-GNNs对S809/27风力机叶片截面的分布外预测能力,并发现包含无粘压分布作为特征可使误差相对纯几何输入减少高达88%。最后,我们发现基于物理特性的模型相比最先进的体积模型INFINITY,误差减少了85%。

Surrogate models are essential for fast and accurate surface pressure and friction predictions during design optimization of complex lifting surfaces. This study focuses on predicting pressure distribution over two-dimensional airfoils using graph neural networks (GNNs), leveraging their ability to process non-parametric geometries. We introduce boundary graph neural networks (B-GNNs) that operate exclusively on surface meshes and compare these to previous work on volumetric GNNs operating on volume meshes. All of the training and evaluation is done using the airfRANS (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes) database. We demonstrate the importance of all-to-all communication in GNNs to enforce the global incompressible flow constraint and ensure accurate predictions. We show that supplying the B-GNNs with local physics-based input-features, such as an approximate local Reynolds number $\mathrm{Re}_x$ and the inviscid pressure distribution from a panel method code, enables a $83\%$ reduction of model size and $87\%$ of training set size relative to models using purely geometric inputs to achieve the same in-distribution prediction accuracy. We investigate the generalization capabilities of the B-GNNs to out-of-distribution predictions on the S809/27 wind turbine blade section and find that incorporating inviscid pressure distribution as a feature reduces error by up to $88\%$ relative to purely geometry-based inputs. Finally, we find that the physics-based model reduces error by $85\%$ compared to the state-of-the-art volumetric model INFINITY.