On the solution of an ill‐posed design solidification problem using minimization techniques in finite‐ and infinite‐dimensional function spaces

Nicholas Zabaras, Shinill Kang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative study of two alternative methodologies for the solution of an inverse design solidification problem. It is the one‐dimensional solidification problem of calculating the boundary heat flux history that achieves a desired freezing front velocity and desired heat fluxes at the freezing front. The front velocity h(t) and flux history qmS(t) on the solid side of the front control the obtained cast structure. As such, the potential applications of the proposed methods to the control of casting processes are enormous. The first technique utilizes a finite‐dimensional approximation of the unknown boundary heat flux function q0(t). The second technique uses the adjoint method to calculate in L2 the derivative of the cost functional, ‖Tm – T(h(t), t;q0)‖ 2L 2, that expresses the square error between the calculated T(h(t), t; q0) and the given freezing front temperature Tm. Both steepest descent (SDM) and conjugate gradient methods (CGM) are examined. A front tracking FEM technique is used for the discretization of the state space. A detailed numerical analysis of the space and time discretization of the ‘parameter’ and state spaces, of the effect of the end condition of the adjoint problem and of other parameters in the solution are examined.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3973-3990
Number of pages18
JournalInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
Volume36
Issue number23
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1993 Dec 15

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Numerical Analysis
  • Engineering(all)
  • Applied Mathematics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'On the solution of an ill‐posed design solidification problem using minimization techniques in finite‐ and infinite‐dimensional function spaces'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this