|
|
Re: Monte Carlo simulation with inequality constraints
Posted:
Mar 22, 2012 12:44 PM
|
|
On Mar 22, 3:36 am, deltaquattro <deltaquat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il giorno giovedì 22 marzo 2012 07:24:11 UTC+1, Ray Koopman ha scritto:
> [..]
>
>> Might it be that whoever wrote the PCC knew what he was doing and
>> assumed that the users of the program would know all the same tricks?
>
> Yes and no. The PCC was written that way, because from a design
> point of view, a "tube" (it's not a tube, in reality, but a part of
> a turbomachine) with inlet smaller than outlet makes no sense. So
> the PCC prevents the user from assigning design values of D1 and D2
> such that D1<D2. Unluckily, just because the design values of D1 is
> always larger or equal than the design value of D2, this doesn't
> mean that the manufacturing process, which has a finite process
> capability, won't produce "tubes" where D1 <D2. As a matter of
> fact, this sometimes happen when the design value of D1 and D2 are
> equal.
>
>> It's hard for me to put this intelligibly when I have no idea what
>> the code is supposed to be doing, but are there any symmetries that
>> he might have assumed the users would be aware of, so that if you
>> interchange certain input values then you just have to interchange
>> or reverse or complement or ... certain values in the output?
>
> Not really, the reason is as I said. I will try to be more specific:
> it's a computational chain of CAD and fluid dynamics code for a
> compressor. You define the geometrical details of your design
> (inputs), such as diameters, blade angles, blade thickness, number
> of blades, etc. and you generate a CAD part. From the CAD part, some
> codes extract the input data for the fluid dynamics codes, such as
> for example blade length, leading edge length normal to the flow.
> The fluid dynamics codes are then run, and the compressor
> performance, such as efficiency, head, flow coefficient, etc. are
> computed. These are the outputs.
I was afraid it might be something like that.
>
> I apologize in case this is not enough, but I'm really not allowed
> to give more details. Of course, I understand if you cannot give me
> help with these few details. In that case, thanks anyway for your
> help until now.
>
> deltaquattro
More information wouldn't help. I don't see any solution short of
rewriting the PCC.
|
|
