How to define output variable with dynamic shape in OpenMDAO
I am currently simulating a structural optimization problem in which the gradients of responses are extracted from Nastran and provided to SLSQP optimizer in OpenMDAO. The number of constraints changes in subsequent iterations, because the design variables included both the shape and sizing variables, therefore a new mesh is generated every time. A constraint component is defined in OpenMDAO, and it reads the response data exported from Nastran. Now, the issue here is in defining the shape of its output variable "f_const". The shape of this output variable is required to adjust according to the shape of the available response array, since outputs['f_const'] = np.loadtxt("nsatran_const.dat"). Here, nastran_const.dat is the file containing response data extracted from Nastran. The shape of this data is not known at the beginning of design iteration and keep on changing during the subsequent iterations. So, if some shape of f_const is defined at the start, then it does not change later and gives error because of the mismatch in the shapes.
In the doc of openmdao, I found https://openmdao.org/newdocs/versions/latest/features/experimental/dyn_shapes.html?highlight=varying%20shape It explains, that the shape of input/out variable can be set dynamic by linking it to any connecting or local variables whose shapes are already known. This is different from my case because, the shape of stress array is not known before the start of computation. The shape of f_const is to be defined in setup, and I cannot figure out how to change it later. Please guide me in this regard.
Solution 1:
You can't have arrays that change shape like that. The "dynamic" shape you found in the docs refers to setup-time variation. Once setup has been finished though, sizes are fixed. So we need a way for you arrays to be of a fixed size.
If you really must re-mesh every time (which I don't recommend) then there are two possible solutions I can think of:
- Over-allocation
- Constraint Aggregation
Option 1 -- Over Allocation
This topic is covered in detail in this related question, but briefly what you could do is allocate an array big enough that you always have enough space. Then you can use one entry of the array to record how many active entries are in it. Any non-active entries would be set to a default value that won't violate your constraints.
You'll have to be very careful with the way you define the derivatives. For active array entries, the derivatives come from NASTRAN. For inactive ones, you could set them to 0 but note that you are creating a discrete discontinuity when an entry switches to active. This may very well give the optimizer fits when its trying to converge and derivatives of active constraints keep flipping between 0 and nonzero values.
I really don't recommend this approach, but if you absolutely must have "variable size" arrays then over-allocation is your best best.
Option 2 -- Constraint Aggregation
They key idea here is to use an aggregation function to collapse all the stress constraints into a single value. For structural problems this is most often done with a KS function. OpenMDAO has a KScomponent in its standard library that you can use.
The key is that this component requires a constant sized input. So again, over-allocation would be used here. In this case, you shouldn 't track the number of active values in the array, because you are passing that to the aggregation function. KS functions are like smooth max functions, so if you have a bunch of 0's then it shouldn't affect it.
Your problem still has a discontinuous operation going on with the re-meshing and the noisy constraint array. The KS function should smooth some of that, but not all of it. I still think you'll have trouble converging, but it should work better than raw over-allocation.
Option 3 --- The "right" answer Find a way to fix your grid, so it never changes. I know this is hard if you're using VSP to generate your discritizations, and letting NASTRAN re-grid things from there ... but its not impossible at all.
OpenVSP has a set of geometry-query functions that can be used to back-fit fixed meshes into the parametric space of the geometry. If you do that, then you can regenerate the geometry in VSP and use the parametric space to move your fixed grids with it. This is how the pyGeo tool that the University of Michigan MDO Lab does it, and it works very well.
Its a modest amount of work (though a lot less if you use pyGeo directly), but I think its well worth it. You'll get faster components and a much more stable optimization.