0
Research Papers

Adjoint Aerodynamic Design Optimization for Blades in Multistage Turbomachines—Part II: Validation and Application

[+] Author and Article Information
D. X. Wang

School of Engineering, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

L. He

Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK

Y. S. Li, R. G. Wells

 Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery Ltd., Ruston House, P.O. Box 1, Waterside South, Lincoln LN5 7FD, UK

The normalized mass flow rate at this operating point is 0.995.

All the single-operating point design optimizations were run on a single 2.2 GHz Opteron processor.

J. Turbomach 132(2), 021012 (Jan 13, 2010) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3103928 History: Received July 17, 2008; Revised February 09, 2009; Published January 13, 2010; Online January 13, 2010

This is the second part of a two-part paper. First, the design-optimization system based on the adjoint gradient solution approach as described in Part I is introduced. Several test cases are studied for further validation and demonstration of the methodology and implementation. The base-line adjoint method as applied to realistic 3D configurations is demonstrated in the redesign of the NASA rotor 67 at a near-choke condition, leading to a 1.77% efficiency gain. The proposed adjoint mixing plane is applied to the redesign of a transonic compressor stage (DLR compressor stage) and an IGV-rotor-stator configuration of a Siemens industrial compressor at a single-operating point, both producing measurably positive efficiency gains. An examination on the choice of the operating mass flow condition as the basis for the performance optimization, however, highlights the limitation of the single-point approach for practical applications. For the three-row compressor configuration, a near peak-efficiency point based redesign leads to a measurable reduction in the choke mass flow, while a near-choke point based redesign leads to a significant performance drop in other flow conditions. Subsequently, a parallel multipoint approach is implemented. The results show that a two-point design optimization can produce a consistently better performance over a whole range of mass flow conditions compared with the original design. In the final case, the effectiveness of the present method and system is demonstrated by a redesign applied to a seven-row industrial compressor at the design point, leading to a remarkable 2.4% efficiency gain.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Efficiency versus mass flow of different designs (IGV-R1-S1 configuration redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Pressure ratio versus mass flow of different designs (IGV-R1-S1 configuration redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Flow chart of a parallel two-operating-point design optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Flow chart of a single-operating-point design optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Meridional view and blade to blade view of the NASA rotor 67 mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Performance map comparison of the numerical results with experimental data (NASA rotor 67)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Spanwise distributions of circumferentially averaged efficiency, stagnation temperature, and pressure ratios at the compressor’s exit (DLR stage redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Pressure coefficient distributions at 25% span of the original and optimized DLR rotors

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Pressure coefficient distributions at 50% span of the original and optimized DLR rotors

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Pressure coefficient distributions at 85% span of the original and optimized DLR rotors

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of blade geometry between the DLR rotor and the optimized rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of blade geometry between the DLR stator and the optimized stator

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Spanwise distributions of stagnation pressure and stagnation temperature at the Siemens three-stage compressor exit

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Casing static pressure distributions inside the Siemens three-stage compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Blade to blade view (upper) and meridional view (lower) of the IGV-R1-S1 configuration mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Meridional view and blade to blade view of the Siemens three-stage compressor computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Evolution of the objective function and two constraints with design cycles (Siemens three-stage compressor redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Spanwise distributions of circumferentially averaged efficiency, stagnation temperature ratio and stagnation pressure ratio at the compressor exit (Siemens three-stage compressor redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Pressure coefficient distributions at 85% span of Rotor 1 (Siemens three-stage compressor redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Evolution of the objective function and two constraints with design cycles (NASA rotor 67 redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Spanwise distributions of efficiency, stagnation temperature ratio and stagnation pressure ratio at the blade exit (NASA rotor 67 redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Pressure contours on the blade pressure surface (NASA rotor 67 redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Pressure contours on the blade suction surface (NASA rotor 67 redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of blade geometry between NASA rotor 67 and the optimized blade

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Blade-to-blade and meridional view of the DLR stage mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Performance map comparison of the numerical results with experimental data for the DLR stage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Evolution of the objective function and two constraints with design cycles (DLR stage redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Pressure coefficient distributions at 85% span of Rotor 2 (Siemens three-stage compressor redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 29

Comparison of blade geometry for Rotor 1 (Siemens three-stage compressor redesign)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 31

Geometry changes on blade surfaces of the Siemens three-stage compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 30

Comparison of blade geometry for Stator 1 (Siemens three-stage compressor redesign)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In