0
Research Papers

Constrained Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Single-Stage Transonic Compressor

[+] Author and Article Information
Benjamin Walther

e-mail: benjamin.walther@mail.mcgill.ca

Siva Nadarajah

e-mail: siva.nadarajah@mcgill.ca
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2S6, Canada

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received June 28, 2012; final manuscript received August 7, 2012; published online November 2, 2012. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(2), 021017 (Nov 02, 2012) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1086; doi: 10.1115/1.4007502 History: Received June 28, 2012; Revised August 07, 2012

This paper develops a discrete adjoint formulation for the constrained aerodynamic shape optimization in a multistage turbomachinery environment. The adjoint approach for viscous internal flow problems and the corresponding adjoint boundary conditions are discussed. To allow for a concurrent rotor/stator optimization, a nonreflective adjoint mixing-plane formulation is proposed. A sequential-quadratic programming algorithm is utilized to determine an improved airfoil shape based on the objective function gradient provided by the adjoint solution. The functionality of the proposed optimization method is demonstrated by the redesign of a midspan section of a single-stage transonic compressor. The objective is to maximize the isentropic efficiency while constraining the mass flow rate and the total pressure ratio.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic mixing-plane interface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational grid for the investigated section (55% span) of Darmstadt Rotor No. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Relative Mach number contours of the baseline design of Darmstadt Rotor No. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The ψ1contours, objective function: entropy generation rate without constraints

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Gradient for the rotor (left) and stator (right) baseline; unconstrained optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Shape modification of rotor and stator; unconstrained optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relative Mach number contours optimized design (left), and difference in entropy field (right) δs=s0-sopt; unconstrained optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized objective function and isentropic efficiency (left), and change in mass flow rate and total pressure ratio (right); unconstrained optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Relative Mach number contours optimized design (left), and difference in entropy field (right) δs=s0-sopt; constrained optimization I

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Relative Mach number contours optimized design (left), and difference in entropy field (right), δs=s0-sopt; constrained optimization II

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Normalized objective function and isentropic efficiency (left), and change in mass flow rate and total pressure ratio (right); constrained optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Shape modification rotor and stator; constrained optimization

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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