0
Research Papers

Gradient Span Analysis Method: Application to the Multipoint Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Turbine Cascade

[+] Author and Article Information
Hadrien Montanelli

NA Group,
Mathematical Institute,
University of Oxford,
Oxford OX26HD, UK
e-mail: montanelli@maths.ox.ac.uk

Marc Montagnac

Research Engineer
Computational Fluid Dynamics Group,
Cerfacs,
42, Avenue G. Coriolis,
Toulouse 31057, CEDEX 1, France
e-mail: marc.montagnac@cerfacs.fr

François Gallard

Research Engineer
IRT Saint Exupéry,
Toulouse 31432, France
e-mail: francois.gallard@irt-saintexupery.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received October 1, 2014; final manuscript received March 3, 2015; published online March 24, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Graham Pullan.

J. Turbomach 137(9), 091006 (Sep 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1260; doi: 10.1115/1.4030016 History: Received October 01, 2014; Revised March 03, 2015; Online March 24, 2015

This paper presents the application of the gradient span analysis (GSA) method to the multipoint optimization of the two-dimensional LS89 turbine distributor. The cost function (total pressure loss) and the constraint (mass flow rate) are computed from the resolution of the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations. The penalty method is used to replace the constrained optimization problem with an unconstrained problem. The optimization process is steered by a gradient-based quasi-Newton algorithm. The gradient of the cost function with respect to design variables is obtained with the discrete adjoint method, which ensures an efficient computation time independent of the number of design variables. The GSA method gives a minimal set of operating conditions to insert into the weighted sum model to solve the multipoint optimization problem. The weights associated to these conditions are computed with the utopia point method. The single-point optimization at the nominal condition and the multipoint optimization over a wide range of conditions of the LS89 blade are compared. The comparison shows the strong advantages of the multipoint optimization with the GSA method and utopia-point weighting over the traditional single-point optimization.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Pironneau, O., 1974, “On Optimum Design in Fluid Mechanics,” J. Fluid. Mech., 64(1), pp. 97–110. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A., 1988, “Aerodynamic Design Via Control Theory,” J. Sci. Comput., 3(3), pp. 233–260. [CrossRef]
Luo, J., Xiong, J., Liu, F., and McBean, I., 2010, “Three-Dimensional Aerodynamic Design Optimization of a Turbine Blade by Using an Adjoint Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(1), p. 011026. [CrossRef]
Li, H., Song, L., Li, Y., and Feng, Z., 2010, “2D Viscous Aerodynamic Shape Design Optimization for Turbine Blades Based on Adjoint Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(3), p. 031014. [CrossRef]
He, L., and Wang, D. X., 2010, “Concurrent Blade Aerodynamic-Aero-Elastic Design Optimization Using Adjoint Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(1), p. 011021. [CrossRef]
Wang, D. X., He, L., Li, Y. S., and Wells, R. G., 2010, “Adjoint Aerodynamic Design Optimization for Blades in Multistage Turbomachines—Part II: Validation and Application,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(2), p. 021012. [CrossRef]
Walther, B., and Nadarajah, S., 2012, “Constrained Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Single-Stage Transonic Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(2), p. 021017. [CrossRef]
Luo, J., Zhou, C., and Liu, F., 2013, “Multipoint Design Optimization of a Transonic Compressor Blade by Using an Adjoint Method,” ASME J. Turbomach., 136(5), p. 051005. [CrossRef]
Drela, M., 1998, “Pros and Cons of Airfoil Optimization,” Frontiers of Computational Fluid Dynamics, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 363–381.
Das, I., and Dennis, J. E., 1997, “A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objectives for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 14(1), pp. 63–69. [CrossRef]
Arts, T., and Lambert de Rouvroit, M., 1992, “Aero-Thermal Performance of a Two-Dimensional Highly Loaded Transonic Turbine Nozzle Guide Vane: A Test Case for Inviscid and Viscous Flow Computations,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114(1), pp. 147–154. [CrossRef]
Gallard, F., Mohammadi, B., Montagnac, M., and Meaux, M., “An Adaptive Multipoint Formulation for Robust Parametric Optimization,” J. Optim. Theory Appl., 165(1) (in press). [CrossRef]
Gallard, F., Meaux, M., Montagnac, M., and Mohammadi, B., 2013, “Aerodynamic Aircraft Design for Mission Performance by Multipoint Optimization,” AIAA Paper No. 2013-2582. [CrossRef]
Gallard, F., 2014, “Aircraft Shape Optimization for Mission Performance,” Ph.D., thesis, Université de Toulouse-ISAE, Toulouse, France.
Marler, R. T., and Arora, J. S., 2004, “Survey of Multi-Objective Optimization Methods for Engineering,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 26(6), pp. 369–395. [CrossRef]
Li, W., Huyse, L., and Padula, S., 2002, “Robust Airfoil Optimization to Achieve Drag Reduction Over a Range of Mach Numbers,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 24(1), pp. 38–50. [CrossRef]
Zingg, D., and Elias, S., 2006, “Aerodynamic Optimization Under a Range of Operating Conditions,” AIAA J., 44(11), pp. 2787–2792. [CrossRef]
Reuther, J. J., Jameson, A., Alonso, J. J., Rimlinger, M. J., and Saunders, D., 1999, “Constrained Multipoint Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using an Adjoint Formulation and Parallel Computers, Part 1,” J. Aircr., 36(1), pp. 51–60. [CrossRef]
Marler, R. T., and Arora, J. S., 2010, “The Weighted Sum Method for Multi-Objective Optimization: New Insights,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 41(6), pp. 853–862. [CrossRef]
Meaux, M., Cormery, M., and Voizard, G., 2004, “Viscous Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Based on the Discrete Adjoint State for 3D Industrial Configurations,” 4th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS), Jyväskylä, Finland, July 24–28.
Cambier, L., Gazaix, M., Heib, S., Plot, S., Poinot, M., Veuillot, J.-P., Boussuge, J.-F., and Montagnac, M., 2011, “An Overview of the Multi-Purpose elsA Flow Solver,” Aerosp. Lab., 2, p. AL02-10.
Puigt, G., Gazaix, M., Montagnac, M., Le Pape, M.-C., de la Llave Plata, M., Marmignon, C., Boussuge, J.-F., and Couaillier, V., 2011, “Development of a New Hybrid Compressible Solver Inside the CFD elsA Software,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-3379. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., 1992, “A One-Equation Turbulence Transport Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 92-0439. [CrossRef]
Roe, P. L., 1981, “Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors and Difference Schemes,” J. Comput. Phys., 43(2), pp. 357–372. [CrossRef]
van Leer, B., 1979, “Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme. V. A Second-Order Sequel to Godunov's Method,” J. Comput. Phys., 32(1), pp. 101–136. [CrossRef]
van Albada, G. D., van Leer, B., and Roberts, W. W., 1982, “A Comparative Study of Computational Methods in Cosmic Gas Dynamics,” Astron. Astrophys., 108(1), pp. 76–84.
Yoon, S., and Jameson, A., 1988, “Lower-Upper Symmetric-Gauss–Seidel Method for the Euler and Navier–Stokes Equations,” AIAA J., 26(9), pp. 1025–1026. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A., 1982, “Steady State Solutions of the Euler Equations for Transonic Flow by a Multigrid Method,” Transonic, Shock, and Multidimensional Flows: Advances in Scientific Computing, Academic, New York, pp. 37–70.
Jameson, A., Martinelli, L., and Pierce, N. A., 1998, “Optimum Aerodynamic Design Using the Navier–Stokes Equations,” Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 10(1), pp. 213–237. [CrossRef]
Nielsen, E. J., and Anderson, W. K., 1999, “Aerodynamic Design Optimization on Unstructured Meshes Using the Navier–Stokes Equations,” AIAA J., 37(11), pp. 1411–1419. [CrossRef]
Pinel, X., and Montagnac, M., 2013, “Block Krylov Methods to Solve Adjoint Problems in Aerodynamic Design Optimization,” AIAA J., 51(9), pp. 2183–2191. [CrossRef]
Gourdain, N., Gicquel, L. Y. M., and Collado, E., 2012, “Comparison of RANS and LES for Prediction of Wall Heat Transfer in a Highly Loaded Turbine Guide Vane,” J. Propul. Power, 28(2), pp. 423–433. [CrossRef]
Trefethen, L. N., 2013, Approximation Theory and Approximation Practice, SIAM, Philadelphia.
Byrd, R., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., and Zhu, C., 1995, “A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 16(5), pp. 1190–1208. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Multiblock structured grid of the LS89 test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

CAD model parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Error on the gradient computed by the discrete adjoint method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Evolution of the total pressure loss (square symbol), and correlative evolution of the normalized mass flow rate (circle symbol)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Initial blade geometry in a (x, z) plane, and difference Δz of z-coordinates between final and initial shapes (frozen trailing edges not shown)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Normalized mass flow rate and total pressure loss with respect to the pressure ratio Π for initial and optimized shapes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Evolution of the total pressure loss at the five conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Evolution of the mass flow rate at the five conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Initial blade geometry in a (x, z) plane, and difference Δz of z-coordinates between final and initial shapes (frozen trailing edges not shown)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Normalized mass flow rate and total pressure loss with respect to the pressure ratio Π for initial and optimized shapes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Differences of total pressure losses between initial and optimized shapes, with respect to the pressure ratio Π

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