0
Research Papers

The Implications of Tolerance Optimization on Compressor Blade Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Eric A. Dow

Aerospace Computational Design Laboratory,
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: ericdow@mit.edu

Qiqi Wang

Assistant Professor
Aerospace Computational Design Laboratory,
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: qiqi@mit.edu

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received November 2, 2014; final manuscript received June 2, 2015; published online June 23, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Knox T. Millsaps.

J. Turbomach 137(10), 101008 (Oct 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1285; doi: 10.1115/1.4030791 History: Received November 02, 2014; Revised June 02, 2015; Online June 23, 2015

Geometric variability increases performance variability and degrades the mean performance of turbomachinery compressor blades. These detrimental effects can be reduced by using robust optimization to design the blade geometry or by imposing stricter manufacturing tolerances. This paper presents a novel computational framework for optimizing compressor blade manufacturing tolerances and incorporates this framework into existing robust geometry design frameworks. Optimizations of an exit guide vane geometry are conducted. When the design is optimized to improve performance at a single operating point, the optimal geometry is found to depend on the manufacturing tolerances due to a switch in the dominant loss mechanism. Including multiple operating points in the optimization avoids this switch so that the geometry and tolerance optimization problems are decoupled.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Single-point optimal redesigned UTRC blades

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Mach number distributions for the baseline and single-point optimized UTRC blades. The dots denote the location of transition.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Optimal standard deviation σ(s)/c for the single-point optimized UTRC blades. The lower surface is the pressure side, and the upper surface is the suction side. (a) Deterministic optimal tolerances, (b) robust optimal tolerances, and (c) simultaneous optimal tolerances.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Optimal standard deviation σ(s)/c for the multipoint optimized UTRC blades. The lower surface is the pressure side, and the upper surface is the suction side. (a) Deterministic optimal tolerances, (b) robust optimal tolerances, and (c) simultaneous optimal tolerances.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison between the baseline and multipoint deterministic optimal Mach number distributions for the UTRC blade at three different incidence angles. The transition locations are indicated by dots. (a) α = −4.5 deg, (b) α = 0 deg, and (c) α = 4.5 deg.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Loss buckets for the multipoint optimized UTRC blade: (a) uniform tolerances and (b) optimized tolerances

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Multipoint optimal redesigned UTRC blades

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