0
Research Papers

High-Fidelity Shape Optimization of Non-Conventional Turbomachinery by Surrogate Evolutionary Strategies

[+] Author and Article Information
Giacomo Persico

Laboratorio di Fluidodinamica delle Macchine (LFM), Dipartimento di Energia,
Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4, I-20156 Milano, Italy
e-mail: giacomo.persico@polimi.it

Pablo Rodriguez-Fernandez

Laboratorio di Fluidodinamica delle Macchine (LFM), Dipartimento di Energia,
Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4, I-20156 Milano, Italy
e-mail: pablorf@mit.edu

Alessandro Romei

Laboratorio di Fluidodinamica delle Macchine (LFM), Dipartimento di Energia,
Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4, I-20156 Milano, Italy
e-mail: alessandro.romei@polimi.it

1Present address: Plasma Science and Fusion Center, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received November 22, 2017; final manuscript received March 15, 2019; published online April 2, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Guillermo Paniagua.

J. Turbomach 141(8), 081010 (Apr 02, 2019) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-17-1220; doi: 10.1115/1.4043252 History: Received November 22, 2017; Accepted March 18, 2019

This paper presents a novel tool for the shape optimization of turbomachinery blade profiles operating with fluids in non-ideal thermodynamic conditions and in complex flow configurations. In novel energy conversion systems, such as organic Rankine cycles or supercritical CO2 cycles, the non-conventional turbomachinery layout as well as the complex thermodynamics of the working fluid complicate significantly the blade aerodynamic design. For such applications, the design of turbomachinery may considerably benefit from the use of systematic optimization methods, especially in combination with high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD), as it is shown in this paper. The proposed technique is implemented in the shape-optimization package FORMA (Fluid-dynamic OptimizeR for turbo-Machinery Aerofoils) developed in-house at the Politecnico di Milano. FORMA is constructed as a combination of a generalized geometrical parametrization technique based on B-splines, a CFD solver featuring turbulence models and arbitrary equations of state, and multiple surrogate-based evolutionary strategies based on either trust-region or training methods. The application to the re-design of a supersonic turbine nozzle shows the capabilities of applying a high-fidelity optimization, consisting of a 50% reduction in the cascade loss coefficient and in an increased flow uniformity at the inlet of the subsequent rotor. Two alternative surrogate-based evolutionary strategies and different fitness functions are tested and discussed, including nonlinear constraints within the design process. The optimization study reveals relevant insights into the design of supersonic turbine nozzles as well on the performance, reliability, and potential of the proposed design technique.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Persico, G., and Pini, M., 2017, “8—Fluid Dynamic Design of Organic Rankine Cycle Turbines,” Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Power Systems, E. Macchi, and M. Astolfi, eds., Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, pp. 253–297.
Pini, M., Persico, G., Casati, E., and Dossena, V., 2013, “Preliminary Design of a Centrifugal Turbine for ORC Applications,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(4), p. 042312. [CrossRef]
Persico, G., and Rebay, S., 2012, “A Penalty Formulation for the Throughflow Modeling of Turbomachinery,” Comput. Fluids, 60, pp. 86–98. [CrossRef]
Demeulenaere, A., Leonard, O., and Van Den Braembussche, R., 1997, “A Two-Dimensional Navier–Stokes Inverse Solver for Compressor and Turbine Blade Design,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 211(4), pp. 299–307. [CrossRef]
Peter, J., and Dwight, R., 2010, “Numerical Sensitivity Analysis for Aerodynamic Optimization: A Survey of Approaches,” Comput. Fluids, 39(3), pp. 373–391. [CrossRef]
Pini, M., Persico, G., Pasquale, D., and Rebay, S., 2015, “Adjoint Method for Shape Optimization in Real-gas Flow Applications,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 137(3), p. 032604. [CrossRef]
Vitale, S., Albring, T., Pini, M., Gauger, N., and Colonna, P., 2017, “Fully Turbulent Discrete Adjoint Solver for non-Ideal Compressible Flow Applications,” J. Global Power Propul. Soc., 1, pp. 252–270. [CrossRef]
Pierret, S., Coelho, R., and Kato, H., 2006, “Multidisciplinary and Multiple Operating Points Shape Optimization of Three-Dimensional Compressor Blades,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 33(1), pp. 61–70. [CrossRef]
Verstraete, T., Alsalihi, Z., and Van Den Braembussche, R., 2010, “Multidisciplinary Optimization of a Radial Compressor for Microgas Turbine Applications,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(3), p. 031004. [CrossRef]
Pasquale, D., Ghidoni, A., and Rebay, S., 2013, “Shape Optimization of an Organic Rankine Cycle Radial Turbine Nozzle,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(4), p. 042308. [CrossRef]
Coello, C., 2000, “An Updated Survey of GA-Based Multiobjective Optimization Techniques,” ACM Comput. Surv., 32(2), pp. 109–143. [CrossRef]
Pierret, S., and Van den Braembussche, R. A., 1999, “Turbomachinery Blade Design Using a Navier–Stokes Solver and Artificial Neural Network,” ASME J. Turbomach., 121(2), pp. 326–332. [CrossRef]
Simpson, T., Poplinski, J., Koch, P. N., and Allen, J., 2001, “Metamodels for Computer-Based Engineering Design: Survey and Recommendations,” Eng. Comput., 17(2), pp. 129–150. [CrossRef]
Farin, G., 2002, Curves and Surfaces for CAGD: A Practical Guide, 5th ed., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA.
Barth, T. J., and Jesperson, D. C., 1989, “The Design and Application of Upwind Schemes on Unstructured Meshes”, AIAA Paper No. 89-0366.
Persico, G., Mora, A., Gaetani, P., and Savini, M., 2012, “Unsteady Aerodynamics of a Low Aspect Ratio Turbine Stage: Modeling Issues and Flow Physics,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(6), p. 061030. [CrossRef]
Reeves, C. R., and Rowe, J. E., 2002, Genetic Algorithms: Principles and Perspectives: A Guide to GA Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
Toropov, V. V., Filatov, A. A., and Polynkin, A. A., 1993, “Multiparameter Structural Optimization Using FEM and Multipoint Explicit Approximations”, Struct. Optim., 6(1), pp. 7–14. [CrossRef]
Giunta, A. A., and Eldred, M. S., 2000, “Implementation of a Trust Region Model Management Strategy in the Dakota Optimization Toolkit,” 8th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, Sept. 6–8, 2000.
Pini, M., Persico, G., and Dossena, V., 2014, “Robust Adjoint-Based Shape Optimization of Supersonic Turbomachinery Cascades”, ASME Paper No. GT2014-27064.
Adams, B. M., Bauman, L. E., Bohnhoff, W. J., Dalbey, K. R., Ebeida, M. S., Eddy, J. P., Eldred, M. S., Hough, P. D., Hu, K. T., Jakeman, J. D., Stephens, J. A., Swiler, L. P., Vigil, D. M., and Wildey, T. M., 2017, “Dakota, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis: Version 6.6 User’s Manual,” Sandia Technical Report SAND2014-4633, Updated May 2017. https//dakota.sandia.gov/sites/default/files/docs/6.6/Users-6.6.0.pdf
Colonna, P., Harinck, J., Rebay, S., and Guardone, A., 2008, “Real-Gas Effects in Organic Rankine Cycle Turbine Nozzles,” AIAA J. Propul. Power, 24(2), pp. 282–294. [CrossRef]
Colonna, P., Nannan, N., and Guardone, A., 2008, “Multiparameter Equations of State for Siloxanes:[(CH3)3-Si-O1/2]2-[O-Si-(CH3)2]i=1,…,3, and [O-Si-(CH3)2]6,” Fluid Phase Equilibr., 263(2), pp. 115–130. [CrossRef]
Romei, A., and Persico, G., 2018, “Novel Shape Parametrization Technique Applied to the Optimization of a Supersonic ORC Turbine Cascade”, ASME Paper No. GT2018-76732.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Flow charts for surrogate-based optimization: (a) SBLO and (b) SBGO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Baseline converging-diverging configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Grid dependence analysis for the calculation of the flow in the supersonic turbine nozzle in the baseline configuration, for two quantities: (a) entropy generation across the cascade and (b) standard deviation of the pressure downstream of the cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Baseline blade parametrization with 16 movable CPs; fixed CPs are marked as black circles; the design space is highlighted by the shadow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Convergence history for SBLO (a) and SBGO (b). The objective function (OF) is defined according to Eq. (3), expressed in Pa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison between baseline, optimal-SBLO, and optimal-SBGO blades

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Convergence process for SBGO performed with finer CFD mesh resolution (150 k cells). The objective function (OF) is defined according to Eq. (3), expressed in Pa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Convergence history of the constrained SBGO: (a) objective function and (b) constraint. The objective function is defined according to Eq. (3), expressed in Pa; the constraint is defined as the mass flow rate, expressed in kg/s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Outcome of constrained optimization for SBGO with 16 CPs: (a) baseline and optimal blade shapes and (b) pressure distribution half an axial chord downstream of the blade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

High-fidelity assessment of the optimization outcome—flow field: (a) entropy (top) and Mach number (bottom) distributions for the baseline blade configuration; and (b) entropy (top) and Mach number (bottom) distributions for the optimal blade configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

High-fidelity assessment of the optimization outcome—processing: (a) isentropic Mach number distribution on the baseline and optimal blade and (b) axial evolution of total pressure loss coefficient downstream of the cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Results of SBGO performed with 13 movable CPs and the entropy production across the cascade as an objective function: (a) convergence process—objective function (J/kg K); (b) convergence process—constraint (kg/s); and (c) baseline and optimal blades

Tables

Errata

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