Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air
May 8-11, 2006, Barcelona, Spain
GT2006-90503
ABSTRACT
A blading design optimization system has been developed Subscripts
using an aeromechanical approach and harmonic perturbation k = unsteady disturbance index
method. The developed system has the capability to optimize x, θ, r = cylindrical polar co-ordinates
aero-thermal performance with constraints of mechanical and
aeromechanical integrity at the same time. ‘Aerodynamic mode Superscripts
shape’ is introduced to describe geometry deformation which __
= time–averaged
can effectively reduce the number of design parameters while ′ = unsteady perturbation
preserving surface smoothness. Compared to the existing ∼ = complex harmonic amplitude
design optimization practices, the present system is simpler,
more accurate and effective. A redesign practice of the NASA INTRODUCTION
rotor-67 at the peak efficiency point shows that the aero To consider aero thermal performance and mechanical
thermal efficiency can be improved by 0.4%, whilst the integrity at the same time in the design process is highly
maximum static stress has been increased by 33%. demanded due to the fact that an ‘aerodynamic optimum’ may
Aeromechanical analysis of the optimized blade shows that the not satisfy mechanical and aeromechanical criteria. Thus, an
aerodynamic damping of the least stable first flap mode is still aerodynamics only design optimization might lead to
well above the critical value though the natural frequencies of considerable time delay and extra costs in the blade redesign
the first 5 modes have been reduced by 1~4%. The present cycles. On the other hand, multi-stage effects on both
finding highlights the need for more concurrent integrations of aerodynamics and aeromechanics have been identified as
mechanics, aerodynamics and aeromechanics design significant in gas-turbines. The current and future designs all
optimization. follow the trend for higher performance and more compact
structures. Increased aero-thermal loading of each blade row
NOMENCLATURE would naturally lead to intensified interactions between
F,G,H = axial, tangential and radial flux vector adjacent rows with ever reducing intra-row gap spacing. The
n = normal direction of mesh cell surface impacts of blade rows interaction would not only influence
NF = index of harmonics aero-thermal performance, but also blade mechanical integrity
u,v,w = axial, tangential and radial flow velocities through flow induced vibrations (flutter or forced response).
S = source term However, so far, most design optimization systems focus on
T = time aerodynamics performance for either isolated blade row
U = conservative variable vector [1][2][3] or steady flow multi-row environment using the
V = viscous terms conventional mixing-plane model [4~7]. The difficulty of
ρ = fluid density integration of aero thermal performance design optimization
τ = viscous stress components and aeromechanical design optimization in the multistage
ω = angular frequency environment lies on the fact that the performance prediction
Hub
Axial direction Circumferential direction
Fig. 1 Description of the aerodynamic mode
LOOP
Start
Nonlinear steady flow
N Base Flow Cal.
Loop
N=1,N_DESP Linear perturbation solutions
Y Max Optimal?
Aeromechanics analysis
Update Baseline
Design
0.81
0.
93
1.
35
1.42
Fig. 4 Mach contours comparison at 90% span section (left: Calc; right: Exp)
Fig. 5a 3D blade shape comparison between NASA67 and the optimized design
Fig. 5b Blade profiles at different radial sections and an axial view at mid chord
Cp NASA67
Cp Cp Optimized Design
NASA67 1.5
NASA67
1.4 Optimized Design 1.4 Optimized Design
1.4
1.3 1.3
1.3
1.1 1.1
1.1
1
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8 X/C
X/C X/C
0.8
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0.9 0.04
0.8 0.035
Optimized design
0.7 NASA 67 0.03
0.6
0.025
Optimized design
0.5 NASA 67
0.02
0.4
0.015
0.3
0.2 0.01
0.1 0.005
Loss L.E. T.E.
X/C
0
0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 1 2
(a) Spanwise distribution of axial and pitchwise averaged loss (b) Axial distribution of pitchwise and spanwise averaged loss
Fig. 8 Mass averaged loss generation in the passage
Trailing
edge
Leading
edge
Optimized
Design Loss Core
(0.23-0.5)
Leading Trailing
edge edge
NASA67
Pressure Ratio
90 1.7 90
Efficiency
Efficiency
89 1.65 89
88 1.6
88
87 1.55
87
86 1.5
1.45 86
85
1.4 8530
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 29 29 31
30 32
31 3332 3433 3534
Flow rate Flow rate Flow rate
(a) Efficiency-Mass flow curve (b) Pressure-Mass flow curve
Fig. 10 Fan performance characteristic curves
Max Stress