1 / 27

A Method for Determining Turbine Airfoil Geometry Parameters from a Set of Coordinates

A Method for Determining Turbine Airfoil Geometry Parameters from a Set of Coordinates. ME 597 Project I – Spring 2006 Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI Andrew White, BPMME Project Advisors: Dr. Hasan Akay, IUPUI Ed Turner, Rolls-Royce Corporation

rimona
Download Presentation

A Method for Determining Turbine Airfoil Geometry Parameters from a Set of Coordinates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Method for Determining Turbine Airfoil Geometry Parameters from a Set of Coordinates ME 597 Project I – Spring 2006 Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI Andrew White, BPMME Project Advisors: Dr. Hasan Akay, IUPUI Ed Turner, Rolls-Royce Corporation Presented on April 27, 2006

  2. Outline • Project Terminology • Problem Description • Project Objective • Overview of Solution – Two Approaches • Previous Work • Optimization Challenges • Project Optimization Process • Objective Function Description • Quasi-Newton Optimization Methods • DFP • NLPQL • Results: • Objective Function Mapping • 1 Parameter Optimization • 3 Parameter Optimization • Conclusions • Future Study

  3. This project focuses on the cross-sectional shapes of Turbine Airfoils. Turbine Airfoils of a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000gas turbine engine

  4. Project Terminology • Airfoil • Leading/trailing edge • Pressure/Suction surface • Parameters • BETA1 – β1 • DELTABETA1 – Δβ1 • LE (a/b) • Objective function • Baseline vs. New • Target vs. Starting airfoil • Commercial vs. In-house code • Mapping vs. Optimizing (Objective function) Suction Surface Leading Edge Pressure Surface Trailing Edge

  5. Problem Description • Determine the best set of design parameters that match given airfoil coordinates through automation by optimization methods. • Currently performed manually with GUI x y 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -1.09E-02 1.48E-02 -2.18E-02 2.96E-02 -3.28E-02 4.43E-02 -4.38E-02 5.91E-02 -5.49E-02 7.37E-02 -6.60E-02 8.83E-02 -7.72E-02 1.03E-01 -8.85E-02 1.17E-01 … … Parameters tds afopt optimizer Target/Start Matched Airfoils

  6. Project Objectives • 3 main objectives for the problem: • Develop an optimizable objective function • Use a commercial optimization/design code to test objective function behavior • Understand the theory/programming of an in-house numerical optimization code and set it up for future optimization of the present problem in place of the commercial code

  7. Commercial Code Optimization: NLPQL(Non-Linear Programming by Quadratic approximation of the Lagrangian) GUI Relatively “easy” Less control, must understand available methods Single user per $xx,000 license In-house code Optimization: DFP (Davidon-Fletcher-Powell) FORTRAN Must understand code More control over code, uses trusted optimization method Many users Overview of Solution – Two Approaches Solve shape matching through optimization by… • This project used the commercial code to develop an objective function while preparing the in-house code for future work

  8. Previous Work • Previous work on project • Shape matching with a commercial code previously attempted with little success • Trouble shooting discontinuities in design system • Previous objective functions based on airfoil shape • Point-to-point distance • Area • Perimeter • Center of mass • Baseline function: Point-to-point distance • RRC in-house optimization code Remove discontinuities in design system

  9. Errors in mathematical formulation of models which no mere parameter adjustments can hope to compensate for* Objective function sensitivity/behavior can be difficult to predict in entire design space Can be difficult to tell if problems are due to objective function or mathematical model Optimizer algorithms generally perform more and more poorly the larger the number of varying parameters* Choosing the “right” optimization routine Optimization Challenges “The best optimization routine is the one you know best.” --Papalambros and Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design *Source: http://nsr.bioeng.washington.edu/PLN/Members/butterw/JSIMDOC1.6/Contents.stx/User_Intro.stx

  10. Project Optimization Process Starting Design Parameters Airfoil Design System (generates airfoil geometry coordinates from 15 input design parameters) Airfoil coordinates from parameters Target airfoil coordinates Objective Function (Airfoil comparator function) Objective function value, F NLPQL/DFP optimizer (changes parameters to minimize F) Modified design parameters

  11. Optimization Overview • Optimization requires: • Objective function: what to optimize • Optimization routine: how to let a computer make the objective function as small as possible • Next: • Objective function description • Basics of quasi-Newton optimization methods • Two quasi-Newton methods used in this project: • DFP – Davidon-Fletcher-Powell • NLPQL – Non-Linear Programming by Quadratic approximation of the Lagrangian

  12. Target Parameterized Difference Measure Objective Function Description • Scalar expression that should approach zero when the two airfoils match • Objective functions: • Baseline: Point-to-point distance • Energy Measure • New Energy Measure Parameterized Airfoil Target Airfoil

  13. Objective Function Description (cont’d) • Energy Measure objective function from computer vision shape recognition application (Cohen et al) where, KQ(s') s' Q(s') – P(s) Q s = 1 KP(s) s P s = 0 Discretization for computer code by trapezoidal quadrature formula…

  14. Objective Function Description (cont’d) • Modified Energy Measure objective function: • Removed radius of curvature coefficient • Integrated curvature on pressure and suction surfaces only Energy Measure New Energy Measure Removed curvature from integral on leading edge

  15. x Quasi-Newton Optimization Methods • What are Quasi-Newton methods?† • Quasi-Newton methods build up curvature information (i.e. 2nd derivative) at each iteration to formulate a quadratic model problem of the form: • The optimal solution for this problem occurs when the partial derivatives of x go to zero, i.e., • The optimal solution point, x*, can be written as • Quasi-Newton methods approximate H-1using f(x) and grad f(x) to build up curvature information with an iterative updating technique. H = Hessian matrix c = gradient vector b = constant scalar Quadratic Model approximation of “Design surface” †Source: http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/optim/ug/f137.html

  16. Optimization Method I – DFP • DFP algorithm* – Davidon-Fletcher-Powell *Source: References [1] through [4]

  17. Optimization Method II – NLPQL • NLPQL algorithm* (Nonlinear Programming by Quadratic approximation of the Lagrangian) • Quasi-Newton, Direct, sequential quadratic programming method • Like DFP, NLPQL • uses quadratic approximation of the function • Approximation formula for the Hessian called BFGS (Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno) *Source: iSIGHT online documentation

  18. Results Overview • Objective function behavior (“mapping”) • 1 Parameter Optimization • 3 Parameter Optimization

  19. Results: Objective Function Mapping 2nd term of E. M.(no curvature) Baseline Energy Measure New Energy Measure BETA1 DELTABETA1 LE

  20. Results: 1 Parameter Optimization BETA1 DELTABETA1 LE Initial Value Target

  21. Results: 3 Parameter Optimization Low Start High Start Objective Functions New (Modified Energy Measure) Baseline

  22. Results: 3 Parameter Optimization (cont’d) Baseline objective function Low start High start Matched Matched

  23. Ran a single trial of Adaptive Simulated Annealing (ASA) algorithm on 3 Parameters Baseline objective function %Error reduced by half in DELTABETA1 and LE Took 67 min. with 2201 iterations (SunBlade 2000) Compared to 3-5 min. and 110 iterations for NLPQL Results visually the same (see result plot at right) Results: 3 Parameter Optimization (cont’d) Single Parameter Mapping of BETA1 ASA Optimization: Plot of BETA1

  24. Conclusions • Matching airfoil shapes through optimization is feasible • Quasi-Newton methods are fast and will work if objective function behaves smoothly • New objective function showed similar results to Baseline function with NLPQL optimizer • Improvements can be made to New function as design system discontinuities are fixed—curvature can be re-introduced to leading edge • 3 parameters: • BETA1 is strongest parameter and achieves smallest %Error in final values • Visually close for both objective functions

  25. Future Study • Required: • Complete in-house code and run comparative study to results of commercial code • Further trouble shooting of design system • Add curvature back into leading edge with cusps removed from model • Increase number of parameters to optimize • Determine how close is close enough • Possible: • Scaling parameters (BETA1) or turn individual parameters off as they narrow in on target value • Consider other algorithms or combinations of algorithms • Limitations on achieving various target airfoil shapes

  26. Acknowledgements • Dr. Hasan Akay, ME Department • Ed Turner, Rolls-Royce mentor • Larry Junod, Rolls-Royce mentor • Dr. Steve Gegg, Rolls-Royce • Dr. Asok Sen, Math Department

  27. References • [1] Fletcher and Powell, A Rapidly Convergent Descent Method for Minimization, The Computer Journal, 1963, July • [2] Hamming, Richard W., Introduction to Applied Numerical Analysis, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1989 • [3] Arora, Jasbir S., Introduction to Optimum Design, Elsevier Academic Press, 2004 • [4] Vanderplaats, Garret N., Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design: With Applications, McGraw Hill, Inc., 1984 • [5] Cohen, I., Ayache, N., Sulger, P., Tracking Points on Deformable Objects Using Curvature Information, Proceedings from the 2nd European Conference on Computer Vision, 1992 • [6] Heath, M., Scientific Computing: An Introductory Survey, 2nd ed, McGraw Hill, 2002 • [7] www.mathworks.com • [8] http://nsr.bioeng.washington.edu/PLN/Members/butterw/JSIMDOC1.6/Contents.stx/User_Intro.stx • [9] iSIGHT On-line documentation files

More Related