Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012
GT2012
MULTIDISCIPLINARY MULTIPOINT OPTIMIZATION OF A TRANSONIC
TURBOCHARGER COMPRESSOR
R.A. Van den Braembussche, Z. Alsalihi,
T. Verstraete
Von Karman Institute
Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium
ABSTRACT
A transonic centrifugal compressor for turbocharger
applications has been redesigned by means of a
multidisciplinary multipoint optimization system composed of:
a 3D Navier-Stokes solver, a Finite Element stress Analyzer, a
Genetic Algorithm and an Artificial Neural Network. The latter
makes use of a database, containing the geometry and
corresponding performance of previously analyzed impellers
and allows a considerable reduction in computational effort.
The performance of every new geometry is verified by a 3D
Navier-Stokes solver. A Finite Element Analysis verifies the
mechanical integrity of the impeller.
The geometrical description of the impeller has been
extended to better adapt the inducer part of the impeller to
transonic flows. The splitters are no longer copies of the full
blades but specially designed for minimum losses and equal
mass flow on both sides. The blade thickness and number of
blades are unchanged because defined by robustness and inertia
considerations.
The operating range is guaranteed by a two-step
optimization procedure. The first one provides information
allowing a modification of the inlet section to guarantee the
required choking mass flow and a more accurate prediction of
the boundary conditions for the Navier-Stokes analysis of the
modified impeller. The second one predicts the performance
curve of the new geometry for which the choking mass flow is
known.
It is shown how these extensions of the optimization
method have led to a considerable improvement of the
efficiency and corresponding pressure ratio, while respecting
the surge and choking limits without increase of the stress level.
INTRODUCTION
Design systems based on optimization or inverse
design have seen a large development in recent years and
become more widely spread. They bear the potential for
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
June 11-15, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark
GT2012-69645
A. Matsuo, S. Ibaraki,
K. Sugimoto , I. Tomita
MHI
Nagasaki, Japan
performance improvements while speeding up the design
process [1-7]. The present trend is an evolution from a single
point aerodynamic optimization to a multidisciplinary and
multipoint one.
Multidisciplinary optimizations replace the two alternating
processes, evaluating respectively the stress and aero-
performance, by a concurrent procedure where the outcome of
both disciplines drives the optimizer to a geometry which is the
best possible compromise between the mechanical constraints
and the aerodynamic targets. Combining both into one
objective allows a rapid convergence towards the optimum
geometry with a minimum number of iterations [8].
Recent emphasis on energy savings has increased the need
for further improvement of the compressor performance. Each
application however has its own specific features and the
optimizer should be adapted to them. Industrial centrifugal
compressors, aiming to combine a robust geometry with a wide
operating range, have mostly subsonic flows and relatively
thick blades. Turbochargers and compressors for aeronautical
applications aim for increased performance at higher pressure
ratio with more compact and lighter geometries. The
consequences are a larger rotational speed and transonic
inducers.
Research on transonic axial compressors has shown that
specific geometries, including lean and sweep and dedicated
camber lines, allow important performance improvements in
terms of efficiency as well as operating range [9-12].
Evaluating the impact of those geometrical features on the
performance of transonic radial compressors is a first objective
of present paper. Researchers indicated that the blade thickness
distribution [13] and solidity [14] have an equally large impact
on the performance and should also be optimized. However
turbocharger design targets are different from the ones of axial
compressors. Inertia is an important criterion for turbochargers
limiting the number of blades to a value that is suboptimal for
aero-performance. Minimum blade thickness is limited by
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 robustness of the impeller. Both geometry parameters are
defined by considerations that are not part of present
optimization and have therefore been kept at a preset value.
Multipoint optimizations aim for the best performance over
a guaranteed operating range. They require extra performance
calculations for each speed line which results in a considerable
increase of the computational effort. Furthermore, convergence
problems with surge point predictions may seriously perturb the
procedure. Increasing the robustness of multipoint design
systems and making them more efficient is a second objective
of the present paper. This is achieved by:
- recuperating geometries that do not satisfy the choking
constraint and by using their calculated performance to predict
the new operating conditions.
- reducing the number of optimization cycles by means of
targeted databases and appropriate ANN, allowing a more
accurate prediction of the different objectives.
In what follows one will start by describing the new
multipoint optimization strategy, with emphasis on the
improvements that have been implemented, followed by the
adaptation of the geometry parameterization for transonic
inducers. The new method is illustrated by the optimization of a
transonic turbocharger impeller and the design features that are
at the origin of the considerable performance improvements are
discussed.
OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY
The basic procedure used for this design is the optimization
scheme developed at the von Karman Institute [1-4.]. It makes
use of a Genetic Algorithm (GA), an Artificial Neural Network
(ANN), a database, a finite volume Navier-Stokes solver (NS)
and a Finite Element (FEA) method for stress analysis (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Flow chart of the multipoint optimization scheme
The basic idea is to use a rapid but less accurate analysis
tool (ANN) to evaluate the large number of geometries that are
proposed by the GA and to analyze only the most promising
ones by the more accurate but computationally expensive NS
and FEA solvers. The rapid optimization loop is indicated by
the dashed line on the right hand side of Fig. 1. Geometries that
are optimum according to this GA-ANN cycle are then
analyzed by the NS and FEA solvers. The accurate verification
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
of the performance is indicated by the full lines on the left hand
side of Fig. 1. The geometry and the results of the NS and FEA
are added to the database after which a new ANN optimization
cycle is started. It is expected that, after a new learning of the
ANN on the extended database the performance predictions
will be more accurate and that the outcome of the next
optimization cycle will be closer to the real optimum.
Those optimization cycles are repeated until the NS and
FEA confirm the accuracy of the ANN predictions, i.e. that the
GA optimization was done with an accurate ANN prediction. A
more detailed description of the multidisciplinary method can
be found in [4]. The NS analysis is done by TRAF3D [15]. The
FEA analysis is done by SAMCEF [16] with the same fillet
radius at the blade root as the baseline impeller.
Multipoint optimization
One of the problems in multipoint optimization is the
necessity to explore the complete performance curve from
choking to surge in order to assure that the choking and surge
limit are achieved with the best possible performance and that
the slope of the pressure rise versus mass flow curve is
sufficiently negative. This can be done by analyzing every new
geometry for different values of the backpressure between a
low value at choking and a maximum one at surge. However
this requires a large number of expensive NS calculations
which are of little use if the choking mass flow is different from
the required value.
The optimization algorithm has therefore been adapted to
allow a more efficient use of the calculation results and to
assure the best use of the computer capacity and available
software licenses. This is achieved by adding a geometry
scaling to the optimizer, shown in the central part of Fig. 1.
This shortcut defines optimized geometries at a much smaller
computational effort than the GA-ANN optimization by
recuperating the optimized geometries that did not satisfy the
choking requirements.
The first step of the extended procedure is still the search
for an optimized geometry by the GA based on the ANN
performance predictions as in the standard procedure. It is
followed by a series of four (1-4) NS calculations and a FEA
stress analysis providing a first guess of the performance curve
of the geometry proposed by the GA optimizer. A first NS
calculation with low back pressure verifies the choking mass
flow ( m& choke = 1.055 m& des ). The other three NS calculations, at
increasing pressure ratio, allow an estimation of the
performance at design mass flow, at a lower mass flow, called
“guaranteed surge point” ( m& surge = .945 m& des ), and at an even
lower mass flow. Analyzing the whole performance curve
instead of verifying only if the choking mass flow is reached,
has the advantage that one obtains information about the
performance curve that can be used in the analysis of the
rescaled impeller.
Most geometries will not show a performance curve that
covers the choking, design- and guaranteed surge mass flow
indicated by vertical dashed lines on Fig. 2. The ones that show
a potential in terms of operating range and performance are
2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 scaled to define a new geometry that satisfies choking
requirements. The scaled geometry is input to a final series of
four NS calculations (5-8) and one FEA stress analysis. Using
boundary conditions that are derived from the results of the first
series of NS analyses of the unscaled impeller reduces the
number of non-converging calculations and improves the
robustness of the numerical procedure.
Fig. 2 Original and scaled performance curve and NS
verification of choking mass flow.
Geometry scaling
A simple scaling of the inlet section by the ratio of the
required over the calculated choking mass flow is inaccurate
because it neglects the hub to shroud variation of the leading
edge blade angle. An extrapolation or interpolation of this angle
is required to approximate the throat section at the new shroud
position. The following equation expresses the change in throat
area dA as a function of the blade orientation at the leading
edge βLE and a small change of dR of the shroud radius.
2π
dA = kbl cos β LE R dR
N bl
Nbl is the number of blades and kbl is a blockage factor that
accounts for the blade thickness. Assuming a linear variation
from hub to shroud of cosβLE
cos β LE ( R) =
R − Rhub
cos β LE , hub + ( cos β LE , shr − cos β LE , hub )
Rshr − Rhub
and integrating eq. (1) allows defining the new shroud leading
edge radius ( Rnew, shr ) as a function of the original one
( Rori , shr ) and the ratio between the calculated and required
choking mass flows.
m& choke − req x.R 2 new, shr + y.Rnew, shr + z
= (3)
m& choke − ori x.R 2 ori , shr + y.Rori , shr + z
where
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
⎡ cos β LE , hub + 2 cos β LE , shr ⎤ (4)
x=⎢ ⎥
⎣ 6 ⎦
⎡ cos β LE , hub − cos β LE , shr ⎤
y=⎢ ⎥ Rhub (5)
⎣ 6 ⎦
⎡ 2 cos β LE , hub + cos β LE , shr ⎤ 2 (6)
z = ⎢− ⎥ Rhub
⎣ 6 ⎦
Modifying the inlet section to increase/decrease the mass
flow requires an equivalent change of the impeller outlet
section to maintain the same velocity triangles at the outlet and
to conserve the same work input. Only small changes of the
inlet section are required so that a simple trimming of the
meridional contour, while keeping the optimized β distribution
on the old shroud contour, will not change the optimality of the
impeller. In this way the new performance curve can be derived
from the original one by a simple scaling of the mass flow at
unchanged pressure rise (Fig. 2).
The accuracy of the throat scaling procedure has been
verified by recalculating the choking mass flow of a limited
number of scaled geometries by the NS solver. A comparison
between the calculated choking mass flow and the one
predicted by the scaling model allowed the definition of the
blockage factor kbl and reduced the uncertainty on the choking
mass flow of the scaled impellers to less than .5% of the design
mass flow (Fig. 2).
Off design performance curve
The new geometry with the corrected throat and exit
section is considered as optimized and input to a second series
(5-8) of NS and FEA analyses. The choking point is not
recalculated on this new geometry because the scaling model is
sufficiently accurate. A second advantage of the scaling is that
the scaled performance curve can be used to define a more
representative set of boundary conditions for the second series
of four parallel NS calculations. They are based on following
considerations:
(1) 1. One calculation should allow an accurate prediction of the
impeller performance at design mass flow. The corresponding
pressure ratio imposed on the NS calculations is easily obtained
from interpolating the scaled performance curve at the design
mass flow (Fig. 2).
2. Another calculation should be as near as possible to the so-
(2)
called guaranteed surge point to verify that the impeller
satisfies the minimum range requirements. The value of the
backpressure is again obtained from interpolating or
extrapolating the scaled performance curve at the required mass
flow. Extrapolation of a scaled performance curve that has a
strong negative pressure rise slope could result in excessive
values of the predicted pressure rise. The value is therefore
limited to the design point value plus a prescribed maximum
ΔP. Extrapolation of a scaled performance curve with a very
small negative pressure rise slope could result in a value that is
hardly different from the design point value. Hence a minimum
pressure rise between design point and surge point is imposed.
3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 3. Since 4 calculations can run in parallel (for reasons of solutions than by imposing the same prescribed target values on
computer capacity or software licensing), two additional points every geometry and seriously improves the robustness of the
can be analyzed to avoid that two processors would remain idle system.
or two software licenses unused. One NS analysis at a A last database is used for stress predictions.
prescribed ΔP below the design point back pressure however
not below the average between the design point pressure and EXTENDED GEOMETRY PARAMETERIZATION
the one at choking. The boundary condition of a last NS Parameterization of the geometry is a very important issue
analysis is the average of the pressure at design- and guaranteed in an optimization process. The model should be sufficiently
surge mass flow. This second series (5-8) of four NS general, not to exclude the optimal geometry, without
calculations provides the off-design performance of the scaled increasing the number of design parameters beyond a limit
impeller and the input for the Objective Function (OF). The where it starts to slow down or prevent convergence. Hence a
FEA predicts the stresses in the scaled impeller judicious choice of the design parameters is required. The
standard geometry definition of radial impellers [4] is based on
Improved ANN predictions
a parameterized meridional contour at hub and shroud (Fig. 3),
There is in general no problem to find the choking mass
in combination with a definition of the blade camber line by the
flow by NS calculations. It is easily obtained by imposing a low
distribution of the angle β(m) between the meridional plane and
pressure ratio. More problematic are the performance near
the blade camber line (Fig. 4).
surge point. Imposing a too high outlet pressure or too low
mass flow for which no convergence can be obtained seriously
perturbs the optimization strategy because no information can
be added to the database and the computational effort is wasted.
A first way to speed up the convergence of the optimization
procedure is by increasing the accuracy of the ANN
predictions. More accurate metafunctions reduce the number of
optimization cycles that are required. The accuracy of the ANN
depends as well on the quality and completeness of the
information stored in the database as on the structure of the
ANN that relates the performance to the geometry. The more
representative the database the easier it will be for the ANN to
find that relation. It has therefore been decided to create
dedicated databases containing only the information that
influences the output and to combine them with ANN that are
targeted to the information one is interested in.
There is one database for the prediction of the choking
mass flow and one for the design and surge point predictions.
In terms of choking, one is only interested in the maximum Fig. 3 Meridional contour defined by Bézier control points
achievable mass flow. Information related to efficiency is
irrelevant in this context. Hence the only information in the first The meridional contours at hub and shroud are defined by
database is the geometry and mass flow at very low fourth order Bezier curves [17]. Design variables are the twelve
backpressure. Input to the ANN is the geometry. Output is the coordinates of the control points that can be varied and
choking mass flow for the GA optimization. indicated by arrows on Fig. 3. The following restrictions
A second database contains all the information about the complete the meridional design. The outlet diameter at hub and
unchoked flow conditions of the impellers, i.e. the efficiency shroud and the axial distance between leading edge (HLE) and
and mass flow at the different pressure ratios along the hub trailing edge (HTE) are prescribed. The radius of S1 equals
performance curve. It is used for two purposes: the one at the leading edge. The axial location of H3 is the same
- to calculate the OF driving the GA optimization and as the one at the trailing edge. The point S3 moves along a
- to predict the boundary conditions for the first series (1-4) of prescribed slope defining also the contraction at the vaneless
NS analyses. diffuser inlet.
Input to the ANN is in both cases the geometry and the mass The β distributions at hub and shroud are normally defined
flow at respectively design, guaranteed surge point and by third order polynomials:
minimum mass flow. Output of the first case is all the β (m ) = β LE (1 − m )3 + 3β1m(1 − m)2 + 3β 2 m 2 (1 − m ) + β LE m 3 (7)
information (π, η, M(i), flow distortion etc. at each mass flow) Where m is the non-dimensional meridional length (0 at the
needed to calculate the OF. Output of the second case is the leading edge and 1 at the trailing edge) and βLE and βTE are the
pressure ratio that should be imposed in the NS calculations to blade angles at leading- and trailing edge. The camber line
achieve the specified mass flow. This way of predicting the NS circumferential position θ (Fig. 4) is then obtained by
boundary conditions results in a larger percentage of converged

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 integration of R. dθ = dm. tan β from leading edge to trailing
edge along the meridional contours.
This guarantees smooth blades but does not guarantee that
the values of θ TE,hub and θ TE,shr correspond to an acceptable
value of the rake angle at the trailing edge. Maximum rake
angle is 45o from axial. Small corrections of the rake are
possible by starting from different θ LE values at hub and
shroud as long as the prescribed maximum lean is not exceeded
at the leading edge.
Fig. 4 Definition of the blade camber line by β angle.
A transonic compressor inducer is different from a subsonic
one [1-9] and this should be reflected in the geometry
parameterization. Important are the control of the shock
strength, its interaction with the boundary layer and the choking
mass flow. A convex suction side camber results in an increase
of the throat section. This has a positive effect on choking mass
flow but increases the suction side Mach number and hence the
shock losses. Negative suction side camber easily results in a
smaller throat section. It limits the suction side expansion
which favorably influences the throat blockage and losses by
replacing the bow shock by a series of more efficient
compression waves. More freedom in the definition of the
shroud camberline is required for transonic inducers. This is
achieved by increasing the degree of the Bezier curve,
describing the blade camberline at hub and shroud, to four so
that the leading edge part of the blade can be modified
independently of the downstream one.
The standard blade definition considers the splitter blades
as a short version of the full blades. The same hub and shroud β
distribution is used for both and the splitter blade leading edge
position defines to where they are cut back. The extended
definition, used in present optimization, allows the splitter
vanes to be different from the full blades in order to catch the
incoming flow in the most efficient way and to have the same
mass flow on both sides of the splitter vane. They are specified
a similar way as the full blades by a fourth order Bezier curve.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Only the value of βTE is the same at hub and shroud of the
splitter and full blades in order to improve the periodicity of the
impeller exit flow. This results in a total of 18 design variables
for the camber line definition of the blades.
The streamwise position of the splitter blade leading edge
is a last design parameter. It should be such that the splitter
does not limit the choking mass flow by creating a second
throat section while assuring a sufficient guidance of the flow
in the exducer. The splitter vane leading edge position at the
shroud can vary between 20% and 35% of the meridional
contour. The splitter leading edge position at the hub is fixed at
the same axial position as the shroud.
The number of full blades could also be a design parameter
to be optimized. In turbocharger applications it is often based
on manufacturing and inertia considerations and has therefore
been fixed at the same value as the baseline impeller.
The blade suction and pressure side are defined by adding
the local blade thickness perpendicular to the hub and shroud
camberline. The same standard blade thickness distribution,
used for the original impeller, is maintained in the new designs.
This brings the total number of design parameters to 31.
The blades are further defined by straight lines from hub to
shroud allowing flank milling.
Optimization objectives.
The compressor optimization is driven by a pseudo OF
that increases with decreasing aero performance and when the
aero requirements and mechanical constraints are violated. The
one used in present optimization is the weighted sum of several
penalties.
OF = wmassflow ⋅ Pmassflow + wπ ⋅ Pπ + wη ⋅ Pη +
w ⋅P +w ⋅P +w ⋅P + (8)
Mach Mach skew skew dist dist
wstress ⋅ Pstress + wlean ⋅ Plean + wslope ⋅ Pslope
Weight factors are adjusted to scale the penalties to comparable
values and to introduce a hierarchy in the objectives i.e. to put
more emphasis on high efficiency or higher pressure ratio and
mass flow. The OF is also adapted to respond better to the
targets and not all the terms are used at the different steps of the
optimization procedure. Only a short explanation of the
components and their application is given here. A more detailed
description of the individual terms can be found in [4,18].
The first penalty concerns the mass flow and has two
contributions:
- a penalty for incorrect total mass flow that starts increasing
when the error exceeds m& req / 300
2
⎛ ⎡⎛ m& req − m& ⎤⎞
⎜ 1 ⎞⎟ ⎟ (9)
Pmassflow = ⎜ max ⎢⎜ − ,0 .0 ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎢⎜ m& req 300 ⎟ ⎥⎟
⎝ ⎣⎝ ⎠ ⎦⎠
- a penalty for an unequal split of the mass flow between the
blade channels on both sides of the splitter blade.
2
⎛ m& upper − m& lower ⎞ (10)
Pmassdiff =⎜ ⎟
⎜ m& ⎟
⎝ upper + m& lower ⎠
5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 This helps equalizing the blade loading between splitter and full
blade and at the same time improves the periodicity of the
impeller exit flow
Both penalties are used when calculating the OF at the
unchoked operating points during the GA optimization cycle
and after the NS calculations. Only the global mass flow
penalty is used when verifying that a geometry reaches the
choking mass flow.
The following penalties are also used when evaluating
unchoked points.
The global mass flow penalty is replaced by a penalty on
pressure rise when evaluating the scaled geometries (5-8) based
on NS results.
Pπ = (π − π req ) (11)
It allows penalizing geometries that do not produce the
minimum required pressure ratio at design and surge point.
The third term in the OF is the efficiency penalty and
decreases with increasing total to total efficiency between the
compressor inlet and radius ratio 1.128 in the diffuser.
Pη = max (η req − η ,0.0 ) (12)
The required efficiency ηreq is set to 1.0 .
The penalty on the Mach number favors Mach number
distributions that are known to be good and expected to remain
like that at off-design operation. It has two contributions. The
first one penalizes negative loading and is proportional to the
area between the suction and pressure side when the pressure
side Mach number is higher than the suction side one. Areas of
negative loading result in extra friction losses without
contribution to the pressure rise and should therefore be
avoided.
1 ANN during the GA optimization cycle and used as boundary
PMach = ∫ max[M PS (s ) − M SS (s ) , 0.0]ds (13)
0 values at the design and guaranteed surge point when
The second Mach penalty increases with the loading
unbalance between the main blade and splitter blade. This
penalty compares the area between the suction and pressure
side Mach number distribution of the main blade (Ambl) and the
splitter blade (Aspl), corrected for the difference in blade length
2 OPTIMIZATION RESULTS
⎛ Ambl − Aspl ⎞
Ploading unbalance =⎜ ⎟ (14)
⎜ Ambl + Aspl ⎟ the DOE technique [20,21] and 17 additional geometries that
⎝ ⎠
This penalty is applied only to the hub section because
transonic compressors have a very high loading in the inducer
tip section and requesting the same loading on the splitter blade
would create a loading unbalance in the exducer part of the
impeller.
Senoo [19] has shown that non-uniformities of the
tangential and meridional velocity component at the impeller
outlet increase the diffuser losses and lower the stability. A
more uniform diffuser inlet flow is favored by penalizing
distortion and skewness of the impeller outlet flow.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
2. V.5 2. (V.9 − V.1 )
Pskew = −1 Pdist = wdist (15)
V.9 + V.1 V.9 + V.1
The subscripts .1, .5 and .9 indicate the non-dimensional
spanwise positions where the velocities are taken. These
expressions are applied separately to both the meridional and
tangential velocity.
The stress penalty is zero when the maximum calculated
stress σmax is below the allowable limit σallowable and increases
linearly when the maximum von Mises stress exceeds that
value.
⎡σ − σ allowable ⎤
Pstress = max ⎢ max ,0.0⎥ (16)
⎣ σ allowable ⎦
Fixing the maximum stress ( σallowable ) in the impeller to a very
low value assures positive penalties. The weak formulation of
this constraint does not guarantee that a prescribed stress limit
is not exceeded but the optimizer will try to keep the value as
low as possible. It has the advantage that all geometries, that
are analyzed, provide information leading towards the optimum
geometry.
Imposing a minimum negative slope for the pressure versus
mass flow curve allows expecting that the real surge limit will
be at lower mass flow than the guaranteed one. The real surge
limit is defined by the point of maximum pressure rise and
verified a posteriori for the optimized impeller. The pressure
slope penalty is defined by:
Pslope = wslope max[0., tol + slope] (17)
where
P2, surge − P2, design m& design
slope = (18)
P o1 m& surge − m& design
P2,surge and P2,design are the outlet pressures predicted by the
condition in the NS calculations. They are the interpolated
evaluating the OF after the NS performance predictions.
A last penalty increases when the leading edge lean angle is
larger than ±8.0o. Individual geometries exceeding this limit
have been observed during the GA cycle but all the optimized
geometries had very small or zero leading edge lean.
The initial database comprised 20 geometries defined by
resulted from some preliminary testing of the method. Ninety
percent of them are in the ANN training set and the remaining
in the test set. Single layer ANN topologies are used throughout
the whole optimization. The initial number of hidden nodes for
the ANN predicting choking, design and surge point were 6 and
12, respectively. They have manually been adapted during the
optimization procedure as a function of the increasing number
of samples in the database.
A total of 24 dedicated ANN have been defined. Eight of
them predict respectively: the exit static pressure boundary
conditions for the NS analyses, the mass difference between
6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 both sides of the splitter vanes, total-to-total efficiency,
skewness and distortion at radius ratio 1.128 of the vaneless
diffuser, and maximum von Mises stress. The 16 remaining
ones are used to predict the Mach number in 20 points on the
pressure and suction side at the hub and shroud of the main and
splitter blades.
Fifty optimization iterations have been made. The
convergence history of the optimization is shown in Figs. 5.
Negative iterations correspond to the database samples
analyzed by NS. Positive iterations are the optimization cycles.

Fig. 6 The evolution of the total-to-total efficiency.

The best performance is obtained with geometry 49:
highest choking mass flow, highest efficiency gain at design
point and largest negative pressure rise slope. The stresses are
only a little higher than for the others but below the ones of the
baseline impeller.
The power of the optimized impellers is not exactly the
same as the baseline one. However the maximum difference at
design point is less than 4.1 %.
Fig. 5 Total penalty history of the optimization iterations,
shown with the total NS penalties of the database samples. Table 1 Performance comparison of the best impellers
at design mass flow.
The difference between the ANN and NS penalty is not an
exact measure for the accuracy of the ANN predictions since Choking Δηt-t Ratio of ΔPower
the penalties, used in the GA optimization cycle and for the NS Mass Design max von ΔP/Δm Design
Sample
flow point Mises Slope point
performance evaluations, are not fully identical. [m/mref] (%) Stress %
Most of the optimized samples have a lower penalty than Baseline 1.023 0. 1. -0.1766 0.
the database samples. There is no uniform convergence towards Iter. 25 1.051 2.23 .94 -0.1962 3.6
the optimum geometry because every GA-ANN cycle (right Iter. 42 1.066 2.20 .95 -0.2774 1.3
hand side cycle on Fig. 1) is not deterministic and each iteration Iter. 43 1.043 2.25 .93 -0.2461 0.4.
is made with an ANN that is trained on a different (updated) Iter. 44 1.037 2.18 .91 -0.2608 -1.6
database. Iter. 45 1.037 2.20 .93 -0.2627 -0.6.
The evolution of the total-to-total efficiencies, predicted by Iter. 49 1.063 2.32 .98 -0.2891 4.1.
the ANN and NS, is depicted in Fig. 6. One observes that after
a first series of iterations, where the NS predictions disagree The efficiency penalty versus the stress penalty (Fig. 7)
with the ANN ones, the accuracy of the latter improves. clearly shows that there is no conflict between higher efficiency
Starting from iteration 22 a rather good agreement between and limited von Mises stresses. There is no real Pareto front
both predictions is obtained. The first high efficiency design is because the pseudo OF, combining the penalties and
the geometry of iteration 25, after which several geometries constraints, rapidly converges to a compromise defined by the
with an efficiency gain of more than 2% are observed. They are weight factors [8]. The η penalty is of the same order as the
marked by the vertical dashed lines on Fig. 6. stress penalty but corresponds to a considerable increase of the
Much better insight into the quality of the optimized efficiency whereas the stress level is equal to the one of the
geometries can be obtained by having a closer look to the baseline impeller. Changing the respective weight factors to put
choking mass flow, the efficiency and maximum stress values, more emphasis on high efficiency or low stresses would have
as well as the pressure rise over mass flow slope of the resulted in another geometry and different set of non dominated
individual geometries. These characteristics are listed in Table 1 points on the Pareto front.

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 7 The total-to-total efficiency versus maximum von
Mises stress for the database cases and iterations.
The optimum geometry is obtained with a reasonable
number of flow analyses. 150 geometries have been analyzed to
find the optimum one: 50 geometries in the database and 2
geometries at each of the 50 iterations. This makes a total of
600 NS analyses. However they have been performed
completely automatically without any manual intervention of
the designer except for adapting the number of hidden nodes in
the ANN to the increasing number of the database samples.
Fig. 8 Performance of the iteration 49 impeller
The geometry of the 49th iteration has been analyzed in
more detail. A comparison of the complete performance curve
with the one of the baseline geometry (Fig. 8) clearly illustrates
the gain that has been achieved, both in terms of choking mass
flow and efficiency. One also observes that the surge to choking
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
range is conserved. The choking mass flow further illustrates
the accuracy of the geometry scaling.
The design point isentropic Mach number distributions at
the hub and shroud of iteration 49 are compared to the ones of
the baseline impeller on Fig. 9. It is believed that the lower
suction side Mach number at the shroud and subsequent
reduction of shock losses and shock boundary layer interaction
losses are a first reason for the efficiency improvement of the
49th impeller. A better capturing of the flow at the splitter
leading edge and a more uniform distribution of the loading
along the blade length is another major source of performance
improvement.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9 Mach number distribution on the optimized (a) and
baseline impeller (b).
Except for a small trim, the meridional contour of the
optimal geometries is almost identical to the one of the baseline
impeller. The difference between the blade geometry at hub and
shroud is illustrated by the conformal view on Fig. 10. The full
blades are less curved in the shroud inducer part resulting in a
larger wrap angle. The optimized splitter blades are much
shorter with higher camber at the shroud resulting in an
eccentric location of the leading edge. The full blades at the hub
are very similar to the baseline ones.
8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Fig. 10 Conformal view of the original and optimized hub
and shroud blade sections
The corresponding blade angle distributions β are shown on
Fig. 11. The overall angle distribution of the full blades is quite
similar for all the optimized impellers. The smaller change of
blade angle at the shroud leading edge corresponds to a reduced
camber which is characteristic for transonic inducers. It is
responsible for the decrease in Mach number and increase of
the choking mass flow because of a smaller throat blockage.
The difference between the full blade and the splitter
leading edge angle is opposite at hub and shroud and results
from the 3D swirling flow inside the blade passage.
The large value of β at the splitter shroud leading edge
results in a lower incidence and a more uniform load
distribution (Fig. 9.a). The decrease of the splitter leading edge
angle at the hub is a consequence of the penalty on unequal
mass flows on both sides of the splitter. It results in a decreased
loading at the splitter hub leading edge, a better balance of the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
mass flow on both sides of the splitter blades and a more
uniform loading of the full blade. The impact on the
performance of this negative incidence must be rather small
considering the low Mach number and rounded leading edge.
Fig. 11 Blade angle comparison of iteration 49 with
baseline and other best impellers.
The relative Mach number on a surface close to the shroud
of geometry 49 and the baseline impeller is shown on Fig. 12.
One observes a decrease of the supersonic flow area and a more
gradual diffusion of the flow in the downstream channels of the
optimized impeller. The velocity vectors near the splitter
leading edge illustrate the large reduction of the incidence. The
increased loading in the downstream part of the blade channels
is reflected in the increased difference between the suction and
pressure side Mach number at constant radius.
CONCLUSIONS
The automated optimization system, based on a well
structured strategy with an extended objective function for
multipoint optimization is efficient and converges to a
geometry that respects the required surge to choking margin
with improved performance over the whole operating range.
The use of dedicated databases and corresponding ANN,
targeted to the specific information required at the different
optimization steps, improves the convergence and results in a
more robust optimization procedure.
The definition of a pseudo objective function and the
concurrent aero and mechanical optimization considerably
reduces the number of iterations required.
The scaling of the impeller after a first series of CFD
analyses has proven to be very accurate. It allows the
recuperation of all calculated results, and makes the procedure
more efficient by limiting the additional efforts required for
multipoint optimization.
9 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 A parameterization of the geometry that is better suited for
transonic flows has resulted in a considerable increase of
efficiency with respect of the choking mass flow requirement.
The consequence is an increased pressure ratio at almost
unchanged power input.
Part of the performance improvement can be attributed to
the control of the suction side camber resulting in a lower
maximum Mach number and reduced shock losses. A better
capturing of the flow at the splitter leading edge is a second
major source of performance improvement.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 12 Relative Mach number near shroud for the baseline
impeller (a) and Iteration 49 (b), at design point.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank Mitsubishi Heavy Industry for
granting the permission to publish these results.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
REFERENCES
1. Pierret, S., 1999, “Designing Turbomachinery Blades by
Means of the Function Approximation Concept Based on
Artificial Neural Network, Genetic Algorithm, and the
Navier-Stokes Equations”, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculté
Polytechnique de Mons-Von Karman Institute for Fluid
Dynamics.
2. Pierret, S., and Van den Braembussche, R.A., 1999,
“Turbomachinery Blade Design Using a Navier-Stokes
Solver and Artificial Neural Networks”, ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 121, pp.326-332.
3. Verstraete, T., 2008, “Multidisciplinary Turbomachinery
Component Optimization Considering Performance, Stress,
and Internal Heat Transfer”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Ghent-von Karman Institute.
4. Verstraete T., Alsalihi Z. and Van den Braembussche R.A.,
(2010), “Multidisciplinary Optimization of a Radial
Compressor for Micro Gasturbine Application”, ASME
Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol.132, issue 3, paper 021004
5. Jun, L., Lijun, L., Zhenping, F., 2004, “Multiobjective
Optimization of a Centrifugal Impeller using Evolutionary
Algorithms”, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering
17(3), pp. 389-393.
6. Bartold A., and, Joos F., 2008, "Optimization of a
Centrifugal Impeller Using Evolutionary Algorithms,"
IGTI/ASME Turbo Expo GT2008-50805.
7. Watanabe,H. and Zangeneh,M., 2003, “Design of the Blade
Geometry of Swept Transonic Fans by 3D Inverse Design”,
ASME GT2003-38770.
8. Amaral,S., Verstraete,T., Van den Braembussche,R.A.,
Arts,T., 2008, “Design and Optimization of the Internal
Cooling Channels of a HP Turbine Blade Part2:
Optimization”, ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol.132,
Issue 3, paper 021014.
9. Hah, C. and Wennerstrom, A.J., 1991, “Three-Dimensional
Flow Fields Inside a Transonic Compressor with Swept
Blades”, ASME Journal of Turbomachinery Vol.113,
pp.241-251.
10. Wadia, A.R., Szucs, P.N. and Crall,D.W., 1998, “Inner
Workings of Aerodynamics Sweep”, ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery Vol.120 pp.671-682.
11. Denton, J.D. and Xu, L., 2002, “The effects of Lean and
Sweep on Transonic Fan Performance”, ASME GT2002-
30327.
12. Law, C.H., and Wadia, A.R., 1993, “Low Aspect Ratio
Transonic Rotors: Part1: Baseline Design and
Performance”, ASME Journal of Turbomachinery Vol.115,
pp.218-225.
13. Medd, A.J., Dang, T.Q. and Larosiliere, L.M., 2003, “3D
Inverse Design Loading Strategy for Transonic Axial
Compressor Blading”, ASME GT2003-38501.
14. Beneini, E., 2004, “Three-Dimensional Multi-Objective
Design Optimization of a Transonic Compressor Rotor”,
Journal of Propulsion and Power Vol.20 No.3, pp559-565.
10 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 15. Arnone, A., 1994, “Viscous analysis of Three-Dimensional
Rotor Flow Using a Multigrid Method”, ASME Journal of
Turbomachinery, 116, pp. 435–445.
16. SAMTECH S.A., 2008, “SAMCEF V12.2 Manual”,
Technical report. See also URL http://www.samcef.com.
17. Casey M.V., 1982, A computational geometry for the blades
and internal flow channels of centrifugal compressors,
ASME 82-GT-155.
18. Van den Braembussche R.A., 2008, „Numerical
Optimization for Advanced Turbomachinery Design, in
Optimization and Computational Fluid Dynamics, editors
Thévenin D and Janiga G., Springer, 2008.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
19. Senoo, Y., 1984, “Vaneless diffusers”. in VKI Lecture Series
1984-07 Flow in Centrifugal Compressors.
20. Montgomery, D.C., 1997, “Design and Analysis of
Experiments”, John Wiley and Sons, New York, ISBN 0-
471-31649-0..
21. Kostrewa K., Alsalihi Z., and Van den Braembussche R. A,
“Optimization of Radial Turbines by Means of Design of
Experiment”, VKI-PR-2003-17, 2003.
11 Copyright © 2012 by ASME