You are on page 1of 11

# Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage

## Jin Shik Lim* and M y u n g Kyoon Chung1"

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Cheongryang, Seoul, Korea

## Received 5 January 1988 and accepted for publication 18 April 1988

An optimal design program of an axial-flow compressor stage has been developed by applying the gradient projection method to a simulation program. Total pressure losses required to calculate the total-to-total efficiency are estimated by integrating empirical loss coefficients of six loss mechanisms along the radial direction of a three-dimensional blade. The weight of a stage is estimated by considering stress distribution and the material of stage components. Example optimization problems for maximum efficiency, minimum weight, and balanced optimum between efficiency and weight are given, and sensitivities in the whole feasible range of design variables are analyzed. In the maximum efficiency design with a given stage pressure ratio, the meridional flow path tends to be deflected radially outward, and the axial velocity is decreased both in the rotor and the stator. Minimization of the weight is achieved mainly by the reduction of the cascade solidity. The present method can be easily extended to find optimum pressure ratio of the stage for given inlet conditions and the objective function. Since the simulation equations include the effects of Mach number and Reynolds number, a system of multistage compressors can be optimized for the given inlet conditions such as rotating speed, total pressure ratio and air inlet condition.

Keywords: design optimization; constraints; axial flow compressor; stagnation pressure loss; efficiency; weight; stall margin; stress; sensitivity Introduction
It is a main goal of aircraft gas turbine design to improve the specific fuel consumption and the thrust-to-weight ratio. Reduction of the specific fuel consumption has been attempted by modification of the gas turbine cycle or efficiency improvement of turbomachinery components and the combustor.1 The weight has been decreased by reducing the diameter and length of engine components. However, such reductions increase three-dimensional flow effects and the cascade turning angle. Moreover, as the length of the combustor is shortened, the gas resident time in the combustion chamber decreases. Hence the conventional method of the weight reduction inevitably causes loss of efficiency. As a result, the efficiency improvement and the weight reduction must be compromised according to a certain design criterion. Since a heavy rotor deteriorates the transient characteristics of the axial flow compressor at the engine dynamic operating condition, a compromise between the efficiency and the weight is especially important in the design of a multistage axial-flow compressor. 2 Numerous geometric, fluid dynamic, and thermodynamic variables govern the performance characteristics of a compressor stage. Design of such a compressor for maximum efficiency or minimum weight has long been a good optimization problem. Balje 3 obtained a maximum efficiency and associated geometry of a full or partial admission turbine based on loss correlations by applying Wood's pattern search optimization method. Rao and Gupta 4 minimized the aerodynamic losses and mass of subsonic axial turbine stage by using loss correlations of Dunham and Came by applying the interior penalty function method. Japikse 5 made an optimal performance map of centri* Research assistant. t Professor. 1989 Butterworth Publishers
48 Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

fugal compressors and radial-inflow turbines in consideration of a compressor-turbine matching. Perdichizzi and Savini 6 obtained an optimum configuration of a centrifugal compressor in comparison with optimum solutions by several different loss anaylsis methods. Ritz and Jou 7 developed an optimization algorithm to design a propeller. Blaho 8 analyzed optimum performance parameters such as camber and lift coefficient for axial flow fans. Bammert and Staude 9 got a tandem blade with minimum profile loss by a boundary layer calculation. Sanger 1 used a feasible and conjugate direction method to lay out a design-controlled diffusion compressor blading. Gu and Miao 1 calculated an optimum diffusion factor distribution along a blade length by using Pontryagin's maximum principle. De Neeve and Dukkipati ~2 optimized the geometry of an axial blade to obtain a better stress distribution without compromising the aerodynamic design. In the present work, a simulation code for analysis of an axial-flow compressor stage has been developed with stagnation pressure loss correlations, including shock formation and simple stress distribution. With this simulation code, total-tototal stage efficiency and/or weight can be optimized under various fluid dynamic and mechanical constraints along with aerodynamic requirements. Example design problems were solved for maximum efficiency, minimum weight, and balanced optimum between the efficiency and the weight under specific design conditions, and the characteristics of the optimized compressors were analyzed. In addition, the results of sensitivity calculations using the simulation program were discussed in the whole feasible range of design variables.

## Modeling of an axial-flow compressor stage Stage design

The geometric and fluid dynamic variables listed in Table 1 are

Table 1

## Design requirements and fixed conditions Variables

Data*
20.19 kg/s

Mass flow rate, rh Total pressure ratio, Poe/Pot Rotative speed, N Stage inlet radius, r. Inlet total pressure, P01 Inlet total temperature, T0~ Inlet absolute flow velocity, Vml Inlet absolute flow angle, =m~ Rotor tip clearance, z Material density, p~ * In Ref. 30.

1.82
17,189 rpm 252.9 mm 101.4 kN/m 2 288.2 K 214.0 m/s 0o 0.36 x 10 -3 m 4.42 x 103 kg/m ~

## H02 =H03 H03i\$

o=/o~

Po3

~,~....-~ I"01reI
Hol =HO2rel
~ Po2rel

~-

I lw==

design requirements and inlet conditions. To simplify the design problem, we assume that all components are made of titanium alloy Ti-6A1-4V. The stage pressure ratio may be treated as either a fixed design requirement or a design variable to be optimized for a given objective function. The design process consists of three steps: thermodynamic calculation, determination of velocity triangles at the mean line and the meridional plane, and calculation of design point efficiency. The state points in Figure 1 can be obtained only when the stage total-to-total efficiency ~tt and the diffuser efficiency r/d in Equations 1 and 2 are first assumed.

I
Figure I

## Enthalpy-entropy diagram of axial-flow compressor

where 7m = (73 + 7~)/2, Tzl, = T2 + r/d(T3 -- T2) (2) Correct values of these efficiencies are calculated iteratively as shown in the flowchart of Figure 2. The specific heat Cp= and the specific heat ratio 7i of air are calculated by using empirical correlations as functions of the static temperature presented by Steinke. ~s

Notation

z t3 co

A bi C C~ D=q fb fw G H h M th N Nb P AP R Re S s T t U V W fl 7 e r/ p tr

Cross-sectional area, m 2 Design variables, i = 1, 2, 3 . . . . ,8 Cascade chord length, m Constant specific heat, kJ/kg K Equivalent diffusion factor Balancing factor in objective function Weighting factor in objective function Weight, kg Enthalpy, kJ/kg K Blade height, m Mach number Mass flow rate, kg/s Rotative speed, rpm Number of blades Pressure, kN/m 2 Pressure loss, kN/m 2 Degree of reaction Reynolds number Cascade spacing, m or entropy, J/kg K Safety factor Temperature, K Thickness, m Peripheral flow velocity, m/s Absolute flow velocity, m/s Relative flow velocity, m/s Absolute flow angle, degree Relative flow angle, degree Specific heat ratio Flow turning angle, degree Efficiency Density, kg/m 3 Stress, kN/m 2, or solidity

Rotor tip clearance, m Objective function for optimization Angular speed, rad/s Loss coefficient defined as the stagnation pressure loss divided by relative inlet dynamic pressure

Subscript b Blade c Outer casing d Diffuser or disk e Annulus walls h Hub i Index, i = 1, 2, 3 is Isentropic k Rotor tip clearance M Shock wave m Mean line max Maximum p Blade profile r Rotor s Stator or secondary flow t Tip tt Total-to-total x Axial Y Yield point 0 Stagnation or initial guess 1 Rotor inlet 2 Rotor outlet or stator inlet 3 Stator outlet Superscript ' Blade angle or iterative value Average value

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

49

SIMULATION I

## I Design requirements and fixed geometry

-3
Calculate secondary flow losses

## ~, %3/%1 , N, T, rtl Air inlet condition TOI' Pol' Vml' a ml

Input design variables I

## ~sr ' ~ss' ~l~sr' ADSS I

Calculate mean wetted area ratios

Rwr, Rws
I

rt3" Vm3'am3
Crm, Csm, Srm, Ssm Start iteration with trial Values of n tt and nd
I

(~)

Calculate end wall losses ~er' ~es' APer' apes I Calculate shock wave losses ~Mr ' ~Ms" 6~Mr'APMs I total pressure losses
I
Calculate total-to-total efficiency diffuser efficiency

## Calculate temperaturesand pressures

Ti' Toi' Pi'

Poi' i = 1,3

in a cascade becomes supersonic, shock waves occur. Shock formation is a major loss source in the supersonic compressor. Therefore the stagnation pressure losses can be classified into six mechanisms. Table 2 represents loss sources and their analysis methods used in the present simulation. Validity and usefulness of these analysis methods have been well demonstrated by the cited references and many others. The loss coefficient calculated by each analysis method is defined as the stagnation pressure loss divided by the inlet relative dynamic pressure of the cascade flow. The total stagnation pressure losses in the rotor and the stator are obtained by integrating all loss coefficients along the flow path radius as follows:

Summation of

## Calculate geometric and aerodynamic variables Pi' Vxmi' Ai' hi"

rhi' rmi

and|

~ APr= [{c%Jr)+OO.r(r)+co.Jr)+ogMr(r)} fi
x PlW~(r!]drh(r)+ APk ~ AP,= f ~[ {O~p,(r)+ qx.(r)+oo.(r)+ogM,(r)} ~]
(5)

## Vom, i=I,3 i Umj' mj' Bmj" Wmj' WemJ'j=l,2 I

Design three dimensional flow (free vortex)

ntt, , nd,

l
I

Vomi' Vxmi' Vi' :i' i=1,3 Uj, W~, Wj, ~, j=l,2 I Calculate pressure losses
and integrate along radius I Calculate diffusion factors and wake thicknesses

Yes

drh(r)
(6)

nit = ntt' ~ n
J

d,

Deq , Deq 02 , e3 r s r
I

## nit, + ntt ntt .... Z

"d = ~d' 2 % +

~pr' mps"APpr,A~ps
Calculate rotor tip clearance losses

APkr

Wel
UI

~ vel-~
,I

Figure 2

## Flowchart of design and efficiency calculation for an axial-flow compressor stage

ROTOR

Applying the Euler equation (3) for the momentum transfer between the rotor and the fluid, velocity triangles like Figure 3 can be constructed at each mean radius rmdefined by Equation 4. 1 Vem2rm2- Vernlrml= ~ (Cp3 To3-CvlToi)
_ r m~_ 2 [2(rt2 +rh) ] 1 / 2

(3)

(4)

Among many analytic three-dimensional design concepts, the free vortex design is most commonly used because of its constant axial velocity, constant enthalpy at all radii of a station, and a zero partial gradient of entropy rise along the radius.l* For this reason, the present simulation has adopted the free vortex scheme. Figure 4 shows the meridional view of an axial-flow compressor stage in which geometric variables are defined. After several iterations as represented in Figure 2, the stage configuration and performance parameters, such as flow coefficient, loading factor, and degree of reaction, are obtained. The blade twistings of a rotor and a stator are determined by calculating the stagger angles along the radii. Variations of both stagger angles are obtained by calculating the incidence and deviation angles at all radial positions of a cascade using Boyce's correlations, 1s which includes Mach number correction terms for high subsonic and supersonic flows.
Stagnation pressure loss a n d efficiency

SsT'TOR
t-vo --t
Figure 3 Velocity triangle and cascade of axial-flow compressor
stage
tc

1 ~ f / / 2

. . . .

r~3, -~L.-

51
The stagnation pressure loss in a subsonic axial-flow compressor stage is mainly due to the boundary layers on the blade surface and on the annular wall and also to the wake flows after the blades. Additional loss sources are secondary vortex flows and rotor tip leakage flow. When the relative flow velocity

Figure 4

## Meridional view of an axial flow compressor

50

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage: J. S. Lira and M. K. Chung

Table 2

Loss mechanisms Loss sources Analysis methods Lieblein's analytical methodTM corrected for Mach number, Reynolds number, and stream tube contraction by Koch and Smith w Vortex flow model of Lakshminarayana and Horlock TM Wetted-wall area-ratio concept of BaljeTM and Stewart, Whitney, and Wong = Lakshminarayana's leakage modeW Fictitious normal shock method by Miller, Lewis, and Hartmannz= Prince's result for leading-edge bluntedness effect using the method of characteristics"

Blade profile boundary layer and wake flow Secondary flow End wall boundary layer flow Rotor tip clearance flow Passage shock Detached bow shock

From these total losses, the stage total-to-total efficiency and the diffuser efficiency, assumed in Equations 1 and 2, are corrected using Equations 7 and 8.

b,h

A(r)r dr -~

P1WI

T2

r,

## ~l~t= 1 . 0 (('g2-- 1)/~2)Cp2T2 ~-Pr/P'01 + ((~3 - 1)/)J3)Cn3T3 ~-PPs/P02

Cp3To3--Cpl Yol

rtlQ T2 - 1 2C ~_t~=,j

(12)

(7)

The first term on the right-hand side of Equation 12 is the centrifugal stress of the blades, and the second term is the blade bending stress. The disk thickness at the hub is the function of these stresses as in Equation 13.
tdh

## t/~ = 1.0 where ~=~

73 - 1 AP~

T3

?3 P02 "/'3-- T2
AP/vh and

(8)

pd['~2rdhCxrratth Ty/S

"1

NbrO'brhAbrh Cxrrntrh
27~rdh(Gy/S)
rdh

(13)

i 1 2 Pot=PI +~PlWml

These computed values are compared with the guesses ~ht and ?/d at the start of the calculation procedure to check convergence.

For the constant stress distribution along the radius with the root stress, the thickness of the disk varies according to the following equation: 24
td=exPrPdf]2r2tr {(~tr) - - ( ~ ) } ] tdh [_ 20"brh

rdh 2

r 2

(14)

Weight analysis

On integrating Equation 14 from the hub to the centerline, the disk weight turns out to be as follows.
Gd =,Kpdtdh e .... 'tr [1 - e -c~c2]

Total weight of the stage is estimated by a simplified compressor geometry as depicted in Figure 4. The blade twistings are neglected in this estimation. The configurations of the flow path and the bladings have been calculated in the above design step. The design concept of a constant stress distribution in a rotor disk requires that the thickness of the disk be exponentially varied along the radius. The blade weights for a rotor and a stator are calculated by integrating the blade cross-sectional area along the radius and multiplying the blade number as follows:
G b ~- Nbp b J'~ ab(r) dr

r2

C1

(15)

## rtl + rt2 r,r-2

Design optimization
The total-to-total efficiency and the weight of an axial-flow compressor stage are nonlinear functions of the design variables. There are many constraints in the design of an axial-flow compressor stage. Most of the constraints are expressed as nonlinear functions of the design variables. Therefore, the optimization of an axial-flow compressor is a nonlinear constrained optimization problem with two objective functions: the loss of efficiency and the weight. The present objective function is constructed by a balanced sum of the efficiency loss and the weight of the stage. 'iF =f*fb(1 -- t/t0 + (1 --f,)G,tas, where fb = Go/(1 -- rhto), 0.0 =<f, < 1.0 (16) The coefficient fb is a balancing factor to make both terms of comparable magnitude. The coefficient f , is a weighting factor between the efficiency and the weight. Iffw is 1.0, the optimization problem becomes an efficiency maximization one. A compromised optimal design is obtained by defining the weighting factor f , between 0.0 and 1.0. Here, Go and th,o are initial guesses for optimized weight and efficiency, respectively. There are seven independent design variables when the pressure ratio is given for the stage design. Table 3 represents

(9)

The blade cross-sectional area at an arbitrary radius is proportional to the square of a chord length. The proportional constant is calculated by the thickness-to-chord ratio of the selected airfoil. For example, the constant for the double circular arc airfoil with 6% thickness-to-chord ratio is 0.040715. The shape of annular walls can be simplified as the constantthickness cylinder as sketched in Figure 4. The thickness of each wall is calculated from the equilibrium equation between the flow pressure and permissible stress of the material, including the safety factor. Therefore the weights of the outer casing and inner wall are calculated as follows.
G c = zrpctc[(rtl + rt2 --bte)Cxr m -t- (rt2 -I- rt3 + te)Cxsm']

(10)

Gh = 7~[Prhtrh(rhl -l- rh2 --trh)Cxrm-l- Pshtsh(rh2 -l- rha -- fsh)CxsnO (11) The rotor disk is subjected to the blade bending stress caused by the flow pressure and the centrifugal stress. Because the centrifugal stress of a blade is dominant over the bending stress, 23 the coupling effect of these two stress terms is weak. Hence the total blade stress can be approximated by a simple

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

51

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage: J. S. Lim and M. K. Chung

Table 3

Comparison of optimum design variables Optimization objective* Design variables Max. efficiency 176.7/214.0 11.2/11.1 246.4/246.7 39.53/45.13 29.56/29.81 29.79/25.84 20.84/19.50 1.82/2.08 Min. weight 212.1/213.4 11.0/1 0.8 246.7/240.5 31.95/27.47 18.11/21.59 35.86/35.43 27.15/25.67 1 82/1.70 Balanced 195.1/192.2 14.3/11.6 248.2/246.9 29.39/28.18 12.24/18.56 30.83/31.24 16.32/22.91 1.82/1.77
Moore's model

b, b2 b~ b, b5 b6 b7 be

V=3, m/s ~3, deg rta, mm Cry, mm C,,, mm S,~, mm S,~, mm Po3/Po~

## 202.7 10.9 239.8 42.09 30.14 28.40 21.94 1.82

* Numerals represent values for cases of pressure ratio given/pressure ratio to be optimized.

Table 4

Constraints on variables

I. Fluid dynamic variables (1) V,~<Vml (2) 80>=m~>0. (3) /Y,.,,b>0. (4) /Y,,t,p<80. (5) ~=,h,,<80. (6) ==.,,,>0. (7) M,,t,p<l.7 (8) M,.,ub<l.7 (9) 0.9>Rm>0.2 (10) R,ub>0. (11) D.,.,< 2.0 (12) D.q..<2.0 (13) 1 . 0 x l 0 7 > R e , > l . 0 x l 0 4 (14) 1 . 0 x l 0 7 > R e . > l . 0 x l 0 '

2, Geometric variables (15) r,>r=>r,3 (16) 2.5>6,>0.1 (17) 2.5>6,>0.6 (18) 2.0>h,/h,>~0.6 (19) 2.0>h=/h3>0.6 (20) rhl<r,=<r,~ (21) arctana.,<0.5 (22) arctan ==.s<0.5 (23) #'4>#'= (24) c('=>=~ 3. Mechanical stress (25) ~r <6.9xl0SN/m= ..... (26) a..... -<6.9x108N/m=

[]
Figure 5 stages

~ ~

## Predicted weight distribution of three typical compressor

these design variables: cascade variables Cr=, Csm, Srm, S,m and stage outlet variables Vma, ct=3, and rt3. Table 4 summarizes design constraints for an axial-flow compressor stage. Constraints (3)-(8) and (10) are due to the free vortex three-dimensional design. Another analytical 3-D design scheme should have different types of constraints. Constraints (1), (2), (9), (15), (20), (21), and (22) are for the preparation of a stage stacking of a multistage compressor. Constraints (13), (14), and (16)-(19) represent the valid ranges of the loss correlation equations by Koch and Smith. 17 Constraints (11 ) and (12) are the practical limitations of the cascade equivalent diffusion factor for efficient operation considering the stall margin. 25 The stress limitations (25) and (26) are due to the permissible stress of the selected material, which is the yield stress divided by a safety factor. A gradient projection algorithm 26 is used for optimization. Gradients of the objective functions and constraints are calculated by applying the central difference scheme to the results of the parametric simulations. 27 The sensitivities of performance parameters and the weight to all design variables are also computed by using the same results of the parametric simulations.
Optimization results and discussions

## O p t i m a l design w i t h a g i v e n value o f the stage pressure ratio

The efficiencies and weights of 10 NASA-developed compressors 2s-3 have been calculated by the present simulation program. Table 5 compares the predicted efficiencies and weights with the experimental results. The predictions are in very good agreement with experiment, which verifies that our

simulation modeling is accurate enough for use in optimal design analysis. Figure 5 represents the estimated weight distributions for three typical stages. In all cases, the weight of the blades occupies more than 70% of the total weight of the compressor stage. The constrained optimum design problems have been solved with three different values of weighting factors under Moore's design requirements 3 summarized in Table 1. In Moore's original design, the flow through the rotor is supersonic and that through the stator is subsonic. Table 3 compares the optimum design variables with those of Moore's model. Table 6 shows comparisons between the optimum compressor stages and Moore's model. By the efficiency maximization with a weighting factor of 1.0, the efficiency is improved by about 1.0%. On the other hand, the weight minimization reduces the stage weight to 40% of Moore's model. However, the efficiency is decreased by about 2.0%. With a weighting factor of 0.5 for compromising the efficiency and the weight, the efficiency is improved by 0.7% and the weight is reduced to 42% of Moore's model. Figure 6 represents the results of the three optimization problems. Figure 6(a) shows that the entropy rise is decreased by the efficiency maximization. The axial velocity components at both exits of the rotor and the stator are reduced when the efficiency is maximized, as represented in Figure 6(b). This corresponds to the increase of the blade height at each station depicted in Figure 6(c). The rotor turning angle becomes smaller for maximum efficiency as listed in Table 6. This implies that reduction of the expansion angle preceding the passage shock decreases the strength of the passage shock. The increase of the rotor-root equivalent diffusion factor in the efficiency maximization is mainly due to the reduction of the axial velocity components. Figure 6(c) reveals that the mean line of the flow

52

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol, 10, No. 1, March 1989

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage: J. S. Lim and M. K. Chung

Table 5 Comparison of predicted stage efficiencies and weights with experimental values
Stage efficiency (%) and weight (kg)* Compressor stage model Britsch model 23B-20 Britsch model 24A-20 Britsch model 25A-20B Britsch model 26B-21 Britsch model 27A-21 Britsch model 28B-22 Steinke model 1 Steinke model 2 Steinke model 3 Moore model Prediction1" 89.62/3.93 88.19/4.94 86.30/2.12 87.05/3.63 89.84/5.04 87.87/5.25 82.92/8.29 85.93/3.94 86.58/2.29 82.25/2.66 Experiment:[: 88.2(3 /4.11 87.3(3 /5.28 85.0(3 /2.36 86.2(3 /3.58 90.2(3 /5.42 87.3(3 /5.68 82.3(3 /8.89 84.9(3 /3.78 86.3(3 /2.16 82.1 (3/2.78 Prediction error (prediction-experiment) +1.42/-0.18 + 0.89/- 0.34 + 1.30/-0.24 + 0.85/+ 0.05 - 0,36/- 0.38 + 0.57/- 0.43 + 0.62/- 0.60 + 1.03/+ 0.16 +0.28/+0.13 +0.15/-0.12

* Numerals represent values of efficiency/weight. 1"Calculation by the present method. :~ Cited from Refs. 28, 29, and 30 (a maximum value of experiment).

## Table 6 Comparison of optimum performance parameters

Optimization objective* Parameters r/,, % ~LP kN/m = o, coMr c%, D~ at rotor hub S,m,degree h~, mm rm~, mm G=.g., kg Gb~,, of rotor, kg ~ Gu,~oof stator, kg Gd.k, kg Go,=,=, kg ar, x 10a N/m= ~r,.b.,~i, x 104 N/m= ~, Max. efficiency 83.19/84.01 21.48/25.08 0.153/0.173 0.021/0.023 2.00/2.00 11.04/17.78 51.62/39.70 222.1/222.7 2.51/3.07 0.89/1.26 0.97/0.88 0.59/0.86 0.06/0.06 2.178/2.066 6.827/4.297 Min. weight 80.29/79.49 26.30/24.38 0.177/0.180 0.013/0.011 2.00/2.00 13.80/12.98 44.74/48.64 225.4/217.5 1.08/1.02 0.47/0.35 0.25/0.40 0.32/0.23 0.04/0.04 2.115/2.148 14.92/20.86 Balanced 82.92/81.91 21.92/22.51 0.160/0.162 0.015/0.014 200/2.00 11.10/11.23 47.75/49.17 225.6/223.6 1.11/1.09 0.50/0.43 0.24/0.34 0.32/0.29 0.05/0.03 2.157/2.162 16.98/18.83 Moore's model 82.25 23.11 0.164 0.019 1.96 14.21 47.72 217.3 2.66 1.04 0.89 0.68 0.05 2.134 5.122

* Numerals represent values for cases of pressure ratio given/pressure ratio to be optimized.

path must be deflected outward in order to secure higher efficiency. Figure 6(a) also shows that the entropy rise is increased by the weight minimization. This is mainly due to the increase of the rotor shock loss coefficient as listed in Table 6. The weight decrease is caused by reduction of the cascade solidities and blade heights because the blade weight dominates other component weights, as shown in Figure 5. The disk weight is decreased by reduction of the rotor blade weight since the disk sustains the centrifugal stress caused by the rotation of the rotor blades. Besides, the reduction of the cascade solidities increases the bending stress in the blades, as can be seen in Table 6. If the required pressure rise and the mass flow rate of the compressor stage are greater than the present ones so that the bending stress becomes almost the same as the centrifugal stress, the extent of reduction of the cascade solidity for weight minimization must be much smaller than the present case. Figure 6(d) shows that the cascade solidity of the minimum weight design is smaller than that of the maximum efficiency design and the balanced optimum solution. The entropy rise in the balanced optimum solution is between those of the maximum efficiency design and the minimum weight design. Constraints (11), (15), and (20)--(22) are active in these

problems. The stress limitation becomes active when the shaft rotational speed is a variable, or another low-grade material is selected. If the upper limit in the constraint of the equivalent diffusion factor is set at higher value, attainable maximum efficiency will be higher than the present one, but the stall margin will become smaller.
Determination o f the o p t i m u m stage pressure ratio

Since it is important to find the number of stages required to get the design overall stagnation pressure ratio of a multistage compressor, the determination of an optimal stage pressure ratio is frequently required in the high-pressure-ratio multistage compressor. The optimal stage pressure ratios for maximum efficiency and minimum weight have been calculated with the same design conditions and constraints as in the preceding subsection by treating the stage pressure ratio as an additional design variable. Tables 3 and 6 also represent the optimization results of this problem. When the efficiency is maximized, the stage pressure ratio becomes 2.08, and the efficiency and the weight are 84.01% and 3.072 kg, respectively. When the weight is minimized, the stage pressure ratio becomes 1.70. The minimum weight is 1.015 kg, but unfortunately the efficiency becomes 79.49%,

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

53

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage."J. S. Lim and M. K. Chung

- -- --- --MAX.EFFICIENCY MIN. WEIGHT BALANCED - 02 03 MAX. EFFICIENCY MIN. WEIGHT BALANCED MOORE'S vl I100m/7 c

~C

.......

2 ~4c
32C
UI

=>
.J 30C kZ, 28C 1 260 ~ "~c

u2

10
ENTROPY

2()
INCREASE

30 [ J / k g K]

410

u3

26O

- -- ----.....

## MAX. EFFICIENCY MIN. WEIGHT BALANCED MOOflE'\$

~ 230

="

220

.oroR

i
I

',1'1
HI

'"

, STATOR

"
I

I
I

/
~

i
MAX. EFFICIENCY BALANCED MIN. WEIGHT ROTOR so.9 39~ %t 6 = 0.95 6 = 0.89

190

- "" -

c C

~"

~)

10 AXIAL

20

35

4tO

,50

65 -[mm]

STATOR

## 5 =025 --1,42 Emm]

6 =0.67

CHORD

Figure 6 Optimum solutions with a given value of the stage pressure ratio: (a) enthalpy-entropy diagram; (b) velocity triangle
across cascades of rotor and stator at a mean line; (c) rneridional view of flow path; (d) chord line view of rotor and stator cascades at a mean line

much lower than maximum. Therefore the compromise between the efficiency and the weight is more important when finding the optimum pressure ratio than when it is given as a fixed input value. The balanced optimization with the weighting factor of 0.5 results in an efficiency of 81.91% and a weight of 1.09 kg. The stage pressure ratio of the balanced design turns out to be 1.77. Figure 7 represents the optimization results for these cases. Figure 7(a) shows that the efficiency strongly depends on the stage pressure ratio. The tendency of axial velocity variation in the maximum efficiency solution represented in Figure 7(b) is different from that in Figure 6(b). This is due to the increase of the pressure ratio. The radially outward deflection of the flow path in the maximum efficiency solution in Figure 7(c) is similar to the case of constant pressure ratio in Figure 6(c). For the weight minimization problem, the optimum stage pressure ratio becomes smaller. This is realistic since the decrease of the stage pressure rise reduces the required cascade solidities, and consequent reduction of the rotor disk weight is acquired.

## Sensitivity analysis o f the design variables

Sensivitities of performance parameters and weights have been calculated by parametric simulations. The feasible ranges of all design variables have been found by the simulations. The intersecting point of the sensitivity curves in each diagram corresponds to the optimal solution. Figure 8 shows the sensitivity curves for the constant stage pressure ratio around the maximum efficiency solution. From Figure 8(a), it can be found that the maximum efficiency solution is a global optimum about the cascade variables C,m, C,,,, Srm, and S,,,, but it is a locally constrained solution about the stage outlet variables Vm3, ~,,3, and rt3. At subsonic flow, the profile loss is a predominant loss source. 16 If the flow becomes supersonic, however, shock waves give rise to considerable momentum loss. Therefore it is interesting to analyze both sensitivities of the profile loss and the shock loss in a supersonic rotor. Figure 7(b) reveals that the profile loss coefficient is strongly dependent on the rotor cascade variables (e.g., the rotor chord

54

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage." J. S. Lim and M. K. Chung

- 380 - MAX, EFFICIENCY MIN. WEIGHT BALANCED MOORE'S 03 ...... ~

V1

360

.......

'340
320

],oo

U1

~,o~Er>-.> "

/.x .-"

~. 3OO

2eo

U2

260

o
a

;o
ENTROPY

2b
INCREASE

3b
[ J/kg K ]

4b
b
U3

26O

## --MAX. EFFICIENCY ----MIN. WEIGHT -----BALANCED ...... MOORE~

25

24~

23~
R

22O

......
21~ 2O0

',ill!!
MAX. EFFICIENCY BALANCED MIN. WEIGHT

19~

ROTOR

b" z 0.90

5" z 0.77

~.'~ ~ ~ = 1.7~
18C
I~. C q" ~ I() 2b AXIAL

~.==~
6" ~ 0.81

~-==r%~
6- = 0.84 Emm~

3b
CHORD

4b

sb
[mm]

so

STATOR

~ ~ 1.53

Figure 7 Optimum solutions with the variable stage pressure ratio: (a) enthalpy-entropy diagram; (b) velocity triangle across cascades of rotor and stator at a mean line; (c) meridional view of flow path; (d) chord line view of rotor and stator cascades at a mean line

length Crm and the rotor cascade spacing Srm). The profile loss monotonically increases with increasing solidity. Being weaker than Crm and Sr~, though, the stage outlet flow velocity Vm3 and the stage outlet tip radius rt3 also affect the profile loss. The stator variables C=, and S,m have no effect on the rotor profile loss. The sensivities of the shock loss coefficient are shown in Figure 8(c). Comparing Figures 8(b) and 8(c), we see that the shock loss is more severe than the profile loss around the optimal solution. Therefore, special care must be given to minimize the shock loss in the supersonic stage design. The optimum point is a global minimum shock loss solution about the rotor cascade variables C,, and Sr,,. The increase of stage outlet absolute flow velocity Vma and the decrease of stage outlet tip radius rt3 result in higher shock loss. This is due to the reduction of the rotor outlet relative flow angle ~m3 and the consequent increase of the expansion angle preceding the passage shock. Figure 8(d) shows the sensitivities of the stage stagnation pressure loss to the design variables. When the stage outlet tip radius rt3 increases, the stagnation pressure loss decreases. It is due principally to the decrease of the shock wave loss with

increasing rta. Such a tendency dictates the meridional mean flow path to deflect radially outward as discussed in the preceding subsection for maximum efficiency optimization. Figure 9 shows the sensitivities of the stage weight to various design variables. The intersecting point is the minimum weight solution. It reveals that the stage weight strongly depends on both the cascade solidities of the rotor and the stator. Since the shorter chord of the rotor blade Crm is associated with the thinner disk plate, more weight reduction can be obtained by decreasing the rotor chord length C,, rather than the stator chord length C,m. The increase of the stage outlet absolute flow velocity Vm3 also reduces the stage weight because it reduces the required blade height for the given mass flow rate. However, it has less effect on weight minimization than the reduction of the cascade solidities. Figure 10 represents the effects of the stage pressure ratio on the efficiency-related variables around the maximum efficiency solution. It shows that the shock loss coefficient monotonically increases with the pressure ratio. It is understood that an increase in the rotor turning angle required to raise the pressure ratio strengthens the passage normal shock wave following the

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

55

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage: J. S. Lim and M. K. Chung

85

rtL.

0.11

.......... -'~%,3
v o -

"~

0.09

,,! i"
80
I I
1

E
~ 0) o
o
O3 O3

0.07
'
0.05

## /--S~n / Crm /.-Vm3 "-~

'//Fc..
/
I I

0.03
o

75
Vm3 1210
I I I I I

CL
140 0 0.23 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01
I I I I I I

## 0.01 Vm3 120

O~m3 r t3 0.22
I I I I

160 10 0.24
I I

180

200 20
t

220
I

[m/sec]

140 0 0.23
I I

160 10 0.24
I I I

180

200 20
I

220
I

[m/sec] 30 [ d e g ]

elm3

rt3
Crm

0.22

30 [ d e 9 ]
I 0.27

I I I I

I I I I

[m]

I

I

0.27
I

LmJ
r

I 0.02 I 0.01

0.04
I
I I

Crm
C =m

I 0.02
I 0.01

0.03 0.02
I

0.~

LmJ
r

C~m ,, Sn,n

## 1 0.01 S~m , I 0.0 0.23 t 0 ~o 0.21 ~

[m]

0.05

LmJ

-1

S,n
Ssm

1
0.01

0.02
I
0.01

0.03
I
0.02

0.04
I
0.03

0.05
I
0.04

r 1 LmJ
i-

It-hi

I 0.0

LmJ

-i

'
",~
',\

34 f

~
~ S, m

~
o--

0.19

o o
O3 O3

0.17

/-

r,3
:%m

///--

//-

~t

Cn~

c..

/ ' , ~.,
I ,.

r,3 _-'X~."-,x,.'X l
. ~ . - ' 1

## 0.15 o o ..E U')

f ~ ' "
-..~._l.-'.'"
I 140 0 i 0.22
0.02
I

=~--~-

.............

"
[m/sec] rm]
[m]

k..\'" . . . . .

g
u~ 18 Vm 3 _L 120 O(m3-" r t.3 Crm
C =m

12
I 140 0 i 0.23
0.03
I

0.13
Vrn3 1 0 O(m3 r t3 Crm
C 8m

I 160 10 i 0.24 I
I

I 180

I 200 20
[

I 220
I

I 160 10 i 0.24 I
I

I 180

I 200 20
I

I 220
I

[mTsec] 30 [ d e 9 ]

30 [decj] i 0.27
0.06

i 0.23
0.03

i 0.25
0.04

i 0.26
0.05

i 0.22
0.02

i 0.25
0.04

i 0.26
0.05

i 0.27
0.06

Era]
[m]

0.01
0.01 0.0

0.02
0.02 0.01

0.03
0.03 0.02

0.04
0.04 0.03

0.0s
0.05 0.04

[m]

0.01

0.02
0.02 0.01

0.03
0.03 0.02

0.04
0.04 0.03

0.0s
0.05 0.04

[m]

Srm c Ssm

[m]
Ira] d

Srm Ssm

0.01 0.0

[m]
rml

Figure 8

Sensitivity analysis of efficiency-related variables with a given stage pressure ratio: (a) sensitivity of stage efficiency; (b) sensitivity of rotor profile loss coefficient; (c) sensitivity of rotor shock loss coefficient; (d) sensitivity of stage stagnation pressure loss

56

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

## Design point optimization of an axial-flow compressor stage: J. S. Lim and M. K. Chung

expansion waves. The trend of the stage pressure loss is similar to that of the shock loss coefficient. This reveals that the shock loss is most dominant over other loss sources. It can be seen from Figure 10 that the global optimum pressure ratio without any constraint is about 2.3. However, at this pressure ratio the maximum equivalent diffusion factor of a rotor becomes about 2.2, which is the stall-beginning point of a transonic cascade. 3' Therefore the constrained optimum pressure ratio of 2.08 is much lower than the global optimum. The constraining value of the equivalent diffusion factor of this case was 2.0, leaving the stall margin about 0.2.

Conclusion

A design optimization program for an axial-flow compressor stage has been developed by applying the gradient projection method to a simulation algorithm which consists of thermodynamic compression relations, cascade geometric variables, empirical loss correlations, and simple stress relations. Using this program, example optimization problems for maximum efficiency, minimum weight, and a balanced optimum between efficiency and weight have been solved, and the sensitivities in the whole feasible range of design variables were analyzed. The results can be summarized as follows: (1) In case of a shock-in-rotor compressor, the flow passage must be configured to deflect the mean line of the flow radially outward in a meridional plane to obtain a higher efficiency. (2) Under a limited tip radius, the stage weight is decreased mainly by reducing the cascade solidity and the blade height. Minimization of the stage weight penalizes the attainable efficiency. (3) The optimum stage pressure ratio can be obtained by treating the stage pressure ratio as an additional design variable. The global optimum pressure ratio corresponds to the stall-beginning point. (4) The equivalent diffusion factor is an active constraint for all optimization problems (e.g., efficiency maximization, weight minimization, and balanced optimization). (5) In the design of the supersonic compressor, determination of the design variables must be done with special care in order to minimize the shock loss, because the shock loss is predominant over other loss sources. The cascade solidity has a global optimum value for minimum shock loss. (6) The present design optimization program is useful to obtain an optimum configuration of an axial-flow compressor stage under simultaneous consideration of efficiency and weight. It can be applied to a multistage compressor in conjunction with a stage-stacking technique.

3.5

3.0 2.5
_C

Sr11'1
~!\

/i
-"','"-"
," //l

.o'~ 2.0
(1)

\,,///-v,,,3

/--

,m Cn~
c

1.5
0

## \. ~ / / / - r t s "m--/.,',/" \ " 4 A J I~- a~3 ,".~" ., /.'-

O3

1.0

0.5
Vrn 3 ~(m3 F t3 I 0.22 I 160 I 180 I
0

I 220

I 0.23 I 0.02

I 0.25

260
I I O.27

Ira/see] [deg]

[m]

## (3 Crm 0. 1 Csm Srm I 0.00

0.05
I 0.03

[~]

I 0.02 I

o.~ [ ~ ]
[m] 0.05
I

002 0.01
I

003
0.02
I

004 0.03
I

I 0.05

[m] Figure 9 Sensitivity analysis of stage weight with a given stage pressure ratio
0.04.

S=m

Acknowledgment

This study has been supported by a grant from the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation, Grant No. 860301.

85

=.0.23 -

..~ 34
a2
=
U r-

0.032

0.21

~30 o a) 0.028
N
26 0

"~ 0 . 1 g

.~_ 8 o
0 ~ 0

8
_ m 0.024 om ~)

O nn ~ (0.17 C

~M,r

~ 22

"7
Q_

-~ 0.15 0 03 0.13

75 J

c~ 2 18

0.020

1.5
Figure I 0

2.5

## Sensitivity analysis of efficiency-related parameters for the stage pressure ratio

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989

57

Design point optimization of an axia/-flow compressor stage: J. S. Lim and lid. K. Chung

References

15 16

1 2 3

6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13

14

Wilson, D. G. The Design of High-Efficiency Turbomachinery and Gas Turbines, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1985 Lim, J. S. and Lee, D. H. Effects of compressor split by variation of pressure ratio on multi-spool turbofan engine performance. J. Korean Soc. Aeronautical and Space Sci., 1982, 10(1), 86-93 Balje, O. E. and Binsley, R. L. Axial turbine performance evaluation. Part A. Loss-geometry relationships. Part B. Optimization with and without constraints. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1968, 90(4), 341-360 Rao, S. S. and Gupta, R. S. Optimum design of axial flow gas turbine stage. Part I. Formulation and analysis of optimization problem. Part II. Solution of the optimization problem and numerical results. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1980, 102(4), 782-797 Japiks, D. Design optimization and performance map prediction for centrifugal compressors and radial inflow turbines. In AGARD-LS-83 Modern Prediction Methods for Turbomachine Performance, AGARD, 1976, 6-1-6-15 Perdichizzi, A. and Savini, M. Aerodynamic and geometric optimization for the design of centrifugal compressor. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 1985, 6(1), 49-56 Ritz, M. H. and Jou, W.-H. Propeller design by optimization. AIAA J., 1986, 24(9), 1554-1556 Blaho, M. Optimum design of axial flow fans with cambered blades of constant thickness. Periodica Polytechnica, ME, 1975, 19, 79-89 Bammert, K. and Staude, R. Optimization for rotor blades of tandem design for axial flow compressors. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1980, 102(2), 369-375 Sanger, N. L. The use of optimization techniques to designcontrolled diffusion compressor blading. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1983, 15(2), 256-264 Gu, C. and Miao, Y. Blade design of axial-flow compressors by the method of optimal control theory. Part I. Physical model and mathematical expression. Part II. Application of Pontryagin's maximum principles, a sample calculation and its results. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1987, 109(1), 99-107 de Neeve, P. F. W. and Dukkipati, R. V. A procedure for axial blade optimization. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1979, 101(3), 315-319 Steinke, R. J. STGSTK--a computer code for predicting multistage axial-flow compressor performance by a meanline stagestacking method. NASA TP-2020, NASA Lewis Research Center, 1982 Horlock, J. H. Axial Flow Compressors, Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics, Krieger, 1973, 99-104

17 18 19 20

21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

29 30

31

Boyce, M. P. Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook, Gulf, Houston, 1982, 218-223 Lieblein, S. Loss and stall analysis of compressor cascades. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1959, 81(3), 387~00 Koch, C. C. and Smith, L. H. Loss sources and magnitudes in axial-flow compressors. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1976, 98(3), 411--424 Lakshminarayana, B. and Horlock, J. H. Review: secondary flows and losses in cascades and axial-flow turbomachines. Int. J. Mech. Sci., 1963, 5, 287-307 Balje, O. E. Turbomachines--A Guide to Design, Selection, and Theory, Wiley, New York, 1981, 150 Stewart, W. L., Whitney, W. J , and Wong, R. Y. A study of boundary-layer characteristics of turbomachine blade rows and their relation to over-all blade loss. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1960, 82(3), 588-592 Lakshminarayana, B. Methods of predicting the tip clearance effects in axial flow turbomachinery. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1970, 92(4), 467-482 Miller, G. R., Lewis, G. W., Jr., and Hartmann, M. J. Shock loss in transonic compressor blade rows. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1961, 83(3), 235-241 Bolan, P., Cohen, R., and Gilroy, W. K. Research and Development of High-Performance Axial-Flow Turbomachinery. Vol. 1. Design of Turbine-Compressor, NASA CR-800, NASA Lewis Research Center, 1968 Kerrebrock, J. L. Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines, MIT Press, 1977, 189-195 Dixon, S. L. Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics of Turbomachinery, 3rd. ed., Pergamon Press, 1978, 72-73 Haug, E. J. and Arora, J. S. Applied Optimal Design--Mechanical and Structural Systems, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1979, 77-89 Reklaitis, G. V., Ravindran, A., and Ragsdell, K. M. Engineering Optimization--Methods and Applications, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983, 119, 609~10 Britsch, W. R., Osborn, W. M., and Laessig, M. R. Effect of Diffusion Factor, Aspect Ratio, and Solidity on Overall Performance of 14 Compressor Middle Stages, NASA TP-1523, NASA Lewis Research Center, 1979 Steinke, R. J. Design of 9.271-Pressure-Ratio Five Stage Core Compressor and Overall Performance for First Three Stages, NASA TP-2597, NASA Lewis Research Center, 1986 Moore, R. D. and Reid, L. Performance of Single-Stage AxialFlow Transonic Compressor with Rotor and Stator Aspect Ratios of 1.63 and 1.78, Respectively, and with Design Pressure Ratio of 1.82, NASA TP-1974, NASA Lewis Research Center, 1982 Swan, W. C. A practical method of predicting transoniccompressor performance. ASME Trans. J. Eng. Power, 1961, 83(3), 322--330

58

Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1989