Shock Waves

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 299–312 | Cite as

Using a shock control bump to improve the performance of an axial compressor blade section

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Here, we use numerical analysis to study the effects of a shock control bump (SCB) on the performance of a transonic axial compressor blade section and to optimize its shape and location to improve the compressor performance. A section of the NASA rotor 67 blade is used for this study. Two Bézier curves, each consisting of seven control points, are used to model the suction and pressure surfaces of the blade section. The SCB is modeled with the Hicks–Henne function and, using five design parameters, is added to the suction side. The total pressure loss through a cascade of blade sections is selected as the cost function. A continuous adjoint optimization method is used along with a RANS solver to find a new blade section shape. A grid independence study is performed, and all optimization and flow solver algorithms are validated. Two single-point optimizations are performed in the design condition and in an off-design condition. It is shown that both optimized shapes have overall better performance for both on-design and off-design conditions. An analysis is given regarding how the SCB has changed the wave structure between blade sections resulting in a more favorable flow pattern.

Keywords

Shock control bump Transonic compressor Performance optimization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Hadjadj, A.: Large-eddy simulation of shock-boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 50(12), 2919–2927 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hamid, M.D.A., Hasan, A.B.M.T., Alimuzzaman, S.M., Matsuo, S., Setoguchi, T.: Compressible flow characteristics around a biconvex arc airfoil in a channel. Propuls. Power Res. 3(1), 29–40 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biollo, R., Benini, E.: Recent advances in transonic axial compressor aerodynamics. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 56, 1–18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, D.X., He, L., Li, Y.S., Wells, R.G.: Adjoint aerodynamic design optimization for blades in multistage turbomachines—Part II: Validation and application. J. Turbomach. 132(2), 021012 (11 pp) (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lian, Y., Liou, M.S.: Multi-objective optimization of transonic compressor blade using evolutionary algorithm. J. Propuls. Power 21(6), 979–987 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biollo, R., Benini, E.: State-of-Art of Transonic Axial Compressors. Advances in Gas Turbine Technology, InTech (2011). Accessed 4 Nov 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, S.Y., Kim, K.Y.: Design optimization of axial flow compressor blades with three-dimensional Navier–Stokes solver. KSME Int. J. 14(9), 1005–1012 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, D.X., He, L.: Adjoint aerodynamic design optimization for blades in multistage turbomachines—Part I: Methodology and verification. J. Turbomach. 132(2), 021011 (14 pp) (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walther, B., Nadarajah, S.: Constrained adjoint-based aerodynamic shape optimization of a single-stage transonic compressor. J. Turbomach. 135(2), 021017 (10 pp) (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lian, Y., Liou, M.S.: Aerostructural optimization of a transonic compressor rotor. J Propuls. Power 22(4), 880–888 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L., Shires, A.: A novel technique for controlling shock strength of laminar-flow aerofoil sections. The First European Forum on Laminar Flow Technology, Hamburg, Germany, March 1992, Defence Research Agency in Farnborough (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, B.H.K.: Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37(2), 147–196 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahman, M.M., Hasan, A.B.M.T., Islam, A.K.M.S., Matsuo, S., Setoguchi, T.: Computation of transonic internal flow around a biconvex airfoil with cavity. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 29(6), 2415–2421 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaitonde, D.V.: Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 72, 80–99 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Babinsky, H., Harvey, J.K.: Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazaheri, K., Kiani, K.C., Nejati, A., Zeinalpour, M., Taheri, R.: Optimization and analysis of shock wave/boundary layer interaction for drag reduction by Shock Control Bump. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 42, 196–208 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mazaheri, K., Kiani, K.C., Nejati, A., Zeinalpour, M., Taheri, R.: Application of gradient-based adjoint multi-point optimization of shock control bump for transonic airfoils. Shock Waves (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00193-015-0591-2
  18. 18.
    Bruce, P.J.K., Colliss, S.P.: Review of research into shock control bumps. Shock Waves 25(5), 451–471 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strazisar, A.J., Wood, J.R., Hathaway, M.D., Suder, K.L.: Laser Anemometer Measurements in a Transonic Axial-Flow Fan Rotor, NASA Technical Paper 2879, NASA (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill, P.G., Peterson, C.R.: Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papadimitriou, D.I., Giannakoglou, K.C.: Aerodynamic shape optimization using first and second order adjoint and direct approaches. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 15(4), 447–488 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tian, Y., Liu, P., Feng, P.: Shock control bump parametric research on supercritical airfoil. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 54(11), 2935–2944 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mazaheri, K., Nejati, A., Kiani, K.C.: Application of the adjoint multi-point and the robust optimization of shock control bump for transonic aerofoils and wings. Eng. Optim. (2016). doi: 10.1080/0305215X.2016.1139811
  24. 24.
    Blazek, J.: Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramezani, A., Mazaheri, K.: Multigrid convergence acceleration for implicit and explicit solution of Euler equations on unstructured grids. Int. Numer. Methods Fluids 62(9), 994–1012 (2010)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nadarajah, S.K.: The discrete adjoint approach to aerodynamic shape optimization, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mazaheri, K., Nejati, A.: The multi-point optimization of shock control bump with constant-lift constraint enhanced with suction and blowing for a supercritical airfoil. Flow Turbul. Combust. 96(3), 639–666 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Papadimitriou, D.I., Giannakoglou, K.C.: A continuous adjoint method with objective function derivatives based on boundary integrals for inviscid and viscous flows. Comput. Fluids 36(2), 325–341 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Excellence in Aerospace SystemsSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations