A multi-objective optimization framework for robust axial compressor airfoil design

  • Ivo MartinEmail author
  • Lennard Hartwig
  • Dieter Bestle
Research Paper


Airfoil design for stationary gas turbines is a challenging task involving both aerodynamic and structural aspects. The paper describes a multidisciplinary optimization process for axial compressor airfoils which is able to find optimal designs w.r.t. multiple objectives and constraints starting from a reference design and very few specifications of the new compressor. The process allows to simultaneously execute arbitrarily many instances of design evaluation processes independently from each other, which speeds it up, not just due to parallelization, but also because fast-running low-fidelity evaluation may take the design lead at an early design stage, whereas high-fidelity evaluation processes simultaneously contribute with more reliable results on the actual performance. For consistency of aerodynamic and structural analysis, an innovative method for direct loaded-to-unloaded design transformation is incorporated. Additionally, the process accounts for design robustness by utilizing production tolerances as an optimization objective. Therefore, a procedure is developed which allows to find the production tolerance which may be allowed without violating any constraints. An application example demonstrates that the proposed optimization process incorporating automatic detection of failure-critical eigenmode bands is able to shift them such that structurally reliable, robust, and simultaneously aerodynamically efficient designs are obtained.


Multidisciplinary design optimization Robustness Production tolerance assessment Loaded-to-unloaded transformation Structural analysis Aerodynamic analysis 



The authors gratefully acknowledge AG Turbo and General Electric Switzerland for their support and permission to publish this paper. The responsibility for the content lies solely with its authors.

Funding information

The research was conducted as part of the joint research program COOREFLEX-turbo in the frame of AG Turbo. The work was financially supported by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) as per resolution of the German Federal Parliament under grant number 03ET7021J.


  1. Astrua P, Piola S, Silingardi A, Bonzani F (2012) Multi-objective constrained aero-mechanical optimization of an axial compressor transonic blade. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp GT2012–68993Google Scholar
  2. Blocher M, Fernández I E G (2014) Time-linearized forced response analysis of a counter rotating fan; Part I: Theoretical concept of a fully Time-Linear forced response analysis. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany, pp GT2014–25833Google Scholar
  3. Buske C, Krumme A, Schmidt T, Dresbach C, Zur S, Tiefers R (2016) (2016) Distributed multidisciplinary optimization of a turbine blade regarding performance, reliability and castability. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016, Seoul, pp GT2016–56079Google Scholar
  4. Cumpsty N (2004) Compressor aerodynamics. Krieger Publishing Company, MalabarGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener OHF, von Backström T W, van der Spuy SJ, Hildebrandt T (2016) Multi-Disciplinary optimization of a mixed-flow compressor impeller. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016, Seoul, pp GT2016–57008Google Scholar
  6. Dow EA, Wang Q (2015) The implications of tolerance optimization on compressor blade design. ASME J Turbomach 137(10):101008–101008-7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du X, Sudjianto A, Chen W (2004) An integrated framework for optimization under uncertainty using inverse reliability strategy. J Mech Des 126:562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutta AK (2011) An automated multi-objective optimization approach for aerodynamic compressor blade designs. Shaker, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Flassig PM, Dutta AK, Bestle D (2008) Robuste Auslegung von Verdichterschaufeln. In: Proceedings of Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Darmstadt, Germany, DLRK, pp 2008–08117Google Scholar
  10. Flassig PM (2011) Unterstützende Optimierungsstrategien zur robusten aerodynamischen Verdichterschaufelauslegung. Shaker, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Goerke D, Le Denmat AL, Schmidt T, kocian F, Nicke E (2012) Aerodynamic and mechanical optimization of CF/PEEK blades of a counter rotating fan. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp GT2012–68797Google Scholar
  12. Hartwig L, Bestle D (2016) Enhancing low-fidelity compressor design by utilizing a surrogate model based on higher-fidelity information. In: Proceedings of 7th IC-SCCE, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartwig L, Bestle D (2017) Compressor blade design for stationary gas turbines using dimension reduced surrogate modeling. In: IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), san Sebastián, Spain, pp e–17366Google Scholar
  14. Hecker P, Delimar D, Brandl H, Lötzerich M. (2011) Process integration and automated numerical design optimization of an eigenfrequency analysis of a compressor blade. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2011, Vancouver, Canada, pp GT2011– 4548Google Scholar
  15. Janke C, Goller M, Martin I, Gaun L, Bestle D (2016) 3D CFD compressor map computation of a multi-atage axial compressor with off-design adjusted rotor geometries. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016, Seoul, South Korea, pp GT2016– 56745Google Scholar
  16. Joly MM, Verstraete T, Panlagua G (2014) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a compact highly loaded fan. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keskin A (2007) Process integration and automated multi-objective optimization supporting aerodynamic compressor design, shaker, aachenGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin I, Bestle D (2016) Automated mode identification of airfoil geometries to be used in an optimization process. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016, Seoul, South Korea, pp GT2016–56987Google Scholar
  19. Martin I, Bestle D (2018) Automated eigenmode classification for airfoils in the presence of fixation uncertainties. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2018 67:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Motta R d S, Afonso SMB (2016) An efficient procedure for structural reliability-based robust design optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54:511–530MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicholas T (2006) High cycle fatigue: a mechanics of materials perspective. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Pierret S, Coelho RF, Kato H (2007) Multidisciplinary and multiple operating points shape optimization of three-dimensional compressor blades. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pöhlmann F, Bestle D (2012) Multi-objective compressor design optimization using multi-design transfer between codes of different fidelity. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp GT2012–68577Google Scholar
  25. Rühle T, Bestle D (2010) Compressor design and optimisation based on throughflow calculation. In: Proceedings of ADOS Automatic Design Optimization Seminar 2010, Derby, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Schörner R, Bestle D (2012) Coupled optimization of compressor blade roots and rotor grooves for industrial gas-turbines. In: Proceedings of 5th IC-SCCE International Conference: From Scientific Computing to Computational Engineering, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  27. Strouhal V (1878) ÜBer eine besondere Art der Tonerregung. Ann Phys Chem 5:216–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wu CH (1952) General theory of three-dimensional flow in subsonic and supersonic turbomachines of axial-, radial-, and mixed-flow types. NACA Report TN-2604, NASA, Cleveland USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BTU Cottbus-SenftenbergCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations