SHAPE OPTIMIZATION OF AN AXIAL-FLOW TURBINE NOZZLE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shape optimization of an axial flow turbine nozzle typically
requires significant manual engineering effort. For each design
iteration, the engineer defines a new geometry, updates the
mesh, executes the analysis and extracts the required outputs.
This manual process can be easily automated with the help of
Optimus. After capturing the analysis workflow in Optimus, the
user explores the entire design space and automatically
improves

the

design

using

single

and

Fig. 2: CFX-Post model

multi-objective

optimization algorithms.

2. SOLUTION APPROACH

1. SIMULATION FACTS
Simulation process automation
Simulation-based design process

The engine performance simulation workflow is captured using

The aerodynamic behavior of an axial-flow turbine nozzle is

the Optimus graphical user interface. This workflow includes the

analyzed with the CFX fluid dynamics software. For a single

CFX software, as well as the related input and output files (Fig.

experiment, 5 separate CFX modules (BladeGen for geometry,

3). The engineer selects the input parameters and responses

TurboGrid for meshing,CFX-Pre for pre-processing, CFX solver

which are required for optimization, from the automatically

for computational fluid simulation and CFX-Post for postprocessing) are used. The complete CFX flowchart is shown in
Fig. 1.

generated parameter list. Optimus parameterizes the input file

and parses the output file for the desired combination of output
parameters, allowing for an automated execution of the
simulation workflow.

Fig. 3: Workflow driving CFX from BladeGen to CFX-Post

Fig. 1: CFX flowchart

Software

Design parameter selection

ANSYS CFX

3 design parameters are selected: the number of blades

Models

angle located at 1/3 of the chord.

(discrete parameter), the -angle at the leading edge and the The axial-flow turbine nozzle model evolves at each stage of
the CFX flowchart. The post-processed model of the CFX-Post

Design objective specification

module is shown in Fig.2.

The objective is to maximize efficiency while the discharge

angle is constrained between 74 and 76.

The objectives of the multi-objective optimization are to

closely examine the Pareto points. The initial design is

maximize efficiency and minimize the angle target. During this

compared with a Pareto-optimal design in Fig. 6.

optimization, the number of blades is fixed to 40.

Solution strategy
Design Of Experiments & Surrogate Modeling (DOE/RSM)
Design of Experiment (DOE) techniques set up of a number of
well-controlled experiments, generating sufficient data points to
fit a response surface model (or surrogate model) allowing to
predict design responses for any combination of selected
design parameters.
Fig. 5: Initial and optimized geometry for single-objective optimization

Design Optimization
The single-objective optimization is driven by the Mixed Integer
Programming algorithm, while the multi-objective optimization is
controlled

by

the

Normal-Boundary

Intersection

Method

algorithm.

3. RESULTS
Design Of Experiments & Surrogate Modeling (DOE/RSM)
A Latin-Hypercube method has been defined to help build an
interpolating response surface model. Fig. 4 shows a 3D and

Fig. 6: Initial and optimized geometry for multi-objective optimization

section plot of the response surface model for efficiency as a

function of the design parameters. This surrogate model is used
during the optimization process to limit the computational effort.

4. BENEFITS

Optimus easily captures and successfully automates the

complete CFX workflow, delivering a repeatable simulation
process.

Optimus frees the engineer from repetitive administration

tasks, and delivers the information that is needed to gain
deeper engineering insights.

Using a selection of DOE and numerical optimization

techniques, OPTIMUS is able to identify design parameter
values that significantly improve efficiency - all of this in a
fraction of the time required with conventional solution

Fig. 4: 3D and section plot for efficiency as function of design variables

approaches.

Design Optimization
The single-objective optimization increases the efficiency from
0.8926 to 0.9134, while satisfying the discharge angle
constraint. The initial (left) and optimal (right) geometry is
shown in Fig. 5.
The multi-objective optimization, based on the surrogate model,
calculates Pareto points on which engineering decisions can be
based. Optimus provides various post-processing tools to
CFX is a trademark of ANSYS, Inc.