Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simulation
Chad Custer, PhD
Turbomachinery Technical Specialist
Outline
STAR-CCM+
Integrated multi-physics simulation environment
Single environment for the complete simulation process
CAD
Geometry Modifications
Mesh
Physics
Post-processing
Geometry Handling
Direct of native and neutral CAD formats
Defeaturing
Fluid extraction
Mesh Generation
Key Capabilities
Automatic mesh generation
Polyhedral cells
Pipelined meshing
Simple global size settings
Local refinement control
Automatic solution interpolation
Fewer cells required
Mesh Generation
Key Capabilities
Polyhedral cells
Accurately capture complex geometry
Conformal interfaces
One-to-one communication between the fluid and solid
Mesh Generation
Key Benefits
Geometry capturing
High quality mesh
Smooth cell growth
Low skewness
Physics
Physics
Implicit unsteady
Full wheel
Periodic sector
Harmonic balance
Steady Simulation
Frozen rotor
Solving for a particular instant in time
Achieved with in-place interfaces
Solution can vary from one blade to the next
The entire machine must be meshed
Common for cases where there are large difference in the flow solution from
one blade to the next (radial machines with volute)
Steady Simulation
Mixing Plane
Capable of using a non-reflecting treatment
Non-reflecting option should always be used with explicit interfaces
Eigen-mode analysis performed on interface
Pressure allowed to vary within each bin such that reflections are eliminated
Steady Simulation
Non-reflecting treatment critical for cut-on cases
Reflecting
Non-reflecting
Unsteady Simulation
Model equal sectors of each row
Outline
Model Overview
Fan is installed in a duct with a diameter of 59 cm
Fan inner diameter and shape fixed with a radius of 19 cm
Current straight bladed fan produces 2.5 kg/s using 542 W power
(aerodynamic only)
Analysis Objectives
Optimization study seeks to achieve two objectives:
1. Improve an existing fan design so that the same mass flow rate is
achieved with a lower power requirement
?
Baseline Design
Mass flow rate = 2.5 kg/s
Power = 542 W
Analysis Objectives
Optimization study seeks to achieve two objectives:
2. Obtain a set of fan designs that require the least power for any given
mass flow rate
Best Possible
Wasteful
Possible Design
Unfeasible
Optimization Algorithm
The optimization of two competing factors (mass flow and power) is
Pareto optimization
All points on the Pareto Front are the best possible designs
Pareto Front
Wasteful
Unfeasible
Satisfied?
Optimized Solution
Satisfied?
Optimized Solution
Hybrid
Adaptive
No Tuning
Parameters
No Optimization
Expertise Required
Optimization Workflow
HEEDS Procedure
Build Baseline Model
Define Optimization Problem
Setup Complete.
SHERPA takes care of
the rest.
SHERPA
Optimized Solution
Model Setup
Mesh
Fan generated in STAR-CCM+ 3D CAD
Single blade passage meshed using periodic interfaces
Polyhedral mesh with body-fitted prism layers
Baseline design contained 690,000 cells
Model Setup
Physics
Steady MRF simulation
Coupled solver (CFL = 20)
Grid sequencing initialization
Realizable k- turbulence model
Design Space
Blade generated from three section profiles
Fan defined with 17 design parameters:
Number of blades
Rotation rate
Chord, camber, angle, x-translation and y-translation of each section
With these parameters it is possible to define blade shape, twist, sweep, and
stacking
Section 0
Section 1
Section 2
Computational Setup
Trial Process
Process takes ~1
hour for each trial.
Controlled by
Optimate. No user
intervention needed.
Pareto Optimization
Optimate will run cycles of cases used to explore the design space
Using the results from previous cycles, the optimization algorithm is able
to find better fan designs
Results of Objective #1
Improve the existing fan design so that the same mass flow rate is
achieved with lower power
Baseline Design
Optimized Design
m = 2.5 kg/s
p = 542 W
m = 2.6 kg/s
p = 242 W
Optimized Design
Optimized Design
Optimized Design
Optimized Design
10% Span
Optimized Design
50% Span
Optimized Design
Review of Objective #1
Results of Objective #2
Obtain a set of fan designs that require the least power for any given mass
flow rate
Pareto Convergence
Converged Pareto optimization gives geometry requiring the lowest
power for a given mass flow rate
For each rank one response, there is no design that produces a higher
mass flow at a lower power
Results of Objective #2
Review of Objective #2
Conclusions
Baseline Design
Optimized Design
Conclusions
Fan optimization study achieved two objectives:
2. Found a set of fan designs that require the least power for any given
mass flow rate from 0 kg/s to 17 kg/s
Outline