Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2009
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF A CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR IMPELLER
BY MULTI-OBJECTIVE GENETIC ALGORITHM
Jin-Hyuk Kim
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
Inha University
Incheon, Republic of Korea
jinhyuk@inha.edu
Afzal Husain
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
Inha University
Incheon, Republic of Korea
afzal19@inha.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper presents design optimization of a centrifugal
compressor impeller with hybrid multi-objectives evolutionary
algorithm (hybrid MOEA). Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
equations with shear stress transport turbulence model are
discretized by finite volume approximations and solved on
hexahedral grids for flow analyses. Latin hypercube sampling of
design of experiments is used to generate design points within
the selected design space. Two objectives, i.e., isentropic
efficiency and total pressure ratio are selected with four design
variables defining impeller hub and shroud contours in
meridional contours to optimize the system. Non-dominated
Sorting of Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) with ε -constraint
strategy for local search coupled with surrogate model is used
for multi-objective optimization. The surrogate model, Radial
Basis Neural Network is trained on the numerical solutions by
carrying out leave-one–out cross-validation for the data set. The
trade-off between the two objectives has been found out and
discussed in light of the Pareto-optimal solutions. The
optimization results show that isentropic efficiencies and total
pressure ratios of the cluster points at the Pareto-optimal
solutions are enhanced by multi-objective optimization.
Keywords: centrifugal compressor impeller, design
optimization, evolutionary algorithm, Pareto-optimal.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, various optimization techniques based on three-
dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
August 2-6, 2009, Vail, Colorado USA
Proceedings of FEDSM2009
2009 ASME Fluids Engineering Conference
August 2-5, 2009, Vail, Colorado, USA
FEDSM2009-78486
FEDSM2009-78486
Jae-Ho Choi
Power Systems R&D Center,
Samsung Techwin
Kyungnam, Republic of Korea
jaeho1.choi@samsung.com
Kwang-Yong Kim
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
Inha University
Incheon, Republic of Korea
kykim@inha.ac.kr
analysis have been applied for turbomachinery blade design by
Kim et al. (2009), Jang and Kim (2005), Samad et al. (2008),
etc. These design optimization methods have reduced the cost
and the time for the better design of turbomachines to enhance
performance parameters such as efficiency and pressure ratio.
Most of turbomachinery designs generally involve multiple
objectives related to performance of the machines. These design
problems usually known as multi-objective problems require
simultaneous consideration of all objective functions to
optimize the system. Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm (NSGA-II) given by Deb et al. (2000) generates
Pareto-optimal solution using evolutionary algorithm. Samad et
al. (2007) reported on multi-objective optimization of an axial-
fan blade using NSGA-II. Cosentino et al. (2001) used a genetic
algorithm coupled with an artificial neural network method to
optimize a three-dimensional impeller described by fifteen
geometrical parameters. Hydraulic turbine diffuser shape
optimization was performed using multi-objective optimization
algorithms by Marjavaara et al. (2007). Lotfi et al. (2005)
reported on optimization of a low-speed fan cascade using a
genetic algorithm. They selected the thickness distribution and
the camber line with the help of the Bezier curve as design
variables. Benini (2004) defined blade section profiles by
Bezier curve, and performed multi-objective optimization
considering total pressure ratio and adiabatic efficiency as
objectives for design of a compressor blade. He employed
camber line and thickness profile as design parameters.
1 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 In the present work, a hybrid multi-objective evolutionary
algorithm (hybrid MOEA) (Deb, 2001) coupled with Radial Table 1 Design specifications of the centrifugal impeller
Basis Neural Network (RBNN) (Orr, 1996) has been applied to
obtain global Pareto-optimal front for design of a centrifugal Flow coefficient 0.14
compressor impeller. Three-dimensional RANS analyses have
been performed to obtain numerical solutions at the selected Rotational speed, rpm 65,550
design points. The meridional flow path has been optimized by Total pressure ratio 1.96
four design variables out of the control points constructing the
Impeller outlet diameter, mm 102.32
curves of shroud and hub. Two objectives, viz., isentropic
efficiency and total pressure ratio have been selected for Number of blade (splitter) 6 (6)
optimization.

NOMENCLATURE
F Response function
g Radial basis function
Haxial Design variable for axial variation of control point at
hub
Hradial Design variable for radial variation of control point
at hub
k Ratio of specific heat
PR Total-to-total pressure ratio
Pt Total pressure
Saxial Design variable for axial variation of control point at
shroud
Sradial Design variable for radial variation of control point Figure 1 Computational domain
at shroud
Tt Total temperature
w Coefficients of the linear combination
Greek Symbols
ε Set of errors
ηT Total-to-total isentropic efficiency
σ Variance
Subscripts
in Inlet
out Outlet

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The commercial code ANSYS-CFX 11.0 (2006) is used for
flow analysis in a centrifugal compressor impeller in the present
study. Blade profile creation, computational mesh generation,
boundary condition definitions, flow analysis and post
processing are performed by Blade-Gen, Turbo-Grid, CFX-Pre,
CFX-Solver, and CFX-Post, respectively.
RANS equations are discretized using finite volume
approximations, and shear stress transport (SST) turbulence
model is used as a turbulence closure. In the SST model, a k- ω
model is used in the near-wall region, and a k- ε model is used
in the bulk flow. And, a blending function ensures a smooth
transition between two models.
Computational domain for a single passage of the
centrifugal impeller where the present simulations are
performed is shown in Figure 1. Total pressure and total
temperature at the inlet are set to 1.0atm and 298.0K,
respectively. The design mass flow rate is set at the outlet.
Figure 2 Structure of the grid system
Steady-state simulations with air as ideal gas are performed.
Adiabatic walls with no slip and hydraulically smooth walls are
considered at solid boundaries. Periodic boundaries are set at
the blade passage interfaces. Tip clearance is 0.5mm. The major
design specifications are listed in Table 1.
A Hexahedral grid system is employed to generate the mesh
in the computational domain, and the optimum grid system
selected by grid-dependency test has 260,000 grid points as
reported by Kim et al. (2009). Figure 2 shows the structure of
grid system.
Root mean square (RMS) residual values of the governing
equations were set to below 1.0E-06, and imbalances of mass
and energy were kept below 1.0E-03 for convergence criteria.

2 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The converged solutions were obtained after 500 iterations,
approximately.

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
The objectives of the present optimization are to maximize
both total-to-total isentropic efficiency ( ηT ) and total-to-total
pressure ratio ( PR ), which are defined as:

k −1
Pt ,out
( ) −1k
Pt ,in
ηT = (1)
Tt ,out
( ) −1
Tt ,in

Pt ,out
PR = (2)
Pt ,in
Figure 3 Definition of design variables (LE: leading edge,
where, k , Pt and Tt are specific heat ratio, total pressure TE: trailing edge)
and total temperature, respectively. Aim of the optimization is
to maximize the two objectives, simultaneously. These objective utilized to avoid numerical or experimental expense and save
time. In the present study, RBNN is applied to evaluate
functions are calculated by solving RANS equations, and a
objective-function values at the required design sites. RBNN
hybrid MOEA is applied to obtain Pareto-optimal solutions.
uses a linear combination of  radially symmetric functions.
The design parameters for the response function are spread
DESIGN VARIABLES
constant (SC) and a user defined error goal (EG). The SC value
Geometric variables related with the shroud and hub
is selected such that it should not be so large that each neuron
contours of the impeller are selected as design variables in this
does not respond in the same manner for the all inputs, and that
design optimization. The three-dimensional contours could not
it should not be so small that the network becomes highly
be handled in the conventional compressor design even though
sensitive for every input within the design space. EG or mean
it seems very sensitive to the efficiency and pressure.
square error goal selection is also important. A very small error
It is necessary to optimize the three-dimensional impeller
goal will produce over-training of the network while a large
shape since the flow structure in the impeller passage is three-
error goal will affect the accuracy of the model. The allowable
dimensional in nature. Thus, the meridional contours are
error goal is decided from the allowable error from the mean
selected to change the impeller shape among many geometric
input responses. Cross-validation (Queipo et al., 2005) is
variables. Meridional contours affect the curvature of the
performed to check the quality of constructed surrogates. The
shroud and hub contours, blade height, passage and annulus
surrogate method is implemented in MATLAB (MATLAB,
areas along the meridional path with fixed blade angle and
2004) using function newrb.
thickness.
Objective functions are defined mathematically and
As shown in Figure 3, each meridional contour at the hub
evaluated on the data obtained by numerical simulation. A
or the shroud can be changed by moving one of the four control
hybrid, multi-objective, evolutionary approach is used to obtain
points constructing each curve with third-order Bezier curve.
global Pareto-optimal solutions. In this method, first,
The variations of P3 and P6 along the axial and radial
approximate Pareto-optimal solutions are obtained by using the
directions are selected as design variables. The leading edge
real-coded NSGA-II developed by Deb et al. (2000) for two
and the trailing edge of the impeller are fixed in this
objective functions; isentropic efficiency and total pressure
optimization. And, P2 and P7 are also fixed in order to get the
ratio. Here, real-coded means that the crossover and mutations
smoothed slope at the impeller inlet tip and impeller exit hub.
are conducted in real space to obtain a response of NSGA-II.
Therefore, Sradial, Saxial, Hradial and Haxial are used for design
These solutions are then refined by searching for a local optimal
variables in this study.
solution for each objective function over all the NSGA-II-
derived optimal solutions; the search uses Sequential Quadratic
MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY
Programming (SQP) in MATLAB with NSGA-II solutions as
Multi-objective optimization that is based on evolutionary
initial guesses. SQP is a generalization of Newton’s method,
algorithms requires many evaluations of objective functions to
which is a gradient-based optimization technique. To perform
search for the optimal solutions. Therefore, to evaluate these
local search, usually two approaches are applied (Deb, 2001).
objective-function values, surrogate-based approximation is
In one approach, all the objectives are combined into a single

3 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 composite objective and the optimum is searched. In the other 5 0.9

approach, one objective is optimized by treating the others as 0.8

equality constraints and the process is repeated for all 4
→ 0.7
objectives. In the present study, the first objective is optimized
EFF-RANS
and the second objective is treated as an equality constraint. EFF-EXP
0.6

PR

ηΤ
3
The local search is repeated for the second objective function PR-RANS
0.5
PR-EXP
by treating the first as an equality constraint. This process gives
two new sets of optimal solutions, which are then merged with 2 ← 0.4

the NSGA-II solutions. From these solutions, dominated 0.3

solutions are discarded and then duplicate solutions are
removed to get global Pareto-optimal solutions. The process of
local search is carried out to improve the quality of the Pareto-
optimal solutions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Numerical results for the flow analysis have been validated
prior to the design optimization. Shape of the impeller and the
diffuser used for this test is regarded as the reference shape.
And, validation of the numerical results was performed in
comparison with test data from the compressor performance test
rig (Kim et al., 2009) for this reference shape. Figure 4 shows
the validation of the flow analysis results in comparison with
the performance test results for total-to-total pressure ratios and
isentropic efficiencies. The pressure ratios and efficiencies
show good agreements with the test data at low flow
coefficients, but some discrepancies are present at high flow
coefficients.
For the design optimization, it is important to find the
feasible design space which is formed by ranges of design
variables. Design points are determined by design of
experiments in this design space and objective function values
at these design points are evaluated by RANS analyses. The
ranges of design variables were determined as in Table 2. The
design variables are normalized by the impeller exit radius.
The RBNN model is trained for both objective functions
using the numerically calculated results at the discrete design
points. The design parameters of the RBNN namely spread
constant (SC) and error goal (EG) are set in such a way to avoid
excessive PRESS (Prediction Error Sum of Squares) and
sensitivity of the network. For total pressure ratio and isentropic
efficiency, the values of SC are 0.45 and 0.40, respectively,
while the values of EG are 5.0×10-4 and 1.0×10-4, respectively.
The prediction errors are calculated by cross-validation of the
constructed surrogate model predictions at the DOE selected
design points. The cross validation errors associated with the
surrogate model are 2.78×10-2 and 2.18×10-2 for total pressure
ratio and isentropic efficiency, respectively. The trained RBNNs
are used to evaluate the objective functions values at any set of
design variables required by MOEA to search the Pareto-
optimal solutions. The present study applies the MOEA model
use by Samad et al. (2007). A real coded NSGA-II is invoked to
obtain well spread approximate Pareto-optimal solutions with
250 generations and 100 populations. The crossover and
mutation probabilities are set to 0.75 and 0.5, respectively. The
crossover and mutation parameters are decided as 10 and 50,
1 0.2
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
φ
Figure 4 Validation of the flow analysis
Table 2 Design ranges
Variables Lower Upper
S radial 0.666 0.686
S axial -0.554 -0.495
H radial 0.370 0.542
H axial -0.420 -0.288
respectively. These parameters are adjusted one by one to suit
the nature of the problem.
Figure 5 shows the global Pareto-optimal solutions that are
generated by hybrid MOEA through surrogate model. Since
both objectives are maximized, the shape of the Pareto-optimal
front resembles to a convex curve. Each extreme end of the
Pareto-optimal front represents a pair of the highest value of the
one objective function and the lowest value of the other
objective function. Any improvement of one objective function
leads to the deterioration of the other objective function that
shows the competing nature of the two objective functions.
Here, it can be noticed that no solution out of these Pareto-
optimal solutions is superior to any other solution in both
objectives, since each solution is a global Pareto-optimal
solution.
The trade-off analysis shows that higher isentropic
efficiency is obtained at the lower value of the total pressure
ratio and vice versa. Therefore, a designer can select any
compromise solution in both objectives according to required
design specifications using these global Pareto-optimal
solutions. The Pareto-optimal solutions are grouped through K-
mean clustering (JMP, 2005) to find out the representative
solution for a group of solutions. K-mean clustering is an
iterative alternating fitting process to form the specified number
of clusters. In this process, five representative clusters are
formed and two of them that lie at the extreme ends of the
Pareto-optimal front are reproduced numerically. The values of
objective functions and corresponding design variables are
shown in Table 3 along with the reference solution. It can be
seen that both solutions of cluster A and B models are superior

4 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 Results of design optimization

Design variables MOEA prediction CFD calculation Increment (%)

Design
S radial S axial H radial H axial PR ηT PR ηT PR ηT
Reference 0.666 -0.534 0.385 -0.302 - - 1.965 0.8598 - -
MOEA cluster A 0.679 -0.542 0.411 -0.309 1.989 0.8691 1.982 0.8654 0.86 0.65
MOEA cluster B 0.680 -0.549 0.400 -0.302 1.997 0.8648 1.993 0.8614 1.40 0.19

0.87
to the reference solution for both objectives. The results of
optimal solutions of cluster A and B models show the 0.869
A
improvements in efficiency by 0.65% and 0.19%, respectively,

Isentropic efficiency
0.868
and the improvements in total pressure ratio by 0.86% and
0.867
1.40%, respectively.
Hybrid NSGA-II
Comparison of the impeller meridional flow paths is shown 0.866 Clustered points
in Figure 6. The shroud and hub contours at each cluster point
0.865
are optimized to have larger curvatures along meridional flow B

path. The curvature of impeller shroud for cluster B model is 0.864

larger among both optimum design models. But, cluster A 0.863

1.98 1.985 1.99 1.995 2
model has larger curvature for impeller hub. And, it is Total pressure ratio
interesting that the increased curvatures contribute to increase
in the impeller radius in intermediate of impeller flow path.
Figure 5 Pareto-optimal solutions by hybrid MOEA
Figure 7 shows the passage areas of reference, cluster A and
B models along meridional length. The areas are normalized by
the impeller inlet passage area. The passage area of cluster A

Radial
C luster A
having the highest efficiency has the minimum area up to 40% C luster B
meridional length in three models. And then it becomes slightly R eference

larger than that of the reference model near 70% meridional

length. In case of cluster B model having the highest pressure
ratio, the passage area increases a lot at 30~ 100% meridional
length.
Figures 8 and 9 show the static pressure and total pressure
distributions at meridional plane, respectively. The optimum
shape of cluster B has the highest pressure at the impeller
trailing edge. The shroud radius of cluster B model is larger
slightly than that of cluster A model, but the hub radius of
A xial 0, 0
cluster B model is smaller. So, it is thought that the increased
shroud radius and the increased passage area of cluster B model Figure 6 Comparison of meridional flow path
give the higher pressure ratio.
Figure 10 shows the static pressure and total pressure
distributions on 90% span along the meridional length. For the 1

static pressure and total pressure, the cluster A and B models C luster A
Normalized passage area

C luster B
show the lines almost coincident with the reference one in 0.9 R eference
0~50% meridional length, but they are increased more than
those of the reference model after 50% meridional length. And 0.8
the static and total pressures of cluster B model are slightly
larger than those of cluster A model. That is because the
0.7
curvature of cluster B model is optimized so as to have the
increased shroud radius and curvature as well as the increased
passage. 0.6
0 0 .25 0.5 0 .7 5 1
Figure 11 shows the entropy distributions on 90% span M eridional length
along the meridional path. Cluster A and B models entirely have
lower entropy values than the reference model. Especially, they Figure 7 Comparison of passage areas

5 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (a) Reference (b) Cluster A (c) Cluster B

Figure 8 Static pressure distributions on meridional plane

(a) Reference (b) Cluster A (c) Cluster B

Figure 9 Total pressure distributions on meridional plane

120
have much lower values in 65~100% meridional length. The
reason that the reference model has higher entropy value is 100
Cluster A
Pressure at 90% span [KPa]

Cluster B
thought that the small shroud curvature in the reference model Reference
80
causes more unstable flow after 65% meridional length. As the
curvature becomes smaller, the flows would turn more suddenly 60
in the impeller, and it could cause considerable energy losses.
40 Total pressure
As discussed above, the pressure ratios and efficiencies of
↓

both optimized shapes are greater than those of the reference 20

shape, respectively. It is thought that the increased curvature at
↓

the shroud and optimized passage as shown in Figures 6 and 7 0

Static pressure
give a significant contribution to the enhancements of pressure -20
LE TE
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
ratio and efficiency. Additionally, a designer can select a trade-
Meridional length
off design results in both increased objective functions.
Figure 10 Pressure distributions at 90% span
CONCLUSION
Multi-objective optimizations of a centrifugal compressor with three-dimensional RANS analysis. In order to optimize the
impeller have been performed by RBNN and genetic algorithm meridional flow path, four design variables from two control

6 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Blade Using Response Surface Method in a Single-Stage
25
Transonic Axial Compressor,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Static entropy at 90% span [J/kg K]

20
Cluster A Mechanical Engineers, Part A, Journal of Power and Energy,
Cluster B
Reference Vol. 219, No. 8, pp. 595-603.
15
JMP 6.0.0, “The Statistical Discovery Software, Version 6.0.0,”
10 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2005

5 Kim, J. H., Choi, J. H., and Kim, K. Y., 2009, “Design

0 Radial Basis Neural Network Method,” ASME Turbo Expo
-5
0 0.25 0.5
Meridional length
Figure 11 Entropy distributions at 90% span
points constructing shroud and hub contours are selected as
design variables. Two optimum solutions at each extreme side
of efficiency and pressure ratio in the Pareto-optimal front show
that efficiencies are increased by 0.65% and 0.19%, and
pressure ratios are increased by 0.86% and 1.40%, respectively.
The results show that the present optimization method of hybrid
MOEA coupled with RANS analysis can be an efficient tool for
shape optimization of centrifugal compressor considering
efficiency and pressure ratio.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Korea Institute of
Industrial Technology Evaluation and Planning (ITEP) grant
funded by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (No.
10031771).
Optimization of a Centrifugal Compressor Impeller Using
2009, Florida, USA, GT2009-59666. (to be published).
0.75 1
Lotfi, O., Teixeira, J. A., Ivey, P. C., Sheard, G., and Kinghorn,
I. R., 2005, “Aerodynamic Optimization of Industrial Fan Blade
Cascades,” Turbo Expo 2005, Nevada, USA, GT2005-68385.
Marjavaara, B. D., Lundstrom, T. S., Goel, T., Mack, Y., and
Shyy, W., 2007, “Hydraulic Turbine Diffuser Shape
Optimization by Multiple Surrogate Model Approximations of
Pareto Fronts,” Trans. ASME, Vol. 129, No. 9, pp. 1228-1240.
MATLAB®, The language of technical computing, Release 14.
The Math Works Inc., 2004.
Orr, M.J.L., 1996, Introduction to radial basis neural networks,
Center for cognitive science, Edinburgh University, Scotland,
UK, http://anc.ed.ac.uk/RBNN/
Queipo, N. V., Haftka, R. T., Shyy, W., Goel, T., Vaidyanathan,
R., Tucker, P. K., “Surrogate-based Analysis and Optimization,”
Progress in Aerospace Science, Vol. 41, 2005, pp. 1-28

Samad, A., Kim, K. Y., and Lee, K. S., 2007, “Multi-Objective

REFERENCES
optimization of a Turbomachinery Blade Using NSGA-II,”
ANSYS CFX-11.0 Solver Theory, 2006, Ansys Inc.
ASME 5th Joint ASME/JSME Fluids Engineering Division
Benini, E., 2004, “Three-Dimensional Multi-Objective Design Summer Meeting and Exhibition, California, USA,
Optimization of a Transonic Compressor Rotor,” Journal of FEDSM2007-37434.
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 559-565.
Samad, A., Lee, K. S., and Kim, K. Y., 2008, “Optimization of
Stacking Line and Blade Profile for Design of Axial Fan Flow
Cosentino, R., Alsalihi, Z., and Van den Braembussche, R. A.,
Fan Blade,” ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer
2001, “Expert System for Radial Impeller Optimization,” Proc.,
Meeting and Exhibition, Florida, USA, FEDSM2008-55317.
Fourth European Conference on Turbomachinery, Paper No.
ATI-CST-039/01.

Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., and Meyarivan, T., 2000, “A
Fast and Elitist Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm for Multi-
Objective Optimization: NSGA-II,” Proceeding of the Parallel
Problem Solving from Nature VI Conference, Paris, pp. 849-
858.

Deb, K., 2001, Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary

algorithms, 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Jang, C. M., and Kim, K. Y., 2005, “Optimization of a Stator

7 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use