0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Turbomachinery

Enhanced Robust Design Simulation and Application to Engine Cycle and Technology Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Jonathan Sands

Mem. ASME
Aerospace Systems Design Lab,
School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332
e-mail: j.sands@gatech.edu

Christopher Perullo

Mem. ASME
Aerospace Systems Design Lab,
School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332
e-mail: chris.perullo@ae.gatech.edu

Brian Kestner

Mem. ASME
Aerospace Systems Design Lab,
School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332
e-mail: bkkestner@yahoo.com

Dimitri Mavris

Mem. ASME
Aerospace Systems Design Lab,
School of Aerospace Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332
e-mail: dimitri.mavris@aerospace.gatech.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Turbomachinery Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received September 23, 2016; final manuscript received November 26, 2016; published online February 23, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(7), 072604 (Feb 23, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1462; doi: 10.1115/1.4035599 History: Received September 23, 2016; Revised November 26, 2016

Increased computing power has enabled designers to efficiently perform robust design analyses of engine systems. Traditional, filtered Monte Carlo methods involve creating surrogate model representations of a physics-based model in order to rapidly generate tens of thousands of model responses as design and technology input parameters are randomly varied within user-defined distributions. The downside to this approach is that the designer is often faced with a large design space, requiring significant postprocessing to arrive at probabilities of meeting design requirements. This research enhances the traditional, filtered Monte Carlo robust design approach by regressing surrogate responses of joint confidence intervals for metric responses of interest. Fitting surrogate responses of probabilistic confidence intervals rather than the raw response data changes the problem the engineer is able to answer. Using the new approach, the question can be better phrased in terms of the probability of meeting certain requirements. A more traditional approach does not have the ability to include confidence in the process without significant postprocessing. The process is demonstrated using a turboshaft engine modeled using the numerical propulsion system simulation (NPSS) program. The new robust design process enables the designer to account for probabilistic impacts of both technology and design variables, resulting in the selection of an engine cycle that is robust to requirements and technology uncertainty.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Technology impact probability density function changes due to technology maturation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

RDS methodology [5] modified for robust engine and technology design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Cumulative distribution function for likely performance of a candidate design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Monte Carlo probabilistic analysis process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Two-spool axi-centrifugal turboshaft engine architecture

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Centrifugal compressor tip speed constraints due to material stress limits

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Axi-centrif engine performance limited by material stress limits

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Artificial neural network surrogate model fit quality, cruise ESFC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Probabilistic surrogate model fit quality, likely cruise ESFC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Feasible design centrif compressor pressure ratio settings for various max turbine inlet temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Feasible centrif compressor design pressure ratio settings for various power levels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Feasible centrif compressor specific speed settings for various design centrif compressor pressure ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Feasible centrif compressor specific speed settings for various design overall pressure ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Feasible design overall pressure ratio settings for various design centrif compressor pressure ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Ninety-five percent likely ESFC levels for various centrif compressor pressure ratio designs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Ninety-five percent likely weight levels for various centrif compressor pressure ratio designs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Evaluation of robust and deterministic cycle selections under two realized technology scenarios

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In