Analysis of Design of an Intermediate Turbine Duct

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

of the degree of

Bachelor of technology

By

Rakshit C
Roll No.110010044

Under the Guidance of

Prof. A M Pradeep

Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay
November 2014

ii

Approval Sheet
This report entitled Analysis of Design of an Intermediate Turbine Duct by Rakshit
C is approved for the degree of Bachelor of Technology

Examiner
_______________

Supervisor
_______________

Date: ______________
Place: ______________

iii

Declaration
I declare that this written submission represents my ideas in my own words and where
others ideas or words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and
integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source
in my submission. I understand that any violation of the above will be cause for disciplinary action by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources which
have thus not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken
when needed.

_____________________
(Signature)

_____________________
(Name of Student)

_____________________
(Roll No)

Date:_______________

iv

Abstract
Intermediate turbine duct represents the flow path between the high pressure and the
low pressure turbine of a high-bypass ratio turbofan engine. There is a growing demand
in the aviation industry for higher efficiency engines which leads to increase in bypass
ratio. The radial offset causes these duct to have a pronounced S- shaped design. Due to
the difference in rotational speed of differnt spools, this duct needs to diffuse the flow to
larger turbine with minimal pressure loss and flow distortions. As the trend of increasing
bypass ratio continues, the design of these diffusers becomes more significant,as the shape
of these duct can affect the net weight of an engine.
Shape optimization used for turbomachinery applications has become a powerful aerodesign tool. In this paper we discuss the preliminary considerations for the design of an
Inter Turbine Duct. Parametrization approach of Response surface methodology along
with a simple Genetic Algorithm is used to design and optimize the length of the duct.
The choice of length optimisation with constrained limits, is preffered as it is a low fidelity
and less computational intensive method. The optimized duct is then analysed externally,
for its pressure recovery and presence of wakes. The final goal is to create a inter turbine
duct which is smaller in length , and has comparable flow charecteristics of the initial
duct may be with active/passive flow control.

Aknowledgements
I take this oppportunity to express my sincere thanks to my guide Prof. A M Pradeep.
He has been very resourseful and supportive, and has motivated me throught. I would
like to thank Mr. Shyam Sundar Shukla, M.tech student, for providing the computational
flow analysis of the ducts. Also, I am grateful to Prof. Lars Erik Eriksson of Chalmers
University of technology for providing us a copy of the papers that he had worked on
and for his quick reply. I would like to thank, Kangal or The Kanpur Genetic Algorithm
laboratory at IIT Kanpur for their robust algorithm, which helped us in optimization of
the duct.
I like to thank my friends Varun Sudharshanan for his support during this semester
inn many academic and non academic matters and Sai Krishna for his assistance in coding
the program for optimization of the duct. At last but not the least, I would like to thank
my parents, all my friends for their continuous and everlasting motivation and support.

vi

Contents
List of Figures

viii

List of Tables

ix

1 Introduction

2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Review of literature on Interturbine Ducts: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Review on Optimization: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2
2
2
3

3 Preliminary Considerations
3.1 Parametrization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Methods of Parametrization . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Objective function and Optimization Approach
3.2.2 Optimization Method used . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

4
4
4
4
5
6
7

.
.
.
.
.
.

8
8
8
10
11
11
11

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

13
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
16

4 Problem Definition
4.1 Defining the Geometry . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2 Parametrization and the Geometry
4.2 Objective function and Constraints . . . .
4.2.1 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Objective function . . . . . . . . .
5 Optimized Design
5.1 Performance of the Baseline Duct . .
5.1.1 Pressure Contours . . . . . .
5.1.2 Velocity Contours . . . . . . .
5.1.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Optimized Duct . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Flow Charecteristics . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Comparision with Baseline Geometry

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

vii
6 Conclusion
6.1 Scope of Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
17
17

Bibliography

18

A Understanding the Optimisation

A.1 The Optimization Method . . .
A.1.1 Methodology . . . . . .
A.2 The Code . . . . . . . . . . . .

Program
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20
20
20
21

viii

List of Figures
4.1.1 The Center-line and Area variation Data obtained from Chalmers Literature[10]
5.1.1 Pressure Contours . . . .
5.1.2 Total Pressure Contours
5.1.3 Velocity Contours . . . .
5.3.1 Velocity Contours . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

13
14
14
16

ix

List of Tables
4.1.1 Tabulated data of Center-line and Area variation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

5.2.1 Table containing values of Mean line and Area at given length . . . . . .

15

Chapter 1
Introduction
Most of the multi spool jet engines of today consist of low pressure turbines which
are at a lower speed and higher radius than high pressure turbines. The duct that
connects these two is annular and will result in having a pronounced S-shape. Increasing
trend in higher bypass ratio jet engines is resulting in longer intermediate ducts and
higher variation of rotational speed between the two turbines. This difference leads to
complicated flow patterns, and in order to tackle this longer ducts were sought. The
extra weight that is contributed by the length of these duct is of major importance. Flow
complications are caused by the strong curvature with swirling and diffusive flow. There
is a risk that end wall separation occurs and these separations could cause unwanted
losses and asymmetric flow distortions. Shape optimization in turbomachinery design is
an important tool, and is possible due to the advent of powerful computational machines
for performing complex CFD routines.
In Chapter 2 we discuss on the literature that is available on Inter turbine duct and
shape optimization. Intermediate turbine ducts are fairly new topic of research and only
a handful of literature is available, where as Shape optimization has become a major
design tool in the modern era due to the advent of faster computers. In chapter 3,
The optimization and parametrization model for the geometry is discussed. Genetic
Algorithm is one of the widely used optimization method for finding a global minima.
New and much complicated evolutionary algorithms promise better result but are very
taxing on the resources. In chapter 4, we discuss the problem that is being put up and
the initial model, baseline geometry and the scheme is defined. In chapter 5, the obtained
low fidelity optimization duct is presented. A CFD analysis done on the same externally
is put and is compare with the baseline geometry. Finally, in chapter 6, scope of future
work is discussed as the project moves to its second stage and a brief summary of the
whole is presented.

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1

Introduction

The advent of higher bypass ratio engines1 , in recent years have sparked interest in
the field of Intermediate turbine ducts. There are numerous works carried out in shape
optimization in design of turbomachinery, and thus proving it to be a robust approach.
A lot of research work has been carried out on diffuser flows but only fewer studies of the
flow within annular S-shaped ducts are available in open literature. Many of them deal
the flow in intermediate compressor ducts.
Intermediate ducts on the other hand have limited literary work although a good
amount of study, both analytical and experimental, is done at Chalmers university of
Technology by Arroyo Osso C[1], Wallin F[2] , Alexson L-U [3] and many papers by Marn
A, Gottlich E et al of TU Graz[4, 5, 6]. Apart from these there are few other important
work on this field. Few of these work which are essential for design and optimization of
the intermediate duct were studied.

2.2

Review of literature on Interturbine Ducts:

One of the first study of diffuser flows was done by Sovran and Klomp in 1967[7],
it provides a performance chart for straight-walled annular diffusers and is still used as
a reference to classify intermediate turbine diffusers regarding their criticality. Later in
1978, the Energy Efficient Engine Component Development and Integration Program
(E 3 program) between NASA and Pratt and Whitney, the need of more aggressive turbine transition ducts was considered to be an enabling factor for high-bypass turbofan
engines[8]. The pioneer study in open literature on Inter turbine duct, was on the influence of swirl on the performance of duct, carried out by Dominy RG,et al[9]. Later
on many studies, both experimental and computational, were carried out on the flow
aerodynamics of an annular S-shaped duct.
The first attempt on design of an Intermediate duct was carried out by Wallin F et
al[10]. Design of Intermediate duct, is carried out by shape optimization method. Shape
optimization method, unlike analytical method, is a recent method in obtaining optimized
models for various applications. It was possible due the rise of modern computational
machines with higher computational capabilities. It involves changing the shape of the
model to be optimized every run and is then computed for its performance characteristics,
1

Rolls-Royce Trent 1000(bypass ratio of 10.9), being used in Boeing 787 Dreamliner, [21]

3
then based on selected method of optimization change in shape is carried out in a recursive
loop until the stopping criterion is reached. The several works by Wallin F, Eriksson L-E,
et al[10, 11, 12, 13], are done on the same basis. Shape optimization is used along with
Response Surface Methodology(RSM) for optimization. The robustness of RSM can be
seen from the work of Madsen et al[14]. The work by Gottlich E [15], on summarizing
the current stage at which research on intermediate turbine duct and where it is headed,
is a useful source of information on various aspects of the duct.
As ducts are made more aggressive, the flow will experience swirls and separation
which will result in pressure loss and flow distortion. These losses are not desired as they
bring down the overall efficiency of the engine. Flow control is a method to reduce these
effects, various active and passive flow controls are studied as active research. Different
methods of flow control are documented and vortex generators is one of the popular
passive control methods, the large study on it asserts the same. The use of vortex
generators for passive flow control in intermediate turbine ducts is studied by Wallin F and
Eriksson L-E[16]. Flow control can improve the performance characteristics significantly
and will most likely be incorporated in future engine designs.

2.3

Review on Optimization:

Study was done on the optimization techniques that existed and were being used, a
sound knowledge in this area would be helpful during the entire period of the project. The
textbooks referred were Optimization for Engineering Design[17], and Multi-Objective
Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms[18] both written by Prof. Kalyanmoy Deb.
In order to understand the optimization approaches used in shape optimization the work
by E. Taskinoglu et al[19, 20] on Design of a Submerged Air Intake was studied. Since
the objective function of our design problem is not an explicit function of the design
variables, the function evaluation of optimization needs to be done externally. Thus, use
of simple gradient methods for optimization will not suffice. Sequential Programming
method would be a less computational intensive algorithm for optimization, and is ideal
for low fidelity analysis. Evolutionary Algorithms, although being computational taxing,
have evolved to reach global minima very precisely. The new methods, like particle swarm
method, promise better results than traditional genetic algorithms.

Chapter 3
Preliminary Considerations
Any design problem, or any problem, needs few initial conditions defining the questions posed and constraints specified. It was planned that the whole design process
would be done in two parts, first Low fidelity approach and second a high fidelity approach along with validation. It was assumed that for low fidelity analysis a gradient
based solver with objective function as pressure loss will be used. The parametrization
models, and optimization methods were later decided.

3.1
3.1.1

Parametrization
Introduction

The first step in the shape optimization process is the parametrization. Parametrization, as the name would suggest, the process of deciding and defining the parameters
necessary for a complete or relevant specification of a model or geometric object. Most
often, parametrization is a mathematical process involving the identification of a complete set of effective coordinates or degrees of freedom of the system, process or model,
without regard to their utility in some design. Parametrization helps in breaking down
the problem into set of few parameters which govern the design, and may be properties
relevant to the component. Selection of optimization parameters has to be done with
care so as to reduce the computational burden of CFD calculations

3.1.2

Methods of Parametrization

For our case, Intermediate turbine duct, the parametrization of geometry can be
done in a couple of different methods. The work by Grsel, Jrgen titled, "Parametric
interturbine duct design and optimization."[23], deals with the topic of parametrization
of the ducts. Two approaches are studied in this literature, and the merits and de-merits
of each are stated.
3.1.2.1

B-spline methods

For Case-1, Duct mean line and Area(height) was considered and for Case -2, hub
and casing endwalls was considered. It was found that, Hub and Casing method reduced
the parameters that we deal with as effect of some of the parameters can be ignored

5
contrary to the first case. Both approaches used, few points as parameters and B-splines
to interpolate the geometry variation.
3.1.2.2

Perturbation method

There is alternative method to parametrize for optimization and this can be seen in the
perturbation analogy approach used by Wallin F[11]. The idea is to apply perturbations
to a reference duct, we know that there exists a perturbation such that it optimizes the
duct geometry with respect to our defined goal-function. Hence an approximation to
this perturbation is sought. A linear combination of basis functions is used to construct
this approximate perturbation. T o ensure that this approximation is the best possible,
orthogonal polynomials (Pi ) are used as basis functions. All polynomials are defined on
the interval 0 x L. In order not to change the reference design conditions at inlet or
outlet, the boundary conditions are imposed on the orthogonal polynomials.

x = 0,
d 2 Pi
dPi
=
=
0
at
Pi (x) =
x = L
dx
dx2

(3.1.1)

The first basis function is defined as the lowest-order nonzero polynomial satisfying
these boundary conditions. The basis functions are orthogonal to each other according
to the norm

Pi (x)Pi (x)dx
0

0 as i 6= j
6= 0 as i = j

(3.1.2)

The next basis function is the lowest-order non-zero polynomial that satisfies the
boundary conditions (1) and is orthogonal to all previously defined basis functions according to (2) and so on. An infinite number of orthogonal polynomials can be defined,
but in the present work only the two first polynomials (P1 and P2 ) have been used. The
reference geometry is modified by adding (or subtracting) perturbations to functions.
The Polynomials P1 and P2 are defined as
P1 (x) = x3 (x L)3
L
P1 (x) = x3 (x L)3 (x
2
3.1.2.3

(3.1.3)
(3.1.4)

Conclusion

To summarize, of the two methods used, the method of perturbation model feels more
promising than just plain hub and shroud. It deals with lower constraints number and
a lesser complex parameters. On the contrary other approach requires more number
of parameter to be able to create a spline. Hence, Perturbation model was chosen.
The parameter themselves will be discussed in the next chapter along with the baseline
geometry.

3.2

Optimization

There numerous approaches and methods exist for optimization of a given problem.
Optimization schemes can be broadly classified into 2 categories

6
1. Schemes to find local Minima (eg: Newton Raphson method)
2. Schemes to find global minima (eg: Evolutionary Algorithms)
Local minima although seeming useless, can be very useful for short searches and quick
results. The obtained extremum may not be the global optimum but the amount of
resources needed for the same is minimal. This might not seem significant for simpler
problems. When real world problems are considered, due to the complexity of the problem
posed, the computation time and resources become more significant. There is a need to
cut down cost intensive approaches to the minimum.
Searching for global extremum is a must for any complex problem as the offset between
the values of local and global extremum can be quite significant, in many cases. These
methods are computationally intensive compared to gradient methods. Some of the
methods like genetic algorithm, have been used extensively and the robustness of their
solution is proven. Extensive research is still going strong in this area even today. For
complex systems like Aircraft engine, even a single percent improvement in the overall
system can be helpful in making it more cost effective in the long run.

3.2.1

Objective function and Optimization Approach

Shape optimization, optimizes the shape or geometry of a given object subject to constraints and the optimizing function. As with most shapes which needs to be optimized,
the performance characteristics of each shape generally do not have a proper equation
in most complex scenarios. This is especially true with shapes that are subject to fluid
flow with turbulence, most of the cases CFD and/or experimental data is used to asses
the performance. This leaves us with no explicit function to be an objective function for
optimization.
For low fidelity optimization of the duct, we generally prefer simple and quick method
for optimization, which then be used in a high fidelity approach to obtain optimized
duct. A simple gradient based optimization would be sufficient at this stage for analysis.
Due to the very nature of the problem that is,no explicit function for calculating flow
characteristics, or performance parameters the optimization method that can be used
for optimization becomes restricted in type. This is mentioned in the work done by
Taskinoglu et al[19], on shape optimization of submerged intakes.
Two different approaches can be used for optimization
3.2.1.1

CFD solver and Simple optimizer

This method despite being more accurate than the alternative, is computationally
intensive and time consuming. The data from CFD solver needs to be fed to the optimizer
every time and it optimizes based on the data. This approach also restricts the type of
optimizers that can be used, as no explicit objective function exist. None of the gradient
based methods work, only optimization models that can be used are the ones which do
not depend on objective function at all. Most of regression based methods, Evolutionary
Algorithms fit into this category.
3.2.1.2

Different Objective function

Consider a different parameter instead of performance parameter, which can be linked

to the parametrization or the constraints directly. In this case a function can be defined

7
and simpler and easier methods can be used for optimization.The optimization of shape
for a low fidelity analysis without the use of CFD, led us to choose length as objective
function. Length being an important parameter which needs to be optimized for an
intermediate duct, can be directly linked to its geometry and easier low fidelity analysis
can be done.

3.2.2

Optimization Method used

Genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a meta-heuristic) is routinely used to generate
useful solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the
larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization
problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation,
selection, and crossover
Kangal, or The Kanpur Genetic Algorithm laboratory at IIT Kanpur is generous
enough to provide source codes for many of the popular evolutionary algorithm, as free
access to all, in their website.These sources codes were extremely useful in reducing the
workload involved in coding the optimizer. Time and again GAs have proven their
robustness in many studies. It is due to this robustness and the ease of availability of
source code for the optimizer, they are implemented in our optimization.
A simpler gradient based optimization could have been used, but due to the simple
objective function of length, and constraints that were defined a global optimization
method was chosen1 . The computation time of this method, due to the objective function,
is less than 60 seconds. Hence, it is ideal for a low fidelity analysis.

Refer Appendix A for more details on the code that was used for defining objective function and
constraints

Chapter 4
Problem Definition
In the chapter, the optimization problem is going to be defined. The geometry, constraints, objective function and the optimizer etc. Once they are defined, we look at the
flow pattern in the baseline that was used.

4.1

Defining the Geometry

Baseline geometry that will be used should be such that its close to the optimum duct
and thus helping us reach the extremum easily. Various literature have different baselines
for their desgn, but in most of the cases these baseslines were defined from something
that existed physically (like a test facilty). Most of the baseline designs are checked for
Srovan and Klomps criterion, generally a conservative duct is chosen.

4.1.1

Baseline

For our case, we needed a baseline which is closer to an optimized case, and if possible
data on experimental studies of the same. Hence it was decided that we would use the
optimized duct mentioned in the work of Wallin F., Eriksson L-E et al [10]. The data
on the variation of Area and center-line alogwith length was available as a graph1 (Figure
4.1.1). This was then converted into tabulated data2 , (table 4.1.1). This was the baseline
intermediate turbine duct that was defined.
By this data we can write both variations with respect to x as a polynomial of x by
interpolating the data. Thus we get the polynomials h(x) and A(x) for center-line and
Area variation respectively, they are
h(x) = 66.43x6 92.187x5 35.103x4 2.659x3 + 0.696x2 + 0.02x + 0.4949
A(x) = (972.23)x6 + 1241.2x5 528.87x4 + 76.607x3 + 0.4116x2 0.0378x + 0.3431
1
2

Fig 5 and 6, Page no 7, [10]

Computed by Mr. Shyam Sundar Shukla

(a) Center-line Variation

(b) Area Variation

Figure 4.1.1: The Center-line and Area variation Data obtained from Chalmers
Literature[10]

10
Sl.No Length Center-line
Area
1
0
0.495
0.3421
2
0.025
0.4955
0.345
3
0.05
0.4975
0.35
4
0.075
0.5
0.36
5
0.1
0.504
0.3775
6
0.125
0.51
0.39875
7
0.15
0.515
0.42
8
0.175
0.525
0.44
9
0.2
0.53625
0.455
10
0.225
0.55
0.46375
11
0.25
0.565
0.46625
12
0.275
0.58325
0.4625
13
0.3
0.6
0.46
14
0.325
0.61875
0.4575
15
0.35
0.6375
0.45875
16
0.375
0.65625
0.46875
17
0.4
0.67
0.4875
18
0.425
0.68375
0.51125
19
0.45
0.6925
0.535
20
0.475
0.697
0.54625
21
0.5
0.6975
0.54781
Table 4.1.1: Tabulated data of Center-line and Area variation

4.1.2

Parametrization and the Geometry

The whole geometry is parametrized as,

Baseline Geometry(Length) + P ertubation = N ew Geometry
In this kind of approach the parameters that are defining the geometry are controlling only the perturbation. Two perturbation functions are defined as explained in the
previous sections, P1 and P2 , Four independent parameters are now defined 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 .
These parameters are bound between 0 and 1 and the parameters that control P1 and P2
P1 (x) = x3 (x L)3
L
P2 (x) = x (x L) x
2
If we call the equations pertaining to new geometry as, h and A , Now we define
length parameter len, this parameter is also bound between 0 and 1 and defines the
length of the duct. This will change the functions h(x) and A(x), to make the change to
new length all one has to do is to replace x . Hence for the new parameter len, we define
3

x =

x
len

11
The final equations that define the new geometrys center-line and area variation
are the sum of the perturbation functions and the modified geometry with length. The
equations of h and A are
h (x) = h(x ) + 1 P1 (x) + 2 P2 (x)
A (x) = A(x ) + 1 P1 (x) + 2 P2 (x)

4.2

Objective function and Constraints

For a problem to be clearly defined, it should have proper objective function and
constraints.

4.2.1

Constraints

The only constraints that were defined was on the wall angles of both, hub and shroud.
The wall angles in the baseline geometry itself exceed 50 at some points. Hence a relaxed
wall angle constraint was defined as , that is
Wall Angles< 100 .
In order to obtain wall angles, first we are required to compute radius of hub and
shroud at different location and this was easily obtained by
rh (x) = h (x)

A (x)
A (x)

and
r
(x)
=
h
(x)
+
s
4h (x)
4h (x)

Now by computing at 20 different locations the value of radius and using simple
trigonometric relations the wall angle could be found and it is then checked if it satisfies
the constraint.

4.2.2

Objective function

In the current case, the objective function is very simple. Its just the length factor,
f (x) = len. Such a simple function is possible since the parameter len controls the
geometry of the entire duct significantly and it can have effect on the wall angles. This,
in turn, lets us perturb the shape such that the constraints are satisfied. Thus, while
looking as a simple function will function as a good enough objective function. The
mathematical simplicity of the objective function also helps us reduce the computational
load significantly and even optimization models like GA can work quick enough,( under
60 seconds for each run).
4.2.2.1

Inputs and Outputs

The inputs that are defined to the program are, the baseline geometry and constraints.
Along with that other parameters for the optimizer needs to be defined. For Genetic
Algorithm, in our case we have considered
Number of Generations is taken as 100

12
Number of Population, it is generally 10 times the number of variables, i.e., 50
Crossover Probability as 80%
Mutation Probabilty as 5%
There are different output files generated from the program. They are
h1.out, center-line variation for 20 different points along the length of the new duct
a1.out, area variation for 20 different points along the length of the new duct
hub.out, wall angles of the hub at 20 locations in radians
shroud.out, wall angles of the shroud at 20 locations in radians
Paramaters.out, all the parameters that are being varied for the optimization in the
respective order 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , len
Result.out, indicating the maximum, minimum and the average value of the generation. Also the number of mutations and crossovers made.

13

Chapter 5
Optimized Design
5.1
5.1.1

Performance of the Baseline Duct

Pressure Contours

By the CFD simulations that is done externally we observe for the baseline duct the
pressure loss to be around 4%.

Figure 5.1.1: Pressure Contours

14

Figure 5.1.2: Total Pressure Contours

5.1.2

Velocity Contours

The velocity contours that are plotted show that small amount of seperation that
occurs at the shroud near the end of the duct.But this seperation is not significant.

Figure 5.1.3: Velocity Contours

5.1.3

Conclusion

The Baseline gometry has the following charecteristics

A very good pressure recovery of 96%,
Also the flow seperation that exist is very minimal.

15

5.2
5.2.1

Optimized Duct
Introduction

The optmized duct is obtained after running the optimizer with the constraints and
conditions specified in the previous chapter. Genetic Algorithm is used for the optimization of the duct.

5.2.2

Geometry

After five runs, the geometry obtained, for the specified conditions and constraints,
has the following parameters as shown in table 5.1. These values are directly extracted
from the values of h1.out and a1.out
Sr. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Length Centerline
Area
0
0.4949
0.3431
0.0175 0.495356 0.343415
0.035
0.496599 0.348882
0.0525 0.498745 0.360936
0.07
0.502052 0.378592
0.0875 0.506835 0.399471
0.105
0.513403 0.420658
0.1225 0.522001 0.439389
0.14
0.532767
0.45356
0.1575 0.545701 0.462074
0.175
0.560642 0.465014
0.1925 0.577261 0.463642
0.21
0.595063 0.460233
0.2275 0.613401 0.457731
0.245
0.631506 0.459241
0.2625
0.64852
0.467346
0.28
0.663546 0.483255
0.2975 0.675715 0.505776
0.315
0.684251 0.530126
0.3325 0.688564 0.546565
0.35
0.688338 0.538856

Table 5.2.1: Table containing values of Mean line and Area at given length

5.3

Flow Charecteristics

The obtained duct is then anaysed in CFD externally and the following resultsa are
obtained
Pressure recovery is relatively low at 92%
Large seperation of flow exist at hub and shroud near the exit

16
It can be seen from velocity contour in fig 5.3.1 that the seperation occuring is significant.

Figure 5.3.1: Velocity Contours

5.4

Comparision with Baseline Geometry

In comparision to baseline geometry, thi duct has

Lower Pressure recovery, with a pressure recovery of 92%. This is significantly lower
for a duct of this type.
Flow seperation in this case is quite significant, and this can be the main reason
fot the pressure loss that is being caused.
While the baseline is better in the previous cases, the optimized duct has 30%
shorter duct.(i.e., 70% of original length)

17

Chapter 6
Conclusion
6.1

Scope of Future work

Further improvisations on the optimization methods and constraints can be done

to get a better result.
The optimized duct can be analyzed for its performance, and thus can be used for
further optimization through a High fidelity analysis that is coupled with CFD
When the duct becomes more aggressive, flow control methods can be used to
reduce separation and decrease the effect of the pressure loss.
Non axis symmetric and inclusion of struts can be considered for a more realistic
analysis of the Duct and optimization of the same can be carried out.

6.2

Summary

Intermediate turbine ducts are essential components, and they are quickly finding a
niche of their own. In the present work, the basic ideas required for the understanding
and optimization of a Intermediate Turbine duct were established. The obstacles faced
gave us an idea on what can be achieved and what approaches are not feasible. The study
on various optimization and parametrization methods will be very helpful when further
optimizations and constraints are carried out.
The baseline duct which was considered was already an optimized duct and showed
good pressure recovery along with minimal flow seperation. The first optimized duct, was
obtained by optimizing length purely by considering design space defined by constraints.
The obtained duct had length 70% of the original length. This method gave us a feasible
point but there was no guarantee that this duct would perform well as flow performance
was not the objective function. The duct used had poor pressure recovery and large
separation. Thus indicating further improvements for the same can be made in the
future to obtain a duct with favorable characteristics.

18

Bibliography
[1] Arroyo Osso C. Aerothermal investigation of an intermediate turbine duct. Doctoral
thesis, Department of Applied Mechanics of Chalmers University of Technology,
2009. ISBN:978-91-7385-351-4
[2] Wallin F. Flow control and shape optimization of intermediate turbine ducts for
turbofan engines. Doctoral thesis, Department of Applied Mechanics of Chalmers
University of Technology, 2008. ISBN:978-91-7385-205-0
[3] Axelsson L-U. Experimental investigation of the flow field in an aggressive intermediate turbine duct. Doctoral thesis, Department of Applied Mechanics of Chalmers
University of Technology, 2009. ISBN:978-91-7385-264-7
[4] Gottlich E, Malzacher FJ, Heitmeir FJ, Marn A. Adaptation of a transonic test
turbine facility for experimental investigation of aggressive intermediate turbine duct
flows. AIAA paper ISABE-2005-1132, 2005
[5] Gottlich E, Marn A, Malzacher FJ, Schennach O, Heitmeir F. Experimental investigation of the flow through an aggressive intermediate turbine duct downstream of a
transonic turbine stage. In: Papailiou K, Martelli F, Manna M, editors. Proceedings
7th European conference on turbomachinery fluid dynamics and thermodynamics,
2007, p. 3839
[6] Marn A, Gottlich E, Pecnik R, Malzacher FJ, Schennach O, Pirker HP. The influence
of blade tip gap variation on the flow through an aggressive S-shaped intermediate
turbine duct downstream a transonic turbine stage Part I: time-averaged results.
ASME paper GT2007-27405, 2007
[7] Sovran G, Klomp ED. Experimentally determined optimum geometries for rectilinear
diffusers with rectangular conical or annular cross section. In: Sovran G, editor. Fluid
mechanics of internal flow. Elsevier; 1967. p. 270319
[8] Gardner WB. Energy efficient engine (E3) technology status. AIAA paper AIAA82-1052, 1982
[9] Dominy RG, Kirkham DA. The influence of swirl on the performance of interturbine
diffusers. In: VDI Berichte 1186, 1995, p. 10722
[10] Wallin, Fredrik, Lars-Erik Eriksson, and Martin Nilsson. "Intermediate turbine duct
design and optimization." ICAS Paper No. ICAS 5.1 (2006).
[11] Wallin, Fredrik, and Lars-Erik Eriksson. "Response surface-based transition duct
shape optimization." ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2006.

19
[12] Wallin, Fredrik, and Lars-Erik Eriksson. "Non-axisymmetric endwall shape optimization of an intermediate turbine duct." 18th ISABE Conference. 2007.
[13] Wallin, Fredrik, and Lars-Erik Eriksson. "Design of an aggressive flow-controlled
turbine duct." ASME Turbo Expo 2008: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2008.
[14] J. I. Madsen, W. Shyy , and R. T . Haftka. Response Surface T echniques for Diffuser
Shape Optimization. AIAA Journal, 38:15121518, 2000
[15] Gttlich, Emil. "Research on the aerodynamics of intermediate turbine diffusers."
Progress in Aerospace Sciences 47.4 (2011): 249-279.
[16] Wallin F, Eriksson L-E. A tuning-free body-force vortex generator model. AIAA
paper AIAA-2006-0873, 2006.
[17] Kalyanmoy Deb, Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms and Examples,
2nd Edition (English), PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd-New Delhi, ISBN:9788120346789
[18] Kalyanmoy Deb ,Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, 1st
Edition, Wiley India Pvt Ltd, 2010, ISBN: 9788126528042
[19] E. Taskinoglu, D. Knight. Design Optimization for Submerged Inlets-Part I. AIAA
Paper 2003-1247, January, 2003.
[20] Taskinoglu, Ezgi S., et al. "Design optimization for submerged inlets-Part II." 21st
Applied Aerodynamics Conference. 2003.
[21] Rolls Royce Trent 1000 fact sheet VCOM13797 Issue 5 March 2009.http://
www.rolls-royce.com/Images/brochure_Trent1000_tcm92-11344.pdf
[22] Various Authors. "Parametrization.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametrization,
Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation,
[23] Grsel, Jrgen, Manuel Pierr, and Jacques Demolis. "Parametric interturbine duct
design and optimisation." Proceedings of 25th international congress of the aeronautical sciences, ICAS. 2006.

20

Appendix A
Understanding the Optimisation
Program
A.1

The Optimization Method

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural
selection. This heuristic is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and
search problems. Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms
(EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by
natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

A.1.1

Methodology

In a genetic algorithm, a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions. Each
candidate solution has a set of properties (its chromosomes or genotype) which can be
mutated and altered; traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s
and 1s, but other encodings are also possible.
The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals,
and is an iterative process, with the population in each iteration called a generation. In
each generation, the fitness of every individual in the population is evaluated; the fitness
is usually the value of the objective function in the optimization problem being solved.
The more fit individuals are stochastically selected from the current population, and each
individuals genome is modified (recombined and possibly randomly mutated) to form a
new generation. The new generation of candidate solutions is then used in the next
iteration of the algorithm. Commonly, the algorithm terminates when either a maximum
number of generations has been produced, or a satisfactory fitness level has been reached
for the population.
A.1.1.1

Crossover

In genetic algorithms, crossover is a genetic operator used to vary the programming

of a chromosome or chromosomes from one generation to the next. It is analogous to
reproduction and biological crossover, upon which genetic algorithms are based. Cross
over is a process of taking more than one parent solutions and producing a child solution

21
from them. There are methods for selection of the chromosomes. Those are also given
below.
A.1.1.2

Mutation

Mutation is a genetic operator used to maintain genetic diversity from one generation
of a population of genetic algorithm chromosomes to the next. It is analogous to biological
mutation. Mutation alters one or more gene values in a chromosome from its initial state.
In mutation, the solution may change entirely from the previous solution. Hence GA can
come to better solution by using mutation. Mutation occurs during evolution according
to a user-definable mutation probability. This probability should be set low. If it is set
too high, the search will turn into a primitive random search.

A.2

The Code

The entire code was written in C, as the sorce codes available for genetic algorithm
from KANGAL was only in C.The code that is presented below is the section that is
written as objective function and constraints for the GA source code that was available.

double compute(double* pol,double q) {

double ret=0,val=1.0;
int i;
for(i=0;i<8;i++) {
ret+=val*pol[i];
val*=q;
}
return ret;
}
void objective(indv)
INDIVIDUAL *indv;
{
int i;
double term1,term2, term3, pi, your_func;
double g[MAXCONSTR], gsum, x[2*MAXVECSIZE];
// if (indv == NULL) error_ptr_null("x in objective()");
for (i=0; i < nvar_bin; i++)
x[i] = indv->xbin[i];
for (i=nvar_bin; i < nvar_bin+nvar_real; i++)
x[i] = indv->xreal[i-nvar_bin];

MINM

= 1; // for maximization use -1

double len=x[4];
// double H[8]={0,66.42,-92.19,35.103,-2.659,0.696,0.002,0.4949};
double h[8]={0.4949,0.002,0.696,-2.659,35.103,-92.19,66.42,0};
// double A[8]={0,-972.23,1241,-528.87,76.607,0.412,-0.0378,0.3431};
double a[8]={0.3431,-0.0378,0.412,76.607,-528.87,1241,-972.23,0};
double H[8],A[8];
double P1[8],P2[8];
double rs[21],rh[21];
double h1[21],a1[21];
double th_s[20],th_h[20];
double h1_x,a1_x;
double sum;
H[0]=h[0];
H[1]=h[1]/(len);
H[2]=h[2]/(len*len);
H[3]=h[3]/(len*len*len);
H[4]=h[4]/(len*len*len*len);
H[5]=h[5]/(len*len*len*len*len);
H[6]=h[6]/(len*len*len*len*len*len);
H[7]=h[7]/(len*len*len*len*len*len*len);
A[0]=a[0];
A[1]=a[1]/(len);
A[2]=a[2]/(len*len);
A[3]=a[3]/(len*len*len);
A[4]=a[4]/(len*len*len*len);
A[5]=a[5]/(len*len*len*len*len);
A[6]=a[6]/(len*len*len*len*len*len);
A[7]=(a[7]/(len*len*len*len*len*len*len));
for (i=0;i<8;i++)
{
sum+= A[i];
}
//printf("%.7f ",A[1]);

for(i=0;i<8;i++) {
P1[i]=0;P2[i]=0;
}
double val=(len/(double)2.0);
P1[6]=1.0;
P1[5]=-3*val;
P1[4]=3*val*val;
P1[3]=-val*val*val;
val*=-1.0;
for(i=0;i<7;i++)
P2[i]=P1[i]*(val/(double)2.0);
for(i=1;i<8;i++)
P2[i]+=P1[i-1];
// P1 and P2 are generated
double b=0.0;
pi=acos(0)*2.0;
double pi_by36=pi/(double)5.0;
double ms;
double mh;
double l=(len/(double)2.0);
for(i=0;i<21;i++) {
h1[i]=compute(H,b);
h1[i]+=x[0]*compute(P1,b)+x[1]*compute(P2,b);
a1[i]=compute(A,b);
a1[i]+=x[2]*compute(P1,b)+x[3]*compute(P2,b);

rs[i]=h1[i]+(a1[i]/(4.0*pi*h1[i]));
rh[i]=h1[i]-(a1[i]/(4.0*pi*h1[i]));

if(i>0) {
ms=(rs[i]-rs[i-1])/((double)0.1*l);
mh=(rh[i]-rh[i-1])/((double)0.1*l);
th_s[i-1]=atan(ms);
th_h[i-1]=atan(mh);
}
b+=(0.05*l);
}
your_func=len;
nc=40;
for(i=0;i<20;i++){
g[i]=(th_s[i]-(pi_by36));
}
for(i=10;i<40;i++){
g[i]=((th_h[i-20]-pi_by36));
}
FILE* ths;
ths= fopen("shroud.out","w+");
for(i=0;i<20;i++) {

fprintf(ths, "%f ",th_s[i] );

// printf("%.7f ",x[i] );
}
fprintf(ths, "\n" );
fclose(ths);
FILE* thh;
thh= fopen("hub.out","w+");
for(i=0;i<20;i++) {
fprintf(thh, "%f ",th_h[i] );
// printf("%.7f ",x[i] );
}
fprintf(thh, "\n" );
fclose(thh);
FILE* hf;
hf= fopen("h1.out","w+");
for(i=0;i<21;i++) {
fprintf(hf, "%f ",h1[i] );
// printf("%.7f ",x[i] );
}
fprintf(hf, "\n" );
fclose(hf);
FILE* af;
af= fopen("a1.out","w+");
for(i=0;i<21;i++) {
fprintf(af, "%f ",a1[i] );
// printf("%.7f ",x[i] );
}
fprintf(af, "\n" );
fclose(af);
FILE* fp2;
fp2= fopen("krish.out","w+");
for(i=0;i<5;i++) {
fprintf(fp2, "%f ",x[i] );
// printf("%.7f ",x[i] );
}
fprintf(fp2, "\n" );
fclose(fp2);