Combustor design optimization using co-kriging of steady and unsteady turbulent combustion

Wankhese, Moresh J., Bressloff, Neil W. and Keane, Andy J. (2011) Combustor design optimization using co-kriging of steady and unsteady turbulent combustion Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 133, (12), 121504 -(11). (doi:10.1115/1.4004155).


[img] PDF Combustor_Design_Optimization_Using_Co-Kriging_of_Steady_and_Unsteady_Turbulent_Combustion.pdf - Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (571kB)


In the gas turbine industry, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are often used to predict and visualize the complex reacting flow dynamics, combustion environment and emissions performance of a combustor at the design stage. Given the complexity involved in obtaining accurate flow predictions and due to the expensive nature of simulations, conventional techniques for CFD based combustor design optimization are often ruled out, primarily due to the limits on available computing resources and time. The design optimization process normally requires a large number of analyses of the objective and constraint functions which necessitates a careful selection of fast, reliable and efficient computational methods for the CFD analysis and the optimization process. In this study, given a fixed computational budget, an assessment of a co-Kriging based optimization strategy against a standard Kriging based optimization strategy is presented for the design of a 2D combustor using steady and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) formulation. Within the fixed computational budget, using a steady RANS formulation, the Kriging strategy successfully captures the underlying response; however with unsteady RANS the Kriging strategy fails to capture the underlying response due to the existence of a high level of noise. The co-Kriging strategy is then applied to two design problems, one using two levels of grid resolutions in a steady RANS formulation and the other using steady and unsteady RANS formulations on the same grid resolution. With the co-Kriging strategy, the multifidelity analysis is expected to find an optimum design in comparatively less time than that required using the high-fidelity model alone since less high-fidelity function calls should be required. However, using the applied computational setup for co-Kriging, the Kriging strategy beats the co-Kriging strategy under the steady RANS formulation whereas under the unsteady RANS formulation, the high level of noise stalls the co-Kriging optimization process.

Item Type: Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi:10.1115/1.4004155
ISSNs: 0742-4795 (print)
Subjects: T Technology > TJ Mechanical engineering and machinery
T Technology > TL Motor vehicles. Aeronautics. Astronautics
Organisations: Computational Engineering & Design Group
ePrint ID: 203297
Date :
Date Event
December 2011Published
Date Deposited: 16 Nov 2011 16:59
Last Modified: 18 Apr 2017 01:17
Further Information:Google Scholar

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item