4.7 Article

A comparative study of kriging variants for the optimization of a turbomachinery system

期刊

ENGINEERING WITH COMPUTERS
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 49-59

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00366-015-0398-x

关键词

Blade angle; Centrifugal impeller; Hybrid genetic algorithm; Hydraulic efficiency; Kriging; Design optimization; Number of blades

资金

  1. Indian Institute of Technology Madras [OEC/10-11/529/NFSC/ABDU]
  2. Department of Information Technology (INTEC), Ghent University-iMinds, Ghent, Belgium
  3. Belgian Science Policy Office
  4. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Program BEST-COM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kriging is a well-established approximation technique for deterministic computer experiments. There are several Kriging variants and a comparative study is warranted to evaluate the different performance characteristics of the Kriging models in the computational fluid dynamics area, specifically in turbomachinery design where the most complex flow situations can be observed. Sufficiently accurate flow simulations can take a long time to converge. Hence, this type of simulation can benefit hugely from the computational cheap Kriging models to reduce the computational burden. The Kriging variants such as ordinary Kriging, universal Kriging and blind Kriging along with the commonly used response surface approximation (RSA) model were used to optimize the performance of a centrifugal impeller using CFD analysis. A Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equation solver was utilized to compute the objective function responses. The responses along with the design variables were used to construct the Kriging variants and RSA functions. A hybrid genetic algorithm was used to find the optimal point in the design space. It was found that the best optimal design was produced by blind Kriging, while the RSA identified the worst optimal design. By changing the shape of the impeller, a reduction in inlet recirculation was observed, which resulted into an increase in efficiency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据