Hindawi Publishing Corporation

International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Volume 2011, Article ID 537824, 16 pages
doi:10.1155/2011/537824

Research Article
Impeller Design of a Centrifugal Fan with Blade Optimization

Yu-Tai Lee,1 Vineet Ahuja,2 Ashvin Hosangadi,2 Michael E. Slipper,3 Lawrence P. Mulvihill,1
Roger Birkbeck,2 and Roderick M. Coleman1
1 Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Code 5700, West Bethesda, MD 20817, USA
2 Combustion Research and Flow Technology, Inc. (CRAFT Tech), Pipersville, PA 18947, USA
3 Ships Systems Engineering Station, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Code 9860, Philadelphia, PA 19112, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Yu-Tai Lee, yu.lee@navy.mil

Received 1 December 2010; Revised 12 May 2011; Accepted 14 June 2011

Academic Editor: Meinhard Taher Schobeiri

Copyright © 2011 Yu-Tai Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A method is presented for redesigning a centrifugal impeller and its inlet duct. The double-discharge volute casing is a structural
constraint and is maintained for its shape. The redesign effort was geared towards meeting the design volute exit pressure while
reducing the power required to operate the fan. Given the high performance of the baseline impeller, the redesign adopted a
high-fidelity CFD-based computational approach capable of accounting for all aerodynamic losses. The present effort utilized a
numerical optimization with experiential steering techniques to redesign the fan blades, inlet duct, and shroud of the impeller.
The resulting flow path modifications not only met the pressure requirement, but also reduced the fan power by 8.8% over the
baseline. A refined CFD assessment of the impeller/volute coupling and the gap between the stationary duct and the rotating
shroud revealed a reduction in efficiency due to the volute and the gap. The calculations verified that the new impeller matches
better with the original volute. Model-fan measured data was used to validate CFD predictions and impeller design goals. The CFD
results further demonstrate a Reynolds-number effect between the model- and full-scale fans.

1. Introduction to the baseline impeller, there is an existing reference im-

peller (named the B#2 impeller) which provides further
A heavy-duty air cushion vehicle usually employs cen- performance comparisons in reference to the baseline. In
trifugal lift fans to pressurize the air cushion and power this paper, a systematic numerical study was carried out
the steering thruster. The design of the lift fan system of the aerodynamic characteristics of the existing impellers.
is subject to meet payload, machinery spacing, and rugged- The study revealed that although the existing impellers were
ness requirements [1]. The current low-specific-speed (≈ high performing to start with, there was some margin for
0.2) baseline lift-fan impeller (named the B#1 impeller in improvement. In particular, both impellers were susceptible
the present paper) shown in Figure 1 is fitted with a double- to flow separations near the leading edge of the blade and
discharge volute (DDV) shown in Figure 2 to provide air near the shroud region where the hub transitioned into the
for both cushion lift and thrust vectoring. The impeller is common backplate for the impeller system. Subsequently,
a double-width, double-inlet (DWDI) centrifugal type with a piecemeal approach was taken in the redesign effort and
two nonstaggered blade rows. Each impeller blade row has the hub, shroud, and bellmouth as well as the impeller
backward-swept blades mounted between a common back blades were redesigned to improve the performance of the
plate and shrouds. In order to effectively manage the craft fan system. A variety of different techniques were utilized in
fuel consumption, a reduction in fan’s operating power is the redesign process: for example, the hub was modified by
necessary. Since the DDV is a structural constraint and streamline tracing; the bellmouth/shroud was modified by
required to be maintained in its shape, the baseline impeller altering the local curvature near the blade whereas a formal
and a dual bellmouth (or inlet duct) assembly are there- genetic algorithm- (GA-) based optimization procedure was
fore redesigned to improve the fan performance. In addition used to redesign the blade profile. Experiential steering was
2 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

refrigerant compressor with an impeller, a vaneless diffuser,

and a single discharge volute and obtained a good agreement
in volute circumferential pressure with the measurements,
particularly the pressure dip at the volute tongue. Meakhail
and Park [5], Atif et al. [6], and Karanth and Sharma [7] used
both CFD and particle-image-velocity (PIV) measurement
to study centrifugal fan impeller interactions with a vaned
diffuser and a single discharge volute, and found that
their steady numerical simulations were able to predict the
flow characteristics, particularly the flow separation, which
existed between the impeller and the diffuser. Although
all three investigations [5–7] found that their prediction
results agree with the measurements, Karanth and Sharma
[7] revealed the presence of an optimum radial gap (or the
interacting region) which could provide lower interaction
losses.
All these aforementioned studies mostly with a single
discharge volute indicate a volute feedback to the impeller
Figure 1: The baseline impeller B#1. aerodynamics exists, particularly at the volute tongue loca-
tion. The current DDV further complicates the flow pattern,
shortens the pressure recovery path compared to the single
Discharge diffuser discharge volute, and produces double pressure peaks at two
peripheral tongue locations. The significance of the feedback
Symmetry plane depends, however, on each individual design configuration.
Without predefined knowledge of the volute feedback to the
Thruster discharge impeller performance, impellers from these past efforts [3–
5] were designed without taking the volute feedback into
consideration. In our case, since we are primarily interested
Life-side in performance of the lift fan system, we have catalogued
discharge the performance degradation with the addition of a hard-
constrained volute. We have carried out the impeller-volute
coupling calculations with the use of the frozen impeller
Interface approximation which provides a conservative estimate of the
Maintain area performance when compared to fully unsteady simulations.
budget Lastly, a rigorous design validation study was undertaken
with a carefully designed test rig for the 1/5 scale model.
Figure 2: Component representation for a half of the centrifugal
Both fans with the existing impellers and the fan system with
fan.
the redesigned impeller were tested to verify improvement in
performance.
In the following sections, we provide details of the strat-
used to alter the optimized two-dimensional blade profile egy and methodology for redesigning the impeller using the
into a three-dimensional swept blade that further enhanced impeller-only CFD calculations. Refined CFD calculations
the performance of the impeller. coupling the impeller, the volute, and the shroud gap that
A detailed study was also carried out of the coupled were used to assess the design and quantify the volute
impeller-volute system. The interaction between the impeller feedback to the impeller performance are discussed after the
and its associated volute can significantly alter the perfor- design procedure. Following that we provide details of the
mance of the impeller. Several groups have reported their model-scale fan test [8] and comparisons with the coupled
findings on the performance of impeller-volute systems. CFD predictions at design and off-design conditions. We end
However, the majority of the prior related investigations the paper with a detailed summary of the redesign process
in the literature dealt with centrifugal impellers and single and the lessons learned therewith.
discharge volutes. For example, Kaupert and Staubli [2] re-
corded strong blade loading fluctuations as the blade passed
the volute tongues on a double spiral volute, particularly 2. Impeller Aerodynamics for
at below design flow rates. Hillewaert and Van den Braem- the Existing Impellers
bussche [3] used numerical predictions of the 3D unsteady
inviscid impeller flow interacting with the steady volute In order to establish a design strategy within a constrained
flow in centrifugal compressors at off-design conditions and design window, two existing impellers B#1 and B#2 were first
found reasonable agreements with measurements. Lee and analyzed with a second-order accurate CFD method which
Bein [4] also applied steady CFD calculations to a centrifugal solves a full compressible form of the Navier Stokes equations
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 3

with preconditioning to obtain an efficient time-marching Thruster discharge

numerical scheme [9] for the incompressible flow. The flow Volute
casing
field formulation was implemented within a 3D unstruc-
tured code CRUNCH. References [9–12] provide additional Black: B#1
details. The CRUNCH CFD code employs a multielement, Gray: B#2
cell-vertex-based unstructured framework which allows for a

Flow
combination of tetrahedral, prismatic, and hexahedral cells.
The standard high Reynolds number formulation of the κ-
ε equations forms the basis for the turbulence modelling in
CRUNCH. These turbulence equations, with supplemental
low Reynolds number correction terms, are given in [10].

Flow
Considering the computational efficiency, the wall-function
approach was used for the current calculations.
Lift discharge diffuser
Figure 3 depicts the blade (left figure) and shroud (right
figure) arrangements for the 14-bladed B#1 impeller in black
and the 12-bladed B#2 impeller in gray. The baseline volute
shown in Figure 3 is connected to the impeller with a sudden Lift-side discharge
expansion in the flow path area.
Fan aerodynamic performance at the design point re-
quires air at a temperature of 26.7◦ C, an impeller shaft speed Figure 3: Blade/shroud arrangements for impellers B#1 and B#2.
of 1692 rpm, and a shaft power of 1276.6 kW (= 2 PWRref )
to produce a lift static pressure of 7517 Pa (= Pref ) at a
nominal lift-side air flow rate of 57.43 m3 /s. This results in
the following nondimensional parameters:
Qlift
Lift flow coefficient = = 0.2014, (1)
1/4πD2 U

(Ps )lift
Lift static pressure coefficient = = 0.3175, (2)
ρU 2

Figure 4: Bellmouth/impeller assembly for the B#1 impeller.

ShaftPWR
Power coefficient = = 0.1892, (3)
1/4πρD2 U 3
condition was enforced for the passage boundaries between
where Qlift , (Ps )lift , D, U, and ρ are defined as the lift flow the blades and a no-slip condition was used at the blade,
rate, fan lift discharge static pressure, fan tip diameter, fan shroud, backplate, and shaft surfaces. Although the inlet
tip speed, and air density, respectively. At the design point, was controlled with a velocity condition, the inlet pressure
57% of the fan air flows through the lift diffuser to maintain was predicted as part of the simulation since the pressure
the required lift pressure. The goal of the design study is to pertains to the upstream propagating characteristic. As a
achieve a reduction in the power coefficient shown in (3) consequence, the pressure rise was determined from the
while maintaining the lift-flow characteristics of (1) and (2). difference between the inlet and exit pressures and is a
Figure 4 shows the assembly of the bellmouth and im- function of the impeller design.
peller for one half of the fan. Due to the geometrical sym- The performance-related parameters, that is, shaft power,
metry, the CFD calculations only cover one single blade pas- output power, and total-to-total efficiency, for the impeller
sage for the gridding system used, as shown in Figure 5. To flow field are as follows:
accurately capture the boundary layer and loading on the
blade surface, the grid on the blade portion is structured ShaftPWR = Timp · ω, (4)
and all other surfaces are either structured or unstructured
as shown in Figure 5. The unstructured cells help to reduce ImpPWRout = (∆Pt )imp · Q, (5)
the overall size of the grid thereby reducing turnaround time
ImpPWRout
for the calculations. Although a relatively small gap exists ηimp = , (6)
between the rotating shroud and the nonrotating bellmouth, ShaftPWR
the impeller-only design CFD calculation does not include where Timp , ω, (∆Pt )imp , and Q are the impeller torque,
the effect of the shroud gap flow. rotational speed, total pressure increase across the bellmouth
For the incompressible flow calculation, a uniform inflow and the impeller, and the flow rate. The impeller torque
condition was imposed at the bellmouth inlet to maintain was calculated by integrating the forces from the blade, hub,
the required flow rate and a mass-averaged back pressure shroud, and backplate. The convergence of the solution is
was applied at the impeller exit. A periodic boundary determined by the variation of the calculated impeller torque
4 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

72.2

−5808.6

Pressure (Pa)
−11689.4

−17570.2
Figure 5: Gridding for the impeller B#1.
Shroud separation

−3.5 −23451

Figure 8: Flow traces near B#2 impeller surfaces.

−4 0.5%

Table 1
Power (% from design)

Impeller ShaftPWR/PWRref Impeller head/Pref Efficiency (%)

−4.5
B#1 0.945 1.47 92.6
B#2 0.960 1.52 92.9

−5 Grid density is adequate

and the mass-averaged total and static pressure variations at

the inlet and outlet planes.
−5.5 Impeller B#2 was used to investigate the grid density
requirement. Figure 6 shows the computed percent change
in ShaftPWR versus the design power with the number of
cells for the structured and unstructured grids ranging from
−6 105,984 to 958,464 cells. The result shows that a grid density
0 200 400 600 800 1000
×103 of 250,000 cells or more for each impeller blade passage
Number of cells
is adequate for a predicted power with an error of 0.5%
Figure 6: Grid density calculations using impeller B#2. (mostly dependent on the grid topology rather than the
grid density) or less. Calculations were also performed to
investigate the effect of using the wall-function procedure.
11733.4 The grid y+ was controlled between 10 and 50 for the wall-
function modelling and below 1 for the near-wall modelling.
Calculations were made for both B#1 and B#2 impellers
with an approximately 250,000 cell grid. The predicted
ShaftPWR is generally lower for the near-wall modelling, but
7029.6
the difference between the B#1 and B#2 impellers using the
same wall modelling is almost the same between the two
SS tip separation
models studied.
Ps (Pa)

Figure 7 shows the predicted flow pattern through

2325.8 impeller B#1’s surfaces. Flow separations occur in two major
areas. The critical flow separation affecting performance
happens at the shroud near the blade leading edge. It also
occurs at the blade suction side of the tip trailing edge.
−2378.1 Figure 8 shows similar flow traces for impeller B#2’s surfaces.
Shroud separation
The B#2 impeller also has the shroud separation; however,
the suction-side separation vanishes. Table 1 compares the
−7081.9 predicted power, the impeller (total) head, and the efficiency
between the two impellers.
Figure 7: Flow traces near impeller B#1 surfaces. The predicted ShaftPWR for each impeller is lower
than the targeted ShaftPWR (or PWRref ). Although the B#2
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 5

0.95
0.794
0.0476 0.945
0.635

Impeller efficiency
(radius of
Axial distance/D

curvature/D) 0.94
0.476
0.0263 0.935
0.074 Bellmouth
0.318
0.93
Shroud
0.159 0.925
Flowpath
Impeller width
0 0.92
0 0.159 0.318 0.476 0.635 0.794 0.953 0.0263 0.0476 0.074
Radius/D Radius of curvature/D
(a) (b)
72.2

−5808.6

Pressure (Pa)
−11689.4

−17570.2

Shroud
separation is
improved −23451
Z
Y
X
(c)

Figure 9: Based on the B#2 impeller (a) bellmouth/shroud profiles investigated; (b) impeller performances; (c) improved separation for the
0.0476 shroud.

impeller requires more power at the specified condition, three bellmouth/shroud profiles are presented and labelled
it generates more head and has a slightly higher efficiency. based on the local curvature near the blade and shroud
Since flow separation occurs in each impeller while operating intersection. The profile labelled with 0.0263 (local radius
at high efficiency, the redesign calculations must accurately of curvature/D) corresponds to the B#2 impeller. The two
account for all aerodynamic losses in order to predict any other profiles were investigated to reduce the sharp curvature
performance difference within a few percentage points. The at the blade intersection [13]. The associated flow fields of
use of streamline curvature or potential-flow/Euler codes all three profiles indicate that the original flow separation at
would not accomplish the goals for the current redesign the shroud was improved in the two new profiles. Figure 9(c)
effort. The developed redesign procedures established based demonstrates the improvement of the impeller with the
on the findings from the assessment of the existing impellers 0.0476 shroud as compared to the B#2 impeller shown
are herewith provided below. in Figure 8. The performance data shown in Figure 9(b)
suggests that the shroud labelled with 0.0476 provides the
3. Impeller Aerodynamic Design largest gain in efficiency. Although the required power for
the 0.0476 shroud is slightly increased, it is used in the final
3.1. Hub and Shroud/Bellmouth Designs. Since flow separa- design.
tions at the shroud in front of the blade leading edges were CFD prediction results were also made for the 11-
predicted for the two existing impellers, further improve- bladed B#2 impeller, which was constructed based on the
ment in impeller performance would require reducing this 12-bladed impeller to maintain a constant throat area, that
shroud flow separation. The large curvature of the shroud is, at the location with the maximum blade thickness. The
as it approaches the blade may be partially responsible for advantage of adapting the 11 blade arrangement is to reduce
the flow separation seen at the shroud due to the dif- ShaftPWR by 2.38% for the impeller with the 0.0476 shroud
ficulty of the boundary layer to remain attached as the as compared with the 12-bladed impeller with the same
flow negotiates the turn near the shroud. In Figure 9(a), shroud curvature. Although a drop of 2.14% in total head for
6 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Objectives: CFD grid associated with the newly deformed blade shape
GA ShaftPWR and within SCULPTOR.
ImpPWRout The design requirements called for improving the effi-
Design parameters ciency of lift fan while meeting the set design criteria for the
output fluid power delivered by the impeller. Conventionally,
Fitness values design optimization can be carried out for such a problem
by either performing a multiobjective optimization or by
Gridgen using constraints to limit the shaft power and to maximize
and SCULPTOR CRUNCH CFD the output power. We utilized a mathematical function that
was a combination of a target efficiency (95%) and a target
power requirement as an objective function. CRUNCH CFD
Design grids are Designs from
created based on previous generations are calculated flow parameters as presented in (4)–(6). The
ASD grid saved in parametric space objective of the GA was to measure the distance from a target
and their flow solutions ShaftPWR and output power, that is,
used as initial guess  2
(ShaftPWR − 581)2 + ImpPWRout − 552

Figure 10: Flowchart for blade optimization. dobj = . (7)
PWRref
For this case, the targeted ShaftPWR and output power
were set at 581 and 552 kWs, respectively. The objective
the latter impeller occurred, the efficiency was maintained. function was set to compare impeller B#1’s performance data
These results led to the decision to choose the 11-bladed of 603.3 and 558.5 kWs, which has an impeller efficiency of
0.0476 shroud profile impeller configuration. In addition, 92.6% as described previously. The optimization calculation
this modification required a blade redesign to recover the was to minimize this objective function. Due to the time
drop in the total head. constraint during the design phase, a total of 48 designs
were analyzed during the design iterations. In Figure 12, the
impeller total head generated and efficiency associated with
3.2. 2D Blade Profile Optimization. A GA-based procedure each blade design during the 6 generation calculations are
was used for optimization of the impeller blade. Since im- plotted in black diamond symbols versus the shaft power.
peller B#2’s blade performs better than the B#1 impeller The impeller head is nearly linear in relationship to the shaft
as shown in the last section, the B#2 blade shape was power. The shaft power values for the B#1 impeller and the
used as the starting geometry and all changes to the blade design power threshold of 4.7% and goal of 10% reduction
shapes were made through a network of Bezier curves. The are also marked in each plot. The selected 2D blade shape,
GA uses the traditional selection, crossover, and mutation circled in the solid black circle in Figure 12, has a near peak
operators, whose implementation details are provided in fitness value plotted in Figure 13 and the highest efficiency
[14]. A schematic of the design optimization framework is in Figure 12 among all GA designs. The fitness plot in
shown in Figure 10. Variables that represent deformation of Figure 13 is an inverse measurement of the defined objective
the blade shape by moving the control points were passed by function shown in (7). The final unconventional 2D design
the GA to SCULPTOR where the shape modifications and from the GA design iteration is shown in Figure 14. The
grid alterations were performed. The grids were then passed increased loading of the blade near midchord resulted in flow
to CRUNCH CFD and the performance of the altered designs acceleration especially near the shroud where the original
was evaluated. The performance metrics in the form of the blades were prone to a large area of flow separation. This
objective functions were passed back to the GA for the next blade shape generated a total head of 1.459 Pref at 93.68%
design iteration. efficiency and requires a shaft power of 0.926 PWRref . Some
The blade shapes were defined by a complex network small modifications were made to the 2D blade through a
control points which form an arbitrary shape deformation steering process followed by the construction of a 3D blade
(ASD) grid (Figure 11(a)) that was generated utilizing the by sweeping the 2D sections. The steering process and 3D
SCULPTOR tool. The blade shape was parameterized by blade construction is discussed in the following sections. The
10 design variables of 5 control points (5 design variables prediction results for all these later modifications are also
on the pressure side and 5 design variables on the suction plotted in Figures 12 and 13 as “Non-GA” points. After the
side shown in Figures 11(b) and 11(c)). The grouping of final 3D modification, the fitness and efficiency are further
control points was implemented in the spanwise direction improved from those obtained for the 2D blade design by
to ensure that the integrity of the 2D shape was maintained. GA. The peak of the “Non-GA” points in Figure 13 was not
GRIDGEN was used to generate the initial CFD grid for the selected due to the aggressiveness of the design which will be
original blade shape and subsequent grids were automatically described in the next section.
generated with shape deformation propagating through the
grids. The deformation was performed on a 2D airfoil shape 3.3. Steering of Blade Shape. The 2D blade cross-section de-
and maintained along the spanwise direction. Furthermore sign described in the previous section was performed in a
the deformation was propagated to the grid points of the relatively conservative manner due to an “unknown” cou-
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 7

ASD grid

CFD grid
(a)
ASD chordwise grid

Control points

(b) (c)

Figure 11: Blade design parameters are defined with ASD grid (a) a 3D view; (b) a chordwise view with a deformed blade; (c) a close-up
view at the trailing-edge region of the deformed blade.

1.6 96
Impeller total pressure/Pref

1.5 94
Impeller efficiency

10% (0.852)

1.4 92
B#1 (0.945)
10% (0.852)
4.7% (0.902)

B#1 (0.945)
4.7% (0.902)
1.3 90
0.8 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1 0.8 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1
ShaftPWR/PWRref ShaftPWR/PWRref

GA-gen6 GA-gen6
Non-GA Non-GA
(a) (b)

Figure 12: Landscape of optimization process in total pressure and efficiency versus ShaftPWR (black solid circle indicates result obtained
from 2D design, blue dash circle is from 2D steering, and red dash-dot circle is from 3D design).

pling effect from the downstream volute. In addition, the that is, steer blade-1 and steer blade, with minor changes in
period of the design phase was limited. In order to further their trailing-edge profiles (i.e., trailing-edge angle to reduce
enhance the gain in reducing the shaft power, a trailing- blade turning) from the 2D design blade. The calculated shaft
edge modification was adapted. Since the blade trailing edges power, total head, and efficiency are 0.870 PWRref , 1.376 Pref ,
are placed at the maximum velocity region of the entire fan and 93.87% for the steer blade-1; 0.896 PWRref , 1.414 Pref ,
flow field, the effect of modifying the trailing-edge shape can and 93.8% for the steer blade. The impeller efficiencies of the
be dramatic. Figure 15 demonstrates two steering profiles, two steer blades and the 2D design blade are almost identical.
8 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

400 Steer blade

Steer blade-1

300 2D design blade

Fitness

200

4.7% (0.902) B#1 (0.945) Original B#2 blade

100 Figure 15: Blade shape obtained from 2D blade steering.

10% (0.852)

at the expense of a higher shaft power of 0.968 PWRref versus

0
0.8 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1 0.936 PWRref . This procedure essentially improves the blade
ShaftPWR/PWRref
efficiency. When the same procedure was applied to the steer
blade shown in Figure 15, the efficiency improved from 93.8
GA-gen6 to 95.55%, the head increased from 1.414 Pref to 1.459 Pref
Non-GA with the shaft power also increasing from 0.896 PWRref to
Figure 13: Fitness versus shaft power during design calculations. 0.909 PWRref . From here on out, when this 3D version of the
steer blade is integrated with the impeller, it is referred to as
the NEW design impeller.
New 2D design blade
3.5. Impeller Width Control. Impeller width is defined in
Figure 9 as the distance between the backplate and the
shroud. It represents the blade trailing-edge span with the
shroud terminating at the blade trailing edge. Given the
Original impeller diameter and the flow rate, this parameter controls
B#2 blade the maximum achievable flow velocity. The widths for the
two existing impellers shown in Figure 2 are 0.1207 D and
0.1350 D, respectively.
Figure 14: Blade shape obtained from 2D blade design optimiza-
tion. The width of the NEW impeller is determined by starting
with the B#2 impeller width. Figure 16 shows the effects of
the total pressure generated and the efficiency when changing
the impeller width for the 11-bladed B#2 (B#2-11) impeller
Even though the steer blade-1 required much lower shaft and the NEW impeller. Also shown in Figure 16 is the
power, it unfortunately delivered much less head and output performance data from the B#1 and B#2 impellers. Derived
power. The steer blade-1 was considered too aggressive in from the B#2 blading, a nearly linear performance was
meeting the requirement; therefore, the more conservative identified for the predicted shaft power (shown in [13]) and
steer blade was chosen for further investigation. total head. Unlike the other parameters mentioned above,
the efficiency seems to be independent of the width change.
3.4. 3D Swept Blade Design. Both existing impeller’s blades By adjusting the impeller width, the impeller total pressure
were primarily 2D blades, that is, the leading and trailing can be controlled without sacrificing the performance. In
edges at hub and shroud started at the same radii. The blade other words, the NEW impeller generates less total head with
was designed as a 2D blade to reduce the manufacturing the same width as the B#1 impeller; however, with increased
cost. There are some advantages to sweeping the blade: (i) width, the NEW impeller is able to produce the same total
a blade starting at a lower radius near the shroud can prevent head as the B#1 impeller. Conversely, for a fixed impeller
boundary-layer separation by accelerating the flow before it width, altering the blade geometry can play an important role
actually turns, and (ii) it changes in incidence at the leading in lowering shaft power and increasing impeller efficiency.
edge attributed to the sweep can lower losses and increase Similar improvement in the compressor performance by
efficiency. Based on this concept, the B#2 11-bladed impeller increasing the volute inlet width was reported by Kim et
blades were extended inward radially at the leading edge al. [15]. It should be noted that the volute inlet width was
and its angle measured from the shroud was modified from the same as the impeller width in their study. Note that
0 degree for a 2D blade like the B#1 blade to 10 degrees. the current volute inlet has a sudden expansion (shown
The new 3D blade generated high head of 1.548 Pref versus in Figure 3) from the impeller exit versus Kim’s volute
1.471 Pref with a higher efficiency of 95.08% versus 93.66% which has a smooth connection between the volute and the
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 9

96

1.48

94
1.44
Total pressure/Pref

Impeller efficiency
1.4 92

1.36
90

1.32

88
0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 0.135 0.14 0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 0.135 0.14
Width/D Width/D

B#1 B#2–11 B#1 B#2–11

B#2–12 NEW B#2–12 NEW
(a) (b)

Figure 16: Effects on performance from changing the impeller width.

3D optimized blade Impeller NEW

Gap
Bellmouth

Shroud

Figure 17: The integrated new design impeller NEW.

Flow recirculation
Shroud Z
Zoom-in view Y
Bellmouth

Figure 19: Streamlines initiating at the gap produce trailing-edge

Bellmouth Shroud flow separation.
Gap

Gap

impeller. Before the diffused fluid started separating at the

hub while the impeller width was increased, Kim et al. [15]
also recorded increased head and a slight efficiency increase.
By integrating all of the above findings, which include
the effects from the hub and bellmouth/shroud design, the
2D blade profile optimization, the steering of blade shape,
the 3D swept blade design, and the impeller width control,
an assembled impeller is shown in Figure 17 with eleven 3D
Figure 18: Gap and shroud configuration for B#1 impeller. blades. The width for the NEW impeller was chosen to be
0.1213 D.
10 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

Flow measuring chamber FanPWRout = [(∆Pt )lift · Qlift + (∆Pt )thruster · Qthruster ], (8)

FanPWRout
ηfan = . (9)
Shaft ShaftPWR
motor
There are two other parameters related to the lift-side
performance. They are lift-side total and static efficiencies,
which were calculated as follows:
  (∆Pt )lift · Qlift
ηt lift = , (10)
Lift exhaust duct Fan Thruster nozzle ShaftPWR
Figure 20: Centrifugal fan test rig.
  (∆Ps )lift · Qlift
ηs lift = . (11)
ShaftPWR
The grid topology used for the impeller design calcula-
4. Prediction of Fan Performance tion shown in Figure 5 was maintained. Depending on the
number of blades designed for each fan, the total impeller
4.1. Computational Method for Fan Flow Field. In order to
grid was approximately 3 to 4 million cells. The correspond-
evaluate the fan performance, it is necessary to include the
volute with each impeller. Since the volute outer casing con- ing volute for each fan had approximately 1.5 million cells.
figuration is a structural constraint, it stays the same for all The converged volute solution for the baseline B#1 impeller
fans, the volute flow field and its feedback to the impeller are was first obtained by adjusting the pressures at the two exits
modified for changes in the impeller exit conditions and the to reach the design lift flowrate. Similar exit pressures were
volute-side’s bellmouth and shroud shapes. applied for all other impeller calculations to obtain the lift
The impeller flow field is unsteady and periodic due to flowrates shown in Tables 2 and 3.
the interaction between each blade and the asymmetric vo-
lute casing (Figure 2), particularly at the two tongue loca- 4.2. Impeller/Volute Coupling Solutions. Table 2 shows the
tions. This time-varying flow field could be approximated by performance data obtained from the impeller/volute cou-
a time-averaged or steady flow field with a fixed geometric pling calculations for all fans. Adapted from the grid topol-
relationship between the impeller and the volute. This ogy used for the impeller design CFD, the impeller grid
simplification is referred to as the frozen impeller approach. ended at a fixed radius for all coupling calculations except
It computes the entire (all blades included) impeller steady for the NEW impeller, which ended at a slightly smaller
flow field in the rotational frame and converts the flow radius. In order to compare the performance with similar
field information to a stationary frame at an interface near grid features for all fans, the NEW-x grid was generated
the impeller exit to the downstream volute. The steady
by radially extending the shroud of the NEW impeller.
nonrotating volute flow is calculated from the interface
Since the impeller width plays an essential role in the
to each volute exit. The conditions at the interface serve
impeller performance, a wider width impeller was generated
as information exchange between the impeller and the volute
for comparison and is labelled as the NEW-w impeller.
and are obtained as a part of the solution. The process is
In addition, the fan total-to-total efficiency is calculated
accomplished by convergence of key quantities such as the
in Table 2 using (8) and (9). The lift-side static and total pres-
total pressures and mass flow rates at the impeller inlet,
sures, along with their efficiencies are also tabulated. The
interface, and volute outlets.
volute losses (column “Loss”) at the lift side were estimated
For the impeller-flow calculation, all boundary condi-
by subtracting the lift-side total pressure from the impeller
tions used for the CFD design calculations were maintained
head (del Pt ).
except for eliminating the periodic boundary condition and
It is interesting to note that the B#2 impeller now requires
controlling the exit back pressure through the interface
less shaft power (0.8%) than the B#1 impeller. The NEW
information exchange. For the volute-flow calculation, the
mass-averaged discharge pressures from the two exits are impeller reduces shaft power by 5.76% from the baseline.
prescribed to keep (a) the required flow to the lift side, (b) When the volute was coupled with the impeller, the impeller
the extended surface from the impeller backplate modelled efficiency for the NEW impeller dropped from the impeller-
as a symmetry plane, (c) the shroud as the rotating wall, and design prediction of 95.5% to 89%. Similar reductions were
(d) all other casing surfaces as no-slip walls. predicted for the B#1 and B#2 impellers, that is, from 93%
The fan performance parameters were evaluated dif- to 88%. A total drop of five to six percentage points in the
ferently from the impeller design calculation. The shaft impeller efficiency with the volute feedback is considered.
power was calculated using (4) while Timp was obtained by When the losses in the volute were included, the total fan
integrating the torque from all the impeller blades. The fan efficiency further reduced to between 76.9% and 78.3% for
output power and the total-to-total efficiency were calculated all fans except the B#2 impeller which decreased to 74%. The
using the following formulae: dramatic reduction in the volute loss for the NEW impeller
 International Journal of Rotating Machinery
Table 2: Fan performance data obtained from impeller/volute coupling CFD.
Shaft Imp Eff lift Eff lift Lift Flow
Fan del Pt /Pref Effimp (%) Efffan (%) Width/D Ps lift/Pref Pt lift/Pref Loss/Pref
power/PWRref PWRout /PWRref (total) (%) (static) (%) (%)
B#1 0.918 0.812 1.366 88.4 76.9 0.1208 1.187 1.227 0.139 0.451 0.437 56.7
B#2 0.911 0.808 1.359 88.7 74.0 0.1350 1.092 1.142 0.217 0.417 0.399 55.9
NEW 0.865 0.759 1.278 87.8 76.9 0.1213 1.144 1.187 0.091 0.461 0.444 57.0
NEW-x 0.865 0.770 1.297 89.0 78.1 0.1213 1.139 1.182 0.115 0.458 0.441 56.5
NEW-w 0.871 0.782 1.315 89.8 78.3 0.1237 1.154 1.196 0.119 0.460 0.443 56.5

11
12 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4

Lift pressure coefficient

0.4
Lift pressure coefficient

0.4

Lift pressure coefficient

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2 0.2

Design
Design Design
0.1 0.1 0.1

0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Flow coefficient Flow coefficient Flow coefficient

Impeller B#1 Impeller B#2 Impeller NEW

Requirement Requirement Requirement
B#1 model test (5212 rpm) B#2 model test (5212 rpm) NEW model test (5212 rpm)
B#1 CFD (FS) B#2 CFD (FS) NEW CFD (FS)
B#1 CFD (MS) B#2 CFD (MS) NEW CFD (MS)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 21: Measured lift pressure coefficient compared with the requirement and CFD predictions for the B#1, B#2, and NEW impellers.

14 impellers are lower than that of the B#1 impeller. As shown

in current predictions, the NEW impeller can meet the lift
12
pressure and power reduction requirements if the existing
10 B#1 impeller is overpowered at the design condition.

8
4.3. Impeller/Volute Coupling Solutions with Shroud Gap Ef-
6 fect. The shroud gap between the stationary bellmouth and
Reduction (%)

the rotating shroud is shown in Figure 18 for the B#1 im-

4 peller. Using this refined geometry, the frozen impeller
calculations included not only the narrow gap, but also
2
the shroud thickness and its end shape. The gap sizes
0 designed for the B#1, B#2, and NEW impellers are 0.08%,
0.15%, and 0.08% of the impeller diameter, respectively. The
−2 shroud gap flow accounts for 0.52%, 0.92%, and 0.58% of
the inflow at the design condition for the three impellers.
−4
Table 3 provides the performance data at the design con-
−6
dition for the three impellers. Reference [16] provides
B#1 B#2 NEW further details for the effects of the gap on the impeller
aerodynamics.
Rey No Effect
Comparing the data between Tables 2 and 3, the gap
ShaftPWR Lift Ps
OutPWR Lift Pt effect for the B#1 impeller inversely affects performance
Fan Eff Volute Loss as compared to the other two impellers. The B#2 and
NEW impellers suffer about 0.5% reduction in fan effi-
Figure 22: Predicted impact of model fan’s lower Re number on fan ciency due to the gap-affected impeller exit flow [17]
performance for the existing and new fans.
into the volute which induces impeller blade trailing-edge
flow recirculation, as shown in Figure 19. In contrast, the
shroud gap flow improves both the impeller and the fan
suggests that the exit flow from the new impeller matches efficiencies for the B#1 impeller. This may have been caused
better with the downstream volute flow than those for the by the unstable gap-flow solution using the current steady
existing impellers. In summary, the NEW impeller improves calculation procedure. The calculations including the gap
fan efficiency by 1.2 percentage points and reduces power by further complicate the role of volute influences to the fan’s
5.8%. overall performance. Tabular data provided in Table 3 for
Although the calculated static pressures are all higher the B#2 and NEW impellers also indicate the shaft powers
than the required lift-side discharge pressure (Ps /Pref > 1), are reduced by 6.0% and 8.7%, respectively, as compared to
the air static pressures at the lift side for both NEW and B#2 the B#1 impeller.
 International Journal of Rotating Machinery
Table 3: Fan performance data obtained from impeller/volute coupling CFD with the shroud gap.
Shaft Imp Eff lift Eff lift Lift Flow
Fan del Pt /Pref Effimp (%) Efffan (%) Width/D Ps lift/Pref Pt lift/Pref Loss/Pref
power/PWRref PWRout /PWRref (total) (%) (static) (%) (%)
B#1 0.929 0.853 1.434 91.8 77.2 0.1208 1.205 1.243 0.190 0.449 0.435 56.4
B#2 0.873 0.768 1.292 88.0 73.6 0.1350 1.056 1.094 0.198 0.413 0.399 55.8
NEW-x 0.848 0.756 1.272 89.2 77.8 0.1213 1.100 1.140 0.132 0.453 0.437 56.5

13
14 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

5. Design Validation through Model Fan Test required power shown in (3), respectively. In other words,
the B#2 and NEW impellers reduce the shaft power by 2.2%
Test data for all three fans was collected from the 1/5-scale and 8.8%, respectively, in comparison with the B#1 impeller.
fan test rig as shown in Figure 20. The performance test set- The NEW impeller has achieved twice the amount of power
up was constructed using the American National Standards reduction from the baseline B#1 impeller and agrees well
Institute (ANSI)/Air Movement and Control Association with the CFD predictions shown in the last section.
(AMCA) standards [8] as a reference. For model Reynolds
number (Re) to be similar to the full-scale value, the model
test would ideally be run at 5-times the full-scale speed of 6. Summary and Conclusion
1692 rpm. Following the Re suggestion of Phelan et al. [18],
A double-inlet, double-width impeller was modified to fit
Re based on U and D should be between 1.0 × 106 for the
into a baseline double-discharge volute for a centrifugal
backward-swept centrifugal fans and 2.0 × 106 for airfoil-
fan. The goal was to reduce power consumption while
bladed centrifugal fans to reach the Re independent regime.
maintaining a specified output pressure at the lift-side volute
The current measurements were limited to a maximum
exit. The design modification was completed by decoupling
impeller speed of 5212 rpm. For this case, the Re at this
the impeller from the volute. Using the developed design
model operating condition is 1.8 × 106 . The measured
strategy, the following results are identified.
lift-side static pressure coefficient versus the lift-side flow
coefficient is plotted in Figure 21 for the three impellers. The (i) The impeller-only calculations for the baseline B#1
uncertainty of the measured pressure was estimated to be impeller and the reference B#2 impeller indicate that
within 0.25% [8] at design conditions. Comparisons shown the total efficiencies of both existing impellers are
in Figure 21 include the original design required pressure high (above 92%). This suggests that conventional
rise, model test data, and CFD predictions for the full-scale design methods such as a streamline curvature or
(FS) and model-scale (MS) fans. The latter calculations for an inviscid calculation method would be inadequate
the MS fans were performed using the MS Re number, which in addressing any aerodynamic improvements to
is about 12% of the FS Re number. There existed a sudden the existing impellers. In addition, a computational
pressure drop in all three fans at the point the fans went into method accounting for all the aerodynamic losses is
stall conditions. For the B#1 impeller, a sudden pressure rise required.
exists near the design condition. This rise in pressure does
not occur for the other two impellers. This phenomenon (ii) The flow turning area from the axial to the radial
may be attributed to the fan testing conditions being close direction in front of the blade leading edge is required
to the flow transition region, where separated and reattached to be adequately designed to avoid the shroud flow
flows were interchanged to affect the sudden pressure rise separation. A blade leading-edge extension and sweep
and drop. into the shroud turning area prevents the air from
CFD predictions shown in Figure 21 for the FS and MS separating from the shroud surface and improves
fans clearly demonstrate the Re effect, which is larger for the the impeller’s efficiency. This allows the 14-bladed
B#1 and B#2 impellers than the NEW impeller. CFD results baseline B#1 impeller to be redesigned as the 11-
also include predictions using off-design flow rates. The MS bladed NEW impeller.
CFD predictions agree well with the model test data for both (iii) The 2D blade profile optimization, based on a
B#1 and NEW impellers, particularly the rise and fall for the numerical coupling between a CFD calculation and
NEW impeller. The CFD underpredicts the lift pressure for a genetic algorithm optimization scheme, is able
the B#2 impeller which may have resulted from the deviation to achieve a composite objective with a projected
in geometry used for the calculations and the experiments. shaft power and a power output. The optimization
Figure 22 provides comparisons of the reductions in various improves the impeller efficiency from 92.6% to
fan performance parameters obtained from the differences 93.7%.
between the MS and the FS fan calculations among three
impellers. The NEW impeller has the smallest performance (iv) Blade trailing-edge shape control (or blade steering)
variation in almost all the parameters predicted, particularly effectively modifies the impeller exit flow and reduces
for the volute losses as pointed out previously. power (from 0.945 to 0.896 PWRref or a 31.3 kW
Comparing the design requirement with the measured reduction) while maintaining efficiency.
data, it is obvious from Figure 21 that both impellers B#1 (v) The width of the impeller is almost linearly related
and B#2 generate more-than-required pressure at the volute to the impeller total head generated. However, the
lift-side discharge. This verifies the conclusion obtained in impeller efficiency remains nearly constant while the
the previous section and confirms the feasibility of further width changes.
reducing power consumption. Specifically, the measured lift-
side pressures for the B#1, B#2, and NEW impellers are The CFD calculations for evaluating the fan performance
13.8%, 9.6%, and 3.7% higher than the required pressure were performed using a frozen impeller approach to compute
(shown in (2)) at the design condition, respectively. Similarly, the steady flows throughout the impeller and the volute.
the measured power reductions for the three impellers at the CFD predictions were validated with the measurements. The
design condition are 5.7%, 7.8%, and 14.0% lower than the conclusions drawn from the comparisons are as follows.
International Journal of Rotating Machinery 15

(i) Volute feedback to the impeller reduces impeller Pref : Reference pressure, 7517 Pa
efficiency by five to six percentage points from Q: Flow rate
the original range of 93–95%. Fan efficiency is Re: Reynolds number
further reduced to the 74–78% range by including ShaftPWR: Shaft power
the volute losses. The matching volute design plays an PWRref : Reference power, 638.3 kW
important role in determining fan efficiency, which is t: Time
improved by 1.2% for the new fan over the baseline T: Impeller torque
fan. U: Fan tip speed (141.77 m/s@design
condition)
(ii) The shroud gap between the bellmouth and the
Uo : Inlet velocity
shroud carries less than 1% of the inflow back from
u,v,w: Fluid velocity components
the volute to the impeller for the current fans. It
x, y, z: Cartesian coordinate system
also reduces fan efficiency by 0.5%. Although the gap
ε: Turbulent dissipation
flow alleviates the shroud flow separation, it affects
η: Total efficiency
the blade trailing-edge flow, particularly at the volute
ρ: Air density
tongue locations.
ω: Impeller rotating speed.
(iii) The test data of the lift-side pressure rise for the
existing and new impellers agrees well with the CFD
predictions based on the model Reynolds number. Subscripts
The CFD predictions suggest that a Reynolds number
effect exists between the model- and full-scale fans. thruster: Thruster side of the fan
This Reynolds number effect is larger for the existing imp: Impeller
impellers as compared to the new impeller. lift: Lift side of the fan
out: Output
(iv) The comparisons between the CFD predictions and s: Static pressure
measurements confirm that the existing fan was t: Total pressure.
overpowered at design, which enabled a new impeller
design with a lower power requirement. The mea-
sured power reduction for the new impeller is 8.8% Acknowledgments
lower than the baseline. This reduction in power
agrees with the 8.7% reduction obtained from the This paper was funded by the Office of Naval Research,
CFD predictions. Code 331 as part of the lift-fan efforts of the Seabase-to-
Shore FNC Program. The ONR Program Manager was Dr.
Ki-Han Kim. This paper was prepared under the support
Disclosure of the Applied Research Program of the Office of Naval
Research administered at the Naval Surface Warfare Center,
This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and Carderock Division under the IAR Program. The com-
is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. putational resources from the Naval Oceanographic Office
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Major Shared Resource Center (NAVOCEANO MSRC) were
provided through the DoD High Performance Computing
Abbreviations Modernization Program (HPCMP).

ASD: Arbitrary shape deformation

CRUNCH: CFD code used in the present study References
D: Impeller diameter, 1.6 m
DDV: Double discharge volute [1] L. Yun and A. Bliault, Theory and Design of Air Cushion Craft,
dobj : Distance parameter used in defining the Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann 30 Corporate Drive, Bur-
optimization objective function shown lington, Mass, USA, 2005.
in (7) [2] K. A. Kaupert and T. Staubli, “The unsteady pressure field in
DWDI: Double-width, double-inlet fan type a high specific speed centrifugal pump impeller—part I: influ-
FS: Full scale ence of the volute,” Journal of Fluids Engineering, Transactions
of the ASME, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 621–626, 1999.
Fan PWRout : Fan output power defined in (8)
[3] K. Hillewaert and R. A. Van Den Braembussche, “Numerical
GA: Genetic algorithm simulation of impeller-volute interaction in centrifugal com-
Imp PWRout : Impeller output power defined in (5) pressors,” Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 603–
k: Turbulent kinetic energy 608, 1999.
B#1, B#2: Baseline and reference impellers [4] Y. T. Lee and T. W. Bein, “Performance evaluation of an air-
MS: Model scale conditioning compressor—part II: volute flow predictions,”
NEW: New impeller International Journal of Rotating Machinery, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
P: Pressure 241–250, 1999.
16 International Journal of Rotating Machinery

[5] T. Meakhail and S. O. Park, “A study of impeller-diffuser-

volute interaction in centrifugal fan,” Journal of Turbomachin-
ery, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 84–90, 2005.
[6] A. Atif, S. Benmansour, and G. Bois, “Numerical investigation
of velocity flow field inside an impeller air model of a centrifu-
gal pump with vaned diffuser interactions and comparison
with PIV measurements,” International Journal of Rotating
Machinery, vol. 2010, Article ID 706043, 12 pages, 2010.
[7] K. V. Karanth and N. Y. Sharma, “CFD analysis on the effect
of radial gap on impeller-diffuser flow interaction as well as
on the flow characteristics of a centrifugal fan,” International
Journal of Rotating Machinery, vol. 2009, Article ID 293508, 8
pages, 2009.
[8] M. E. Slipper, P. J. McGinnis, G. Choi et al., “Design and
evaluation of high performance lift fan models for the landing
craft, air cushion (LCAC),” Naval Surface Warfare Center
Report NSWCCD-98-TR-2008, 2008.
[9] A. Hosangadi, R. A. Lee, B. J. York, N. Sinha, and S. M. Dash,
“Upwind unstructured scheme for three-dimensiona com-
busting flows,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 12, no.
3, pp. 494–502, 1996.
[10] A. Hosangadi, R. A. Lee, P. A. Cavallo, N. Sinha, and B. J. York,
“Hybrid, viscous, unstructured mesh solver for propulsive
applications,” in Proceedings of the 34th Joint Propulsion
Conference, AIAA-98-3153, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 1998.
[11] T. J. Barth, “A 3D upwind euler solver for unstructured
meshes,” Paper No. AIAA-91-1548, 1991.
[12] T. J. Barth and S. W. Linton, “An unstructured mesh newton
solution for compressible fluid flow and its parallel implemen-
tation,” Paper No. AIAA-95-0221, 1995.
[13] Y. T. Lee, L. Mulvihill, R. Coleman et al., “LCAC lift fan
redesign and CFD evaluation,” Naval Surface Warfare Center
Report NSWCCD-50-TR-2007/031, 2007.
[14] Y. T. Lee, V. Ahuja, A. Hosangadi, and M. Ebert, “Shape
optimization of a multi-element foil using an evolutionary
algorithm,” Transactions of the ASME Journal of Fluids Engi-
neering, vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 051401-1–051401-11, 2010.
[15] S. Kim, J. Park, K. Ahn, and J. Baek, “Improvement of the
performance of a centrifugal compressor by modifying the
volute inlet,” ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 132, pp.
091101-1–091101-7, 2010.
[16] Y. T. Lee, “Impact of fan gap flow on the centrifugal
impeller aerodynamics,” Transaction of ASME Journal of Fluids
Engineering, vol. 132, pp. 091103-1–091103-9, 2010.
[17] A. Hildebrandt and M. Genrup, “Numerical investigation of
the effect of different back sweep angle and exducer width on
the impeller outlet flow pattern of a centrifugal compressor
with vaneless diffuser,” Journal of Turbomachinery, vol. 129,
no. 2, pp. 421–433, 2007.
[18] J. J. Phelan, S. H. Russel, and W. C. Zeluff, “A study of
the influence of reynolds number on the performance of
centrifugal fans,” ASME Paper No. 78-WA/PTC-1, 1978.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2010
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014