Research Papers

Forced Response in Axial Turbines Under the Influence of Partial Admission

[+] Author and Article Information
Jens Fridh

Chair of Heat and Power Technology
e-mail: jens@energy.kth.se

Torsten Fransson

Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),
Stockholm, Sweden

Contributed by International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 11, 2012; final manuscript received August 14, 2012; published online June 5, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(4), 041014 (Jun 05, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1138; doi: 10.1115/1.4007599 History: Received July 11, 2012; Revised August 14, 2012

High cycle fatigue (HCF) due to unforeseen excitation frequencies, underestimated force magnitudes, or a combination of both causes control-stage failures for steam turbine stakeholders. This paper provides an extended design criteria toolbox, as well as validation data, for control-stage design based on experimental data to reduce HCF incidents in partial-admission turbines. The upstream rotor in a two-stage air test turbine is instrumented with pressure transducers and strain gauges. Admission degrees extend from 28.6% to 100%, as one or two admission arcs are simulated by blocking segmental arcs immediately upstream of the first stator vanes with aerodynamically shaped filling blocks. Sweeps across a speed range of 50%–105% of design speed are performed at a constant turbine pressure ratio during simultaneous high-speed acquisition. A forced-response analysis is performed and results presented in Campbell diagrams. Partial admission creates a large number of low-engine-order forced responses because of the blockage, pumping, loading, and unloading processes. Combinations of the number of rotor blades and low-engine-order excitations are the principal sources of forced-response vibrations for the turbine studied here. Altering the stator and/or rotor pitches changes the excitation pattern. We observed that a relationship between the circumferential lengths of the admitted and nonadmitted arcs dictates the excitation forces and may serve as a design parameter.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cross section of the test object

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The test turbine setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Typical sensor locations: left—pressure sensor; right—strain gauges

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Acceleration sensitivity of pressure transducer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparisons of sensor response at 4450 rpm, 100% speed (300 and 3 rotational cycles) at two admission degrees (full and partial)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Nodal circle (NC) and nodal diameter (ND) examples; upper image from Hållberg, lower image from Srinivasan

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

ZZENF diagram for the test turbine (natural frequencies courtesy of Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB); zig-zag lines here plotted at design speed (4450 rpm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

General characteristics of blade forces (adapted from Pigott [16])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Qualitative forcing function at ε = 0.762 (design speed 4450 rpm); QNUM adapted from Hushmandi [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

ZZENF diagram plotted at 4309 rpm (97% speed) with resonance order 53 highlighted

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Magnitude ratios (frequency domain)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Magnitude ratios (frequency domain)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Campbell diagrams at two admission degrees (full and partial)




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

Related Content

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

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

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

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