0
Research Papers

Probabilistic Mistuning Assessment Using Nominal and Geometry Based Mistuning Methods

[+] Author and Article Information
Joseph A. Beck

e-mail: Joseph.Beck@wpafb.af.mil

Jeffrey M. Brown

e-mail: Jeffrey.Brown@wpafb.af.mil
Turbine Engine Division,
Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433

Joseph C. Slater

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
Wright State University,
Dayton, OH 45435
e-mail: Joseph.Slater@wright.edu

Charles J. Cross

Turbine Engine Division,
Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433
e-mail: Charles.Cross@wpafb.af.mil

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received October 13, 2012; final manuscript received November 2, 2012; published online June 24, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Turbomach 135(5), 051004 (Jun 24, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-12-1203; doi: 10.1115/1.4023103 History: Received October 13, 2012; Revised November 02, 2012

Two deterministic mistuning models utilizing component mode synthesis methods are used in a Monte Carlo simulation to generate mistuned response distributions for a geometrically perturbed integrally bladed rotor. The first method, a frequency-perturbation approach with a nominal mode approximation used widely in academia and industry, assumes airfoil geometric perturbations alter only the corresponding modal stiffnesses while its mode shapes remain unaffected. The mistuned response is then predicted by a summation of the nominal modes. The second method, a geometric method utilizing non-nominal modes, makes no simplifying assumptions of the dynamic response due to airfoil geometric perturbations, but requires recalculation of each airfoil eigen-problem. A comparison of the statistical moments of the mistuned response distributions and prediction error is given for three different frequency ranges and engine order excitations. Further, the response distributions are used for a variety of design and testing scenarios to highlight impacts of the frequency-based approach inaccuracy. Results indicate the frequency-based method typically provides conservative response levels.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Topics: Errors , Airfoils , Geometry , Blades
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite element mesh for the ADLARF example IBR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Frequency veering plot of the nominal ADLARF IBR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

PMF of peak ADLARF airfoil displacement for region #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

PMF of ADLARF maximum IBR displacement for region #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

CDF of ADLARF peak IBR displacement for region #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Scaled nominal predictions of all airfoils

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

CDFS of error for cases when nominal and geometric methods predict peak ADLARF IBR responses on different blades for region #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Example stree versus life curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Nominal prediction type I and type II peak airfoil-to-airfoil error for region #2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Nominal prediction type I and type II peak IBR-to-IBR error for region #2

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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