0
Research Papers

MEMS-Scale Turbomachinery Based Vacuum Roughing Pump

[+] Author and Article Information
Anthony J. Gannon

MAE Department,
Naval Postgraduate School,
700 Dyer Road, Room 245,
Monterey, CA 93943
e-mail: ajgannon@nps.edu

Garth V. Hobson

MAE Department,
Naval Postgraduate School,
700 Dyer Road, Room 245,
Monterey, CA 93943
e-mail: gvhobson@nps.edu

Michael J. Shea

MAE Department,
Naval Postgraduate School,
700 Dyer Road, Room 245,
Monterey, CA 93943
e-mail: michaelshea2011@gmail.com

Christopher S. Clay

MAE Department,
Naval Postgraduate School,
700 Dyer Road, Room 245,
Monterey, CA 93943
e-mail: clayoven2@yahoo.com

Knox T. Millsaps

MAE Department,
Naval Postgraduate School,
700 Dyer Road, Room 245,
Monterey, CA 93943
e-mail: millsaps@nps.edu

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received May 30, 2014; final manuscript received June 5, 2014; published online July 15, 2014. Editor: Ronald Bunker. This material is declared a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Turbomach 136(10), 101002 (Jul 15, 2014) (7 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1070; doi: 10.1115/1.4027971 History: Received May 30, 2014; Revised June 05, 2014

This study forms part of a program to develop a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) scale turbomachinery based vacuum pump and investigates the roughing portion of such a system. Such a machine would have many radial stages with the exhaust stages operating near atmospheric conditions while the inlet stages operate at near vacuum conditions. In low vacuum such as those to the inlet of a roughing pump, the flow can still be treated as a continuum; however, the no-slip boundary condition is not accurate. The Knudsen number becomes a dominant nondimensional parameter in these machines due to their small size and low pressures. As the Knudsen number increases, slip-flow becomes present at the walls. The study begins with a basic overview on implementing the slip wall boundary condition in a commercial code by specifying the wall shear stress based on the mean-free-path of the gas molecules. This is validated against an available micro-Poiseuille classical solution at Knudsen numbers between 0.001 and 0.1 with reasonable agreement found. The method of specifying the wall shear stress is then applied to a generic MEMS scale roughing pump stage that consists of two stators and a rotor operating at a nominal absolute pressure of 500 Pa. The zero flow case was simulated in all cases as the pump down time for these machines is small due to the small volume being evacuated. Initial transient two-dimensional (2D) simulations are used to evaluate three boundary conditions, classical no-slip, specified-shear, and slip-flow. It is found that the stage pressure rise increased as the flow began to slip at the walls. In addition, it was found that at lower pressures the pure slip boundary condition resulted in very similar predictions to the specified-shear simulations. As the specified-shear simulations are computationally expensive it is reasonable to use slip-flow boundary conditions. This approach was used to perform three-dimensional (3D) simulations of the stage. Again the stage pressure increased when slip-flow was present compared with the classical no-slip boundaries. A characteristic of MEMS scale turbomachinery are the large relative tip gaps requiring 3D simulations. A tip gap sensitivity study was performed and it was found that when no-slip boundaries were present the pressure ratio increased significantly with decreasing tip gap. When slip-flow boundaries were present, this relationship was far weaker.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

MEMS scale vacuum or roughing pump

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Boundary conditions for Poiseuille simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Poiseuille velocity profile comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of theory and simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Rotor and stator blade shapes (dimensions in μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Final etched blade shapes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Rotor and stator stage assembly

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

2D simulation mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of wall boundary on pressure ratio (2D)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Classical no-slip boundary condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Specified-shear boundary condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

2D simulation pressure contours: no-slip walls

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

2D simulation pressure contours: specified-shear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

3D simulation mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effect of wall boundary on pressure ratio (3D)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Tip gap flow for no-slip boundary condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Tip gap flow for slip boundary condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Effect of tip gap on pressure ratio no-slip flow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effect of tip gap on pressure ratio slip-flow

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