0
Research Papers

Geometric Mistuning Reduced-Order Models for Integrally Bladed Rotors With Mistuned Disk–Blade Boundaries

[+] Author and Article Information
Joseph A. Beck

Manufacturing and Industrial
Technologies Division,
Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
e-mail: Joseph.Beck.8@us.af.mil

Jeffrey M. Brown, Alex A. Kaszynski, Charles J. Cross

Turbine Engine Division,
Air Force Research Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Joseph C. Slater

Associate Dean
Defense Aerospace Studies,
Wright State University,
Dayton, OH 45435

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received April 4, 2013; final manuscript received June 11, 2014; published online December 23, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Rakesh Srivastava.

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Turbomach 137(7), 071001 (Jul 01, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1053; doi: 10.1115/1.4029122 History: Received April 04, 2013; Revised June 11, 2014; Online December 23, 2014

New geometric mistuning modeling approaches for integrally bladed rotors (IBRs) are developed for incorporating geometric perturbations to a fundamental disk–blade sector, particularly the disk–blade boundary or connection. Reduced-order models (ROMs) are developed from a Craig–Bampton component mode synthesis (C–B CMS) framework that is further reduced by a truncated set of interface modes that are obtained from an Eigen-analysis of the C–B CMS constraint degrees of freedom (DOFs). An investigation into using a set of tuned interface modes and tuned constraint modes for model reduction is then performed, which offers significant computational savings for subsequent analyses. Two configurations of disk–blade connection mistuning are investigated: as-measured principal component (PC) deviations and random perturbations to the interblade spacing. Furthermore, the perturbation sizes are amplified to investigate the significance of incorporating mistuned disk–blade connections during solid model generation from optically scanned geometries. Free and forced response results are obtained for each ROM and each disk–blade connection type and compared to full finite element model (FEM) solutions. It is shown that the developed methods provide accurate results with a reduction in solution time compared to the full FEM. In addition, results indicate that the inclusion of a mistuned disk–blade connection deviations are small or conditions where large perturbations are localized to a small areas of the disk–blade connection.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Topics: Disks , Blades
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bendiksen, O., 2000, “Localization Phenomena in Structural Dynamics,” Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 11(10), pp. 1621–1660. [CrossRef]
Castanier, M., Ottarsson, G., and Pierre, C., 1997, “A Reduced Order Modeling Technique for Mistuned Bladed Disks,” ASME J. Vib. Acoust., 119(3), pp. 439–447. [CrossRef]
Yang, M.-T., and Griffin, J., 2001, “A Reduced-Order Model of Mistuning Using a Subset of Nominal System Modes,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 123(4), pp. 893–900. [CrossRef]
Yang, M.-T., and Griffin, J. H., 1997, “A Reduced Order Approach for the Vibration of Mistuned Bladed Disk Assemblies,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 119(1), pp. 161–167. [CrossRef]
Feiner, D., and Griffin, J., 2002, “A Fundamental Model of Mistuning for a Single Family of Modes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 124(4), pp. 597–605. [CrossRef]
Bladh, R., and Pierre, C., 2001, “Component-Mode-Based Reduced Order Modeling Techniques for Mistuned Bladed Disks—Part 1: Theoretical Models,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 123(1), pp. 89–99. [CrossRef]
Vargiu, P., Firrone, C., Zucca, S., and Gola, M., 2011, “A Reduced Order Model Based on Sector Mistuning for the Dynamic Analysis of Mistuned Bladed Disks,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 53(8), pp. 639–646. [CrossRef]
Lim, S.-H., Bladh, R., Castanier, M., and Pierre, C., 2007, “Compact, Generalized Component Mode Mistuning Representation for Modeling Bladed Disk Vibration,” AIAA J., 45(9), pp. 2285–2298. [CrossRef]
Tran, D.-M., 2009, “Component Mode Synthesis Methods Using Partial Interface Modes: Application to Tuned and Mistuned Structures With Cyclic Symmetry,” Comput. Struct., 87(17–18), pp. 1141–1153. [CrossRef]
Yang, M.-T., and Griffin, J., 1997, “Normalized Modal Eigenvalue Approach for Resolving Modal Interaction,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 119(3), pp. 647–650. [CrossRef]
Beck, J. A., Brown, J. M., Slater, J. C., and Cross, C. J., 2012, “Probabilistic Mistuning Assessment Using Nominal and Geometry Based Mistuning Methods,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(5), p. 051004. [CrossRef]
Brown, J. M., 2009, “Reduced Order Modeling Methods for Turbomachinery Design,” Ph.D. thesis, Wright State University, Dayton, OH.
Lim, S.-H., Castanier, M., and Pierre, C., 2004, “Vibration Modeling of Bladed Disks Subject to Geometric Mistuning and Design Changes,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2004-1686. [CrossRef]
Petrov, E., Sanliturk, K., and Ewins, D., 2002, “A New Method for Dynamic Analysis of Mistuned Bladed Disks Based on the Exact Relationship Between Tuned and Mistuned Systems,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 124(3), pp. 586–597. [CrossRef]
Sinha, A., 2009, “Reduced-Order Model of a Bladed Rotor With Geometric Mistuning,” ASME J. Turbomach., 131(3), p. 031007. [CrossRef]
Sinha, A., Hall, B., Cassenti, B., and Hilbert, G., 2008, “Vibratory Parameters of Blades From Coordinate Measurement Machine Data,” ASME J. Turbomach., 130(1), p. 011013. [CrossRef]
Bhartiya, Y., and Sinha, A., 2011, “Reduced Order Modeling of a Bladed Rotor With Geometric Mistuning Via Estimated Deviations in Mass and Stiffness Matrices,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-47495, pp. 1201–1209. [CrossRef]
Bhartiya, Y., and Sinha, A., 2012, “Reduced Order Model of a Multistage Bladed Rotor With Geometric Mistuning Via Modal Analyses of Finite Element Sectors,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(4), p. 041001. [CrossRef]
Ganine, V., Legrand, M., Michalska, H., and Pierre, C., 2009, “A Sparse Preconditioned Iterative Method for Vibration Analysis of Geometrically Mistuned Bladed Disks,” Comput. Struct., 87(5–6), pp. 342–354. [CrossRef]
Mbaye, M., Soize, C., and Ousty, J.-P., 2010, “A Reduced-Order Model of Detuned Cyclic Dynamical Systems With Geometric Modifications Using a Basis of Cyclic Modes,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 132(11), p. 112502. [CrossRef]
Avalos, J., Mignolet, M. P., and Soize, C., 2009, “Response of Bladed Disks With Mistuned Blade–Disk Interfaces,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59580. [CrossRef]
Beck, J., Brown, J. M., Slater, J. C., and Cross, C., 2014, “Component Mode Reduced Order Models for Geometric Mistuning of Integrally Bladed Rotors,” AIAA J., 52(7), pp. 1345–1356. [CrossRef]
Kaszynski, A. A., Beck, J. A., and Brown, J. M., 2013, “Uncertainties of an Automated Optical 3D Geometry Measurement, Modeling, and Analysis Process for Mistuned Integrally Bladed Rotor Reverse Engineering,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 135(10), p. 102504. [CrossRef]
Tran, D.-M., 2001, “Component Mode Synthesis Methods Using Interface Modes. Application to Structures With Cyclic Symmetry,” Comput. Struct., 79(2), pp. 209–222. [CrossRef]
Castanier, M. P., Pierre, C., and Tan, Y.-C., 2001, “Characteristic Constraint Modes for Component Mode Synthesis,” AIAA J., 39(6), pp. 1182–1187. [CrossRef]
Craig, R. R., and Bampton, M. C. C., 1968, “Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analysis,” AIAA J., 6(7), pp. 1313–1319. [CrossRef]
Craig, R. R., 2000, “Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analysis: An Overview,” Proceedings of the 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, Atlanta, GA, Apr. 3–5, Paper No. AIAA 2000-1573.
Bladh, R., Pierre, C., Castanier, M. P., and Kruse, M. J., 2002, “Dynamic Response Predictions for a Mistuned Industrial Turbomachinery Rotor Using Reduced-Order Modeling,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 124(2), pp. 311–324. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Index notation for the IBR partitionment of a single sector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Full ADLARF IBR test case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

ADLARF blade (pressure side) x-direction surface deviations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Histogram of the magnitudes of Euclidean distance geometric points between tuned and mistuned for all 16 blades, excluding the points defining the disk–blade connection. Dimensions are in inches.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Full nodal diameter plot (a) illustrating natural frequencies versus nodal diameters. The investigated frequency ranges (zoomed in (b)) at the specific E.O. excitations is circled.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Histogram of the magnitudes of Euclidean distance geometric points between a tuned disk–blade connection and mistuned configuration A1. Dimensions are in inches.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Superposition of all 16 disk–blade connections for mistuned A3 configuration that illustrate upper and lower surface deviations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Histogram of the magnitudes of Euclidean distance geometric points between a tuned disk–blade connection and mistuned configuration A4. Dimensions are in inches.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Superposition of all 16 disk–blade connections for configuration A4 that illustrate interblade spacing deviations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Worst-case magnitude of nodal displacement deviations between a tuned and mistuned constraint mode: (a) configuration A1 and (b) configuration A3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

IBR natural frequency error for each ROM compared against full FEM predictions for configurations A1, A3, and A4: (a) configuration A1, (b) configuration A3, and (c) configuration A4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Peak blade-to-blade response predictions for each ROM compared against full FEM predictions for configurations A1 and A4: (a) configuration A1 and (b) configuration A4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Peak blade-to-blade response error for each ROM compared against full FEM predictions for configurations A1, A3, and A4: (a) configuration A1, (b) configuration A3, and (c) configuration A4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

MIMCM peak blade-to-blade response error compared against those assuming a tuned disk–blade connection: (a) configurations A1–A3 and (b) configuration A4

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