Research Papers

Investigation of Forced Response Sensitivity of Low Pressure Compressor With Respect to Variation in Tip Clearance Size

[+] Author and Article Information
Majid Mesbah

Cenaero ASBL,
Gosselies 6041, Belgium
e-mail: majid.mesbah@cenaero.be

Jean-François Thomas, François Thirifay

Cenaero ASBL,
Gosselies 6041, Belgium

A. Naert, S. Hiernaux

Herstal 4041, Belgium

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received May 5, 2014; final manuscript received March 22, 2015; published online April 21, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Li He.

J. Turbomach 137(9), 091011 (Sep 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1060; doi: 10.1115/1.4030250 History: Received May 05, 2014; Revised March 22, 2015; Online April 21, 2015

This study aims to numerically investigate the sensitivity of the forced response with respect to the variation of the tip clearance setting of a low pressure compressor BluM(monoblock bladed drum) when it is subjected to low engine order excitations. Two different types of blades are employed in the upstream row in order to generate the low engine order excitations. The forced response as well as the aerodynamic damping is numerically estimated using the TWIN approach. The experiments are conducted to measure the forced response for the nominal tip gap to validate the numerical results. Further, simulations are performed for a range of tip clearances. The variation of the steady load distributions due to the changes of the tip clearance are analyzed and presented. The aerodynamic damping and the forced response are calculated and compared for different tip clearances. It is observed that aerodynamic damping increases significantly with tip gap, whereas the excitation forces are reduced. As consequence of these two evolutions, the forced response decreases drastically for larger tip clearance.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Procedure to calculate the forced response in TWIN approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Configuration 1S9s|1r corresponds to the 10N excitation. One stator blade out of 10 is different (in red).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the experimental setup including 1.5 stages compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The real part of the first bending mode (1F) on the CFD mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Time evolution of Re.GAFTWIN(α0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The calculated FFT of GAFTWIN(α0) signal over five periods of thick blade passing in frequency domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Evolution of Imaginary part of temporal GAFTwin(α0) and GAFTwin(α1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Imaginary part of GAFTWIN(α1)-GAFTWIN(α0). Reconstructed signals show the contribution of the blade motion on GAF.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Estimated and measured forced response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Simplified configuration. A tiny block is representative of the upstream row.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Colormap of stagnation pressure at the inlet of simplified configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Tip vortex visualization for tip clearances ranging from 0% to 2% of span. The vortexes are shown at five consequent planes using entropy color-map.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pitchwise averaged of mass flow rate at the plane perpendicular to the rotational axis passing through the trailing edge at the hub

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Deviation of local pressure coefficient with respect to the zero tip gap, Cp – Cp0%, at 20%, 50%, 70%, 90%, and 95% of blade span

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Normalized value of the local aerodynamic damping for five tip clearance setting

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Variation of the nondimensional aerodynamic damping versus tip clearance for the case 1F-10φ-10 N. The aerodynamic damping is normalized by the value of 1% tip clearance.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Norm of excitation forces versus tip clearance for the case 1F-10φ-10 N. The norm is normalized by the value of 1% tip clearance.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Maximum forced response versus tip clearance for the case 1F-10φ-10 N. The forced response normalized by the value of 1% tip clearance.




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