0
Research Papers

Separation of Up and Downstream Forced Response Excitations of an Embedded Compressor Rotor

[+] Author and Article Information
Shreyas Hegde

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science,
Duke University,
Durham, NC 27708
e-mail: hegde.shreyas@duke.edu

Zhiping Mao

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science,
Duke University,
Durham, NC 27708
e-mail: zhiping.mao@duke.edu

Tianyu Pan

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Beihang University,
Durham, NC 27708
e-mail: pantianyu@buaa.edu.cn

Laith Zori

ANSYS INC,
Lebanon, NH 03766
e-mail: laith.zori@ansys.com

Rubens Campregher

ANSYS INC,
Waterloo, ON N2J 4G8
e-mail: rubens.campregher@ansys.com

Robert Kielb

Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science,
Duke University,
Durham, NC 27708
e-mail: rkielb@duke.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Turbomachinery. Manuscript received November 28, 2018; final manuscript received June 27, 2019; published online August 1, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Li He.

J. Turbomach 141(9), (Aug 01, 2019) (8 pages) Paper No: TURBO-18-1340; doi: 10.1115/1.4044212 History: Received November 28, 2018; Accepted June 28, 2019

The aerodynamic interaction of upstream and downstream blade rows can have a significant impact on the forced response of the compressor. Previously, the authors carried out the forced response analysis of a three-row stator-rotor-stator (S1-R2-S2) configuration from a 3.5-stage compressor. However, since the stator vane counts in both the stators (S1 and S2) were the same, it was not possible to separate the excitations from both the rows as they excited the rotor at the same frequency. Hence, a new configuration was developed and tested in which the stator 1 blade count was changed to 38 and stator 2 blade count was maintained at 44 in order to study the individual influences of the stator on the embedded rotor. By using this method, the excitations from both rows can be determined, and the excitations can be quantified to determine the row having the maximum influence on the overall forcing. To achieve this, two sets of simulations were carried out. The three-row stator-rotor (S1-R2-S2) simulation was carried out at both the 38EO (engine order) and 44EO crossings at the peak efficiency (PE) operating condition. The two-row stator-rotor analysis (S1-R2) was carried out at the 38EO crossing, and the other two-Row (R2-S2) analyses were carried out at the 44EO crossing. The steady aerodynamics was preserved in both the cases. A study was done to determine the contribution of wave reflections from the stator inlet and exit planes to the forcing function. Two conclusions drawn from this study are as follows: (1) the modal force value decreased after the upstream stator was removed, which proved that wave reflections from this stator were significant and (2) the increase in modal force was in-line with experimental observations.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Srinivasan, A. V., 1997, “Flutter and Resonant Vibration Characteristics of Engine Blades,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power-Trans., 119(4), pp. 742–775. [CrossRef]
Hall, K. C., Thomas, J. P., and Clark, W. S., 2002, “Computation of Unsteady Nonlinear Flows in Cascades Using a Harmonic Balance Technique,” AIAA J., 40(5), pp. 879–886. [CrossRef]
Ekici, K., and Hall, K. C., 2008, “Nonlinear Frequency-Domain Analysis of Unsteady Flows in Turbomachinery With Multiple Excitation Frequencies,” AIAA J., 46(8), pp. 1912–1920. [CrossRef]
Besem, F. M., Kielb, R. E., Galpin, P., Zori, L., and Key, N. L., 2016, “Mistuned Forced Response Predictions of an Embedded Rotor in a Multistage Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 138(6), pp. 106–115. [CrossRef]
Besem, F. M., Kielb, R. E., and Key, N. L., 2015, “Forced Response Sensitivity of a Mistuned Rotor From an Embedded Compressor Stage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 138(3), pp. 103–113. [CrossRef]
Li, J., and Kielb, R., 2017, “Forcing Superposition and Decomposition of an Embedded Compressor Rotor,” ASME Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Volume 7B: Structures and Dynamics, Charlotte, NC, June 26–30, 2017.
Giles, M., 1988, “Calculation of Unsteady Wake/Rotor Interaction,” J. Propul. Power, 4(4), pp. 356–362. [CrossRef]
ansys, 2018, CFX R18.0 Help manual, ANSYS Inc.
Connell, S., Braaten, M., Zori, L., Steed, R., Hutchinson, B., and Cox, G., 2011, “A Comparison of Advanced Numerical Techniques to Model Transient Flow in Turbomachinery Blade Rows,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. GT2011-45820.
Connell, S., Hutchinson, B., Galpin, P., Campregher, R., and Godin, P., 2012, “The Efficient Computation of Transient Flow in Turbine Blade Rows Using Transformation Methods,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 11–15.
Qizar, M., Mansour, M., and Goswami, S., 2013, “Study of Steady State and Transient Blade Row CFD Methods in a Moderately Loaded NASA Transonic High-Speed Axial Compressor Stage,” Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, San Antonio, TX, June 3–7.
Zori, L., Galpin, P., Campregher, R., and Morales, J. C., 2017, “Time-Transformation Simulation of a 1.5 Stage Transonic Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach, 139(7), pp. 1139–1152. [CrossRef]
Zhao, B., Yang, C., Hu, L., Zhou, M., and Li, D., 2012, “Investigation of Separating and Utilizing the Influences of Up- and Downstream Blade Rows,” ASME Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Volume 8: Turbomachinery, Parts A, B, and C, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 2012.
Mao, Z., Hegde, S., Pan, T., Kielb, R., Zori, L., and Campregher, R., 2018, “Influence of Rotor-Stator Interaction and Reflecting Boundary Conditions on Compressor Forced Response,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo, Oslo Norway, June 11–15.
Mao, Z., Hegde, S., Pan, T., Kielb, R., Zori, L., and Campregher, R., 2018, “Investigation of the Effect of Wave Reflection in the Forced Response Study of a Compressor,” Proceedings of Global Power and Propulsion Conference (GPPS), Montreal, May 7–9.
Li, J., 2016, Multi-Row Interactions and Mistuned Forced Response of an Embedded Compressor Rotor, Duke University, Dec. 2016.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Campbell diagram of the compressor. The 38EO and 44EO crossings are marked with dots.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Purdue 3.5-stage compressor rig. Rotor 2 has NSMS tip timing and aerodynamic probes.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domains of different configurations: (a)-S1/R2/S2(both 38EO and 44EO), (b)-S1/R2(38EO), and (c)-R2/S2(44EO)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Blade loading comparison across cases at the 1T44EO crossing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Blade loading comparison across cases at the 1T38EO crossing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of total pressure and temperature at different streamwise stations. Station numbers are consistent with Fig. 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Modal force evolution for S1(38)/R2/S2 at 44EO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Modal force density distribution: (a)-2-row 38EO crossing, (b)-3-row 38EO crossing, (c) 2-row44EO crossing, and (d) 3-row 44EO crossing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Unsteady pressure level at the respective boundaries. The values were normalized by atmospheric pressure. This case was run at the 38EO crossing and PE operating condition.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Wake profiles at (a) 50% span, (b) 80% span, (c) 86% span, and (d) 92% span. The pressure values were normalized by atmospheric pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Unsteady pressure level at the respective boundaries. The values were normalized by atmospheric pressure. This case was run at the 44EO crossing and PE operating condition.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Unsteady pressure level at the exit boundaries comparison between the old and the new configurations. The values were normalized by atmospheric pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Modal force density comparison between the old and the new configurations

Tables

Errata

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