0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
Dara W. Childs

Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3123dchilds@tamu.edu

Clint R. Carter

Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3123crcarter@dow.com

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 133(8), 082503 (Apr 06, 2011) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000893 History: Received August 05, 2009; Revised August 21, 2009; Published April 06, 2011; Online April 06, 2011

## Abstract

Rotordynamic data are presented for a rocker-pivot tilting pad bearing in load-on-pad (LOP) configuration for (345–3101 kPa) unit loads and speeds from 4000 rpm to 13,000 rpm. The bearing was directly lubricated through a leading edge groove with five pads, 0.282 preload, 60% offset, 57.87 deg pad arc angle, 101.587 mm (3.9995 in.) rotor diameter, 0.1575 mm (0.0062 in.) diametral clearance, and 60.325 mm (2.375 in.) pad length. Measured results were reported for this bearing by Carter and Childs (2008, “Measurements Versus Predictions for the Rotordynamic Characteristics of a 5-Pad, Rocker-Pivot, Tilting-Pad Bearing in Load Between Pad Configuration,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50069) in the load-between-pad (LBP) configuration. Results for the LOP are compared with predictions from a bulk-flow Navier–Stokes model (as utilized by San Andres (1991, “Effect of Eccentricity on the Force Response of a Hybrid Bearing,” STLE Tribol. Trans., 34, pp. 537–544)) and to the prior LBP results. Frequency effects on the dynamic-stiffness coefficients were investigated by applying dynamic-force excitation over a range of excitation frequencies. Generally, the direct real parts of the dynamic-stiffness coefficients could be modeled as quadratic functions of the excitation frequency, and accounted for by adding a mass matrix to the conventional $[K][C]$ model to produce a frequency-independent $[K][C][M]$ model. Measured added-mass terms in the loaded direction approached 60 kg. The static load direction in the tests was $y$. The direct stiffness coefficients $Kyy$ and $Kxx$ depend strongly on the applied unit load, more so than speed. They generally increased linearly with load, shifting to a quadratic dependence at higher unit loads. At lower unit loads, $Kyy$ and $Kxx$ increase monotonically with running speed. The experimental results were compared with predictions from a bulk-flow computational fluid dynamics analysis. Stiffness orthotropy was apparent in test results, significantly more than predicted, and it became more pronounced at the heavier unit loads. Measured $Kyy$ values were consistently higher than predicted, and measured $Kxx$ values were lower. Comparing the LOP results to prior measured LBP results for the same bearing, at higher loads, $Kyy$ is significantly larger for the LOP configuration than LBP. Measured values for $Kxx$ are about the same for LOP and LBP. At low unit loads, stiffness orthotropy defined as $Kyy/Kxx$ is the same for LOP and LBP, progressively increasing with increasing unit loads. At the highest unit load, $Kyy/Kxx=2.1$ for LOP and 1.7 for LBP. Measured direct damping coefficients $Cxx$ and $Cyy$ were insensitive to changes in either load or speed, in contrast to predictions of marked $Cyy$ sensitivity for changes in the load. Only at the highest test speed of 13,000 rpm were the direct damping coefficients adequately predicted. No frequency dependency was observed for the direct damping coefficients.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2

Cross-sectional view of test stand

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

LOP dynamic-stiffness coefficients at 13,000 rpm and 345 kPa for: (a) direct real, (b) cross-coupled real, (c) direct imaginary, and (d) cross-coupled imaginary

Figure 6

LOP direct and cross-coupled stiffness coefficients versus load for varying speed: (a) 4000 rpm, (b) 7000 rpm, (c) 10,000 rpm, and (d) 13,000 rpm

Figure 7

LOP direct damping coefficients versus load for varying speed: (a) 4000 rpm, (b) 7000 rpm, (c) 10,000 rpm, and (d) 13,000 rpm

Figure 8

LOP direct mass coefficients versus load for varying speed: (a) 4000 rpm, (b) 7000 rpm, (c) 10,000 rpm, and (d) 13,000 rpm

Figure 9

LBP and LOP direct stiffness versus unit loading: (a) 4000 rpm, (b) 7000 rpm, (c) 10,000 rpm, and (d) 13,000 rpm

Figure 10

LBP and LOP direct damping coefficients versus unit loading: (a) 4000 rpm, (b) 7000 rpm, (c) 10,000 rpm, and (d) 13,000 rpm

Figure 11

LBP and LOP displacement loci versus unit load

Figure 12

Side by side comparison of LOP to LBP pad temperatures for 2412 kPa

## 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 Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections