0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Measurements Versus Predictions for the Static and Dynamic Characteristics of a Four-Pad, Rocker-Pivot, Tilting-Pad Journal Bearing

[+] Author and Article Information
David P. Tschoepe

Graduate Research Assistant
Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
Turbomachinery Laboratory,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123
e-mail: dvqa@chevron.com

Dara W. Childs

Leland T. Jordan
Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
Turbomachinery Laboratory,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3123
e-mail: dchilds@tamu.edu

Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 30, 2013; final manuscript received August 19, 2013; published online January 9, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 136(5), 052501 (Jan 09, 2014) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-13-1281; doi: 10.1115/1.4026301 History: Received July 30, 2013; Revised August 19, 2013

Measured and predicted static and dynamic characteristics are provided for a four-pad, rocker-pivot, tilting-pad journal bearing (TPJB) in the load-on-pad (LOP) and load-between-pad (LBP) orientations. The bearing has the following characteristics: pad-pivot offset = 0.57, L/D = 0.6, pad length = 60.33 mm. Unit loads ranged from 0 to 2903 kPa, and speeds ranged from 6.8 to 13.2 krpm. Nonrotating tests were carried out using a small rotating load to precess the test-bearing stator around the rotor shaft while measuring the clearances. These tests produced “clearance rectangles” for the LOP case and “clearance rhombuses” for the LBP cases. These tests defined the bearing clearances for facing bearing pads that were significantly different with a ratio between the larger and smaller clearances at approximately 1.6. Clearances were measured at room temperatures and immediately following tests to obtain room temperature and “hot” clearances. Hot-clearance measurements showed a 16%–25% decrease as compared to room-temperature clearances. Static load-deflection tests were carried out to determine the pad's flexibility characteristics with respect to the housing (pad-pivot flexibility). Detailed circumferential temperature measurements were made on the loaded pad(s) with only leading and trailing temperatures for the unloaded pads. The radial thermal gradient was examined in the loaded pad via embedded thermocouples on the rotor and outside of the pads. Results showed a 5–25 °C decrease from the rotor side of the pad to housing side. An FEM analysis predicted that the radial and circumferential temperature gradients caused an uneven thermal deflection in the pad, changing the pads' radii of curvature. (However, the changes made scant differences in predictions.) Dynamic-excitation tests were performed over a range of excitation frequencies Ω to obtain 2 × 2 complex dynamic-stiffness matrices [Hij] as a function of Ω. The Re(Hij) coefficients were readily fitted as a linear function of Ω2, producing frequency-independent stiffness and virtual-mass coefficients. The Im(Hij) coefficients were readily fitted as a linear function of Ω, producing frequency-independent damping coefficients and supporting the adequacy of a constant-frequency MCK model for bearings out to running speed. Measured (separate) pad clearances, pad-contact flexibility characteristics, and input temperatures were used as input for a recently-developed code to predict the static and dynamic characteristics of the bearing. The code used a Reynolds equation model plus an adiabatic energy equation. It also accounts for pad-contact flexibility. Measurements versus predictions were made for the temperature distributions, the dynamic-stiffness coefficients, and the direct rotordynamic coefficients (stiffness, damping, and virtual-mass). The measured cross-coupled stiffness and damping coefficients were insignificant, and are not presented. Generally, the code predicts the trends of the circumferential temperature distributions well; however, it predicted a continuing increase in temperature from leading to trailing edge, while the tests show an increase through the next-to-last temperature probe and then a drop to the last probe nearest the trailing edge. Generally speaking, the code does an adequate job of predicting rotordynamic coefficients for both LOP and LBP conditions. The input data (clearances, pad-flexibility, etc.) and output results (temperatures, dynamic stiffness coefficients, rotordynamic coefficients) presented allow other researchers to directly make predictions for these bearings using alternate models and codes.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Rocker-pivot tilting-pad journal bearing [1]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Test rig main section [1]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Bearing configuration and instrumentation (adapted from [10])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Measured clearance for all speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Loaded pad thermocouple diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Loaded pad radial temperature difference

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pad thermocouple diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

LOP measured pad bearing temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

LOP measured pad and predicted lubricant temperatures at 6.8 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

LOP measured pad and predicted lubricant temperatures at 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

LBP measured pad bearing temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Motion probes attached to the bearing housing and aimed at the back of a loaded pad, after [14]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Measured load-deflection curves for pad-contact flexibility definition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Measured and predicted Re(Hij) and Im(Hij) for LOP at 13.2 krpm with 2903 kPa (421.1 psi) unit static load

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

LOP measured and predicted Kxx and Kyy (A) 6.8 krpm, and (B) 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

LBP measured and predicted Kxx and Kyy (A) 6.8 krpm, (B) 9 krpm, (C) 10.8 krpm, (D) 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

LOP measured and predicted Cxx and Cyy (A) 6.8 krpm and (B) 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

LBP measured and predicted Cxx and Cyy (A) 6.8 krpm, (B) 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

LOP measured and predicted Mxx and Myy at 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

LOP measured Mxy and Myx at 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

LBP measured and predicted Mxx and Myy at 13.2 krpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Spring in series with a fluid film model [9]

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