0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Optimization-Aided Forced Response Analysis of a Mistuned Compressor Blisk

[+] Author and Article Information
Bernd Beirow

Mem. ASME
Brandenburg University of Technology,
Siemens-Halske-Ring 14,
Cottbus D-03046, Germany
e-mail: beirow@tu-cottbus.de

Thomas Giersch

Brandenburg University of Technology,
Siemens-Halske-Ring 14,
Cottbus D-03046, Germany
e-mail: thomas.giersch@tu-cottbus.de

Arnold Kühhorn

Mem. ASME
Brandenburg University of Technology,
Siemens-Halske-Ring 14,
Cottbus D-03046, Germany
e-mail: kuehhorn@tu-cottbus.de

Jens Nipkau

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd., & Co. KG,
Eschenweg 4,
Blankenfelde-Mahlow D-15827, Germany
e-mail: Jens.Nipkau@rolls-Royce.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 9, 2014; final manuscript received July 15, 2014; published online August 26, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(1), 012504 (Aug 26, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1335; doi: 10.1115/1.4028095 History: Received July 09, 2014; Revised July 15, 2014

The forced response of the first rotor of an engine 3E (technology program) (E3E)-type high pressure compressor (HPC) blisk is analyzed with regard to varying mistuning, varying engine order (EO) excitations and the consideration of aero-elastic effects. For that purpose, subset of nominal system modes (SNM)-based reduced order models are used in which the disk remains unchanged while the Young's modulus of each blade is used to define experimentally adjusted as well as intentional mistuning patterns. The aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) technique is employed to model aero-elastic interactions. Furthermore, based on optimization analyses and depending on the exciting EO and aerodynamic influences it is searched for the worst as well as the best mistuning distributions with respect to the maximum blade displacement. Genetic algorithms using blade stiffness variations as vector of design variables and the maximum blade displacement as objective function are applied. An allowed limit of the blades' Young's modulus standard deviation is formulated as secondary condition. In particular, the question is addressed if and how far the aero-elastic impact, mainly causing aerodynamic damping, combined with mistuning can even yield a reduction of the forced response compared to the ideally tuned blisk. It is shown that the strong dependence of the aerodynamic damping on the interblade phase angle is the main driver for a possible response attenuation considering the fundamental blade mode. The results of the optimization analyses are compared to the forced response due to real, experimentally determined frequency mistuning as well as intentional mistuning.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

HPC of an E3E core engine demonstrator [20] with six rotors manufactured as blisks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

FE-model, (a) whole blisk and (b) blisk sector

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Experimental setup for mistuning ID

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Additional masses and clamping device for the modal hammer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimentally determined frequency mistuning distribution (1F) [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Blade stiffness based mistuning pattern adjusted to blade by blade experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Amplification of maximum blade displacements due to measured mistuning (FSI neglected)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

ODS of the worst forced response at EO 15 (FSI neglected)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Aerodynamic damping versus IBPA φ and ND, at MTO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Amplification of maximum blade displacements due to measured mistuning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

ODS of the largest forced response at EO 26 (FSI included)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) Blade stiffness based mistuning pattern and (b) amplification of maximum blade displacements due to one blade mistuning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

ODS at EO 28: (a) without AIC and (b) with AIC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Blade stiffness based mistuning pattern and (b) amplification of maximum blade displacements due to alternating mistuning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) ODS at EO 12 (AIC included) and (b) DFT of ODS at EO 12 (alternating mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Resulting aerodynamic damping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

(a) ODS at EO 25 (alias EO −4) with AIC included, (b) DFT of ODS at EO 25 (alternating mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Amplification of maximum blade displacements (maximum forced response optimization, FSI neglected)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

(a) Optimized mistuning pattern according to maximized forced response at EO 19 (FSI not considered), (b) ODS, and (c) DFT of ODS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Maximized forced response amplification

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

(a) Optimized mistuning pattern according to maximized forced response at EO 12 (AIC included), (b) ODS, and (c) DFT of ODS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Resulting aerodynamic damping (maximized forced response)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Minimized forced response amplification

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

(a) Optimized mistuning pattern according to minimized forced response at EO 26 (alias EO −3), AIC included, (b) ODS, and (c) DFT of ODS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Resulting aerodynamic damping (minimized forced response)

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