0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Redesign of a High-Pressure Compressor Blade Accounting for Nonlinear Structural Interactions

[+] Author and Article Information
Alain Batailly

Structural Dynamics and Vibration Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
817 Sherbrooke St. West,
Montréal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada
e-mail: alain.batailly@mcgill.ca

Mathias Legrand

Structural Dynamics and Vibration Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
817 Sherbrooke St. West,
Montréal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada
e-mail: mathias.legrand@mcgill.ca

Antoine Millecamps

Snecma,
site de Villaroche,
Moissy-Cramayel 77550, France
e-mail: antoine.millecamps@snecma.fr

Sébastien Cochon

Snecma,
site de Villaroche,
Moissy-Cramayel 77550, France
e-mail: sebastien.cochon@snecma.fr

François Garcin

Snecma,
site de Villaroche,
Moissy-Cramayel 77550, France
e-mail: francois.garcin@snecma.fr

Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 10, 2014; final manuscript received July 15, 2014; published online September 4, 2014. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(2), 022502 (Sep 04, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: GTP-14-1370; doi: 10.1115/1.4028263 History: Received July 10, 2014; Revised July 15, 2014

Recent numerical developments dedicated to the simulation of rotor/stator interaction involving direct structural contacts have been integrated within the Snecma industrial environment. This paper presents the first attempt to benefit from these developments and account for structural blade/casing contacts at the design stage of a high-pressure compressor blade. The blade of interest underwent structural divergence after blade/abradable coating contact occurrences on a rig test. The design improvements were carried out in several steps with significant modifications of the blade stacking law while maintaining aerodynamic performance of the original blade design. After a brief presentation of the proposed design strategy, basic concepts associated with the design variations are recalled. The iterated profiles are then numerically investigated and compared with respect to key structural criteria such as: (1) their mass, (2) the residual stresses stemming from centrifugal stiffening, (3) the vibratory level under aerodynamic forced response, and (4) the vibratory levels when unilateral contact occurs. Significant improvements of the final blade design are found: the need for an early integration of nonlinear structural interactions criteria in the design stage of modern aircraft engines components is highlighted.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

2D planar representation of typical casing deformations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Stacking law and mesh. The blade is clamped on its root and contact nodes are located along the blade tip.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

von Mises stress fields within the blade (deformed geometry) at Ω* from the suction side: (a) it0, (b) it1, (c) it2, and (d) color scale

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

von Mises stress fields within the blade (deformed geometry) at Ω* from the pressure side: (a) profile it0, (b) profile it1, (c) profile it2, and (d) color scale

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Linear forced response: axial displacement under aerodynamic equivalent loading and comparison with the initial profile (gray line): (a) profile it0, (b) profile it1, and (c) profile it2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Spectrograms: (a) profile it0 and profile it2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Amplitude of the leading edge axial displacement when structural contacts occur with a two-lobe casing deformation and comparison with the initial profile (gray line): (a) profile it0, (b) profile it1, and (c) profile it2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Amplitude of the leading edge axial displacement when structural contacts occur a four-lobe casing deformation and comparison with the initial profile (gray line): (a) profile it0, (b) profile it2, and profile it2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Level of abradable removal along the casing circumference at the end of the simulations: (a) profile it0, (b) profile it1, (c) profile it2, and (d) color scale

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