0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Structural Characterization of a Novel Gas Foil Bearing With Nested Compression Springs: Analytical Modeling and Experimental Measurement

[+] Author and Article Information
Kai Feng

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design
and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body,
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering,
Hunan University,
Changsha, Hunan 410082, China
e-mail: kfeng@hnu.edu.cn

Jin Hu

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design
and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body,
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering,
Hunan University,
Changsha, Hunan 410082, China
e-mail: jhu@hnu.edu.cn

Wanhui Liu

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design
and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body,
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering,
Hunan University,
Changsha, Hunan 410082, China
e-mail: duozhu@yeah.net

Xueyuan Zhao

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design
and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body,
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering,
Hunan University,
Changsha, Hunan 410082, China
e-mail: xy_zhao@hnu.edu.cn

Wenjun Li

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design
and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body,
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering,
Hunan University,
Changsha, Hunan 410082, China
e-mail: wj_li@hnu.edu.cn

Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received June 7, 2015; final manuscript received July 26, 2015; published online August 25, 2015. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(1), 012504 (Aug 25, 2015) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1194; doi: 10.1115/1.4031203 History: Received June 07, 2015; Revised July 26, 2015

A novel nested compression spring gas foil bearing (NSFB), which used a series of nested compression springs as compliant supporting structure, was proposed and designed. NSFBs can be easily manufactured and are able to provide a support with high stiffness, high damping, and tunable structural characterization in turbomachinery. An analytical model, which considered the effects of interaction and friction between adjacent springs, was established to predict the structural characterization of the compliant structure. Static and dynamic tests were conducted to analyze the structural performance of NSFBs. The predicted hysteresis loop of the compliant structure corresponded well with the measured results from the pull–push tests. A static test result comparison between an NSFB and a bump-type gas foil bearing (BFB) showed that the NSFB had a larger loss factor, which implied its superior damping performance. The effects of spring number and axial preload between adjacent springs on bearing performance were investigated. The static and dynamic loss factors of bearings with nested structures (47 and 39 springs) were similar to each other, but greater than the loss factor of bearings without nested structures (31 springs). The estimated static and dynamic loss factors of bearings with axial preload were significantly improved compared with bearings without axial preload.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Position vector and unit normal vectors in the appreciate coordinate system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Force distribution of a spring coil

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Photograph of the novel GFB with nested compression springs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic view of the novel GFB with nested compression springs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Calculation model of the axial force

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Results of the static load versus deflection test of NSFB and BFB

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic view of the test rig used to measure the static load performance of the bearing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of the experimental data and the prediction of static load versus measured bearing displacement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Schematic view of the test rig used to measure the dynamic performance of the bearing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Dynamic structural stiffness versus excitation frequency for different motion amplitudes (10, 20, 30, and 40 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Equivalent viscous damping coefficient versus excitation frequency for four motion amplitudes (10, 20, 30, and 40 μm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured load–displacement curves of three bearings with different spring numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Bearing structural stiffness versus excitation frequency for increasing spring numbers of 31, 39, and 47 with a motion amplitude of 20 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Equivalent viscous damping versus excitation frequency for increasing spring numbers of 31, 39, and 47 with a motion amplitude of 20 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Loss factor versus excitation frequency for increasing spring numbers of 31, 39, and 47 with a motion amplitude of 20 μm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

(a) Structural stiffness, (b) equivalent viscous damping coefficient, and (c) loss factor of the bearings with and without axial preload

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

(a)–(c) Force and moment analyses of the cross section of the spring

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Load–displacement curves of the bearings with and without axial preload

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