0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Flat Plate Honeycomb Seals Friction Factor Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Mirko Micio

ERGON Research s.r.l.,
via Panciatichi 92,
Florence 50127, Italy
e-mail: mirko.micio@ergonresearch.it

Cosimo Bianchini

ERGON Research s.r.l.,
via Panciatichi 92,
Florence 50127, Italy
e-mail: cosimo.bianchini@ergonresearch.it

Daniele Massini

DIEF—Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via di S. Marta 3,
Florence 50139, Italy
e-mail: daniele.massini@unifi.it

Bruno Facchini

DIEF—Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Florence,
via di S. Marta 3,
Florence 50139, Italy
e-mail: bruno.facchini@unifi-it

Alberto Ceccherini

GE Oil & Gas,
via F. Matteucci 2,
Florence 50127, Italy
e-mail: Alberto.Ceccherini@ge.com

Luca Innocenti

GE Oil & Gas,
via F. Matteucci 2,
Florence 50127, Italy
e-mail: Luca1.Innocenti@ge.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 September 11, 2015; final manuscript received October 15, 2015; published online December 8, 2015. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(7), 072505 (Dec 08, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1446; doi: 10.1115/1.4031963 History: Received September 11, 2015; Revised October 15, 2015

Among the various types of seals used in gas turbine secondary air system to guarantee sufficient confinement of the main gas path, honeycomb seals perform well in terms of enhanced stability and reduced leakage flow. Due to the large amount of honeycomb cells typically employed in real seals, it is generally convenient to treat the sealing effect of the honeycomb pack as an increased distributed friction factor on the plain top surface. That is why, this analysis is focused on a simple configuration composed by a honeycomb facing a flat plate. In order to evaluate the sealing performance of such honeycomb packs, an experimental campaign was carried out on a stationary test rig where the effects of shaft rotation are neglected. The test rig was designed to analyze different honeycomb geometries so that a large experimental database could be created to correlate the influence of each investigated parameter. Honeycomb seals were varied in terms of hexagonal cell dimension and depth in a range that represents well actual honeycomb packs employed in industrial compressors. For each geometry, seven different clearances were tested. This work reports the findings of such experimental campaign whose results were analyzed in order to guide actual seals design and effective estimates of shaft loads. Static pressure measurements reveal that the effects of investigated geometrical parameters on friction factor correlate well with a corrected Mach number based on the cell depth. The presence of acoustic effects in the seals was further investigated by means of hot wire anemometry. Acoustic forcing due to flow cavity interaction was found to be characterized by a constant Strouhal number based on cell geometry. Numerical simulations helped in the identification of system eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies providing an explanation to the friction factor enhancement triggered at a certain flow speed. Finally, the generated dataset was tested comparing the predicted leakage flow with experimental data of actual seals (with high pressure and high rotational speed) showing a very good agreement.

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

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Honeycomb seal geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Postprocessing flowchart

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Friction factor coefficients for all geometries–all clearances: (a) Geo1, (b) Geo2, (c) Geo3, (d) Geo4, (e) Geo5, and (f) Geo6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Smooth case validation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Honeycomb annular seal

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Acoustic pressure of first four longitudinal eigenmodes for Geo4: (a) mode I—f = 146.4 Hz, (b) mode II—f = 246.4 Hz, (c) mode III—f = 370.9 Hz, and (d) mode IV—f = 504.7 Hz

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Friction factor distribution for Geo4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Friction factor distribution for Geo4 and Geo5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Acoustic pressure oscillations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Friction factor evolution for Geo2 versus (a) Reynolds number, (b) Mach number, and (c) corrected Mach number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of cell depth

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of cell width and orientation—H/H0 = 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Frequency spectra analysis for Geo4—H/H0 = 3.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Frequency peaks versus velocities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Frequency peaks versus velocities to cell width ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Comparison with rotating seal: (a) mass flow and (b) error

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Effect of clearance on maximum acoustic pressure oscillations for Geo6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Strouhal experiments and correlation: (a) Geo2, (b) Geo4, (c) Geo5, and (d) Geo6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Strouhal number from experiment and correlation for Geo2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Friction factor averaged (smooth and honeycomb side) and only relative to the honeycomb side

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