0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Forced Response Analysis of a Mistuned, Compressor Blisk Comparing Three Different Reduced Order Model Approaches

[+] Author and Article Information
Mauricio Gutierrez Salas

Heat and Power Technology,
Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm 10044, Sweden
e-mail: maugut@kth.se

Ronnie Bladh

Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB,
Finspång 61283, Sweden
e-mail: ronnie.bladh@siemens.com

Hans Mårtensson

GKN Aerospace Sweden AB,
Trollhättan 46181, Sweden
e-mail: hans.martensson@gknaerospace.com

Paul Petrie-Repar

Heat and Power Technology,
Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm 10044, Sweden
e-mail: paul.petrie-repar@energy.kth.se

Torsten Fransson

Heat and Power Technology,
Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm 10044, Sweden
e-mail: torsten.fransson@energy.kth.se

Damian M. Vogt

ITSM—Institute of Thermal Turbomachinery and
Machinery Laboratory,
University of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart 70569, Germany
e-mail: damian.vogt@itsm.uni-stuttgart.de

1Corresponding author.

2Present address: Siemens Energy, Inc., Orlando, FL 32817.

Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received September 16, 2016; final manuscript received September 20, 2016; published online January 18, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(6), 062501 (Jan 18, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1452; doi: 10.1115/1.4035209 History: Received September 16, 2016; Revised September 20, 2016

Accurate structural modeling of blisk mistuning is critical for the analysis of forced response in turbomachinery. Apart from intentional mistuning, mistuning can be due to the manufacturing tolerances, corrosion, foreign object damage, and in-service wear in general. It has been shown in past studies that mistuning can increase the risk of blade failure due to energy localization. For weak blade to blade coupling, this localization has been shown to be critical and higher amplitudes of vibration are expected in few blades. This paper presents a comparison of three reduced order models (ROMs) for the structural modeling of blisks. Two of the models assume cyclic symmetry, while the third model is free of this assumption. The performance of the reduced order models for cases with small and large amount of mistuning will be examined. The benefits and drawbacks of each reduction method will be discussed.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Hulda: (a) cross section [13] and (b) FEM mesh (23 sectors)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Hulda CB cyclic symmetry (C): blade and disk components

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Hulda CB multisubstructuring (M): only one sector component

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Frequency of four families versus ND

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relative error of the tuned third mode family frequencies between ROM cases and the parent FEM 360 deg blisk without prestress

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Relative error of the tuned third mode family MAC between ROM cases and the parent FEM 360 deg blisk without prestress

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Three mistuned cases compared to the mistuned parent FEM 360 deg blisk: (a) frequency for case 1 with prestress (5% physical mass mistuning), (b) frequency relative error for case 1 with prestress (5% physical mass mistuning), (c) frequency relative error for case 4 with prestress (30% physical mass mistuning), and (d) frequency relative error for case 4 without prestress (30% physical mass mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

MAC relative error for cases 4 and 6 compared to the mistuned parent FEM 360 deg blisk. (a) Cases 4 and 6 without prestress (30% mass mistuning). Top: physical and bottom: artificial. (b) Cases 4 and 6 with prestress (30% mass mistuning). Top: physical and bottom: artificial.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Modal amplitudes of the third mode family using the M ROM with prestress: (a)tuned ND2 and (b) case 5 (30% physical stiffness mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Modal amplitudes of the third mode family using the M ROM with prestress: (a) case 4 (30% physical mass mistuning) and (b) case 6 (30% artificial mass mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Steady-state forced response for two independently tuned analysis (maximum deflection amplitude is shown)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Steady-state forced response for case 4 (30% physical mass mistuning case with prestress), the two blades with maximum deflection amplitude for each of the ROMs are shown

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Mistuned amplitude response of all the blades for each ROM (CT, MT, and ST refer to the tuned response for each ROM): (a) case 4 with prestress (30% physical mass mistuning) and (b) case 6 with prestress (30% artificial mass mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Mistuned amplitude response of all the blades for each ROM (CT, MT, and ST refer to the tuned response for each ROM): (a) case 1 without prestress (5% physical mass mistuning) and (b) case 3 without prestress (5% artificial mass mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Mistuned amplitude response of all the blades for each ROM (CT, MT, and ST refer to the tuned response for each ROM): (a) case 2 without prestress (5% physical stiffness mistuning) and (b) case 2 with prestress (5% physical stiffness mistuning)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Highest ROM amplitude relative error compared to the mistuned parent FEM 360 deg blisk for each case without prestress

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Highest ROM amplitude relative error compared to the mistuned parent FEM 360 deg blisk for each case with prestress

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