0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Thermomechanical Model Reduction for Efficient Simulations of Rotor-Stator Contact Interaction

[+] Author and Article Information
Nicolas Guérin

École Centrale de Lyon,
Laboratoire de Tribologie et
Dynamique des Systèmes,
Écully 69134, France;
Safran Helicopter Engines,
Bordes 64510, France
e-mail: nicolas.guerin@ec-lyon.fr

Anders Thorin, Mathias Legrand

Structural Dynamics and Vibration Laboratory,
McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A0C3, Canada

Fabrice Thouverez

École Centrale de Lyon,
Laboratoire de Tribologie et
Dynamique des Systèmes,
Écully 69134, France

Patricio Almeida

Safran Helicopter Engines,
Bordes 64510, France

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 June 26, 2018; final manuscript received July 5, 2018; published online September 19, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(2), 022501 (Sep 19, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1368; doi: 10.1115/1.4040858 History: Received June 26, 2018; Revised July 05, 2018

Turbomachinery rotor–stator unilateral contact induced interactions play a growing role in lifecycle analysis and thus motivate the use of accurate numerical prediction tools. Recent literature confirmed by ongoing in-house experiments have shown the importance of thermomechanical coupling effects in such interactions. However, most available (possibly reduced-order) models are restricted to the sole mechanical aspects. This work describes a reduction technique of thermomechanical models involving unilateral contact and frictional contact occurrences between rotor and stator components. The proposed methodology is grounded on Guyan and Craig–Bampton methods for the reduction of the structural dynamics in conjunction with Krylov subspace techniques, and specifically the Craig–Hale approach, for the reduction of the thermal equations. The method has the capability to drastically reduce the size of the model while preserving accuracy. It stands as a reliable strategy to perform simulations of thermomechanical models with localized mechanical and thermal loads.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Jacquet-Richardet, G. , Torkhani, M. , Cartraud, P. , Thouverez, F. , Nouri-Baranger, T. , Herran, M. , Gibert, C. , Baguet, S. , Almeida, P. , and Peletan, L. , 2013, “ Rotor to Stator Contacts in Turbomachines. Review and Application,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 40(2), pp. 401–420. [CrossRef]
Legrand, M. , Batailly, A. , and Pierre, C. , 2011, “ Numerical Investigation of Abradable Coating Removal in Aircraft Engines Through Plastic Constitutive Law,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 7(1), p. 011010. [CrossRef]
Batailly, A. , Agrapart, Q. , Millecamps, A. , and Brunel, J.-F. , 2016, “ Experimental and Numerical Simulation of a Rotor/Stator Interaction Event Localized on a Single Blade Within an Industrial High-Pressure Compressor,” J. Sound Vib., 375, pp. 308–331. [CrossRef]
Batailly, A. , Legrand, M. , Cartraud, P. , and Pierre, C. , 2010, “ Assessment of Reduced Models for the Detection of Modal Interaction Through Rotor Stator Contacts,” J. Sound Vib., 329(26), pp. 5546–5562. [CrossRef]
Goldman, P. , and Muszynska, A. , 1995, “ Rotor-to-Stator, Rub-Related, Thermal/Mechanical Effects in Rotating Machinery,” Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 5(9), pp. 1579–1601. [CrossRef]
Almeida, P. , Gibert, C. , Thouverez, F. , Leblanc, X. , and Ousty, J.-P. , 2014, “ Experimental Analysis of Dynamic Interaction Between a Centrifugal Compressor and Its Casing,” ASME J. Turbomach., 137(3), p. 01574149. [CrossRef]
Murthy, R. , Wang, X. Q. , Matney, A. , and Mignolet, M. , 2017, “ A Construction of Thermal Basis Functions for Coupled Structural-Thermal Reduced Order Models,” AIAA Paper No. 2017-0179.
Zukowski, E. , Wilde, J. , Rudnyi, E.-B. , and Korvink, J.-G. , 2005, “ Model Reduction for Thermo-Mechanical Simulation of Packages,” International Workshop on Thermal Investigation of ICs and Systems, Belgirate, Italy, Sept. 27–30, pp. 134–138.
Bechtold, T. , Salimbahrami, B. , Rudnyi, E. B. , Lohmann, B. , and Korvink, J. G. G. , 2003, “ Krylov-Subspace-Based Order Reduction Methods Applied to Generate Compact- Electro-Thermal Models for MEMS,” NSTI Nanotechnology Conference & Trade Show Nanotech, Jan., San Francisco, CA https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01615922/document.
Botto, D. , Zucca, S. , and Gola, M. , 2007, “ Reduced-Order Models for the Calculation of Thermal Transients of Heat Conduction/Convection Fe Models,” J. Therm. Stresses, 30(8), pp. 819–839. [CrossRef]
Nachtergaele, P. , Rixen, D. , and Steenhoek, A. , 2010, “ Efficient Weakly Coupled Projection Basis for the Reduction of Thermo-Mechanical Models,” J. Comput. Appl. Math., 234(7), pp. 2272–2278. [CrossRef]
Guérin, N. , Thouverez, F. , Gibert, C. , Legrand, M. , and Almeida, P. , 2017, “ Thermomechanical Component Mode Synthesis for Blade Casing Interaction Prediction,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-64342.
Grimme, J. E. , 1997, “ Krylov Projection Methods for Model Reduction,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL https://perso.uclouvain.be/paul.vandooren/ThesisGrimme.pdf.
Freund, R. W. , 2000, “ Krylov-Subspace Methods for Reduced-Order Modeling in Circuit Simulation,” J. Comput. Appl. Math., 123(1–2), pp. 395–421. [CrossRef]
Craig, R. R. , and Bampton, M. , 1968, “ Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analyses,” AIAA J., 6(7), pp. 1313–1319. [CrossRef]
Craig, R. R. , and Hale, A. L. , 1988, “ Block-Krylov Component Synthesis Method for Structural Model Reduction,” J. Guid., Control, Dyn., 11(6), pp. 562–570. [CrossRef]
Thorin, A. , Guérin, N. , Legrand, M. , Thouverez, F. , and Almeida, P. , 2018, “ Nonsmooth Thermoelastic Simulations of Blade-Casing Contact Interactions,” ASME Paper No. GT2018-75959.
Padova, C. , Barton, J. , Dunn, M. , and Manwaring, S. , 2006, “ Experimental Results From Controlled Blade Tip/Shroud Rubs at Engine Speed,” ASME J. Turbomach., 129(4), pp. 713–723. [CrossRef]
Parent, M.-O. , and Thouverez, F. , 2016, “ Phenomenological Model for Stability Analysis of Bladed Rotor-to-Stator Contacts,” 16th International Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery, Honolulu, HI, Apr. 10–15 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01537643/document.
Legrand, M. , Pierre, C. , Cartraud, P. , and Lombard, J.-P. , 2009, “ Two-Dimensional Modeling of an Aircraft Engine Structural Bladed Disk-Casing Modal Interaction,” J. Sound Vib., 319(1–2), pp. 366–391. [CrossRef]
Stewart, D. , 2000, “ Rigid-Body Dynamics With Friction and Impact,” SIAM Rev., 42(1), pp. 3–39. [CrossRef]
Acary, V. , and Brogliato, B. , 2008, Numerical Methods for Nonsmooth Dynamical Systems: Applications in Mechanics and Electronics, Springer, Berlin.
Ireman, P. , Klarbring, A. , and Strmberg, N. , 2002, “ Finite Element Algorithms for Thermoelastic Wear Problems,” Eur. J. Mech.-A/Solids, 21(3), pp. 423–440. [CrossRef]
Besselink, B. , Tabak, U. , Lutowska, A. , van de Wouw, N. , Nijmeijer, H. , Rixen, D. , Hochstenbach, M. , and Schilders, W. , 2013, “ A Comparison of Model Reduction Techniques From Structural Dynamics, Numerical Mathematics and Systems and Control,” J. Sound Vib., 332(19), pp. 4403–4422. [CrossRef]
Qu, Z.-Q. , 2004, Model Order Reduction Techniques, Springer, London.
Schilders, W. , and Lutowska, A. , 2014, “ A Novel Approach to Model Order Reduction for Coupled Multiphysics Problems,” Reduced Order Methods for Modeling and Computational Reduction (Modeling, Simulation and Applications Book Series, Vol. 9), Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–49.
MacNeal, R. , 1971, “ A Hybrid Method of Component Mode Synthesis,” Comput. Struct., 1(4), pp. 581–601. [CrossRef]
Bladh, R. , Pierre, C. , and Castanier, M. , 2003, “ Numerical Instability of Classical Free-Interface Component Mode Synthesis Techniques,” AIAA J., 41(8), pp. 1621–1624. [CrossRef]
Guyan, R. J. , 1965, “ Reduction of Stiffness and Mass Matrices,” AIAA J., 3(2), pp. 380–380. [CrossRef]
Arnoldi, W. E. , 1951, “ The Principle of Minimized Iterations in the Solution of the Matrix Eigenvalue Problem,” Q. Appl. Math., 9(1), pp. 17–29. [CrossRef]
Lanczos, C. , 1950, “ An Iteration Method for the Solution of the Eigenvalue Problem of Linear Differential and Integral Operators,” J. Res. Natl. Bureau Standards, 45(4), pp. 255–282. [CrossRef]
Bai, Z. , and Su, Y. , 2005, “ Dimension Reduction of Large-Scale Second-Order Dynamical Systems Via a Second-Order Arnoldi Method,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 26(5), pp. 1692–1709. [CrossRef]
Elfadel, I. M. , and Ling, D. D. , 1997, “ A Block Rational Arnoldi Algorithm for Multipoint Passive Model-Order Reduction of Multiport RLC Networks,” IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), San Jose, CA, Nov. 9–13, pp. 66–71.
Pohle, M. , Panning-von Scheidt, L. , and Wallaschek, J. , 2012, “ Reduced Order Model of Mistuned Bladed Disks Using the Krylov-Subspace Combined With the Craig-Bampton Reduction Technique,” Tenth World Congress on Computational Mechanics, São Paulo, Brazil, July 8–13, pp. 899–908.
Cardona, A. , and Idelsohn, S. , 1986, “ Solution of Non-Linear Thermal Transient Problems by a Reduction Method,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 23(6), pp. 1023–1042. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite element model of bladed-disk sector: boundary nodes [], constrained nodes [], and contact forces []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Thermal CB ROM transfer function convergence: full model [], mθ=1 [], 10 [], 100 [], and 400 []. For mθ=500, the error is of the magnitude of machine precision.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

RCH ROM transfer function convergence with order ℓ=0 and p expansion points: full model [], p = 1 [], 3 [], and 7 []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

RCH ROM transfer function convergence with p = 3 expansion points and a ℓ-th order expansion: full model [], ℓ=0 [], 1 [], 2 [], and 3 []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of CB [], CH [], RCH-mGS [], RCH-SVD [], and RCH-sGS [] ROMs transfer functions with 70 modes; full model []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Thermomechanical model responses at node 3: uncoupled [] and coupled [] models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

RCH ROM convergence in contact simulation: full model [], RCH ROM with ℓ=0, p = 3 [] and 5 []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Computation times for various thermal reduction orders: CB [] and RCH []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Time histories for node 1: full model [], RCH [], CB ROM [] with mu=10 and mθ=126

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

RCH ROM transfer function convergence: full model [], mθ=27 [], 45 [], 54 [], 63 [], 81 [], 90 [], and 126 []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CB ROM transfer function convergence: full model [], mθ=27 [], 45 [], 54 [], 63 [], 81 [], 90 [], and 126 []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Finite element model of simplified industrial compressor sector: boundary nodes [] and constrained nodes []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Close-up view of Fig. 10

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

CB and RCH ROM comparison in contact simulation: full model [], CB (mθ=p×b=35) [], and RCH (ℓ=0, p = 5) []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Close-up view of Fig. 8

Tables

Errata

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