0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Nonsmooth Thermoelastic Simulations of Blade–Casing Contact Interactions

[+] Author and Article Information
Anders Thorin, Mathias Legrand

Structural Dynamics and Vibration Laboratory,
McGill University,
Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada

Nicolas Guérin

École Centrale de Lyon,
Laboratoire de Tribologie et
Dynamique des Systèmes,
Écully 69130, France;
Safran Helicopter Engines,
Bordes 64511, France

Fabrice Thouverez

École Centrale de Lyon,
Laboratoire de Tribologie et Dynamique des
Systèmes,
Écully 69130, France

Patricio Almeida

Safran Helicopter Engines,
Bordes 64511, France
e-mail: anders.thorin@mcgill.ca

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 27, 2018; final manuscript received July 5, 2018; published online September 26, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(2), 022502 (Sep 26, 2018) (7 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1384; doi: 10.1115/1.4040857 History: Received June 27, 2018; Revised July 05, 2018

In turbomachinery, it is well known that tighter operating clearances improve the efficiency. However, this leads to unwanted potential unilateral and frictional contact occurrences between the rotating (blades) and stationary components (casings) together with attendant thermal excitations. Unilateral contact induces discontinuities in the velocity at impact times, hence the terminology nonsmooth dynamics. Current modeling strategies of rotor–stator interactions are either based on regularizing penalty methods or on explicit time-marching methods derived from Carpenter's forward Lagrange multiplier method. Regularization introduces an artificial time scale in the formulation corresponding to numerical stiffness, which is not desirable. Carpenter's scheme has been successfully applied to turbomachinery industrial models in the sole mechanical framework, but faces serious stability issues when dealing with the additional heat equation. This work overcomes the above issues by using the Moreau–Jean nonsmooth integration scheme within an implicit θ-method. This numerical scheme is based on a mathematically sound description of the contact dynamics by means of measure differential inclusions and enjoys attractive features. The procedure is unconditionally stable opening doors to quick preliminary simulations with time-steps one hundred times larger than with previous algorithms. It can also deal with strongly coupled thermomechanical problems.

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]
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
Carpenter, N. J. , Taylor, R. L. , and Katona, M. G. , 1991, “ Lagrange Constraints for Transient Finite Element Surface Contact,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 32(1), pp. 103–128. [CrossRef]
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.
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. 031008.
Shampine, L. , and Gear, C. , 1979, “ A User's View of Solving Stiff Ordinary Differential Equations,” SIAM Rev., 21(1), pp. 1–17. [CrossRef]
Glocker, C. , 2006, “ An Introduction to Impacts,” Nonsmooth Mechanics of Solids (CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences Book Series, Vol. 485), Springer, Vienna, Austria, pp. 45–101.
Ireman, P. , Klarbring, A. , and Strömberg, N. , 2002, “ Finite Element Algorithms for Thermoelastic Wear Problems,” Eur. J. Mech.-A/Solids, 21(3), pp. 423–440. [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]
Berthoul, B. , Batailly, A. , Legrand, M. , Stainier, L. , and Cartraud, P. , 2015, “ Abradable Coating Removal in Turbomachines: A Macroscopic Approach Accounting for Various Wear Mechanisms,” ASME Paper No. GT2015-42500.
Moreau, J.-J. , 1988, “ Unilateral Contact and Dry Friction in Finite Freedom Dynamics,” Nonsmooth Mechanics and Applications (International Centre for Mechanical Sciences Book Series, Vol. 302), Springer, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1–82.
Jean, M. , 1999, “ The Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics Method,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 177(3–4), pp. 235–257. [CrossRef]
Guérin, N. , Thorin, A. , Thouverez, F. , Legrand, M. , and Almeida, P. , 2018, “ Thermomechanical Model Reduction for Efficient Simulations of Rotor-Stator Contact Interaction,” ASME Paper No. GT2018-75880.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simplified finite element sector. Contact nodes [], constrained nodes [], and corresponding contact forces [].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sensitivity to time-step in terms of radial displacement ur, temperature θ and normal contact force λ at node 4. Reference [], h = 10 − 4 s [] and h = 10 − 5 s [].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Close-up view of Fig. 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Influence of time-step size. Reference [], h = 10 − 4 s [] and h = 10 − 5 s [].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Error as a function of the number of time-steps at contact node 4 for one second of simulation: ur [—], λ [--··] and θ [···]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Time histories for contact nodes 3 [] and 4 []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Time histories for contact nodes 3 [] and 4 [] without thermomechanical coupling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of time histories for node 4. Moreau–Jean [] and Carpenter [].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Close-up view of Fig. 8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Finite element model of simplified industrial compressor sector. Contact nodes [], constrained nodes []. Coloring refers to the radial displacement: (a) Positions at rest and (b) first flexural modeshape.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Time histories for node 1 with [] and without [] frictional heating

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Time histories for node 1. Effect of excitation amplitude: forcing of 1 [] and 2 [] normalized amplitude.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Close-up view of Fig. 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contact simulation results for node 1. Carpenter algorithm [] and Moreau algorithm [] for h = 5 × 10−7 s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Moreau–Jean's scheme sensitivity to time-step for node 1: h = 5 × 10−7 s [], 10−6 s [], 5 × 10−6 s [] and 10−5 s []

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Computation times for a 1 s simulation. Carpenter algorithm [] versus Moreau–Jean algorithm [].

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