Volume 7B: Structures and Dynamics 2017
DOI: 10.1115/gt2017-64633
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mistuned Higher-Order Mode Forced Response of an Embedded Compressor Rotor: Part I — Steady and Unsteady Aerodynamics

Abstract: This paper is the first part of a two-part paper that presents a comprehensive study of the higher-order mode mistuned forced response of an embedded rotor blisk in a multistage axial research compressor. The resonant response of the second-stage rotor (R2) in its first chordwise bending (1CWB) mode due to the second harmonic of the periodic forcing of its neighboring stators (S1 and S2) is investigated computationally and experimentally at three steady loading conditions in the Purdue Three-Stage Compressor R… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the IGV and S1 verification, three different levels of mesh densities (168,435, 314,811, and 483,075 for IGV; 174,135, 324,159, and 505,419 for S1) were conducted on a single-row, single-passage model based on the steady calculations with the same boundary conditions. Figure 3a shows the normalized absolute velocity profile at the IGV exit, which characterizes the wake and potential disturbances from upstream IGV [32]. Meanwhile, the normalized static pressure profile at the S1 inlet characterizes the potential disturbance from downstream S1, as depicted in Figure 3b.…”
Section: Computational Mesh and Code Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the IGV and S1 verification, three different levels of mesh densities (168,435, 314,811, and 483,075 for IGV; 174,135, 324,159, and 505,419 for S1) were conducted on a single-row, single-passage model based on the steady calculations with the same boundary conditions. Figure 3a shows the normalized absolute velocity profile at the IGV exit, which characterizes the wake and potential disturbances from upstream IGV [32]. Meanwhile, the normalized static pressure profile at the S1 inlet characterizes the potential disturbance from downstream S1, as depicted in Figure 3b.…”
Section: Computational Mesh and Code Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, the boundary profile is extracted at the interface between IGV and R1, just before the mixing plane (Case A-1). However, several studies have shown that the wake forcing function was underestimated compared with the results in a coupled configuration (Case B/Case C) due to the use of the mixing plane [11,14,32]. Hence, the boundary profile extracted at the IGV exit from the single-row steady-state calculation was investigated as a modified case (Case A-2), although it still has certain limitations and deficiencies.…”
Section: Decoupled and Coupled Configurationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in contrast to the enhanced capability achieved for mistuned forced response prediction [6,7], the influence of circumferential flow nonuniformity on aerodynamic excitation is less understood. The wake from the upstream blade row and the potential field from the downstream blade row are considered the main causes for excitation, and the aerodynamic excitation reduced from steady single-passage computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations [6,8] is typically used to predict the rotor resonant response. However, the results from Methel et al showed more than 60% variations in spectral magnitudes of the fundamental forcing frequency due to stator wake variability among investigated passages [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, nonlinear harmonic balance (HB) approaches have become increasingly important, as they are able to incorporate nonlinear aerodynamic effects, see e.g. Li et al (2017). Another recent research area is the influence of multi-row interactions on the aeroelastic coupling coefficients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%