Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T17:25:30.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Analysis of mistuned forced response in an axial high-pressure compressor rig with focus on Tyler–Sofrin modes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2019

F. Figaschewsky*
Affiliation:
Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany
A. Kühhorn
Affiliation:
Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany
B. Beirow
Affiliation:
Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus–Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany
T. Giersch
Affiliation:
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany
S. Schrape
Affiliation:
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the effect of Tyler–Sofrin Modes (TSMs) on forced vibration responses by analysing a 4.5-stage research axial compressor rig. The first part starts with a brief review of the involved physical mechanisms and necessary prerequisites for the generation of TSMs in multistage engines. This review is supported by unsteady CFD simulations of a quasi 2D section of the studied engine. It is shown that the amplitude increasing effect due to mistuning can be further amplified by the presence of TSMs. Furthermore, the sensitivity with respect to the structural coupling of the blades and the damping as well as the shape of the expected envelope is analysed.

The second part deals with the Rotor 2 blisk of the research compressor rig. The resonance of a higher blade mode with the engine order of the upstream stator is studied in two different flow conditions realised by different variable stator vane (VSV) schedules which allows to separate the influence of TSMs from the impact of mistuning. A subset of nominal system modes representation of the rotor is used to describe its mistuned vibration behaviour, and unsteady CFD simulations are used to characterise the present strength of the TSMs in the particular operating conditions. Measured maximum amplitude vs blade pattern and frequency response functions are compared against the predictions of the aeromechanical models in order to assess the strength of the TSMs as well as its influence on vibration levels.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Entropy contours (blue = low, red = high) of snapshots of an unsteady Q2D simulation taken when R2 hit the VSV1 wake 4 consecutive times.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Time history of modal force vs revolution (a) and frequency content of modal force (b) for blades A and B.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Modal force amplitudes of the most dominant engine orders 4 and 36 vs Rotor 2 blade number (a) and traveling wave mode index (b).

Figure 3

Figure 4 Maximum possible amplification as a function of force ratio rf, damping level D1=D2=D≪1 and relative frequency spread ρ.

Figure 4

Figure 5 Natural frequency vs TWM index (a and b), blade individual FRFs (c and d), and maximum vibration amplitude (e and f) for a tuned example configuration with one additional TSM excitation component: l = −1 (left column: a, c, and e) and l = 1 (right column: b, d, and f).

Figure 5

Figure 6 Sketch and blade counts of the investigated compressor rig with the most important instrumentation and the idealised shaft geometry with highlighted Rotor 2 blisk.

Figure 6

Figure 7 Measured compressor map of the whole rig (a) and single blocks (b–e) with the two distinct mode 11 resonance conditions RC1 and RC2.

Figure 7

Figure 8 Campbell diagram of the studied rotor.

Figure 8

Figure 9 Finite element model of the rotor.

Figure 9

Figure 10 Identified frequency mistuning pattern for the studied blade mode family 11(12) (a) and the harmonic amplitudes of its discrete fourier transform (b).

Figure 10

Figure 11 Studied blade mode 11: mode shape (a), eigenvalues vs dominant cyclic symmetry mode for different structural models (b) and envelope of the measured mode 11 SG response vs frequency (c).

Figure 11

Figure 12 Comparison of measured and simulated radial total pressure profiles for steady state scan closest to resonance condition RC1 (80% VSV schedule).

Figure 12

Figure 13 Comparison of measured and simulated blade static pressure profiles at 50% span for steady state scan closest to resonance condition RC1 (80% VSV schedule).

Figure 13

Figure 14 Comparison of measured and simulated radial total pressure profiles for steady-state scan closest to resonance condition RC2 (90% VSV schedule).

Figure 14

Figure 15 Comparison of measured and simulated blade static pressure profiles at 50% span for steady-state scan closest to resonance condition RC2 (90% VSV schedule).

Figure 15

Figure 16 Aerodynamic damping computed with 3D CFD and predicted by simplified approach for ND8 mode shape (a) and scaled aerodynamic damping predicted by simplified approach vs tuned natural frequency of the applied system mode shape (b).

Figure 16

Figure 17 Normalised aerodynamic excitation predicted by the six blade row model as function of the TWM index for the two studied resonance conditions.

Figure 17

Figure 18 Blade individual vibration amplitudes: comparison of experiment at different resonance conditions (a); comparison of experiment and prediction for resonance condition 1 (b) and for resonance condition 2 (c).

Figure 18

Figure 19 Blade individual vibration amplitudes:comparison of measured and predicted amplitude difference.

Figure 19

Figure 20 Comparison of measured and predicted frequency response functions for the resonance condition 1 (80% VSV schedule).