Proceedings of ASME TURBO EXPO 2003 June 16-19, 2003 Atlanta, Georgia, USA

GT2003-38158
DEVELOPMENT OF A DURABLE CATALYST AXIAL RESTRAINT STRUCTURE
John E. Barnes Catalytica Energy Systems 1353 Rowe Road Niskayuna, New York 12309, USA (518) 377 2494 jbarnes@catalyticaenergy.com 1 ABSTRACT millimeters (mm) of deformation was computed. No ratcheting or plasticity is expected to occur. Stress rupture life greatly exceeds 10000 hours. Fatigue crack initiation is not expected until well beyond 790 cycles (the closest relevant material data point) and the weld joints are shown to be tolerant of a significant lack of weld penetration. Manufacturing quality assurance has included weld process development using specimen metalographic sectional evaluation with variations in weld root angle, back gas arrangement, weld wire size and thermal processing. The manufacturing process is then controlled with weld procedure specification, in process testing and inspection procedures. 3 BACKGROUND FOR THE DESIGN

A unique structural component known as the thermally free axial support or TFA has been developed to restrain a foil substrate catalyst within a gas turbine combustor. Designing a device for this application has been extremely challenging due to competing requirements. Functionally, this support must restrain a catalyst against significant pressure load at temperatures as high as 940Celsius (C). Enough contact area with the catalyst must exist to avoid foil deformation while at the same time the device must not overly restrict or disturb combustion fluid flow. The aerodynamic performance of the TFA has been validated in actual turbine operation. The TFA is also expected to survive in base loaded gas turbine operation for at least 8000 hours. Long-term durability, crucial to this component since it is upstream of the turbine has been proven with significant analytical and testing efforts. Manufacturing quality assurance and control has been utilized to achieve a consistent product. 2 INTRODUCTION

3.1

TFA Fundamentals

The catalyst axial support structure must restrain the catalyst foils without damaging the foil edges while also not excessively blocking combustion gas flow. This component is critical to the operation of the gas turbine catalytic combustion system and must survive over 8000 hours at high temperature and constant mechanical load. Limited operating experience exists for this unique application creating a need to depend upon an analytical methodology for predicting long-term durability. Aerodynamic design constraints were determined with engine testing. Durability of the Catalytica Energy Systems Incorporated (CESI) catalyst axial support has been predicted based on nonlinear finite element analyses combined with available material property test data. The small amount of computed inelastic deformation is predominately caused by stress relaxation into the shape dictated by the displacement of the catalyst container components due to stack up tolerances, thermal expansion and pressure load. Otherwise, less than .279

An axial support structure is needed to restrain the rolled catalyst foil from telescoping downstream due to the combustion pressure drop. Other attempted axial support devices have included radial spokes and honeycomb structures. The radial spokes have caused catalyst foil edge damage and honeycomb has exhibited fatigue cracking and creep deformation. CESI has applied the TFA design to the Kawasaki M1A-13X, the General Electric Company GE-10 and the Solar Turbines Incorporated Taurus-70. Durability issues for the axial support are the typical failure mechanisms considered in gas turbine hot section design. Namely, creep and plastic deformation and low cycle fatigue and fracture due to thermal and mechanical loading. Mechanical vibration and buckling stability will also be considered. Material loss due to oxidation is included in the analyses.

3.2

TFA Functional Requirements

The function of the axial support is to restrain the catalyst foils from movement due to the force of the combustion gas flow. The contact pressure against the catalyst foils must be sufficiently low to avoid locally deforming the foils. Because

Copyright 2003 by ASME

the restraint must occur at the exit of the combustion gas from the catalyst, the axial support operates at very high temperature. In addition, minimal airflow must be blocked to avoid flow disturbances that could result in flame-holding or local over heating within the catalyst foil pack. To accomplish these objectives, a high temperature alloy strut arrangement is employed which distributes the contact to numerous areas while providing very low flow blockage.

discussed here since it operates at the highest temperature and load.

3.5.2

Thermal Expansion and Gaps

3.3

Aerodynamic Validation

Initially a rainbow test with geometric variations was completed to understand aerodynamic margin on flow blockage and flame holding. A range of strut thickness, spacing and weld joint size was tested that determined allowable designs. Since then, proof of concept prototype testing followed by greater than 4000 hours of turbine operation have been successfully demonstrated and operation with numerous inspections continues.

Fit of TFA with the container will only be functionally summarized here. All three TFAs contact the container within slots at the OD. Clearance exists (GapXXXX on Figure 1) to allow for thermal expansion of the TFA in the axial and radial directions. Pressure loading forces the TFA against the downstream slot surface. Manufacturing tolerances cause variability in the gap arrangement. However, stress relaxation after a short time moves the gaps to the upstream side at thee loaded condition. The interstage and outlet TFAs receive axial support at the ID from the center shaft. This load is transferred to the inlet TFA and reacted at the OD. 4 NONLINEAR MATERIAL STRESS ANALYSES

3.4

Mechanical Design Objectives

4.1

General Stress and Lifing Methodology

Permanent deflection of the TFA has no known effect on the catalyst performance. However, for conservatism, an arbitrary deflection limit of 1.8 percent of the diameter at 8000 hours has been employed for current CESI catalyst axial supports. For a catalyst diameter of 711 millimeters, 12.70 millimeters of permanent deflection is acceptable. Stress rupture life of at least 8000 hours is required. Fatigue life must exceed 400 start cycles. Buckling and yielding must not occur with 10 G acceleration over load. Vibration criterion is no undamped natural frequencies can be within 15 percent of 1, 2 and 4 stimuli per turbine revolutions.

3.5 3.5.1

Catalyst Module System Arrangement

As is common in gas turbine component design and development, a combination of structural analysis and material test data was selected as the best method for determining the durability of the TFA. Whereas experimentally subjecting the actual component to turbine operating conditions would be the most convincing proof of durability, this approach was not deemed practical for several reasons. First, the temperature distribution and pressure loading is very difficult to reproduce in a test configuration. Second, because the length of time required for the test was greater than 8000 hours, the commitment of facilities and personnel would be excessive. Acceleration of the durability test was considered but believed to add too much uncertainty to the results. Finite element (FE) analyses were needed for the structural computations due to the complex geometry and thermal loading. The stress distributions within the axial support have very large variation due to the joints and orientation of the struts. The peak stress concentrations must be accurately computed to determine fatigue life. Permanent deformation is dictated by the summation of plastic and creep strain throughout the material so a precise calculation of the stress distribution is needed. The commercial software package ANSYS [14.1] was run for all FE analyses. Nonlinear material property data was mathematically fit to analytical models for input into the FE analyses. Creep and plasticity were represented using commonly accepted material constitutive models. From these models, computations of permanent deformation, strains and strain ranges were obtained and used to predict durability. Nonlinear 3D FE analyses have been utilized to determine the low cycle fatigue and rupture lives, creep deformation and buckling stability margin. Metal temperature, pressure load and creep strength variations have also been studied to ensure good safety margin. Material testing was used to determine weld joint fatigue and fracture strength and creep behavior. The results show exceptional durability.

The position of the TFAs within the catalyst module system is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Catalyst Module System Cross Section (all components are axisymmetric except the TFAs) The catalysts are constructed from long sections of foil wound around the spindles that fit between the TFAs. Pressure drop loads the foil against the upstream faces of the interstage and exit TFAs. Only the durability of the exit TFA will be

Copyright 2003 by ASME

4.2 4.2.1

Finite Element Model Mesh

The FE mesh is shown in Figure 2. The model is constructed of predominately eight noded hexahedral elements for accuracy with high computational efficiency. This model contains 33,780 elements and 57,904 nodes. Several meshes were analyzed to arrive at the construction shown that obtains optimal accuracy with the minimum number of elements. The strut thickness was reduced to 1.524 millimeters for manufacturing tolerance and further to 1.361millimeters to account for oxidation loss. Because the oxidation loss happens gradually over time, assuming the minimum thickness from the start is very conservative. The strut height was reduced to 69.596 millimeters to represent the minimum tolerance size. Figure 3. Metal Temperature (C) Distribution

4.2.3

Boundary Conditions

Axial constraint is applied at the outer (OD) and inner (ID) diameter to represent the contact conditions within the assembled catalyst module. Figure 4 depicts the arrangement modeled though many more contact elements and restraint nodes were used than is simplistically shown. During simulation of the load up and shutdown, the OD forward, OD aft and ID aft restraint nodes shown in Figure 4 are displaced axially to represent the thermal expansion of the container and inner support shaft. The contact elements will open or close depending on this motion and the deflection of the TFA throughout the operation. Figure 2. Finite Element Mesh Cyclic restraint conditions were applied at the cut boundary on the ID ring. The outer diameter of the struts was restrained in the circumferential direction.

4.2.2

Loading & Metal Temperature

Metal temperature distribution applied to the thermal stress analyses was obtained from infrared images of the CESI Xonon equipped Kawasaki M1A-13X gas turbine at Silicon Valley Power. A worse case distribution was selected from numerous operating points. This temperature pattern was scaled from the diameter of approximately 381 to the 711.2 millimeter diameter for this application. The input temperature distribution is shown in Figure 3. Temperature ranges from 849 to 943C and is considered conservative for this application. Mechanical loading on the axial support is due to edge contact from the catalyst foils, which sustain a fluid pressure loss. Uniform strut edge loading rather than discrete foil contacts was used to represent this contact. Because the contacts are at most 1.016 millimeters apart, this approximation is considered reasonable. In addition, axial displacements were coupled between struts so that radial locations moved together as though being pushed by the catalyst foil roll. The pressure drop across the entire cross section used in these analyses was 13.10 Kilopascals.

Figure 4. Axial Restraint, Contact and Inlet Stiffness Model.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

4.3 4.3.1

Material Constitutive Model for Structural Analysis Physical Properties

= equivalent stress t = time at end of substep T = Metal temperature

C1, C2, C3, C4 = Primary creep constants C7, C8, C10 = Secondary creep constants Total creep strain is the sum of the primary and secondary creep. It is quite unreasonable to expect this equation to accurately predict creep over a wide range of stress, temperature and time. A better approach is to first understand the specific operating stress, temperature and time, then fit the equation according to these conditions. It will later be shown that the stress causing creep is between 3.447 and 10.34 Megapascals (MPa), the temperature is 927C and the operating time is up to 10000 hours. There are variations in stress and temperature about these conditions so the constitutive equation should be checked nearby. Data from Haynes [Appendix A] and the brochure [14.2] was the basis for the creep constitutive model. The resulting creep constitutive equation has the comparison to measured creep data as given in Table 1. At 927C, the equation matches especially well at the longer time. Across a range of stress and time at 982C, the equation gives excellent agreement to measured data. Table 1. Comparison of Equation to Measured Creep Strain. time (hour) 239 473 1110 2017 3693 10 100 1000 10000 T (C) 927 927 927 927 927 982 982 982 982 Total Creep (MPa) (m/m) Stress 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 14.48 8.96 6.00 3.93 0.0016 0.0029 0.0062 0.0110 0.0198 0.0054 0.0044 0.0048 0.0059 Primary (m/m) 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0046 0.0034 0.0026 0.0020 Secondary (m/m) 0.0013 0.0025 0.0058 0.0106 0.0194 0.0007 0.0011 0.0022 0.0040 Measured (m/m) 0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

Temperature dependent material physical properties were obtained from the Haynes 214 brochure [14.2].

4.3.2

Plasticity

Plasticity was represented by temperature dependent multilinear kinematic hardening where the total stress range is equal to twice the yield strength; thus including the Bauschinger effect. Inclusion of the Bauschinger effect allows prediction of cyclic ratcheting. The Von Mises yield criterion and associative flow rule (Prandtl-Reuss equations) determined yielding due to the triaxial stress state and the subsequent plastic strain components. Elastic plastic stress strain data was obtained from Haynes brochure [14.2] and CESI testing at Metals Technology, Inc. [14.3]. Note that continuous curves were available from the Metals Tech testing so these were used to create the shape of the stress strain curves with the Haynes data validating the yield strength. The elastic plastic multi-linear stress strain curves as used in the computations are shown in Figure 5. Metal temperatures between input curves are linearly interpolated.

Figure 5. Multilinear stress strain curve for Haynes 214. Numbers on each curve indicate the end points of piecewise linear curves.

4.3.3

Creep and Stress Relaxation

Additional creep testing is currently underway to refine the constitutive model though with the design margins that will be shown, little concern exists for the design. The FE analysis computes changes in creep strain for finite time increments referred to as substeps. Therefore, the above equations are integrated over the substep and the creep strain increment computed. These substeps must be sufficiently small to allow redistribution of stress as yielding and creep occurs. After each substep, the strain increments are summed with the previous strain state and the geometry and stress state is updated. Again, the Von Mises yield criterion relates the triaxial stress state to the creep equation stress and the associative flow rule determines the subsequent strain components.

Experimentally derived creep data was fit to a constitutive equation for input into the stress analyses. The creep constitutive equation is a function of stress, time and temperature. Primary creep regime is represented by the equation:

/t = C C2 t C3 e C4 T
/ 1

(1) (2)

Secondary creep regime is modeled as:

/t = C C8 e C10 T where: = equivalent creep strain

/ 7

Copyright 2003 by ASME

4.4

Turbine Operation Mission Simulation

millimeters. Deflection beyond the conical shape is only .589 millimeters about 150 millimeters from the center.

Loading was applied and removed numerous times to observe potential reversals of inelastic strains and ratcheting of displacement. The first load cycle was 25 hours in length. Subsequent start ups and shutdowns were at 50, 400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000 and 8000 hours. Large deflection behavior was included in the analyses to capture the effect of deformation on the response of the TFA. As the structure deformed, the geometry in the analysis is also updated to accurately represent the stiffness change. This technique would also detect instability of the TFA. 5 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

5.1.1

Deflection versus time

Plots of axial deflection versus time at the TFA inner diameter is given in Figure 6. The outer diameter aft clearance of .076 millimeters closes immediately upon load application. Then, the inner diameter clearance of 1.364 millimeters closes within the first 5 hours of operation. This inner diameter displacement gradually increases as creep causes load transfer to the inlet TFA spring until reaching approximately 1.778 millimeters by 400 hours after which remaining relatively constant for the remainder of the operation. At each unload, the ID aft restraint is forced back 1.440 millimeters, the OD aft contact opens 1.473 millimeters and contact is achieved at the OD fwd contact. At this unloaded state, there is axial interference between the ID aft and OD fwd. Reapplying the load and returning the ID aft restraint point 1.440 millimeters downstream shifts the OD contact back to the aft contact without loss of contact at the ID.

Figure 7. Deflected shape at full load after 8000 hours. Contours are axial displacement (mm).

Figure 8. Deflected shape at unload after 8000 hours. Contours are axial displacement (mm).

5.1.2

Reaction versus time

Figure 6. Deflection (mm) vs time (hour) at TFA ID. Figures 7 and 8 plot the axial deformation as exaggerated shapes and color contours after 8000 hours at full load and unload, respectively. Very little deformation has occurred other than the enforced ID to OD axial displacement. At full load, 2.083 millimeters of downstream deflection occurs which exceeds the ID most deflection by only .305 millimeters. At shutdown, there remains interference from ID aft to OD fwd so that the maximum difference in axial deflection is 1.702

Axial reaction versus time at the OD and ID aft restraints is given in Figure 9 and 10, respectively. Immediately upon loading, the entire pressure load resultant of 654 Newtons (N) is reacted by the OD. Within 25 hours, this has decreased to 467 Newtons as the ID has attained contact and acquired 187 Newtons of the load. By 400 hours, the OD is down to 418 Newtons with 240 Newtons being redistributed to the ID. This remains relatively constant for the remainder of the operation. This shows that the TFA deforms relatively quickly to a shape that takes advantage of the center support and then remains stable.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

amount to .0025 percent prior to shutdown at 1600 hours after which there is little change. Similarly, at the hub elastic strain is near .007 percent during operation. These extremely small elastic strain levels indicate the TFA is mechanically very lightly loaded relative to the stiffness.

Location used for life Figure 9. Axial reaction (N) vs time (hour) at OD aft contact.

Figure 11. Total equivalent strain (m/m) at full load after 8000 hours hub location.

Figure 10. Axial reaction (N) vs time(hour) at ID restraint.

5.1.3

Strain Results
Figure 12. Total equivalent strain (m/m) at full load after 8000 hours first Y joint location.

Several locations are important for predicting life of the TFA. These locations can be seen in the contours of total equivalent strain at full load after 8000 hours shown in Figure 11 and 12. Total equivalent strain includes the elastic, plastic and creep contributions. The maximum occurs at the ID ring that is shown in Figure 11. This maximum is caused by the contact against a rigid surface and in reality would redistribute more evenly when contacting a deformable surface. Instead, the location indicated which is at the weld will be used in the life assessment. Figure 12 shows the inner most Y joint that will also be considered in the life assessment due to the higher temperature and nature of the weld at this location. Reviewing the results in detail reveals that creep strain dominates, elastic strain is highest at shutdown and plastic strain is zero throughout. Further, no plasticity is developed anywhere in the entire structure throughout operation. At the Y joint, the value of the elastic strain during operation is .0031 percent prior to shutdown at 400 hours and decreases a small

5.1.4

Ratcheting

The results presented so far, indicate that there is no ratcheting of displacements due to load cycling. Figure 6 has no change in deflection when comparing before and after a shutdown and restart. Should the component have a tendency to ratchet, a step change in displacement would occur. Likewise, Figure 9 displays no change in the distribution of reactions immediately before and after the shutdown. The strains are also continuous through shutdown to restart indicating no redistribution. Finally, there is no plastic strain anywhere as would normally be required to occurred at shutdown in order for ratcheting to occur. Clearly, the TFA will not ratchet.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

5.1.5

Rupture

deflection from FE analysis result. Results are given in Table 3 and the deflection is acceptable in all cases.
Table 3. Effect of Temperature, Stress and Creep total Creep Sensitivity creep increase TFA Defl Strut Midspan baseline plus 28C plus 56C Stress*1.15 Stress*1.30 Creep Rate (m/m) new/base 0.0020 0.0035 3.76 0.0068 7.24 0.0033 3.49 0.0051 5.46 0.0278 29.64 (mm) 0.3048 1.1449 2.2081 1.0648 1.6637 9.0350

Stress rupture is caused by the load controlled stress condition rather than the displacement controlled thermal expansion effects. Only the load controlled response leads to the nearly unrestricted deformation required to reach rupture. The relevant results from this elastic-plastic-creep analysis are then the elastic strain or stress which is maintained during the constant load portion of the operation. The elastic strain reaches a constant value during steady state operation that after sufficient time could cause rupture. Because rupture data is normally presented as time at stress and temperature, equivalent stress in Megapascals (MPa), as shown in Figure 13 will be used to predict rupture margin. Strut Midspan eq= 3.76 MPa Tmetal=943C Hub Weld eq= 9.78 MPa Tmetal=871C Y Joint Weld eq= 6.11 MPa Tmetal=899C

Increased Y Joint W eld

baseline 0.0063 plus 28C 0.0094 9.97 3.0383 plus 56C 0.0140 14.95 4.5560 Stress*1.15 0.0109 11.60 3.5344 Stress*1.30 0.0177 18.88 5.7542 Increased Creep Rate 0.0373 39.69 12.0968 The strut midspan results are far more indicative of the actual behavior since this region dictates the deflection of the span. The Y joint location higher stress is localized so the deflection will not actually increase as much as listed.

Figure 13. Equivalent stress (MPa) at full load after 8000 hours. Three stress and temperature locations cover all possible limiting conditions. These conditions along with the comparison to the Haynes 214 10000 hour rupture strengths [14.2] are given in Table 2. A minimum strength to stress ratio of 2.2 exists for the strut midspan location. Note that this is conservatively based on materials data at 982C whereas the TFA operates at less than 943C. Table 2. TFA Equivalent Stress Comparison to Haynes 214 Rupture Strength. Material 10K hour Stress TFA Condition Rupture Strength Ratio

Increased creep rate has equation (1) and (2) constants C3 decreased 11 percent (slight decrease in primary rate) and C7 increased by 17 times (17 times greater secondary creep rate) at mid strut location. At the cooler Y joint weld, C3 is increased 4 percent and C7 is increased by six times. This represents the highest rates seen in testing.

5.1.7

Low Cycle Fatigue

Low cycle fatigue is caused by the cycling of the total strain during operation. For the TFA, the maximum strain range is between full load and shutdown with no intermediate ranges occurring in the operation. As is common, equivalent strain will be used to assess fatigue for this triaxial stress state.

Tmetal Location eq (MPa) (C)

Midspan Y Joint HubWeld 3.76 6.11 9.78 943 899 871

rupture (MPa)
8.27 15.86 31.03

Tmetal (C)
982 927 871

(ruptr/eq)
2.2 2.6 3.2

5.1.6

Sensitivity
structural result to changes in temperature, property has been calculated to further margin. The change in strain was calculated constitutive equation and used to scale Figure 14. Total equivalent strain range (m/m) after 13 starts and 8000 hours- hub location.

Sensitivity of the load and creep understand design from the creep

Copyright 2003 by ASME

a fatigue margin of 2.0; the TFA still has acceptable fatigue life with a worse possible transient.

5.1.8

Fracture

Fatigue life reported earlier is the number of load cycles until a crack will initiate. At the acute angle side of the Y joint, which is at the root of the weld when the joint is welded from the obtuse side, a flaw may exist after manufacturing. This is due to lack of penetration into the root and the inaccessibility to weld from the acute side. Once a crack has initiated, a common lifing methodology is to apply fracture mechanics to predict the number of cycles to grow a crack to a design limit. A preliminary estimate will now be given which will access design margin. Computed stress that will drive crack growth is 58.2 MPa near the Y joint as shown in Figure 16. As a worst case based on numerous metalographic examinations of weld cut-ups, one third of the thickness through the Y joint is assumed as the initial crack length. From the stress and crack size, a stress intensity, KI is calculated: KI = 1.12 a = 8.7 MPa/mm Currently material crack growth rate (da/dN) data is not available for Haynes 214. However, data for other superalloys such as Hastelloy X (at 871C) and IN625 (at 649C) show growth rates slower than 2.5*10-4 mm/cycle at a stress intensity of 13.7 MPa/mm. [14.5] To propagate the crack through the remaining joint would require 5600 load cycles using 2.5*10-4 mm/cycle as a conservative rate.

Figure 15. Total equivalent strain range (m/m) after 13 starts and 8000 hours- innermost Y joint. Total equivalent strain range from full load to shutdown after 8000 hours and 13 starts is shown in Figure 14 and 15. Subtracting the strain components at full load from those at shutdown and then computing the equivalent strain produced these contour results. Note that this range was relatively unchanged after the first 3 starts or 400 hours. From Figures 14 and 15, the limiting strain range is either .097 percent or .043 percent in the hub and innermost Y joint, respectively. Approximate low cycle fatigue lives will be estimated using data from CESI fatigue testing [14.4] Testing conditions were strain controlled with A-ratio of 1.0 and 2 minute tensile hold time. Four temperatures were tested; 850, 900, 950, 1000C. The comparison between the computed strain range and tested strain range to fatigue initiation is summarized in Table 4. Tested strain ranges were much higher than computed values because the goal of the testing was to obtain data near the minimum life objective, which is 1000 cycles to crack initiation. Obviously, the actual LCF cycles for the axial support will be much greater than listed because the TFA strain ranges are so much lower than the test data. Table 4. Low Cycle Fatigue Computed Results Test Data-(Braze Temp Exposure)

eq (%)
0.043 0.097

Tmetal (F)
1650 1600

x (%) Tmetal (F) NI(cycles)

0.40 0.40 1,742 1,652 1308 790 Figure 16. Fracture critical location- total Y component stress (MPa) range after 13 starts and 8000 hours. 6 WELD JOINT TESTING

At 0.40/0.043 = 9.3 times the operating strain range, the cycles to crack initiation is still 1,308 at the Y joint. At 0.40/0.097 = 4.1 times the operating strain range, the cycles to crack initiation are still 790 at the hub. Previous analysis assumes the pressure loading and axial restraint movement due to thermal expansion occur at the same rate. Whereas this is adequate for the creep assessment, this may be non-conservative for strain range. A linear elastic analysis was completed with pressure loading applied before the restraints moved so that all load was initially reacted at the ID. This represents the most severe, conservative case. Maximum equivalent strain range increases to 0.199 percent for

A component specific test program has been completed to obtain fracture data on Haynes 214. The test is of an actual joint welded by the same process and having a similar stress state as the TFA (Figure 17). A notch was machined into the acute side of the weld to have a known and conservative weld defect. The damage tolerance and potential crack growth in the TFA welded joint was then measured by load cycling the specimen

Copyright 2003 by ASME

at 927C. Ten specimens were tested without causing crack growth after 2000 load controlled cycles. The final test was stopped after 7221 cycles without indication of crack propagation. It was concluded that the joint is extremely fracture tolerant.

Table 5. Natural Frequency- Fixed Pinned length f1 (fn -e n)/en f2 (f n-e n)/e n (inch) (hz) (%) (hz) (%) 12.5 46.6 74.60 151.2 17.53 11.32 56.8 69.03 184.4 0.56 9.97 73.2 60.07 237.7 29.64 8.71 95.9 47.68 311.4 15.07 7.37 134.0 26.93 435.0 18.62 6.09 196.2 7.02 637.0 13.14 4.77 319.8 12.78 1038.3 41.59 3.5 594.0 19.00 1928.6 162.99 2.2 1503.4 105.01 4881.2 565.62

MANUFACTURING QUALITY ASSURANCE

Figure 17. Weld test specimen 7 BUCKLING STABILITY

The design objective is no loss of stability and stress less than the material yield strength when loaded with the pressure load and a 10 G acceleration (including catalyst mass). A nonlinear large deflection FE analysis was used to determine the stress and stability. Struts are initially bowed laterally to initiate instability. Bow equals one thickness per 356 millimeters of length. Large deformation nonlinear FE analysis incrementally updates the stiffness accounting for the effect of deflection as load is increased. Then during the solution, at the load where the structure becomes unstable no additional load can be supported and the solution diverges. The TFA design easily meets the stability criteria. A maximum equivalent stress of 62.0 MPa is computed which is less than the yield strength of 82.7 MPa at 927C. In addition, the TFA continues to carry load beyond 44 Gs. 8 MECHANICAL VIBRATION

Since the TFA strut welds are critical to durability, significant effort was expended on weld process development. Metalographic cut-ups and fatigue testing of specimen specific to the TFA joint geometry were used to evaluate numerous trial welds. Root angle, back gas fixturing, weld wire diameter, weld size and thermal processing were varied to develop the current process. Considerable improvement in the weld quality and consistency were achieved. The welding process is then controlled with a specification to assure the same quality is achieved in production. The asdeveloped weld procedure is rigidly specified. Manufacturing process qualification requires fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI), tensile tests, bend tests and 15 to 20 times magnification examination of weld cut-ups during production. Test coupons are produced at the beginning and ending of each manufacturing lot. The process specification also defines the inspection requirements. Strut alignment, spacing, perpendicularity and weld locations must be verified on a template jig fixture. Flatness and OD strut position are verified with a combination of template and coordinate measurement machine (CMM) inspections. These methods are consistent with the techniques used on earlier TFAs manufactured for prototype testing that have produced durable TFAs. 10 VALIDATION PLAN

Natural frequencies of the struts in the lateral direction were calculated with a handbook formula [14.6] for a fixed-pinned beam and are tabulated in Table 5. The percentage compares to one, two or four per engine revolution or 183, 367 and 733 hertz (hz) for an 11000 revolution per minute turbine shaft. Several natural frequencies are close to excitation. However, the struts must be in contact with the catalyst foil so lateral motion will be resisted by friction at the contact. Critical damping was calculated to judge the adequacy of the friction. Damping due to the foil contact friction divided by critical damping for the four near excitation frequencies are .47 (f1=196.2), .29 (f1=319.8), .50 (f2=184.4) and .14 (f2=637.0) Therefore, because damping is large relative to mass and stiffness, a resonant condition will not produce necessary amplitude for significant vibratory stress. It is highly questionable that the expected stimuli will even overcome the static friction to cause any dynamic motion. In all operation to date, no sign of fretting at the contact has been seen.

To validate the TFA design, measurements and inspections are planned. Metal temperature will be measured for each application and compared to the distribution used in the stress analysis. Should the temperature differ significantly, the analyses will be rerun. Inspections after combustion testing in the laboratory and engine will measure creep deflection, fatigue cracking, oxidation loss and wear, though very little is expected. Similar inspections are planned for the fleet leaders at approximately 1000, 4000 and 8000 operating hours. This includes the prototype Kawasaki M1A-13X at SVP that has over 4000 hours on the TFA design.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

11

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The TFA catalyst support design meets functional requirements and is structurally durable. Turbine engine testing was used to set aerodynamic limits on the geometry while material testing and structural analyses have verified the durability of the design. Nonlinear finite element analyses of the CESI TFA were completed and utilized to predict durability. The analyses included multi-linear kinematic hardening plasticity, creep modeled with a 7 term constitutive equation, large deflection simulation and contact to supporting structures. This high level of analytical complexity was performed to most accurately understand the durability of the TFA. Creep resistance of the TFA was found to be excellent with minimal deformation occurring after 8000 hours. The TFA stress relaxes until obtaining contact at the inner ring with the inner shaft after which creep deflection proceeds at a very low rate. After shutdown at 8000 hours, the inner ring has moved 1.78 millimeters downstream relative to the outer diameter. Deflection beyond this conical shape is only .0232 millimeters about 150 millimeters from the center. Ratcheting does not occur in the TFA. Deflection results indicate no ratcheting and there is no plasticity at full load or at shutdown. Rupture life exceeds 10000 hours at a stress 2.2 times that in the TFA. Fatigue life for test specimen with 2.0 times the TFA extreme operating strain range is 790 cycles to crack initiation. Fracture crack growth of the strut weld joint is estimated to require 5600 cycles to propagate from an incomplete weld through the strut thickness. This conservatively assumes the weld to only penetrate 2/3 of the thickness but relies on data from other superalloys. A weld joint test program has verified the fracture strength of the joint. Buckling stability is robust with a 10 G load causing stress 75 percent of the yield strength. In addition, the TFA continues to carry load beyond 44 Gs. Vibration natural frequencies have been calculated and though close to the engine rotating frequencies, the damping from catalyst contact is high enough compared to critical damping that resonance will not cause significant motion or stress. Manufacturing quality especially of the weld joints has been assured by development of a robust process and precise specification of the manufacturing method followed by inspection procedures. Validation of the TFA durability is ongoing with inspections and measurements of an operating turbine and on several engine combustion system development programs. 12 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

13 REFERENCES 13.1 ANSYS, Inc, Copyright January 2001, ANSYS Rev 5.7, SAS IP, Inc., ANSYS, Inc, Southpointe, 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317. 13.2 Haynes International, Inc, 1996, Haynes 214 Alloy Brochure, H-3008C, Haynes International, Kokomo, IN. 13.3 Metals Technology, Inc Certified Test Report No. 250450, 250451 and 250453, 10/13/98. 13.4 Mar Test Inc. Test Report 234-0009, dated 2/800. 13.5 Purdue Research Foundation, Technical Editor: William F. Brown, Jr., Managing Editor: Chuck Gibson, 1999 Edition, Aerospace Structural Metals Handbook, CINDAS/USAF CRDA Handbooks Operation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, page numbers Code 4112 pages 1-23 and Code 4117 pages 1-58. 13.6 Den Hartog, J. P., 1985, Mechanical Vibrations, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY, page 432. 14 APPENDIX A. HAYNES CREEP DATA

The author is grateful to Haynes International for providing material property data and fabrication information regarding Haynes 214. The funding support from the California Energy Commission used to develop the early catalyst axial support lifing methodology is also appreciated.

10

Copyright 2003 by ASME