You are on page 1of 51

Turbomachinery

Class 11

1
• Axial Flow Compressors:

• Efficiency Loss:   1.4 
h
• Centrifugal Compressors
 
• Efficiency Loss: 
 4b
• Axial Flow turbines:
• Efficiency Loss:   1.75

h
Baskharone
    rT 
Turbine[ p.294]   K     K  1  0.586Z w3.63
tip
 h   rm 
  E    
Compressor[ p.360]     1  10 ... 
 h  cos  tip  Eh  2
Configuration Selection &
Multidisciplinary Decisions

• Turbomachinery Design Requires Balance Between:

Performance
Weight
Cost

3
Optimization Approach

• A Strategy:
– Find feasible solution(s) within each discipline
– Use each as starting points for multi-disciplined optimization
• Single vs. Multi-Disciplinary Optimization
– A discipline’s potential vs. a balanced design
– Trading away potential in one discipline to improve another (often
to find feasible design space)
• Pointers
– Design variable count: less is more
– Initially utilize large scale perturbations to identify gradients
– Variable side constraints: consult with other disciplines for input
Turbomachinery Design
• Consider Turbine Efficiency & Stress

• Performance - Smith Correlation for simplicity


– "A Simple Correlation of Turbine Efficiency" S. F. Smith,
Journal of Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol 69, July 1965
– Correlation of Rolls Royce data for 70 Turbines
– Shows shape of velocity diagram is important for turbine
efficiency
– Correlation conditions
- Cx approximately constant
- Mach number - low enough
- Reaction - high enough
- Zero swirl at nozzle inlet
- "Good" airfoil shapes
- Corrected to zero clearance 5
6
Smith Turbine Efficiency Correlation

2.8

2.4
Increasing 

2.0

1.6

1.2
94% 92% 90% 88%

0.8
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Cx/u

Note: The sign of E should be negative 7


Turbomachinery Design
• Efficiency Variation on Smith Curve

– Increasing E from 1.33 to 2.4 [more negative] (at


Cx/U=0.6):
• Higher turning increasing profile loss faster than
work.

– Raising Cx/U from 0.76 to 1.13 (at E=1.2):


• Higher velocity causes higher profile loss with no
additional work

– Remember - Mach number will also matter!


8
Smith Turbine Efficiency Correlation

2.8

2.4
Increasing 

2.0

1.6

1.2
94% 92% 90% 88%

0.8
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Cx/u

Note: The sign of E should be negative 9


Typical Optimization Formulations
Aero Structures

Efficiency Weight, Pull

Design Variables Objective Function(s) Thickness distribution


Chord distribution
CG offsets (stacking)

Design Constraints Design point flow & pressure profile Material properties
Off-design lapse Stress
Stability Tuning
Casing clearance Flutter
Airfoil Structural Overview

• Tools
• Hand calculations, finite element analysis

• Design responses: stress, deflection, frequencies, mode


shapes

• Design constraints
• Strength, life
• Tuning
• Aero-elastic stability (flutter)
• HCF [High Cycle Fatigue] margin
Low Cycle Fatigue [LCF] Considerations

• Life Limited Parts Vs Limited Useful Life


– Disks & high pressure cases – removed at end of certified life
– Blades – removed for cause / wear out modes, such as airfoil
erosion
• Assessment
– Attachment fillet Kt’s available via Peterson’s or FEA
– Nominal stress
– S-N curve
Blade Vibration
• Cantilevered structures attain various modes: bending, torsion,
coupled bending / torsion
• Each mode has its own natural frequency
• Effect of rotation [shaft] is to stiffen structure and raise natural
frequency
• Structural design should be resonance free operating condition
at: design speed, idle speed and other key operating points
• Campbell diagram shows possible matches [Excitation] between
vibrational mode frequencies and multiples of shaft rotation [N]
• Multiples of N caused by stators, blades, struts in neighboring
rows

• Examples:
– Forced spring – mass damping
– Chinook helicopter
13
Motion of a damped spring-mass system

k
my / /  cy /  ky  0 where 0   natural frequency of system
m
2
 c 
Cases : 1     0  0  signal decays  overdamped
2

 2m 
2
 c 
2     2
0  0  critically damped
 2m 
2
 c 
3    0  0  underdamped
2

 2m 

14
Forced motion: Damped spring-mass system

my  cy  ky  A cos[t ]
// /

15
CHINOOK HELICOPTER

16
Airfoil Tuning Represented on Campbell
Diagram

• Airfoil frequency vs. rpm


• Excitation orders
– Static flow disturbance
relative to the rotating frame
– Source = inlet distortions
– Freq = EO*RPM/60
• Project Requirements
– 1st bending @ RL > 20%
– 2nd & 3rd modes @ RL > 5%
18
19
HCF Strength Assessed with Goodman Diagram

AMS4928 R=-1 Goodman Diagram


Smooth, Minimum Properties

Alternating
Vibratory Stress (ksi, 0-peak)

Strength

Vibratory Limit

Ultimate
Strength
Steady Limit

Steady Stress (ksi)


Stresses

21
Secondary Air Systems

22
S R S R

23
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations

Centrifugal stresses in rotating components


• Rotor airfoil stresses
– Centrifugal due to blade rotation [cent]
• Rim web thickness
– Rotating airfoil inserted into solid annulus (disk rim).
– Airfoil hub tensile stress smeared out over rim
• Disk stress [disk]
– Torsional: Tangential disk stress required to transfer
shaft horsepower to the airfoils
– Thermal: Stresses arising from radial thermal
gradients
• Cyclic effect called low-cycle fatigue (LCF)
24
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations

• Blade pitch [s] at Rmean chosen for performance s/b, h/b values
• Need to check if [s] too small for disc rim attachment
• number of blades have an upper limit
• Fir tree holds blade from radial movement, cover plates for axial
• slight movement allowed to damp unwanted vibrations
• manufacturing tolerances critical in fir tree region 25
Structural Design Considerations
• Airfoil Centrifugal Stress
Blade of constant cross section has mass:
dFcentrifugal   2 Rdm   2 R[  m AdR ]
d cent . dFcentrifugal
   2 RdR
m m A
for constant blade cross  sec tional area
 cent .
RT
U  2
 RH  
2

   RdR 
2
1  
T
 
m 2   RT  
RH  
 cent .  0.5 m  2 N 2  2  rT2  rH2  
An

M D  DR DT  DR
Pull  B  r  2 h T rm  26
g 2 4
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations
Centrifugal stress is limited by blade material properties

Blade Pull P [lbf ]


 c  Stress    2  [ psi ]
Blade cross section area Acs [in ]
MB
Pull   r  2
g
DT  DH DT  DH 2 N  N
Rmean     [rad / s ]
2  2  12 2  2  12 60 30
M  mass   metal Lmetal Acs  0.28 lbm / in3 [ for steel ]
DT  DH
Lblade  [in]
2
P   DT  DH  DT  DH  2  metal Aan N 2
 c  Stress       N 
Acs   2  2  g  12  900  2 790, 000

27
Aan
28
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations
Centrifugal stress is limited by blade material properties
L

Cent. bending

Gas bending

From Rear

29
Mechanical Design – Minimizing Root Moments

Pull

CG

Air pressure

Blade is balanced about rim to minimize


CG Offset
Bearing stress maldistribution

Bending stress on disk web

Disk rim rolling

Blade airfoil is tilted to offset root bending stresses

Axial & tangential tilts


Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations

• Bending stress on a cantilevered bead under aerodynamic


loading [Kerrebrock]

2
 Cx   s   rT 
 bending  p    s  1    
U T   2c   tmax 

c/s=
• Centrifugal stress is typically larger than bending stress

31
Typical Centrifugal Stress Values

Compressor Turbine
3
 Slugs/ft 9.0 15.0
N RPM 10,000 10,000
A ft2 2.0 1.0
AN2 in2-RPM2 2.88 x 1010 1.44 x 1010
rT/rH 0.8 8.8
c psi 19,630 16,360

32
Typical Centrifugal Stress Values
First stage turbine : T0  1200 K p0  4.0 bar
rT  0.75 m rH  0.51 m N  10,500 rev / min
Rmean  50%   0.7 E  2.5 []

1  stator inlet 2  stator exit 3  rotor exit


E  h0 / U 2  C3u  C2u  / U  C3u  W3u  U C2u  W2u  U
E  W3u  W2u  / U    tan 3  tan  2 
R    tan  3  tan  2  / 2    3  68.2  2  46.98
For R  50%   2  3  2  2
at rm   rT  rH  / 2  0.315 U m  2 Nrm  346.4 mps
C x   U m  242.45 mps C2  C x / cos  2  652.86 mps 33
Typical Centrifugal Stress Values
Given  stator  96%
T2  T02  C22 / 2c p  1016.3 K
 /   1
p2  1  T2  
 1     p2  1.986 bar
p01    T01  
m   2 A2C x 2  39.1 kg / s

For tapered blade of material  m  8, 000 kg / m3


2  412.3   0.51  2 
2

c  8, 000 1      2.437 MPa


3 2   0.75  
Need to determine if blade with this stress level will last 1000hr to rupture
34
Turbo Design - Structural Considerations

• Airfoils inserted into slots of otherwise solid


annulus [rim]
• Airfoil tensile stress is treated as ‘smeared
out’ over rim

 c nblades Ahub
 disk blades 
2 r[x]rim
• Disk supports rim and connects to shaft

35
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations
• The average tangential stress due to inertia then is:

FV 2 I
t   
2A A
• The contribution of the external force to the average
tangential stress is
Frim
2A
• so that the total average tangential stress becomes:

I Frim
 t   
2

A 2A 36
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations

• For the same speed and pull, the average tangential


stress can be reduced by:

I Frim
 t   
2

A 2A

– increasing disk cross sectional area

– decreasing disk polar moment of inertia - moving


mass to ID of disk
37
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations
• Stress and major flow design parameters (, E) relate directly to
achievable 
• Recalling from Dimensional Analysis:

Cx m m 1 N
  
U  AU  AN 2 D
C m1 N
 x
U  D
m N

 D

• Higher stress () at constant N and Dmean occurs on longer


blades and lower flow coefficient () 38
Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations
• Also :
h0 Cx m 1 N
E 2 2  
N D U  D
• Flow, Density & Work are set by cycle requirements

• Stress (P/A) capability is set by material, temperature,


& blade configuration

• Parametric effects
– increased N  increased  (to first order), decreased E (to 2nd
order)
– increased D  decreased  (to first order), decreased E (to
2nd order)
39
Smith Turbine Efficiency Correlation

2.8

2.4

+20% Stress
2.0
E
1.6
+20% D +20% N

1.2
94% 92% 90% 88%

0.8
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Cx/u

Plot shows effect of +20% change in N, D & stress on Cx/U, E, and Efficiency.
40
Stress changes allowable blade height or annulus area.
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Objective: to illustrate interaction of several design parameters
– , stress level (cent), x, cost, weight flowpath dimensions
• Design a baseline turbine and 3 alternative configurations
– Dmean or weight and cost on 
– Aan or Cx or weight on 
– Stress level on 
• All turbine designs have the following conditions
m  50 lbm / s Cx1  Cx 2
p01  200 psia  28,800 psf T01  2200 R
Dmean1  Dmean 2 R  50%
span L
AR    1.0 h0 same
bx bx
2 cos  2 bx bx nb
Zw  sin   1.0 where  x    b x
 x cos 1 s  Dmean1 / nb   D41mean1
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Design: fill in the missing blanks in the table below

Parameter Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3


E -2.0
 0.9
N [rpm] 15,000 Base
Aan [in2] +15% Base
AanN2 [in2/min2] Base Base +21%
Dmean [in] +15% Base Base
nb
x
 [%]

• Account for tip clearance losses as a 2% debit in efficiency


• Remember cent  AanN2 and cost  blade count (nb)
42
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Base Case: Assume only for this case M1=0.8 is given.

C   1 2 
1/ 2
C C a C T C
M 1  0.8  1  1 0  1 0  1 f ( M 1 )  1 1  M1 
a1 a0 a1 a0 T1 a0 a0  2 

C1
 0.7532 C1  1731.9 fps
a0

2  E  2 R 2  (2)  2  0.5
tan 1    1.666  1  590    2
2 2  0.9

Cx1  C1 cos 1  1731.9  cos(59)  891.0 fps

43
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Base Case: Assume only for this case M1=0.8 is given.

U  Cx /  891.0 / 0.9  990 fps

U  120U
Dmean  2 Rmean 2   1.2605 ft  15.126 in
  2 N / 60  2  15, 000

m T01
Aan1   0.3087 ft 2  44.45 in 2
p01 cos 1MFP( M 1 )

L  Aan /( Dmean )  44.45 /(  15.126)  0.93 in

bx  L / AR  L  0.93 in
44
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Base Case:

Aan N 2  44.45  15, 0002  1x1010 [in 2 / min 2 ]

2R  E 2  0.5  2
tan 1     0.5555  1  29.00 [ by convention]
2 2  0.9

    29  (59)  88

2 cos 59
x  sin 88  1.177
Z w cos 29

 x Dmean
nb   60.14  Number of airfoils  60
bx
45
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Base Case:

Find h0
EU 2
 h0   78.28 Btu / lbm
gJ

Find  from Smith turbine correlation


 E  2.0,   0.9    90.7  2.0 (tip clearance)  88.7

46
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem

• Baseline Design:
Parameter Base
E -2.0
 0.9
N [rpm] 15,000
Aan [in2] 44.45 • Account for tip clearance losses
AanN2 [in2/min2] 1x!010 as a 2% debit in efficiency
Dmean [in] 15.126
nb 60
x 1.177 • Remember cent  AanN2 and
 [%] 88.7 cost  blade count (nb)
1 [degrees] 59
M1 0.80 Aan N 2
 c  Stress  [ psi]
 [turning, degs.] 88.00 790,000
47
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Alternate Design 1: Given N, Aan1N2, Dmean1

U increased by 15%  U  1.15U base  1.15  990  1139.0 fps


Dmean increased by 15%  Dmean  1.15Dbase  15.126  1.15  17.39 in
Aan N 2  constant, therefore compute new span L
1x1010
L  Aan N /( Dmean N ) 
2 2
 0.813 in
  17.39  15, 000 2

Aan   Dmean L    17.39  0.813  44.42 in 2


bx  L / AR  0.813 in
h0 78.28  32.174  778
E 2
 2
 1.511
U /( gJ ) 1139
2  E  2 R 2  (1.511)  2(0.5) 1.255
tan 1   
2 2 
48
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Alternate Design 1:

Guess 1
1.0883m T01 1.0883  50 2200 0.2873
FP0     Get M 1
p01 Aan1 cos 1 200    17.14  0.825cos 1 cos 1
1/ 2
C1   1 2 
 f ( M 1 )  M 1 1  M1   Get C1
a0  2 
Cx C1  RT01 C 49.02 2200 C
  cos 1  1 cos 1  2.018 1 cos 1  Get 
U a0 U a0 1139.0 a0
1  tan 1 (1.255 /  )
C1
Unknowns : M 1 , 1 , , with 4 equations  set up iteration
a0
Solution : 1  58.80    2   Cx / U  0.7527
49
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Alternate Design 1:
1  58.80    2   Cx / U  0.7527
E  2R 1.511  2  0.5
tan 1      1  18.75
2 2  0.7527
    18.75  (58.8)  77.550
Determine solidity from Z w
2 cos(58.8)
x  sin(77.55)  1.068
Z w cos(18.75)
Determine the number of airfoils
 D 1.068  17.39
nb  x mean   71.76  nb  72
bx 0.8
Determine turbine efficiency
 [ from Smith chart ]  93.3%  2%[tip clarance]  91.3%
50
Turbomachinery Gaspath Design Problem
• Summary

Parameter Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3


E -2.0 -1.511
 0.9 07527
N [rpm] 15,000 15,000
Aan [in2] 44.45 44.45 +15% Base
AanN2 [in2/min2] 1x!010 1x!010 Base +21%
Dmean [in] 15.126 17.39 Base Base
nb 60 72
x 1.177 1.068
 [%] 88.7 91.3
1 [degrees] 59 58.6
M1 0.80 0.76
 [turning, degs.] 88.00 77.55

51