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
    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

## – 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

## 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
• 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

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
• 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
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

CG Offset
Bearing stress maldistribution

## Axial & tangential tilts

Turbomachinery Design
Structural Considerations

## • Bending stress on a cantilevered bead under aerodynamic

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

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

## – 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,

• 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