4.6 Article

Validation of a Modal Work Approach for Forced Response Analysis of Bladed Disks

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11125437

Keywords

blade vibration; forced response; forcing decomposition; cyclic symmetry; modal work

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper introduces a numerical method based on a modal work approach to evaluate the forced response of bladed disks, and validates it against results obtained by a commercial FEM code. The successful validation of the method creates the opportunity to include the tool in an integrated multi-objective process to account for aeromechanical aspects.
The paper describes a numerical method based on a modal work approach to evaluate the forced response of bladed disks and its validation against numerical results obtained by a commercial FEM code. Forcing functions caused by rotor-stator interactions are extracted from CFD unsteady solutions properly decomposed in time and space to separate the spinning perturbation acting on the bladed disk in a cyclic environment. The method was firstly applied on a dummy test case with cyclic symmetry where the forcing function distributions were arbitrarily selected: comparisons for resonance and out of resonance conditions revealed an excellent agreement between the two numerical methods. Finally, the validation was extended to a more realistic test case representative of a low-pressure turbine bladed rotor subjected to the wakes of two upstream rows: an IGV with low blade count and a stator row. The results show a good agreement and suggest computing the forced response problem on the finer CFD blade surface grid to achieve a better accuracy. The successful validation of the method, closely linked to the CFD environment, creates the opportunity to include the tool in an integrated multi-objective procedure able to account for aeromechanical aspects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available