4.6 Article

Experimental investigation on dynamic response of flat blades with underplatform dampers

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF AERONAUTICS
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 2667-2678

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2019.04.022

关键词

Effective contact area; Forced response; Friction; Test rig; Turbo machinery; Underplatform dampers

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11772022, 91860205, 51475021]
  2. Key Laboratory of Vibration and Control of Aero-Propulsion System, Ministry of Education, Northeastern University [VCAME201602]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One test rig with three blades and two Under-Platform Dampers (UPDs) is established to better understand the dynamical behavior of blades with UPDs. A pre-loaded spring is used to simulate the centrifugal load acting on the damper, thereby achieving continuous adjustment of the pressing load. UPDs with different forms, sizes and materials are carefully designed as experimental control groups. Noncontact measurement via a laser Doppler velocimeter is employed and contact excitation which is performed by an electromagnetic exciter is adopted to directly obtain the magnitude of the excitation load by a force sensor mounted on the excitation rod. Particular attention is paid to the influence of the contact status of the contact surfaces, e.g. the pressure-sensitive paper is used to measure the effective contact area of the UPDs. The experimental variables are selected as the centrifugal force, the amplitude of the excitation force, the damper mass, the effective contact area, and the damper material. The Frequency Response Function (FRF) of the blade under different experimental parameters is obtained by slow frequency sweep under sinusoidal excitation to study the influence of each parameter on the dynamic characteristics of the blade and the mechanism analysis is carried out combined with the experimental results. (C) 2019 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astrona Lilies. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据