Cae Based Brush Seal Characterization For Stiffness and Stress
Cae Based Brush Seal Characterization For Stiffness and Stress
Cae Based Brush Seal Characterization For Stiffness and Stress
GT2015
June 15 – 19, 2015, Montréal, Canada
GT2015-44068
Murat Ozmusul
SDM R&D
Istanbul, Turkey
B31 bristles
d=0.1016mm
Default beam
SA NR = 15
integration in space
Figure 2: B31 space beam with circular cross-section, integration Bristles are constrained
points (3 points radially, 8 points circumferentially, 17 in total) at the pinch point.
[12]
Brush seal FE model has also been constructed by using the BACKING PLATE
B31 elements for bristles, as shown in Fig. 3. Unwrapped seal- ROTOR
rotor geometry has been used for this model, and cyclic boundary
conditions have been defined in circumferential direction. Inter-
bristle, bristle-rotor and backing-plate-bristle frictional contacts
have also been defined in this model. Rotor and backing plate
have been modeled as rigid bodies, and backing plate corner
radius has been introduced at FH region.
The pressure profile for a loaded seal is extracted from the 7th
order polynomial fit to experimental data (in seal radial
direction) of Bayley et al. [13] and Turner et al. [14]. Linear
pressure drop is used through the bristle pack in rotor axial
direction (Almost linear pressure drop at fence height region has Cyclic BC is defined in
been reported in the literature [15, 16]). Pressure profile for circumferential direction
brush seal FE models using C3D8I and B31 elements are given
in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively. ST
Bristles are modeled by using Haynes 25 material properties,
which is typically preferred in most of turbine sealing
applications due to their superior strength and satisfactory Backing plate corner
radius is introduced
ductility (up to 600oC). Cold worked Haynes 25 material with
in the CAE model
10% cold reduction has 725MPa tensile yield strength and
1070MPa ultimate tensile strength limits at room temperature
[17].
Analyses have been conducted by using two CAE models,
one of which has bristles with C3D8I elements and the other one
has B31 bristles. Three different cases have been simulated:
Free-state static rotor interference (unloaded seal), Pressurized
static rotor interference (loaded seal and non-rotating rotor rub) SA
and steady state conditions (pressure load only). Analyses results
are compared with each other as well as with the BTF
measurements on RTR-stiffness test rig given in Figures 6 and 7.
BACKING PLATE
Figure 4: Brush seal CAE model-C3D8I, Pressure load profile Free-state rotor interference simulations have been run up to
Bristles are constrained 0.6 mm, and BTF (Bristle Tip Force) levels are extracted and
at the pinch point. compared with the Rotary Test Rig stiffness measurements. As it
can be seen from the Fig. 8, results of both simulations show
good agreement with the test data. Please note that the upper
limit for all figures of this study are normalized by dividing the
respective forces by the maximum force measured in all of the
BACKING PLATE
tests.
Brush seal structural analyses using C3D8I and B31 elements
have also been conducted at 0.3MPa pressure load and up to 0.4
mm rotor rub. BTF results of those analyses and their
comparison with the RTR-BTF measurements are detailed in
Fig. 9. As it can be seen from Fig. 9, the real testing conditions
have been simulated successfully both in loading and unloading
FH steps with the brush seal model using C3D8I elements, which is
mainly the result of detailed contact modeling as well as the
ROTOR defined pressure load which creates additional bristle moment
profile of real life application. Pressure stiffening, BTF
stabilization and pressurized hysteresis can successfully be
Figure 5: Brush seal CAE model-B31, Pressure load profile simulated with CAE analyses with C3D8I elements. CAE
analyses with B31 elements also give consistent results with tests
in the loading step. However, the CAE model with B31 elements
cannot simulate the unloading step and pressurized hysteresis;
therefore BTF values obtained from B31 analyses deviate from
test results and CAE-C3D8I simulations while rotor is being
pulled back. The reason for zero BTF values in unloading step
of CAE-B31 elements is the applied equivalent line loads instead
of pressure, which result in bristle hung-up at any magnitude of
pressure load, even in very low magnitudes.
Steady state analyses have also been run by using two seal
models, and stress levels are compared with each other.
Simulations have been run under the pressure load of 0.3MPa.
σVM-Row15-FH = 35MPa
σVM-Row1-FH = 125MPa
Undeformed
bristle pack
Figure 11: Pressure load without rotor interference – CAE- Brush seal characterization study will be performed by
B31, VM stress profile at ΔP=0.3 MPa conducting approximately 60-70 analyses, which means pre-
processing periods up to 200 days and unnecessary burden. In
Pressure load without rotor interference for Test Seals order to shorten pre-processing periods, in-house software
Comparison of CAE Analyses and Analytical Studies (Brush Seal Analyzer) has been developed, which construct the
ΔP=0.3 MPa
ABAQUS input file automatically from seal parameters. The
CAE
software shortens the pre-processing time requirements to 1-2
CAE-C3D8I CAE-B31
Max. displacement magnitude 0.42 mm 0.39 mm minutes, which enables efficient FE modeling.
Initial pack thickness 1.68 mm 1.68 mm
Deformed pack thickness 1.34 mm 1.34 mm BRUSH SEAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR STIFFNESS
Decrease in pack thickness 25% 25% AND STRESS CHARACTERIZATION
Backing plate side FH point 125.00 MPa 99.20 MPa Brush seal characterization studies have been performed for
(downstream, 1st row) Pinch point ~15 MPa ~7 MPa seal design parameters of bristle diameter, d, free bristle height,
Table 1: Pressure load without rotor interference for Test Seals – BH and cant angle, θ. Effect of those parameters on BTF and
Comparison of CAE analyses and analytical studies stress levels have been examined in free-state rotor excursion,
steady state and pressurized-rotor interference conditions.
SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FE METHODOLOGY Nominal values for design parameters and friction coefficients
Two different CAE methodologies have been developed are given in Tab. 3. While the effect of specific parameter on
within the content of this study, one of which uses C3D8I brush seal behavior is being analyzed, nominal values are used
elements for bristles, and the second methodology runs the FE for other parameters. Brush seal design parameters are also
model having B31 elements. CAE analyses and correlation visualized in Figures 12 and 13.
studies show that B31 elements show good agreement with BTF
measurements, yet they have shorter simulation times when Brush Seal Design Parameters – Nominal Values
compared with CAE-C3D8I simulations. The hardware Bristle diameter, d [mm] 0.10
requirements and CPU requirements for two different models are Free bristle height, BH [mm] 12.50
summarized in Tab. 2. Fence height, FH [mm] 1.35
Cant angle, θ [deg] 45
As summarized in tabulated values, CAE-C3D8I simulations Bristle density, η [per mm] 80
take 5-6 days while CAE-B31 analyses are completed less than Number of bristle rows, NR 12
an hour. In addition to that, the output file sizes on disk for CAE- Rotor-bristle friction coefficient, µrb 0.30
Inter-bristle and bristle-backing plate friction
C3D8I analyses are at the levels of 50-60GB. On the contrary 0.30
coefficient, µib= µbp
CAE-B31 “.odb” file sizes are as small as several kilobytes.
Other Parameters
Considering that the characterization study requires variety of Bristle elastic modulus, E [MPa] 225000
analyses, and bearing in mind that CAE-B31 simulations show Bristle poisson’s ratio, υ 0.3
good agreement with tests, CAE-B31 FE model is used for brush Backing plate corner radius [mm] 0.10
seal stiffness and friction characterization. Pressure load, ∆P [MPa] 0.30
Table 3: CAE based brush seal characterization – Nominal values
for design parameters
ST
DETAIL B
Staggered configuration for an unloaded seal
Figure 13: Typical brush seal design parameters
Figure 17: Change of BTF (normalized) with free bristle height, As detailed in the previous pages, FH point is critical for
Unpressurized-nonrotating rotor interference-loading step steady state conditions since pressure load causes localized
bristle contact at backing plate corner radius. Therefore, steady
state characterization studies mainly focus on stress magnitudes
at that critical section. VM stress levels at FH point of backing
plate side bristles and their change with bristle free height is
detailed in Fig. 18 for steady state conditions at ∆P=0.3 MPa. As
it can be seen from the figure, VM stress level decreases as BH
takes larger values, which can be better explained by examining
the downstream side deformation profile (Fig. 19). As detailed
in the previous chapters with advanced CAE analyses, FH point
stress peaks under pressure load are mainly due to localized
contact induced by different bending characteristics of overhung
portion (aft bending) and bristle portion above FH (forward
bending). Keeping the FH same, the bristle length above the FH
regions become longer with BH, and forward bending as well as
Figure 18: Change of backing plate side FH point-VM stress levels the aft bending decreases, which in turn cause less severe
with free bristle height, steady state conditions at ∆P=0.3 MPa localization of contact. As a result of this, difference between aft
and forward bending decreases for larger BH values, which in