Measurements Versus Predictions for Rotordynamic and Leakage Characteristics of a Convergent-Tapered, Honeycomb-Stator/Smooth-Rotor Annular Gas Seal

Abstract

Measured results are presented for rotordynamic coefficients and leakage rates for two honeycomb-stator seal geometries, a convergent-tapered honeycomb seals (CTHC) and a constant-clearance honeycomb seals (CCHC) tested by Sprowl and Childs in 2007. The rotor diameter was 114.3 mm (4.500 in). The CTHC seals had inlet and exit clearances of 0.334 and 0.204 mm, respectively. The CCHC seal had a constant clearance of 0.204 mm. Honeycomb cells had depths of 3.175 mm (0.125 in) and widths of 0.79 mm (0.031 in). Measurements are reported with air as the test fluid, zero preswirl, ω = 20,200 rpm, a supply pressure of 69 bar (1,000 psi) and supply temperature of 18°C (64.4°F) for both seal geometries. The test pressure ratios are 0.5 for the CCHC seal, and 0.46 for the CTHC seal. The tapered seal leaks about 20% more than the constant-clearance seal. Measured and predicted dynamic coefficients are strong functions of excitation frequency. The measured direct stiffness coefficient was higher for the tapered seal at all excitation frequencies, including a projection to zero frequency, where the CCHC seal was on the order of −2MN/m versus roughly +13MN/m for the tapered seal. The CTHC seal had higher cross-coupled stiffness coefficients than the CCHC seal at all excitation frequencies. The CCHC and CTHC seals had comparable direct damping out to ∼80 Hz. For higher excitation frequencies, the CTHC seal had larger direct damping values. The effective damping Ceff combines the positive effect of direct damping and the destabilizing effect of cross-coupled-stiffness coefficients. It is negative at low frequencies and becomes positive for higher frequencies. The frequency at which it changes sign is called the cross-over frequency. The CCHC had a lower cross-over frequency (better from a stability viewpoint) and higher Ceff values out to ∼80 Hz. At higher excitation frequencies from ∼120Hz onward, the tapered seal has higher effective damping values. Kleynhans and Childs’ 1997 two-control-volume model did a generally good job of predicting the direct stiffness coefficients of both seals. It closely predicted the cross-coupled stiffness coefficients for the CCHC seal but substantially under predicted the values for the CTHC seal. It under predicted the direct damping for the CCHC seal at frequencies below ∼120Hz, but did a good job for higher frequencies. It under predicted direct damping for the CTHC seal at all frequencies. For the CCHC seal, the model did a good job of predicting Ceff at all frequencies and also accurately predicted the cross-over frequency. For the CTHC seal, the model accurately predicted the cross-over frequency but over predicted Ceff below the cross-over frequency (the seal was more destabilizing than predicted) and under predicted Ceff at higher frequencies.