1 / 37

Metal Mesh Foil Bearings: Prototype Test Rig Demonstrations

Explore the measurements and identification of structural properties in metal mesh foil bearings for oil-free turbomachinery. Conducted at the 29th Turbomachinery Research Consortium Meeting in May 2009. This project delves into the performance characteristics of metal mesh foil bearings.

jodye
Download Presentation

Metal Mesh Foil Bearings: Prototype Test Rig Demonstrations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 29th Turbomachinery Research Consortium Meeting May 2009 Measurements of Drag Torque, Lift-off Speed and Identification of Structural Stiffness and Damping in a Metal Mesh Foil Bearing TRC-B&C-3-09 Luis San Andrés Thomas Abraham Chirathadam Tae-Ho Kim Project title : Metal Mesh Foil Bearings for Oil-Free Turbomachinery: Test Rig for prototype demonstrations TRC Funded Project, TEES #32513/1519 V2

  2. TRC Project: Tasks 08/09 • Construction of • Metal Mesh Foil Bearing (MMFB) Test Rig • MMFB performance characteristics • Bearing drag torque • Lift- Off Speed • Top Foil Temperature • Identification of force coefficients (Impact load tests) with and w/o shaft rotation • Structural stiffness and • equivalent viscous damping Current research builds upon earlier work on metal mesh dampers conducted by Prof. John Vance and students

  3. Top Foil Metal mesh ring Metal Mesh Foil Bearing (MMFB) MMFB COMPONENTS: Bearing Cartridge, Metal mesh ring and Top Foil Hydrodynamic air film develops between rotating shaft and top foil. Potential applications:ACMs, micro gas turbines, turbo expanders, turbo compressors, turbo blowers, automotive turbochargers, APU • Large damping (material hysteresis) offered by metal mesh • Tolerant to misalignment, and applicable to a wide temperature range • Suitable tribological coatings needed to reduce friction at start-up & shutdown Cartridge

  4. Metal Mesh Foil Bearings (+/-) No lubrication (oil-free). NO High or Low temperature limits. Resilient structure with lots of material damping. Simple construction ( in comparison to bump-type foil bearings) Cost effective, uses common materials • Metal mesh creeps or sag with operation & time • Near absence of predictive models (bearing mainly) • Damping is NOT viscous. Modeling difficulties

  5. MMFB assembly Simple construction and assembly procedure METAL MESH RING BEARING CARTRIDGE TOP FOIL

  6. MMFB dimensions and specifications PICTURE

  7. MMFB rotordynamic test rig MMFB Journal press fitted on Shaft Stub cm 15 10 5 0 (a) Static shaft TC cross-sectional view Ref. Honeywell drawing # 448655 Max. operating speed: 75 krpm Turbocharger driven rotor Regulated air supply: 9.30bar (120 psig) Twin ball bearing turbocharger, Model T25, donated by Honeywell Turbo Technologies Test Journal: length 55 mm, 28 mm diameter , Weight=0.22 kg

  8. 5 cm Test Rig: Torque & Lift-Off measurements Thermocouple Force gauge String to pull bearing Shaft (Φ 28 mm) Static load MMFB Top foil fixed end Torque arm Positioning (movable) table Preloading using a rubber band Eddy current sensor Calibrated spring

  9. Test procedure • Sacrificial layer of MoS2 applied on top foil surface • Mount MMFB on shaft of TC rig. Apply static horizontal load • High Pressure cold air drives the ball bearing supported Turbo Charger. Oil cooled TC casing • Air inlet gradually opened to raise the turbine shaft speed. Valve closing to decelerate rotor to rest • Torque and shaft speed measured during the entire experiment. All experiments repeated thrice.

  10. Shaft speed and torque vs time Constant speed ~ 65 krpm Valve open Valve close 3 N-mm • Applied Load: 17.8 N Rotor starts Rotor stops WD= 3.6 N • Manual speed up to 65 krpm, steady state operation, and deceleration to rest Iift off speed • Startup torque ~ 110 Nmm • Shutdown torque ~ 80 Nmm • Once airborne, drag torque is ~ 3 % of Startup ‘breakaway’ torque Lift off speed at lowest torque : airborne operation Top shaft speed = 65 krpm

  11. Varying steady state speed & torque Rotor starts Rotor stops • Manual speed up to 65 krpm, steady state operation, and deceleration to rest 50 krpm 61 krpm 24 krpm 37 krpm • Drag torque decreases with step wise reduction in rotating speed until the journal starts rubbing the bearing 57 N-mm 45 N-mm 2.5 N-mm 2.4 N-mm 2.0 N-mm 1.7 N-mm Side load = 8.9 N WD= 3.6 N Shaft speed changes every 20 s : 65 – 50 – 37 - 24 krpm

  12. Startup torque vs applied static load Top foil with worn MoS2 layer shows higher startup torques Worn MoS2 layer Fresh coating of MoS2 Larger difference in startup torques at higher static loads Startup Torque : Peak torque measured during startup Dry sliding operation

  13. DRY friction coefficient vs static load 0.5 0.4 0.3 Friction coefficient [-] 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 Static load [N] Friction coefficient f = (Torque/Radius)/(Static load) With increasing operation cycles, the MoS2 layer wears away, increasing the contact or dry-friction coefficient. Worn MoS2 layer Enduring coating on top foil required for efficient MMFB operation! Fresh MoS2 layer Dry sliding operation

  14. Data derived from bearing torque and rotor speed vs time data Bearing drag torque vs rotor speed Side load increases WD= 3.6 N Steady state bearing drag torque increases with static load and rotor speed 4.5 35.6 N (8 lb) 4 Rotor not lifted off 26.7 N (6 lb) 3.5 3 17.8 N (4 lb) 2.5 Bearing torque [N-mm] 8.9 N (2 lb) 2 1.5 Increasing static load (Ws) to 35.6 N (8 lb) 1 0.5 Dead weight (WD= 3.6 N) 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Rotor speed [krpm] airborne operation

  15. Friction coefficient vs rotor speed 8.9 N (2 lb) 17.8 N (4 lb) 26.7 N (6 lb) 35.6 N (8 lb) Friction coefficient f = (Torque/Radius)/(Static load) Friction coefficient f increases with rotor speed almost linearly Increasing static load (Ws) to 35.6 N (8 lb) Dead weight (WD= 3.6 N) f decreases with increasing static load airborne operation

  16. Bearing drag torque vs rotor speed Lift-off speed 35.6 N (8 lb) 26.7 N (6 lb) 17.8 N (4 lb) 8.9 N (2 lb) Rotor accelerates Max. Uncertainty ± 0.35 N-mm Bearing drag torque increases with increasing rotor speed and increasing applied static loads. Lift-Off speed increases almost linearly with static load

  17. Lift-Off speedvs applied static load Side load increases WD= 3.6 N Lift-Off Speed: Rotor speed beyond which drag torque is significantly small, compared to Startup Torque Lift-Off Speed increases ~ linearly with static load

  18. Friction coefficient vs rotor speed 8.9 N (2 lb) 17.8 N (4 lb) 26.7 N (6 lb) 35.6 N (8 lb) Friction coefficient ( f ) decreases with increasing static load f ~ 0.01 f rapidly decreases initially, and then gradually raises with increasing rotor speed Rotor accelerates Dry sliding Airborne (hydrodynamic)

  19. Top foil temperature (bearing outboard) 35.6 N (8 lb) 26.7 N (6 lb) 17.8 N (4 lb) 8.9 N (2 lb) INCREASING STATIC LOAD Room Temperature : 21°C • Top foil temperature measured at MMFB outboard end Side load increases Top Foil Temperature increases with Static Load and Rotor Speed Only small increase in temperature for the range of applied loads and rotor speeds

  20. 5 cm Test Setup : Impact Load Test IMPACT HAMMER TC MMFB Top foil fixed end Force gauge Journal (28 mm) Flexible string Eddy current sensor Accelerometers (Not visible in this view) (FRONT VIEW) Positioning table (SIDE VIEW) TC MMFB Accelerometer Eddy current sensor Journal (28 mm) (TOP VIEW)

  21. In frequency domain Identification model, in frequency domain Identification model 1-DOF mechanical system • Assembly mass, M = 0.38 kg • Impact along Y direction only SHAFT STATIONARY: NOT ROTATING

  22. Y Impact force • Shaft not rotating Time domain • Frequency domain averages of 10 impacts along vertical (Y) direction Frequency domain

  23. Bearing displacement • Shaft not rotating Time domain • Frequency domain averages of 10 impacts along vertical (Y) direction Y Time [s] Rapidly decaying amplitude shows large damping from MMFB Frequency domain

  24. Acceleration derived from relative displacement of bearing cartridge and shaft Measured acceleration Bearing acceleration • Journal not rotating Time domain Y TC shaft stub is flexible AY≠ -ω2 Y Frequency domain

  25. Curve Fit – Identifying Static Stiffness and Mass Curve fit Estimated test system natural frequency fn = (KY/M)0.5 = 89 Hz • Journal not rotating Re (F/Y) = Kest + Mest* Re (A/Y) Critical damping Ccrit=2*(KYM)0.5 = 423 N.s/m Kest = 1.179 * 105 N/m Mest = 0.379 kg

  26. Identified MMFB structural stiffness Kest = 1.179 * 105 N/m • Journal not rotating Structural stiffness decreases (10%) initially ( 50-85 Hz), but increases with further increase in frequency. KY = Re {(F - MestAy)/Y}

  27. CYY = Im Identified eq.viscous damping • Journal not rotating Equivalent viscous damping decreases with increasing frequency MMFB shows lots of damping, making test system just below critically damped Ccrit=2*(KYM)0.5 = 423 N.s/m

  28. Aluminum foam bearings DONATED by CIATEQ A.C. Aluminum foam is stiff & brittle – Not recommended for use as structural support of foil bearing

  29. Conclusions • TC driven MMFB rotordynamic test rig to measure bearing drag torque, bearing displacements and acceleration. Operates up to 70 krpm • Bearing startup torque, increases with applied static loads. A sacrificial coating of MoS2 reduces start up torque • Bearing drag torque, while bearing is airborne, increases with static load and rotor speed • Top foil steady state temperature – increases with static load and rotor speed • Impact tests: shows MMFB has large damping; its stiffness gradually increases with frequency, except while traversing the bearing natural frequency

  30. Backup Slides

  31. TAMU past work (Metal Mesh Dampers) METAL MESH DAMPERS provide large amounts of damping. Inexpensive. Oil-free Zarzour and Vance (2000)J. Eng. Gas Turb. & Power, Vol. 122 Advantages of Metal Mesh Dampers over SFDs Capable of operating at low and high temperatures No changes in performance if soaked in oil Al-Khateeb and Vance (2001)GT-2001-0247 Test metal mesh donut and squirrel cage( in parallel) MM damping not affected by modifying squirrel cage stiffness Choudhry and Vance (2005)Proc. GT2005 Develop design equations, empirically based, to predict structural stiffness and viscous damping coefficient

  32. 08 TRC: MMFB Research at TAMU San Andres, L., Chirathadam, T.A., and Kim, T.H., (2009)GT-2009-59315 Static Load Test Setup Load cell Eddy Current sensor Stationary shaft Lathe tool holder Test MMFB Lathe tool holder moves forward and backward : push and pull forces on MMFB

  33. 08 TRC: MMFB Research at TAMU MMFB wire density ~ 20% 3 Cycles: loading & unloading Large hysteresis loop : Mechanical energy dissipation Push load Start Pull load Hysteresis loop Displacement: [-0.06,0.06] mm Load: [-130, 90 ]N

  34. 08 TRC: MMFB Research MMFB wire density ~ 20% During Load reversal : jump in structural stiffness Push load Pull load Max. Stiffness ~ 4 MN/m Start

  35. 08 TRC: MMFB Research Dynamic Load Test Setup Accelerometer Force transducer MMFB Motion amplitude controlled mode • 12.7, 25.4 &38.1 μm • Frequency of excitation : • 25 – 400 Hz (25 Hz interval) Electrodyamic shaker Test shaft Test shaft Fixture Eddy Current sensors

  36. 08 TRC: MMFB Research Structural stiffness decrease with increasing motion amplitudes Stiffness increases gradually with Frequency

  37. 08 TRC: MMFB Research Eq. Viscous damping decreases with increasing motion amplitudes Damping decreases rapidly with frequency

More Related