Measurements versus predictions for rotordynamic coefficients and leakage rates for a novel hole-pattern gas seal

Abstract

Results are presented for measured and predicted rotordynamic coefficients and leakage for hole-pattern seals with a hole depth that varies axially along the seal. Testing was done to discover how pressure ratio, inlet preswirl, and rotor speed affect the seals’ rotordynamic characteristics and leakage. The results were compared to a constant hole depth hole-pattern seal. Experimental results show that the seals’ rotordynamic characteristics are not strongly influenced by pressure ratio. There were three preswirl conditions tested, each separated by a 6.9 bar (100 psi) difference in inlet pressure. Therefore, normalized preswirl results were compared. The normalized results indicate that introducing inlet fluid preswirl affects the crosscoupled stiffness and effective damping coefficients. Inlet preswirl increases the magnitude of cross-coupled stiffness. Effective damping decreases with inlet preswirl, as well as the effective damping cross-over frequency increasing. These results indicate that swirl brakes would be of great value. Rotor speed had a significant effect on the cross-coupled coefficients; both increased with speed. Experimental results were compared to results for a constant hole depth holepattern seal. The variable hole-depth seal has higher direct damping. The crosscoupled stiffness and cross-coupled damping coefficients were very similar. The direct stiffness was always lower at lower frequencies and higher at higher frequencies for the variable hole depth hole-pattern seal. This was also the case for effective stiffness. The effective damping of the variable hole-depth seal was not only larger than for the constant hole depth seal, it also had a drastically lower cross-over frequency. The difference in cross-over frequency was 40 percent on average. Experimental results for rotordynamic characteristics and leakage were compared to theoretical predictions by ISOTSEAL 2, a modified version of ISOTSEAL. Both cross-coupled stiffness and damping are reasonably predicted. Direct damping is always under-predicted. ISOTSEAL 2 does a poor job of predicting direct stiffness. Direct stiffness is over-predicted at lower frequencies and under-predicted at higher frequencies. This is also the case for effective stiffness. ISOTSEAL 2 under-predicts the direct damping, but does an excellent job of predicting the direct damping crossover frequency. Seal leakage is well predicted by ISOTSEAL 2.