1

ASME Turbo Expo 2011: Power for Land, Sea and Air June 6-10, 2011, Vancouver, BC
Luis San Andres
Mast-Childs Tribology Professor
Turbomachinery Laboratory
Texas A&M University
ASME GT2011-45264
Rotordynamic Force
Coefficients of Bubbly Mixture
Annular Pressure Seals
Accepted for publication J Eng. Gas Turb. Power
Presentation available at http://rotorlab.tamu.edu
Supported by TAMU Turbomachinery Laboratory (Prof. D. Childs)
2
Annular Pressure Seals
Seals in a Multistage Centrifugal Pump or Compressor
Radial seals (annular, labyrinth or honeycomb) separate regions of high
pressure and low pressure and their principal function is to minimize the
leakage (secondary flow); thus improving the overall efficiency of a rotating
machine extracting or delivering power to a fluid.

Impeller eye or
neck ring seal
Balance piston seal
Inter-stage seal
3
Annular Pressure Seals
The dynamic force response of pressure seals has a
primary influence on the stability response of high-
performance turbomachinery.

Annular seals, although geometrically similar to plain
journal bearings, show a flow structure dominated by
turbulence and fluid inertia effects.

Operating characteristics unique to seals are the
* large axial pressure gradients,
* large clearance to radius ratio (R/c) < 500, while
* the axial development of the circumferential velocity determines
the magnitude of cross-coupled (hydrodynamic) forces.

Childs, D., 1993, Turbomachinery Rotordynamics: Phenomena, Modeling, and
Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New Yor, Chap. 4.
4
Seals and rotordynamics
Straight-Through and Back-to-back Compressors
and 1st Mode Shapes
Due to their relative
position within a rotor-
bearing system, seals
modify the system
dynamic behavior.
Seals typically "see"
large amplitude rotor
motions. This is
particularly important in
back-to-back
compressors and long-
flexible multiple stage
pumps
Childs, D., 1993, Turbomachinery Rotordynamics: Phenomena, Modeling, and Analysis,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New Yor, Chap. 4.
5
Force Coefficients in Annular Seals
Seal reaction forces are
functions of the fluid
properties, flow regime,
operating conditions
and geometry.

For small amplitudes of
rotor lateral motion:
forces are linearized
with stiffness, damping
and inertia force
coefficients:

c

rotor
L
D
Axial pressure
field (liquid)
stator
P
a

P
S

P
e

W
Axial
velocity
O

X
Y
O

u
Film thickness
H=c+e
X
cosu + e
Y
sinu
rotor
X XX XY XX XY XX XY
Y YX YY YX YY YX YY
F K K C C M M x x x
F K K C C M M y y y
( ( (
=
` ` ` `
( ( (
) ) ) )
6
Annular Pressure Seals
Intentionally roughened stator
surfaces (macro texturing) reduce
the impact of undesirable cross-
coupled dynamic forces and
improve seal stability.

Annular seals acting as Lomakin
bearings have potential as support
elements (damping bearings) in
high speed compressors and
pumps.
Childs, D., and Vance, J., 1997, Annular Gas Seals and Rotordynamics of Compressors
and Turbines, Proc. of the 26th Turbomachinery Symposium, Texas A&M University,
Houston, TX, September, pp. 201-220
7
Bubbly Mixture Annular Pressure Seals
As oil fields deplete compressors work off-design with liquid in gas
mixtures, mostly inhomogeneous.

Similarly, oil compression station pumps operate with gas in liquid
mixtures

The flow condition affects compressor or pump overall efficiency and
reliability.

Little is known about seals operating under 2-phase conditions, except
that the mixture affects seal leakage, power loss and rotordynamic
force coefficients; perhaps even inducing random vibrations that are
transmitted to the whole rotor-bearing system.
Justification
Seals operate with either liquids or gases, but not both
8
Background literature
Experimental Seals (two phase)
Iwatsubo, T., and Nishino, T., 1993, An Experimental Study on the Static and Dynamic
Characteristics of Pump Annular Seals, 7th Workshop on Rotordynamic Instability Problems in
High Performance Turbomachinery.
Computational Seals (two phase)
Annular Seals
Hendricks, R.C., 1987, "Straight Cylindrical Seals for High Performance Turbomachinery," NASA
TP-1850
Arauz, G., and San Andrs, L., 1998, Analysis of Two Phase Flow in Cryogenic Damper Seals, I:
Theoretical Model, II: Model Validation and Predictions, ASME J. Tribol., 120, pp. 221-227, 228-
233
Beatty, P.A., and Hughes, W.F., 1987, "Turbulent Two-Phase Flow in Annular Seals," ASLE Trans.,
30, pp. 11-18.
Arghir, M., Zerarka, M., Pineau, G., 2009 "Rotordynamic analysis of textured annular seals with
mutiphase (bubbly) flow, Workshop : Dynamic Sealing Under Severe Working Conditions EDF
LMS Futuroscope, October 5,
9
Background literature
Experimental Seals (two phase)
Iwatsubo, T., and Nishino, T., 1993, An Experimental Study on the
Static and Dynamic Characteristics of Pump Annular Seals, 7th
Workshop on Rotordynamic Instability Problems in High
Performance Turbomachinery.
Annular Seals
NO description of water lubricated seal (L, D,
c) or gas type..
Tests conducted at various speeds (1,500-
3,500 rpm) and supply pressures=1.2 - 4.7 bar.
Air/liquid volume fraction |=0, 0.25, 0.45, 0.70
Mxx
Cxx
Kxx
|, gas volume
fraction
increases
10
Background literature
Experimental & Physical Modeling
Tao, L., Diaz, S., San Andrs, L., and Rajagopal, K.R.,
2000, "Analysis of Squeeze Film Dampers Operating with
Bubbly Lubricants" ASME J. Tribol., 122, pp. 205-210
Squeeze film dampers
Diaz, S., and San Andrs, L., 2002, Pressure
Measurements and Flow Visualization in a Squeeze Film
Damper Operating with a Bubbly Mixture, ASME J. Tribol.,
124, pp. 346-350.
Diaz, S., and San Andrs, L., 2001, A Model for Squeeze
Film Dampers Operating with Air Entrainment and Validation
with Experiments, ASME J. Tribol., 123, pp. 125-133.
Diaz, S., and San Andrs, L., 2001, "Air Entrainment
versus Lubricant Vaporization in Squeeze Film Dampers: An
Experimental Assessment of their Fundamental
Differences, ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 123, pp.
871-877
Sponsored by National Science Foundation and TAMU Turbomachinery Research
Consortium, June 1998- May 2002
11
Background literature Squeeze film dampers
Sponsored by National Science Foundation and TAMU Turbomachinery Research
Consortium, June 1998- May 2002
Effect of bubbly mixtures and air ingestion on SFD forced performance
CCO
L=31.1 mm
D=129 mm
c=0.254 mm

12
Background literature
Bubbly SFD
Diaz, S., Beets, T., and San Andrs, L., 2000, Pressure
Measurements and Flow Visualization in a Squeeze Film
Damper Operating With a Bubbly Mixture
0 0.4
time [sec]
0
0.3
0.6
h
min
- squeeze
h
max
+ squeeze
0
h
[
m
m
]
0 0.4 0 0.4
time [sec]
0
0.3
0.6
h
min
- squeeze
h
max
+ squeeze
0
h
[
m
m
]
time [sec]
0
0.3
0.6
h
min
- squeeze
h
max
h
max
+ squeeze
0
h
[
m
m
]
s
e
a
l
e
d

e
n
d
o
p
e
n

e
n
d
44
s
e
a
l
e
d

e
n
d
o
p
e
n

e
n
d
55
31.1 mm
s
e
a
l
e
d

e
n
d
o
p
e
n

e
n
d
66
30
o
Uniform Pressure Zone:
Maximum Film Thickness
Onset of Positive Squeeze
Maximum Gas Volume Fraction
Non-Uniform Streaks (fingering)
Minimum Pressure Zone:
Film Thickness Increasing
Onset of Air Ingestion
Incoming gas from Discharge
Maximum Pressure Zone:
Film Thickness Decreasing
Minimum Gas Volume Fraction
Uniform Mixture
|=0.540
SFD (CCO): c=0.254 mm, e=0.180 mm, 500 rpm, ISO VG 68
See digital videos at http://rotorlab.tamu.edu
13
A simple model for bubbly mixtures
Mixture density
Quasi-static model
ignores bubble dynamics
- Homogenous mixture of 2-components; isothermal & static equilibrium
- Both components move with same speed & occupy same volume
( )
1
G L
| | = +
G
G S
P
Z T
=
9
Ideal gas
2
1
1
1 1
S
V c
G S
P P S
P
|
|
=
| |
+
|
\ .
Gas volume fraction (known at inlet)
Pa
z
W
O
Ps
U
Pa
z
W
O
Ps
U
z
W
O
Ps
U
For oil, PV~0.010 bar and S=0.035 N/m, and with c=0.152 mm, PV+2S/c=0.0146 bar
Diaz, S., and San Andrs, L., 2001, A Model for Squeeze Film Dampers Operating with
Air Entrainment and Validation with Experiments, ASME J. Tribol., 123, pp. 125-133
14
A simple model for bubbly mixtures
Mixture
viscosity
McAdams model
0.4
for 0.3 1 2.5 ;
1
G
L L
q
| | q
q
| | +
s = + =
|
+
\ .
( )
1 1 1 1 1
for 0.3
1
G G

|

+
+ + +
(
| | | |
> = +
( | |

(
\ . \ .

2
1.3 1.75 0.3
;
0.3 0.7
L L G
L
L G
G

+ +
+
= =
+
+
McAdams, W.H., Woods, W.K., and Heroman, L.C., Jr., 1942, Vaporization inside
Horizontal Tubes- II -Benzene-Oil Mixtures, ASME Trans., 64, p.193
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Dukkler
McAdams
Cicchitti
Isbin

i
m
i

Cicchitti
i

Isbin
i
|_
i
*
|
Realistic model, not depending on mass fraction
All liquid All gas
15
Bulk-flow Analysis of Annular Seals
Flow
Continuity
Circumferential
Momentum
transport
Axial momentum
transport
- Turbulent flow with fluid inertia effects
- Mean flow velocities average across film (h)
- No accounting for strong recirculation zones
- Includes round-hole and honeycomb pattern (textured surface seal)
z
W
O
Ps
U
{ } ( ) ( ) ( )
0
d
H H UH WH
t x z

c c c
+ + + =
c c c
( ) ( )
( )
( )
H
x d
P
H UH U H U H UWH
x t t x z
t
c c c c c
+ = + + + (

c c c c c
2
0
| ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
0
H
z d
P
H WH W H UWH W H
z t t x z
t
c c c c c
+ = + + +
c c c c c
2
San Andrs, L., and Soulas, T., 2007, A Bulk Flow Model for Off-Centered
Honeycomb Gas Seals, ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 129, pp. 185-194
Pa
16
Wall shear stress differences
Shear stresses
Friction factors
Other
Pa
- Moodys friction factor
- Not affected by flow condition (single or two component)
- Actual to be determined
z
W
O
Ps
U
| ( )
0 0

2
H H
z z x x r
R
k W ; k U k
H H

t t
| |
= = (
|
\ .
1/ 3
,
1
Re; 1
Re
g
m m m
r s
r
k f f a c b
H
(


(
= = + +
`
(

)

a
m
=0.001375; b
m
=5 x 10
5
; c
m
=10
4

Salhi, A., Rey, C., and Rosant, J.M., 1992, Pressure Drop in Single-Phase and
Two-Phase Couette-Poiseuille Flow, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 114, pp.80-84
17
Bulk-flow Analysis of Annular Seals
Boundary
Conditions
Numerical
Solution
Numerical solution for
realistic geometries use
CFD technique (staggered
grids, upwinding, etc) and
predict (4) K,C,M force
coefficients.
-Inlet pressure loss due to fluid inertia (Lomakin effect)
- Inlet swirl determined by upstream condition (swirl-brake)
-Exit pressure without recovery loss, typically.
) ,
2
e s
1
P P - (1+ U R
W
2
o = = O
z
Vz
O
Ps
Vx
rotor
Radial baffles
retarding fluid swirl Fluid path
Rotor speed
Seal
Anti swirl brake at inlet or
pressure seal
18
Model validation
Air in Oil Mixture SFD
SFD (CCO): c=0.254 mm, e=0.120 mm, 1000 rpm, ISO VG 68
Lines:
predictions,

Symbols:
experiments
|, mixture volume fraction
Tangential force
Radial force
Circular
Centered
orbit
Diaz, S., and San Andrs, L., 2001, A Model for Squeeze Film
Dampers Operating with Air Entrainment and Validation with
Experiments, ASME J. Tribol., 123, pp. 125-133.
r
t
r
t
Quasi-static bubbly
flow model adequate
for whole range of
gas volume fractions
(|=0.0-1.0)
19
Example of analysis
Geometry and operating conditions of seal with mixture
Predict seal
performance
Mixture
volume
fraction |
varies
(0.0-1.0)
Based on available test rig

MIX OIL with N2
Table 1
Centered seal (e=0):
No static load
~ smooth surfaces;
L/D=0.75, c/R=0.002
Rotor speed, O 1,047 rad/s (10 krpm)
Diameter, D 116.8 mm Supply Temperature, T
S
298.3 K (25 C)
Length, L 87.6 mm Supply pressure, P
S
71 bar
Clearance, c 126.7 mm Exit pressure, P
a
1 bar
Smooth seal r
r
=0.0005 r
s
=0.001
Entrance
pressure loss,
0.25 Inlet pre-swirl ratio, a 0.50
Physical
properties
mixture at P
S
, T
S

ISO VG 2 Nitrogen (N
2
)
Viscosity, 2.14 c-Poise Viscosity, 0.0182 c-Poise
Density, 784 kg/m
3
Density, 80.2 kg/m
3

Bulk-modulus, k 20,682 bar Molecular weight 28
Surface tension, S 0.035 N/m Compressibility, Z 1.001
Vapor pressure 0.010 bar =C
P
/C
V
1.48
Sound speed, v
s
1,624 m/s Sound speed, v
s
361 m/s
Density at P
a
,
a
1.1 kg/m
3

Based on a proposed test rig
20
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
F
l
o
w

r
a
t
e
kg/s
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
ALL liquid (24.2 GPM)
inlet and exit
ALL gas:
66 GPM at seal inlet
4,694 GPM at seal exit
|S
Seal Flow rate vs. inlet gas volume fraction
Figure 2 Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
All liquid
All gas
Leakage
decreases
continuou
sly as gas
content
increases
21
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
G
a
s
/
l
i
q
u
i
d

m
a
s
s

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
|S
Gas Mass fraction vs. inlet gas volume fraction
Figure 3b Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
All liquid All gas
Gas/liquid
mass
content
increases
exponenti
ally with
gas
volume
content
22

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
G
a
s
/
l
i
q
u
i
d

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
G/L volume fraction at inlet
|S :
Exit gas volume fraction vs. inlet volume fraction
Figure 3b Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
All liquid
All gas
Gas
volume
fraction at
exit plane
increases
quickly
because
of large
pressure
drop
Pa
z
W
O
Ps
U
Pa
z
W
O
Ps
U
z
W
O
Ps
U
23


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100
L
a
n
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
bar
axial coordinate m
Liquid
Gas |s=1.0
|s=0.25
|s=0.75
inlet pressure loss
|s=0.5
|s=0.0
exit pressure = 1 bar
Axial pressure drop as gas fraction increases
Figure 4 Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
inlet
Exit
All liquid:
linear
pressure
drop.
All gas:
nonlinear
with rapid
changes
near exit
plane
Pa
z
W
O
Ps
U
Pa
z
W
O
Ps
U
z
W
O
Ps
U
24
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P
o
w
e
r

l
o
s
s
kW
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
|S
Drag power loss vs. inlet volume fraction
Figure 5 Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
All liquid
All gas
Steady
decrease
in power;
but in
region of
flow
transition
25
100
1000
10000
100000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s

n
u
m
b
e
r

(
m
a
x
)
Reynolds # (max)
Re-circ (exit)
Re-axial (exit)
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
laminar flow region
|S
circumferential flow
axial flow
Max. Reynolds # vs. inlet volume fraction
Figure 6 Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
All liquid
All gas
Axial flow
dominates
at high
volume
fractions.
Circumf.
flow Re#
decreases.
Re ~ V c

26
Rotordynamic coefficients lateral motions
Seal reaction forces:
-
Model for centered operation
KXX = KYY, KXY = -KYX
CXX = CYY, CXY = -CYX
MXX = MYY, MXY = -MYX
Whirl frequency ratio WFR ~
KXY
CXX O
: measure of rotordynamic stability
Assumes:
No static load

X
Y
X XX XY XX XY XX XY
Y YX YY YX YY YX YY
F K K C C M M x x x
F K K C C M M y y y
( ( (
=
` ` ` `
( ( (
) ) ) )
Force coefficients are functions of frequency (e) for
gases, and also for a two-component (gas/liquid)
mixture.
27
-1.0E+08
-5.0E+07
0.0E+00
5.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.5E+08
2.0E+08
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
e
s
N/m
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
KXY=-KYX
KXX=KYY
|S
Seal stiffnesses vs. inlet volume fraction
Figure 7a Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm) SYNCHRONOUS SPEED
All liquid All gas
Liquid
seal (oil)
has large
cross-
coupled
stiffness.
Gas seal
shows
strong
direct
stiffness
KXY=-KYX
KXX=KYY
KXY=-KYX
Synchronous speed force coefficient (e=O)
Mixture viscosity decreases
28
-1.0E+05
0.0E+00
1.0E+05
2.0E+05
3.0E+05
4.0E+05
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
N-s/m
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
CXY=-CYX
CYY=CYY
|S
Seal damping vs. inlet volume fraction
Figure 7b Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm) SYNC SPEED
All liquid All gas
Direct
damping
decrease
s as gas
content
increases,
but in
flow
transition
zone
Cross-
damping
small.
CXX=CYY
CXY=-CYX
N-s/m
Mixture viscosity decreases
29
Whirl frequency ratio Stability indicator
- WFR always
0.50 for inlet
swirl = 0.50
Stable
operation up
to 2 x critical
speed
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
W
h
i
r
l

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

r
a
t
i
o
WFR
: G/L volume fraction at inlet
Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm) SYNC SPEED
30
force coefficients frequency dependency
Seal reaction forces (centered seal):
X
Y
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
XX XY XX XY
X
Y XY XX XY XX
K K C C
F x x
F K K y C C y
e e e e
e e e e
( (

( ( = +
` ` `

( (
) ) )

Force coefficients are functions of frequency (e) for
gases, and also for a two-component (gas/liquid)
mixture.
31

-3.0E+08
-2.0E+08
-1.0E+08
0.0E+00
1.0E+08
2.0E+08
3.0E+08
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
KXX=KYY
B=0.0 (all liquid)
B=0.05
B=0.10
B=0.25
B=0.5
B=0.75
B=1.00 (all gas)
Frequency (Hz)
whirl frequency/rotational speed
N/m
Liquid
Gas
|s=0.10
|s=0.05
|s=0.25
|s=0.0
|s=1.0
|s=0.50
|s=0.75
Seal direct stiffnesses vs. whirl frequency
Figure 8a Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
All liquid
shows
added mass
effect
(K-e
2
M).
All gas
(|=1) has
large KXX.
Note
increase (*)
in KXX for
small |=0.1
KXX=KYY
e/O
K
(*) |=0.1: Stiffness hardening is typical in textured gas
damper seals (= negative added mass)
32

0.0E+00
5.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.5E+08
2.0E+08
2.5E+08
3.0E+08
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
KXY=-KYX
B=0.0 (all liquid)
B=0.0125
B=0.025
B=0.05
B=0.10
B=0.25
B=0.5
B=0.75
B=1.00 (all gas)
Frequency (Hz)
whirl frequency/rotational speed
|s
N/m
Liquid |s=0
Gas
|s=0.10
|s=0.75
|s=0.05
|s=0.25
|s=0.025
|s=0.50
|s=1.0
Seal cross-stiffnesses vs. whirl frequency
Figure 8b Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
KXY=-KYX
e/O
All liquid
shows
largest
k.
Cross-
stiffness
decreases
with gas
content.
Small effect
of
frequency
k
33
0.0E+00
5.0E+04
1.0E+05
1.5E+05
2.0E+05
2.5E+05
3.0E+05
3.5E+05
4.0E+05
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
CXX=CYY
B=0.0 (all liquid)
B=0.0125
B=0.025
B=0.05
B=0.10
B=0.25
B=0.5
B=0.75
B=1.00 (all gas)
Frequency (Hz)
whirl frequency/rotational speed
N.s/m
Gas, |s=1.0
|s=0.75
|s=0.05
|s=0.25
|s=0.025
|s=0.50
|s
Liquid |s=0
Seal direct damping vs. whirl frequency
Figure 9a Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
CXX=CYY
Cross damping coefficients are one order of magnitude lower
e/O
C
All liquid
shows
largest
C.
Same as
cross-K.
Small effect
of
frequency
34
Equivalent force coefficients (Ke,Ce)
Seal reaction forces (circular orbits):
X
Y
r e
t e
F K
e
F Ce

=
` `
) )
x t x t
e e
y t y t
e e
e
e e

= =
` ` ` `

) ) ) )
cos( ) sin( )
sin( ) cos( )
Radial and tangential components of force
e
et
Fr
Ft
( ) ( )
e XX XY
K K C
e e
e = +
( )
( )
1
e XX XY
C C K
e
e
e
=
35

-1.0E+08
-5.0E+07
0.0E+00
5.0E+07
1.0E+08
1.5E+08
2.0E+08
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
K
e
q
B=0.0 (all
liquid)
B=0.0125
B=0.025
B=0.05
B=0.10
B=0.25
B=0.5
B=0.75
B=1.00 (all gas)
whirl frequency/rotational speed
N/m
Liquid, |s=0
|s=0.10
|s=0.75 |s=0.05
|s=0.25
|s=0.5
Gas, |s=1.0
|s=0.025
|s=0.0125
Seal equivalent stiffness vs. whirl frequency
Figure 10a Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
e XX XY
K K C e = +
Cross
damping
small.
All liquid
shows
added mass
effect .
All gas
(|=1) has
large Ke.
Note
increase (*)
in Ke for
small |=0.1
e/O
36

-3.E+05
-2.E+05
-1.E+05
0.E+00
1.E+05
2.E+05
3.E+05
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
C
e
q
B=0.0 (all
liquid)
B=0.0125
B=0.025
B=0.05
B=0.10
B=0.25
B=0.5
B=0.75
B=1.00 (all gas)
whirl frequency/rotational speed
Ns/m
|s
Liquid |s=0
Gas
|s=0.10
|s=0.75
|s=0.05 |s=0.25
|s=0.025
|s=0.5
|s=1.0
Seal equivalent damping vs. whirl frequency
Figure 10a Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
1
e XX XY
C C K
e
=
e/O
All liquid
shows
largest
Ce.
Steady
decrease of
Ce with gas
content.
Note Ce=0
at e/O=0.5
37
Conclusions
Rotordynamic force coefficients of bubbly mixture annular pressure seals
1. Leakage and power loss decrease with the gas in liquid volume
content except in transition region from laminar to turbulent flow
2. Seal force coefficients show strong dependency on whirl frequency.
Cross-coupled stiffnesses and direct damping coefficients decrease
steadily as gas volume fraction raises.
3. Direct stiffness coefficients show atypical behavior, in particular a
mixture of gas volume fraction |S=0.1 produces stiffness hardening
as the excitation frequency increases.
4. Predictions justify an experimental program to quantify the static and
dynamic forced performance of annular seals operating with (bubbly)
mixtures
GT2011-45264
Advanced (simple) computational physics bulk-flow model for prediction of
seal performance static and dynamic. Assumed homogenous mixture of two
components (liquid and gas).
Mixture N2 in ISO VG 2 oil (AP=71 bar, 10 krpm)
38
Rotordynamic force coefficients of bubbly mixture annular pressure
seals
GT2011-45264
Questions (?)
Learn more at http://rotorlab.tamu.edu
2011 Luis San Andres