Labyrinth gas seals (LSs) commonly used in turbomachines reduce secondary flow leakage. Conventional see-through labyrinth seal designs include either all teeth-on-stator (TOS) or all teeth-on-rotor (TOR). Experience shows that an interlocking labyrinth seal (ILS), with teeth on both stator and rotor, reduces gas leakage by up to 30% compared to the conventional see-through designs. However, field data for ILS rotordynamic characteristics are still vague and scarce in the literature. This work presents flow predictions for an ILS and a TOS LS, both seals share identical design features, namely radial clearance Cr = 0.2 mm, rotor diameter D = 150 mm, tooth pitch Li = 3.75 mm, and tooth height B = 3 mm. Air enters the seal at supply pressure Pin = 3.8, 6.9 bar (absolute) and temperature of 25 °C. The ratio of gas exit pressure to supply pressure ranges from 0.5 to 0.8, and the rotor speed is fixed at 10 krpm (surface speed of 79 m/s). The analysis implements a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method with a multi-frequency-orbit rotor whirl model. The CFD predicted mass flow rate for the ILS is ∼ 21% lower than that of the TOS LS, thus making the ILS a more efficient choice. Integration of the dynamic pressure fields in the seal cavities, obtained for excitation frequency (ω) ranging from 12% to 168% of rotor speed (sub and super synchronous whirl), allows an accurate estimation of the seal dynamic force coefficients. For all the considered operating conditions, at low frequency range, the TOS LS shows a negative direct stiffness (K < 0), frequency independent; whereas the ILS has K > 0 that increases with both frequency and supply pressure. For both seals, the magnitude of K decreases when the exit pressure/inlet pressure ratio increases. On the other hand, the cross-coupled stiffness (k) from both seals is frequency dependent, its magnitude increases with gas supply pressure, and k for the ILS is more sensitive to a change in the exit/inlet pressure ratio. Notably, k turns negative for subsynchronous frequencies below rotor speed (Ω) for both the TOS LS and the ILS. The direct damping (C) for the TOS LS remains constant for ω > ½ Ω and has a larger magnitude than the damping for the ILS over the frequency range up to 1.5 Ω. An increase in exit/inlet pressure ratio decreases the direct damping for both seals. The effective damping coefficient, Ceff = (C-k/ω), whenever positive aids to damp vibrations, whereas Ceff < 0 is a potential source for an instability. For frequencies ω/Ω < 1.3, Ceff for the TOS LS is higher in magnitude than that for the ILS. From a rotordynamics point of view, the ILS is not a sound selection albeit it reduces leakage. Comparison of the CFD predicted force coefficients against those from a bulk flow model demonstrates that the later simple model delivers poor results, often contradictory and largely indifferent to the type of seal, ILS or TOS LS. In addition, CFD model predictions are benchmarked against experimental dynamic force coefficients for two TOS LSs published by Ertas et al. (2012, “Rotordynamic Force Coefficients for Three Types of Annular Gas Seals With Inlet Preswirl and High Differential Pressure Ratio,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(4), pp. 04250301–04250312) and Vannini et al. (2014, “Labyrinth Seal and Pocket Damper Seal High Pressure Rotordynamic Test Data,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 136(2), pp. 022501–022509.)

References

References
1.
Ek
,
M.
,
1978
, “
Solution of the Subsynchronous Whirl Problem in the High-Pressure Hydrogen Turbomachinery of the Space Shuttle Main Engine
,”
14th Joint Propulsion Conference
, Las Vegas, NV, July 25–27, pp.
100201
100226
.
2.
Childs
,
D. W.
,
1993
, “
Rotordynamic Models for Annular Gas Seals
,”
Turbomachinery Rotordynamics: Phenomena, Modeling, and Analysis
,
Wiley
, New York, Chap. 5.
3.
Gao
,
R.
, and
Kirk
,
G.
,
2013
, “
CFD Study on Stepped and Drum Balance Labyrinth Seal
,”
Tribol. Trans.
,
56
(
4
), pp.
663
671
.
4.
Kuwamura
,
Y.
,
Matsumoto
,
K.
,
Uehara
,
H.
,
Ooyama
,
H.
,
Tanaka
,
Y.
, and
Nishimoto
,
S.
,
2013
, “
Development of New High-Performance Labyrinth Seal Using Aerodynamic Approach
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2013-94106.
5.
Benckert
,
H.
, and
Wachter
,
J.
,
1978
, “
Studies on Vibrations Stimulated by Lateral Forces in Sealing Gaps
,” AGARD Seal Technology in Gas Turbine Engineering, UK.
6.
Leong
,
Y.
, and
Brown
,
R.
,
1984
, “
Experimental Investigation of Lateral Forces Induced by Flow Through Model Labyrinth Glands
,”
Workshop on Rotordynamic Instability Problems in High-Performance Turbomachinery
, Edinburgh, UK, pp.
187
210
.
7.
Childs
,
D. W.
, and
Scharrer
,
J. K.
,
1986
, “
Experimental Rotordynamic Coefficient Results for Teeth-on-Rotor and Teeth-on-Stator Labyrinth Gas Seals
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
108
(
4
), pp.
599
604
.
8.
Thieleke
,
G.
, and
Stetter
,
H.
,
1990
, “
Experimental Investigations of Exciting Forces Caused by Flow in Labyrinth Seals
,”
Workshop on Rotordynamic Instability Problems in High-Performance Turbomachinery
, pp.
109
134
.
9.
Childs
,
D. W.
,
Elrod
,
D. A.
, and
Hale
,
K.
,
1988
, “
Rotordynamic Coefficient and Leakage Test Results for Interlock and Tooth-on-Stator Labyrinth Seals
,”
ASME
Paper No. 88-GT-87.
10.
Baumann
,
U.
,
1999
, “
Rotordynamic Stability Tests on High-Pressure Radial Compressors
,”
28th Turbomachinery Symposium
, pp.
12
15
.
11.
Picardo
,
A.
, and
Childs
,
D. W.
,
2005
, “
Rotordynamic Coefficients for a Tooth-on-Stator Labyrinth Seal at 70 Bar Supply Pressures: Measurements Versus Theory and Comparisons to a Hole-Pattern Stator Seal
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
127
(
4
), pp.
843
855
.
12.
Wagner
,
N. G.
,
Steff
,
K.
,
Gausmann
,
R.
, and
Schmidt
,
M.
,
2009
, “
Investigations on the Dynamic Coefficients of Impeller Eye Labyrinth Seals
,”
38th Turbomachinery Symposium
, Houston, TX, Sept. 14–17, pp. 53–69.
13.
Ertas
,
B. H.
,
Delgado
,
A.
, and
Vannini
,
G.
,
2012
, “
Rotordynamic Force Coefficients for Three Types of Annular Gas Seals With Inlet Preswirl and High Differential Pressure Ratio
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
134
(
4
), pp.
04250301
04250312
.
14.
Vannini
,
G.
,
Cioncolini
,
S.
,
Del Vescovo
,
G.
, and
Rovini
,
M.
,
2014
, “
Labyrinth Seal and Pocket Damper Seal High Pressure Rotordynamic Test Data
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
136
(
2
), pp.
022501
022509
.
15.
Moore
,
J. J.
,
2003
, “
Three-Dimensional CFD Rotordynamic Analysis of Gas Labyrinth Seals
,”
ASME J. Vib. Acoust.
,
125
(
4
), pp.
427
433
.
16.
Li
,
Z.
,
Li
,
J.
, and
Yan
,
X.
,
2013
, “
Multiple Frequencies Elliptical Whirling Orbit Model and Transient RANS Solution Approach to Rotordynamic Coefficients of Annual Gas Seals Prediction
,”
ASME J. Vib. Acoust.
,
135
(
3
), pp.
031005
031014
.
17.
San Andrés
,
L.
,
Wu
,
T.
,
Maeda
,
H.
, and
Ono
,
T.
,
2018
, “
A Computational Fluid Dynamics Modified Bulk-Flow Analysis for Circumferentially Shallow Grooved Liquid Seals
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
140
(1), pp.
0125041
0125049
.
18.
Ramirez
,
M. A.
,
2017
, “
Development and Validation of Test Rig for Measurements of Leakage and Rotordynamic Performance of Interlocking Gas Labyrinth Seals
,” M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
19.
ANSYS
,
2013
, “
Fluent Theory Guide 15.0
,” ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
20.
Thorat
,
M. R.
,
2010
, “
Impact of Rotor Surface Velocity, Leakage Models and Real Gas Properties on Rotordynamic Force Predictions of Gas Labyrinth Seals
,” M.S. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
21.
D'Souza
,
R.
, and
Childs
,
D. W.
,
2002
, “
A Comparison of Rotordynamic-Coefficient Predictions for Annular Honeycomb Gas Seals Using Three Different Friction-Factor Models
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
,
124
(
3
), pp.
524
529
.
You do not currently have access to this content.