Flutter is a self-excited and self-sustained aero-elastic instability, caused by the positive feedback between structural vibration and aerodynamic forces. A two-passage linear turbine cascade was designed, built, and tested to better understand the phenomena and collect data to validate numerical models. The cascade featured a center airfoil that had its pitch axis as a degree-of-freedom to enable coupling between the air flow and mechanical response in a controlled manner. The airfoil was designed to be excited about its pitch axis using an electromagnetic actuation system over a range of frequencies and amplitudes. The excitation force was measured with load cells, and the airfoil motion was measured with accelerometers. Extraordinary effort was taken to minimize the mechanical damping so that the damping effects of the airflow over the airfoil, that were of primary interest, would be observable. Assembling the cascade required specialized alignment procedures due to the tight clearances and large motion. The aerodynamic damping effects were determined by observing changes in the mechanical frequency response of the system. Detailed aerodynamic and mechanical measurements were conducted within a wide range of Mach numbers (Ma) from Ma = 0.10 to 1.20. Experimental results indicated that the aerodynamic damping increased from Ma = 0.10 to 0.65, dropped suddenly, and was then constant from Ma = 0.80 to 1.20. A flutter condition was identified in the interval between Ma = 0.65 and Ma = 0.80. The aerodynamic damping was also found to be independent of displacement amplitude within the tested range, giving credence to linear numerical approaches.

References

References
1.
Hodges
,
D. H.
, and
Pierce
,
G. A.
,
2014
,
Introduction to Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity
(
Cambridge Aerospace Series
),
2nd ed.
,
Cambridge University Press
,
New York
.
2.
Gyarmathy
,
G.
, and
Schlachter
,
W.
,
1988
, “
On the Design Limits of Steam Turbine Last Stages
,”
International Conference on Technology of turbine plant Operating With Wet Steam
, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, pp.
103
108
.
3.
Jones
,
W. H.
,
Bishop
,
W. A.
,
Kirchgessner
,
T. A.
, and
Dicus
,
J. H.
,
1977
, “
Experimental Apparatus for Investigation of Fan Aeroelastic Instabilities in Turbomachinery
,” NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH,
Report No. NASA-TM-X-3508, E-9088
.
4.
Groth
,
P. J.
,
Martensson
,
H. E.
, and
Edin
,
N.
, “
Experimental and CFD Based Determination of Flutter Limits in Supersonic Space Turbines
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2008-50675.
5.
Kaul
,
G.
, and
Hennings
,
H.
,
2000
, “
Computational Investigation of an Oscillating Compressor Cascade Experiment
,”
9th Symposium on Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aeroacoustics and Aeroelasticity of Turbomachines
, Lyon, France, Sept. 4–8, pp.
819
829
.
6.
Aotsuka
,
M.
, and
Watanabe
,
T.
,
2003
, “
Role of Shock and Boundary Layer Separation on Unstead Aerodynamic Characteristics of Oscillating Transonic Cascade
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2003-38425.
7.
Hall
,
K.
,
Kielb
,
R. E.
, and
Thomas
,
J. P.
,
2006
,
Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aeroacoustics, and Aeroelasticity of Turbomachines
,
Springer
,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
.
8.
Vogt
,
D.
,
2005
, “
Experimental Investigation of Three-Dimensional Mechanisms in Low-Pressure Turbine Flutter
,”
Ph.D. thesis
, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Heat and Power Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
9.
Lepicovsky
,
J.
,
McFarland
,
E. R.
,
Capece
,
V. R.
,
Jett
,
T. A.
, and
Senyitko
,
R. G.
,
2002
, “
Methodology of Blade Unsteady Pressure Measurement in the NASA Transonic Flutter Cascade
,” NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH,
Report No. NASA/TM 2002-211894
.
10.
Ren
,
W.
,
Seeley
,
C. E.
,
Zhang
,
X.
,
Mitchell
,
B. E.
, and
Ju
,
H.
,
2016
, “
Investigations of Flutter and Aero Damping of a Turbine Blade Part 2: Numerical Simulations
,”
ASME
Paper No. GT2016-57935.
You do not currently have access to this content.