Measurements Versus Predictions for the Static and Dynamic Characteristics of a Four-pad Rocker-pivot, Tilting-pad Journal Bearing

Measured and predicted static and dynamic characteristics are provided for a four-pad, rocker-pivot, tilting-pad journal bearing in the load-on-pad and load-between-pad orientations. The bearing has the following characteristics: 4 pads, .57 pad pivot offset, 0.6 L/D ratio, 60.33 mm (2.375in) pad axial length, 0.08255 mm (0.00325 in) radial clearance in the load-on-pad orientation, and 0.1189 mm (0.00468 in) radial clearance in the load-between-pad orientation. Tests were conducted on a floating test bearing design with unit loads ranging from 0 to 2903 kPa (421.1 psi) and speeds from 6.8 to 13.2 krpm.

For all rotor speeds, hot-clearance measurements were taken to show the reduction in bearing clearance due to thermal expansion of the shaft and pads during testing. As the testing conditions get hotter, the rotor, pads, and bearing expand, decreasing radial bearing clearance. Hot-clearance measurements showed a 16-25% decrease in clearance compared to a clearance measurement at room temperature.

For all test conditions, dynamic tests were performed over a range of excitation frequencies to obtain complex dynamic stiffness coefficients as a function of frequency. The direct real dynamic stiffness coefficients were then fitted with a quadratic function with respect to frequency. From the curve fit, the frequency dependence was captured by including a virtual-mass matrix [M] to produce a frequency independent [K][C][M] model.

The direct dynamic stiffness coefficients for the load-on-pad orientation showed significant orthotropy, while the load-between-pad did not. The load-between-pad showed slight orthotropy as load increased. Experimental cross-coupled stiffness coefficients were measured in both load orientations, but were of the same sign and significantly less than direct stiffness coefficients.

In both orientations the imaginary part of the measured dynamic stiffness increased linearly with increasing frequency, allowing for frequency independent direct damping coefficients.

Rotordynamic coefficients presented were compared to predictions from two different Reynolds-based models. Both models showed the importance of taking into account pivot flexibility and different pad geometries (due to the reduction in bearing clearance during testing) in predicting rotordynamic coefficients. If either of these two inputs were incorrect, then predictions for the bearings impedance coefficients were very inaccurate. The main difference between prediction codes is that one of the codes incorporates pad flexibility in predicting the impedance coefficients for a tilting-pad journal bearing.

To look at the effects that pad flexibility has on predicting the impedance coefficients, a series of predictions were created by changing the magnitude of the pad's bending stiffness. Increasing the bending stiffness used in predictions by a factor of 10 typically caused a 3-11% increase in predicted Kxx and Kyy, and a 10-24% increase in predicted Cxx and Cyy. In all cases, increasing the calculated bending stiffness from ten to a hundred times the calculated value caused slight if any change in Kxx, Kyy, Cxx, and Cyy. For a flexible pad an increase in bending stiffness can have a large effect on predictions; however, for a more rigid pad an increase in pad bending stiffness will have a much lesser effect.

Results showed that the pad's structural bending stiffness can be an important factor in predicting impedance coefficients. Even though the pads tested in this thesis are extremely stiff, changes are still seen in predictions when the magnitude of the pad?s bending stiffness is increased, especially in Cxx, and Cyy. The code without pad flexibility predicted Kxx and Kyy much more accurately than the code with pad flexibility. The code with pad flexibility predicts Cxx more accurately, while the code without pad flexibility predicted Cyy more accurately. Regardless of prediction Code used, the Kxx and Kyy were over-predicted at low loads, but predicted more accurately as load increased. Cxx, and Cyy were modeled very well in the load-on-pad orientation, while slightly overpredicted in the load-between-pad orientation. For solid pads, like the ones tested here, both codes do a decent job at predicting impedance coefficients