Brush seal dynamic behavior is strongly related to pressure and flow fields. Developments in brush seal design have led to geometric modifications to control flow field and consequent brush seal issues including blow-down, hang-up, and pressure stiffening. Some of the geometric enhancements have been found to have common use as backing plate modifications. Over the two decades of brush seal evolution, many backing plate configurations have been suggested in numerous patent disclosures. Even so, literature on the effects of geometric modifications on pressure and flow fields remains limited. This study numerically investigates brush seal pressure and flow fields for such common conceptual backing plate configurations as single and multiple grooves, with and without by-pass passages. The CFD analysis presented employs a bulk porous medium approach for the bristle pack. The effectiveness of various backing plate configurations outlining important flow features is discussed. Results indicate that backing plate configurations have a decisive role in shaping seal pressure fields. In general, it has been found that all cases having bypass configuration leak more. Moreover, the major portion of the seal leakage through fence height is fed from the backing plate cavity. The single backing plate groove forms a constant pressure behind the bristle pack. In contrast, multiple grooves form multiple constant pressure regions.

1.
Dinc
,
S.
,
Demiroglu
,
M.
,
Turnquist
,
N.
,
Mortzheim
,
J.
,
Goetze
,
G.
,
Maupin
,
J.
,
Hopkins
,
J.
,
Wolfe
,
C.
, and
Florin
,
M.
, 2002, “
Fundamental Design Issues of Brush Seals for Industrial Applications
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
0889-504X,
124
(
2
), pp.
293
300
.
2.
Basu
,
P.
,
Datta
,
A.
,
Loewenthal
,
R.
,
Short
,
J.
, and
Johnson
,
R.
, 1994, “
Hysteresis and Bristle Stiffening Effects in Brush Seals
,”
J. Propul. Power
0748-4658,
10
(
4
), pp.
569
575
.
3.
Short
,
J. F.
,
Basu
,
P.
,
Datta
,
A.
,
Loewenthal
,
R. G.
, and
Prior
,
R. J.
, 1996, “
Advanced Brush Seal Development
,” AIAA paper no. 96-2907.
4.
Berard
,
G.
, and
Short
,
J.
, 1999, “
Influence of Design Features on Brush Seal Performance
,” AIAA paper no. 99-2685.
5.
Crudgington
,
P. F.
, and
Bowsher
,
A.
, 2003, “
Brush Seal Blow Down
,” AIAA paper no. 2003-4697.
6.
Basu
,
P.
, 1995, “
Brush Seal Device Having a Recessed Back Plate
,” US patent no. 5,401,036.
7.
Basu
,
P.
, and
Short
,
J. F.
, 1999, “
Brush Seal With a Flexible Front Plate
,” US patent no. 5,884,918.
8.
Morrison
,
M. K.
,
Withers
,
P. A.
,
Jones
,
T. V.
, and
Wood
,
P. E.
, 1998, “
Brush Seal
,” US patent no. 5,799,952.
9.
Morrison
,
M. K.
,
Withers
,
P. A.
,
Jones
,
T. V.
, and
Wood
,
P. E.
, 2001, “
Brush Seal
,” US patent no. 6,173,962.
10.
Tseng
,
W.-Y.
,
Glynn
,
C. C.
,
Bristol
,
B. L.
, and
Hetico
,
R. R.
, 1994, “
Brush Seal
,” US patent no. 5,318,309.
11.
Fellenstein
,
J.
,
McCutchan
,
S. P.
,
Hyland
,
J.
, and
Van Duyn
,
K. G.
, 2002, “
Brush Seal
,” US patent no. 6,457,719.
12.
Dhar
,
V. B.
,
Turnquist
,
N. A.
,
Venkatesh
,
R. G.
, and
Agrawal
,
L.
, 2004, “
Brush Seal for a Rotary Machine and Method of Retrofitting
,” US patent no. 6,685,427.
13.
Dogu
,
Y.
, 2005, “
Investigation of Brush Seal Flow Characteristics Using Bulk Porous Medium Approach
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
0742-4795,
127
(
1
), pp.
136
144
.
14.
Bayley
,
F. J.
, and
Long
,
C. A.
, 1993, “
A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study of Flow and Pressure Distributions in a Brush Seal
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
0742-4795,
115
(
2
), pp.
404
410
.
15.
Turner
,
M. T.
,
Chew
,
J. W.
, and
Long
,
C. A.
, 1998, “
Experimental Investigation and Mathematical Modeling of Clearance Brush Seals
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
0742-4795,
120
(
3
), pp.
573
579
.
16.
Ergun
,
S.
, 1952, “
Fluid Flow Through Packed Columns
,”
Chem. Eng. Prog.
0360-7275,
19
, pp.
89
94
.
17.
Hendricks
,
R. C.
,
Flower
,
R.
, and
Howe
,
H.
, 1996, “
A Brush Seal Program Modeling and Developments
,” NASA Technical Memorandum 107158.
18.
Chew
,
J. W.
,
Lapworth
,
B. L.
, and
Millener
,
P. J.
, 1995, “
Mathematical Modeling of Brush Seals
,”
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow
0142-727X,
16
(
2
), pp.
493
500
.
19.
Chew
,
J. W.
, and
Hogg
,
S. I.
, 1997, “
Porosity Modeling of Brush Seals
,”
ASME J. Tribol.
0742-4787,
119
, pp.
769
775
.
20.
Chen
,
L. H.
,
Wood
,
P. E.
,
Jones
,
T. V.
, and
Chew
,
J. W.
, 1999, “
An Iterative CFD and Mechanical Brush Seal Model and Comparison With Experimental Results
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
0742-4795,
121
(
4
), pp.
656
661
.
21.
Chen
,
L. H.
,
Wood
,
P. E.
,
Jones
,
T. V.
, and
Chew
,
J. W.
, 2000, “
Detailed Experimental Studies of Flow in Large Scale Brush Seal Model and a Comparison With CFD Predictions
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
0742-4795,
122
, pp.
672
679
.
22.
Dogu
,
Y.
, and
Aksit
,
M. F.
, 2006, “
Effects of Geometry on Brush Seal Pressure and Flow Fields: I. Front Plate Configurations
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
0889-504X,
128
, pp.
367
378
.
You do not currently have access to this content.