The multiple-shoe brush seal, a variation of a standard brush seal, accommodates arcuate pads at the bristles’ free ends. This novel design allows reverse shaft rotation operation and reduces and even eliminates bristle wear, since the pads lift-off due to the generation of a hydrodynamic film during rotor spinning. This type of seal, able to work at both cold and high temperatures, not only restricts secondary leakage but also acts as an effective vibration damper. The dynamic operation of the shoed-brush seals, along with the validation of reliable predictive tools, relies on the appropriate estimation of the seal structural stiffness and energy dissipation features. Single-frequency external load tests conducted on a controlled motion test rig and without shaft rotation allow the identification (measurement) of the structural stiffness and equivalent damping of a 20-pad brush seal, 153mm in diameter. The seal energy dissipation mechanism, represented by a structural loss factor and a dry friction coefficient, characterizes the energy dissipated by the bristles and the dry friction interaction of the brush seal bristles rubbing against each other. The physical model used reproduces well the measured system motions, even for frequencies well above the identification range.

1.
Chupp
,
R.
,
Raymond
,
E.
, and
Nelson
,
P.
, 1993, “
Evaluation of Brush Seals for Limited-Life Engines
,”
J. Propul. Power
0748-4658,
9
, pp.
113
119
.
2.
Fellenstein
,
J. A.
, and
DellaCorte
,
C.
, 1996, “
A New Tribological Test for Candidate Brush Seal Material Evaluation
,”
Tribol. Trans.
1040-2004,
39
, pp.
173
179
.
3.
Conner
,
J. K.
, and
Childs
,
D.
, 1993, “
Rotordynamic Coefficient Test Results for a Four-Stage Brush Seal
,”
J. Propul. Power
0748-4658,
9
, pp.
462
465
.
4.
Childs
,
D.
, and
Vance
,
J. M.
, 1997, “
Annular Gas and Rotordynamics of Compressors and Turbines
,”
Proceedings of the 26th Turbomachinery Symposium
, pp.
201
220
.
5.
Hendrics
,
R. C.
,
Csavina
,
K. R.
,
Griffin
,
T. A.
,
Kline
,
T. R.
,
Pancholi
,
A.
, and
Sood
,
D.
, 1994, “
Relative Comparison Between Baseline Labyrinth and Dual Brush Compressor Discharge Seals in a T-700 Engine Test
,” ASME Paper No. 94-GT-266.
6.
Justak
,
J.
, 2002, “
Robust Hydrodynamic Brush Seal
,” U.S. Patent No. 6428009.
7.
Justak
,
J.
, 2007, “
Hydrodynamic Brush Seal
,” U.S. Patent No. 7182345.
8.
Delgado
,
A.
,
San Andrés
,
L.
, and
Justak
,
J.
, 2003, “
Identification of Stiffness and Damping Coefficients in a Shoed Brush Seal
,”
Proceedings of the VII Congreso y Exposición Latinoamericana de Turbomaquinaria
,
Veracruz, Mexico
, Oct.
9.
Delgado
,
A.
,
San Andrés
,
L.
, and
Justak
,
J.
, 2004, “
Analysis of Performance and Rotordynamic Force Coefficients of Brush Seals with Reverse Rotation Ability
,” ASME Paper No. GT 2004-53614.
10.
Ginsberg
,
J. H.
, 2001,
Mechanical and Structural Vibrations
,
Wiley
,
New York
, pp.
135
139
.
11.
Thomson
,
W. T.
, 1998,
Theory of Vibration With Applications
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
, pp.
72
74
.
12.
Chupp
,
R. E.
,
Hendricks
,
R. C.
,
Lattime
,
S. B.
, and
Steinetz
,
B. M. J.
, 2006, “
Sealing in Turbomachinery
,”
J. Propul. Power
0748-4658,
22
(
2
), pp.
313
349
.
You do not currently have access to this content.