This invention relates to an axial retention system and components thereof for a bladed rotor, particularly a fan rotor of a gas turbine engine.
A fan rotor of the type used in an aircraft gas turbine engine includes a hub capable of rotating about a rotational axis and an array of blades extending radially from the hub. The hub includes a series of circumferentially distributed peripheral slots. Each slot extends in an axial or predominantly axial direction and has a pair of overhanging lugs, each with an inwardly facing bearing surface. When viewed in the radial direction, each slot may be linear, with the slot centerline oriented either parallel or oblique to the rotational axis, or may have a curved centerline and a corresponding curved shape. Each slot is typically open at either the forward end of the hub, the aft end of the hub, or both to facilitate installation and removal of the blades.
Each blade includes an attachment feature that occupies one of the slots and an airfoil that projects radially beyond the hub periphery. Bearing surfaces on the flanks of the attachment contact the bearing surfaces of the slot lugs to trap the blade radially in the hub. An axial retention system prevents the installed blades from migrating axially out of the slots.
During operation of the engine, the fully assembled bladed rotor rotates about its rotational axis. Each blade is followed by one of its two adjacent neighbors and is led by its other adjacent neighbor in the direction of rotation. Acordingly, each blade in the blade array is said to have a following neighbor and a leading neighbor.
During operation, a blade fragment can separate from the rest of the blade. A separation event usually results from foreign object ingestion or fatigue failure. Because the separated blade fragment can comprise a substantial portion of the entire blade, separation events are potentially hazardous and, although rare, must be safely accounted for in the design of the engine. Engine designers have devised numerous ways to safely tolerate the separation of a single blade. However it has proven inordinately difficult to accommodate the separation of two or more blades without introducing excessive weight, cost or complexity into the engine. Accordingly, it is important that the separation of one blade not provoke the separation of additional blades.
A separated blade can cause the separation of its following neighbor if the initially separated blade contacts the airfoil of the following blade. The following blade urges the initially separated blade aftwardly and, in doing so, experiences a forwardly directed reaction force. The reaction force can overwhelm the axial retention system that normally traps the following blade axially in its hub slot, thereby ejecting the blade from the slot. Accordingly, it is important that the axial retention system be able to withstand such an event.
Another desirable feature of an aircraft engine fan rotor is resistance to windmilling induced wear. Windmilling is a condition that occurs when an aircraft crew shuts down a malfunctioning or damaged engine in flight. The continued forward motion of the aircraft forces ambient air through the fan blade array causing the fan rotor to slowly rotate or “windmill”. Windmilling also occurs when wind blows through the engine of a parked aircraft. Windmilling rotational speeds are too slow to urge the blade attachment flanks centrifugally against the disk slot lugs. As a result, the blade attachments repeatedly chafe against the surfaces of the hub slots causing accelerated wear of the blade attachments and the hub. Since both the hub and blades are extremely expensive, accelerated wear is unacceptable to the engine owner.
Accelerated attachment and hub wear can be mitigated by ensuring a snug fit between the blade attachment and the hub slot. Alternatively, the attachment can be radially undersized relative to the slot with the size difference being taken up by a tightly fitting spacer that occupies the hub slot radially inboard of the blade attachment. Either way, excessive tightness complicates blade installation and removal. Moreover, surfaces that slide relative to each other during blade installation or removal are susceptible to damage from abrasive contaminants that might be present on the surfaces. Excessive tightness exacerbates the risk of damage. Accordingly, it is important not only to ensure a snug fit, but also to minimize the risk of damaging to expensive components during blade installation and removal.
It is, therefore, an object of the invention to provide an improved axial retention system for a bladed rotor, such as a turbine engine fan rotor.
It is an additional object to minimize windmilling induced damage and to ensure that the blades are easily installable and removable without excessive risk of damage.
According to the invention, an axial retention system for a bladed rotor includes a hub with bayonet hooks, a bayonet ring with bayonet projections that engage the hooks, and a load transfer element that occupies an annulus defined by the hooks. Ideally, the load transfer element is a substantially circumferentially continuous snap ring. If a separation event or other abnormality exerts an excessive axial load on a blade, the snap ring safely distributes that load to the bayonet hooks to prevent the blade from severing the snap ring and being ejected axially from its slot. The rotor blades themselves feature a chamfered attachment that improves the energy absorption capability of the snap ring. The interface between each blade and its respective slot is tiered. Ideally the interface is a tiered spacer that occupies the hub slot radially inboard of the blade attachment. The spacer ensures a tight fit to resist windmilling induced wear. The tiered character of the spacer reduces the risk of damage during blade installation and removal. The spacer also helps to transmit axial loads to the snap ring during a blade separation event.
The principal advantage of the invention is its ability to prevent the separation of multiple blades. A further advantage is the ability of the tiered spacer to prevent or minimize damage to the hub and blades during windmilling and during blade installation and removal.
Referring principally to
Referring additionally to
The fan rotor also includes an array of fan blades such as representative blade 40. Each fan blade comprises an attachment 44, a platform 46 and an airfoil 48, although some rotors employ platforms non-integral with the blades. The attachment has a base surface 50. The attachment is curved or linear to match the shape of the hub slots. In an assembled rotor, and as seen most clearly in
Referring principally to
A load transfer element occupies the annulus 38 adjacent the blade attachments. The preferred load transfer element is a snap ring 60. The snap ring is circumferentially continuous except for a split 62 (
Referring principally to
Referring principally to
During operation, a fan blade may be exposed to forces tending to drive the blade axially out of its slot. Among the most challenging forces are those exerted on a blade that rotationally follows a separated blade. When the separated blade strikes the following blade, the following blade experiences a reaction force that urges it, and its associated spacer 58, axially against snap ring 60. The snap ring transfers this ejection force to the bayonet ring which, in turn, distributes the force amongst several of the bayonet hooks. For a blade with a curved attachment, most of the force is believed to be distributed amongst five of the hooks—the two outer hooks immediately adjacent the hub slot, the inner hook radially inboard of the slot and, to a lesser extent, the hooks on either side of that inner hook.
Referring to
In operation, if a blade experiences a force that attempts to drive it out of its slot, the blade attachment transfers that force to the spacer flange which then transfers the force to the bayonet ring 64. As with the preferred embodiment, the bayonet ring then distributes the force amongst the bayonet hooks. As seen best in
The advantage of the chamfered proximal end is best appreciated by first examining the behavior of a conventional proximal end, i.e. one with a conventional surface extending substantially the entire lateral width W. If a force attempts to eject such a blade axially from its slot, the proximal end exposes the snap ring to a double shear mode of energy transfer. The double shear mode can cause the lateral edges of the blade attachment to shear through the snap ring.
By contrast, the chamfered proximal end plastically deforms the snap ring, with the maximum deformation occurring approximately where the ridge 102 contacts the snap ring. The chamfered proximal end bends the snap ring rather than shearing through it. The difference in energy absorption capacity is evident as the area under a graph of snap ring load vs. snap ring deflection.
In the preferred embodiment, the chamfer extends laterally from the ridge to the convex edge whereas the conventional surface extends laterally from the ridge to the concave edge. This polarity is believed to be beneficial because of the path followed by a curved attachment when urged axially against the snap ring by excessive forces. As the blade travels along the curved profile of its slot, its convex edge 92 is likely to emerge from the hub slot opening 22 earlier than its concave edge 94. Placing the chamfer closer to the convex flank 84, and remote from the concave flank, delays the emergence of the convex edge 92, allowing the ridge 102 to provoke the onset of bending in the snap ring. After the snap ring begins to bend, the chamfered surface 100 then contacts the snap ring to distribute the ejection force.
The chamfer angle α is selected to increase the energy absorption capacity of the snap ring and is a function of at least the radius of curvature R of the slot (which is also the radius of curvature of the attachment) and is inversely related thereto. That is, an attachment with a smaller radius of curvature requires a larger chamfer angle than does an attachment with a smaller radius of curvature to ensure delayed emergence of the convex edge. However, an excessively large chamfer angle can cause undesirable force concentration by preventing full contact between the chamfer 100 and the snap ring 60 subsequent to initial deformation of the ring. Conversely, if the chamfer angle is too small, the proximal surface approximates a completely conventional, unchamfered surface, resulting in little or no benefit. In an engine manufactured by the assignee of the present-application, the slot radius of curvature is about 9.0 inches (about 22.9 centimeters) and the chamfer angle is about 10 degrees.
In principle, the chamfer may extend substantially the entire lateral width W of the attachment so that the conventional surface 98 is absent. However the conventional surface has value as a machining datum and so its presence is desirable to facilitate accurate blade manufacture.
Referring to
It may also be desirable to employ a double chamfer on a curved attachment—one chamfer extending laterally from the ridge toward the convex edge and the other extending laterally from the ridge toward the concave edge. In the limit, and as seen in
Referring now to
The spacer occupies the hub slot 16 to urge the blade attachment bearing surfaces 52 radially outwardly against the bearing surfaces 30 on the hub lugs as seen best in FIG. 9. This is especially important at very low rotational speeds to prevent the attachment from chafing against the slot and causing damage to the hub, the attachment or both.
The advantage of the tiered configuration is best appreciated by first considering a more conventional flat spacer. When a technician inserts a flat spacer into the slot 16, its inner and outer contact surfaces slide along the attachment base surface and the hub floor throughout the entire length L of the slot. As a result, any abrasive contaminants present on the surfaces can scratch the attachment or hub. Scratches are of concern, particularly on the hub, because they represent potential crack initiation sites. Since the hub is highly stressed during engine operation, it is desirable to minimize the quantity and extent of scratches, thus minimizing the need for periodic inspection and/or precautionary replacement of these expensive components.
The tiered spacer reduces the potential for scratching because the mating steps slide against each other over only a fraction of the slot length L during spacer installation. For example, with the illustrated three tiered spacer, no appreciable detrimental sliding contact occurs until the spacer has completed two thirds of its travel into the slot. Sliding contact is thus limited to the remaining one third of the travel. If desired, an antifriction coating may be applied to one or more of the contacting surfaces 26, 50, 106, 108.
Manufacturing considerations and load bearing capability help to govern the quantity of steps. Each riser 112 consumes a small but finite amount of the axial length L. If opposing risers on the attachment base surface and spacer outer contact surface fail to conform precisely to each other because of manufacturing inaccuracies, the risers won't bear their proportionate share of the operational loads and will therefore cause the steps themselves to be more heavily loaded. Increasing the quantity of steps and risers only exacerbates the effect. Moreover, installation of each step requires the manufacturer to adhere to exacting manufacturing tolerances. Adhering to these tolerances increases the cost of manufacture. Failure to adhere to the tolerance requirements will cause some mating steps to be in more intimate contact than other mating steps. The steps in intimate contact will be more heavily loaded during engine operation and the other steps more lightly loaded. Accordingly, the quantity of steps is governed by the competing considerations of preventing installation related damage without adding manufacturing cost or maldistributing the operational loads.
In an alternative embodiment, the tiered interface comprises a spacer having steps or tiers on its inner contact surface 106 and a hub having mating steps on the slot floor 26. In another alternative, the steps are present on all four surfaces—the inner and outer contact surfaces 106, 108, the slot floor 26 and the attachment base surface 50. These alternate embodiments suffer from the disadvantage that they involve the presence of tiers on the hub. The tiered surfaces can introduce stress concentrations that may not be acceptable on the highly stressed hub. Moreover, any manufacturing errors committed while installing the tiers might render the hub unsuitable for service despite the considerable expense already invested in its manufacture.
The illustrated tiers parallel the rotational axis 14, however each tier may be ramped at a prescribed ramp angle θ relative to the axis. Ramped steps can all but eliminate the potential for scratching because no contact occurs until the spacer is fully inserted into the hub slot. However the ramps may be difficult and expensive to manufacture, especially if the spacer, blade and slot are curved rather than linear.
Although this invention has been shown and described with reference to a detailed embodiment thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and detail may be made without departing from the invention as set forth in the accompanying claims. For example, even though the invention has been presented in the context of a turbine engine fan rotor, its applicability extends to other types of bladed rotors as well.
This application includes subject matter in common with co-pending applications entitled “Chamfered Attachment for a Bladed Rotor”, application Ser. No. 10/123,453 and “Bladed Rotor with a Tiered Blade to Hub Interface”, application Ser. No. 10/123,549, both filed concurrently herewith, all three applications being assigned to or under obligation of assignment to United Technologies Corporation.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1719415 | Back | Jul 1929 | A |
3653781 | Cooper | Apr 1972 | A |
3734646 | Perkins | May 1973 | A |
3768924 | Corsmeier et al. | Oct 1973 | A |
3832092 | Manharth | Aug 1974 | A |
3888601 | Glassburn | Jun 1975 | A |
4019833 | Gale | Apr 1977 | A |
4221542 | Acres et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4265595 | Bucy, Jr. et al. | May 1981 | A |
4304523 | Corsmeier et al. | Dec 1981 | A |
4854821 | Kernon et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4890981 | Corsmeier et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
5123813 | Przytulski et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5169289 | Lalanne | Dec 1992 | A |
5173024 | Mouchel et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5257909 | Glynn et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5281098 | Glynn et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5282720 | Szpunar | Feb 1994 | A |
5302086 | Kulesa et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5350279 | Prentice et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5443366 | Knott et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5540552 | Surdi | Jul 1996 | A |
6106234 | Gabbitas | Aug 2000 | A |
6416280 | Forrester et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
20010007633 | Brioude et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 244 100 | May 1990 | GB |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20030194318 A1 | Oct 2003 | US |