Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to enhance sealing and rotordynamic performance of hole-pattern damping seal (HPDS) and labyrinth seal (LS) by structural innovation and geometrical optimization of special-shaped hole or annular-groove cavity.Design/methodology/approach - The unsteady flow was transformed into steady one using moving reference frame method. The full period numerical models of LS and HPDS were established. The influence of special-shaped hole or annular-groove cavity at axial inclined angle on leakage rate and rotordynamic coefficient of these two seals at different whirl angular speed were investigated.Findings - The results show that dynamic characteristics of straight-tooth LS are better than that of slanted-tooth LS. Compared to typical straight-hole damping seal, HPDS with windward oblique-hole when axial inclined angle ranges from 50 to 60 degrees has superiority in both leakage and rotordynamic characteristics by considering smaller cross-coupled stiffness coefficient and whirl frequency ratio, larger direct damping coefficient and effective damping coefficient.Originality/value - A novel HPDS with special-shaped three-dimensional hole cavity was proposed to enhance leakage and rotordynamic performance. The optimized geometrical structures of HPDS for excellent sealing and rotordynamic characteristics were obtained.Peer review - The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/ILT-07-2020-0262/


Authors

Zhang, Xuan;  Jiang, Jin-Bo;  Peng, Xudong;  Li, Jiyun

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/11/04

    04-Nov-2020

    Dear Zhang, Xuan; Jiang, Jin-bo; Peng, Xudong; LI, Jiyun

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript ilt-07-2020-0262.R1, entitled "Leakage and rotordynamic characteristics of labyrinth seal and hole-pattern damping seal with special-shaped 3D cavity" in its current form for publication in Industrial Lubrication and Tribology. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/11/04

    The author made correction on the paper according to reviewers’ comments, it is ready for publishing.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/10/27

    There remain a few English language errors that could be fixed, such as new edit: "...smallest, while which of the typical straight hole-pattern damping seal is the highest." should be "while that of the typical...".

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/09/26

    Revision statement for the paper
    Thank you for your constructive comments and valuable recommendations. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestion. Our responses to several comments are listed below, the corrections to the manuscript are in red italic.
    Reviewer 1:
    Comments to the Author
    1. It is a good work on labyrinth seal. A novel hole-pattern damping seal with special-shaped 3D hole cavity was proposed by the paper to enhance leakage and rotordynamic performance.
    2. A simulation on performance of seal is carried out with CFD software. The result is verified with a reference data.
    3.The paper did found some new structure on the seal which can improve leakage and rotordynamics performance.
    Reply: Thank you for your affirmation and support for our research contents!
    Reviewer 2:
    Comments to the Author
    Results are of practical interest and paper is generally clear and well presented.
    Reply: Thank you for your affirmation and support for our research contents!Our responses to several questions are listed below, the corrections to the manuscript are in red italic.

    Question 1: A few language improvement that should be made at some sentences. E.g. 3rd and last sentences of Introduction; the last sentence of section 1 ("The value of layer" - perhaps "number" of layers is meant?); Section 2.1 same "accuracy" - accuracy not really valid here - same "value"? Page 6, line 31 is unclear. plus a few others.
    Reply: Thanks for your comment. I am so sorry for some of the expressions in the previous version of the manuscript. The expressive and grammatical errors have been revised as follows.
    Sentence1: Leakage and rotordynamic characteristics are the two main operation performance should be considered in the design of annular seals, which can be obtained mainly by experimental testing method and theoretical method.
    Relevant language has been revised in the new manuscript: Leakage characteristics and rotor dynamic characteristics are the two main performance that must be considered in the design of annular seal, which can be obtained by experimental test method and theoretical method.
    Sentence2: The optimized geometrical parameters of annular-groove and hole cavity of LS and HPDS for the excellent sealing and rotordynamic performance are obtained, together with the mechanism of leakage reduction and anti-vibration are revealed.
    Relevant language has been revised in the new manuscript: The optimal geometric parameters of the annular-groove and hole cavity of LS and HPDS for the excellent sealing and rotordynamic performance are obtained, and the mechanism of leakage reduction of which are revealed.
    Sentence3: To capture the flow properties in the sealing gap, the value of layer in the gap direction reaches up to 10.
    Relevant language has been revised in the new manuscript: To capture the flow properties in the sealing gap, the number of layers in the gap direction reaches up to 10.
    Sentence4: The literature values and present calculated results almost have the same accuracy on predicting leakage and rotordynamic characteristics parameters, despite in the minor difference about 5% with the increase of eccentricity, which shows the correctness of the present numerical model and methods.
    Relevant language has been revised in the new manuscript: The present calculated results are in excellent agreement with the literature values on predicting leakage and rotordynamic characteristics parameters, despite in the minor difference about 5% with the increase of eccentricity, which shows the correctness of the present numerical model and methods.
    Sentence5: It can be seen that velocity value of low-speed zone in windward oblique-hole HPDS at =50° is smallest, and which in typical straight-hole damping seal is largest.
    Relevant language has been revised in the new manuscript: It can be seen that the velocity value of low-speed zone in the windward inclined hole-pattern damping seal with α = 50° is the smallest, while which of the typical straight hole-pattern damping seal is the highest.

    Question 2: Figure 5b appears to have error on angle scale. (Also, Figure 5 might be clearer on a 2D plot since only 4 lines - is a 3D plot necessary here?)
    Reply: Thanks for your advice. I am so sorry for the error angle scale presented in Fig.5 (b). Relevant figure has been revised in the new manuscript. The 3D plot is more exquisite than the 2D plot, and can express the meaning as clearly as possible.

    Question 3: Figure 6 -from which point is this individual cavity taken? Could it be pointed out, and does flow differ elsewhere?
    Reply: Thanks for your comment. Relevant content and figures have been revised in the new manuscript and the position of extraction individual cavity is pointed out: Figure 6 shows the velocity and streamline distribution on the penultimate individual cavity of circumferential section of the two seals with different axial inclined angle. The velocity vector and streamline distribution in the first and second cavities along the circumference are slightly different because of the inlet fluid effect, while they are almost the same in the later cavities. Therefore, taking the penultimate cavity of the circumferentially developed vortex can fully reflect the flow field of the sealing structure with different axial inclined angles. Due to the full development of the fluid vortex in the penultimate circumferential cavity, it can fully reflect the flow field of seal structure with different axial inclination angles.

    Question 4: Figure 8 and 9 - the negative scale is not immediately apparent (a and b) - could be modified to help the reader.
    Reply: I am sorry that a little confusing to the negative scales appears on Figures 8 and 9 (a and b). To improve the quality of figures, I added a dotted line to distinguish the positive and negative scale in Figures 8 and 9 (b), and added the scale value in the negative scale. In Fig. 8. and 9., the cross-coupled stiffness and whirl frequency ratio of labyrinth seal are negative in the whole range of axial inclined angle, but that of hole-pattern damping seal has positive and negative values. When the axial inclined angle is 50 ~ 60°, the values of cross-coupled stiffness and whirl frequency ratio become negative.

    Question 5: Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding data sets formally cited? Could add details of hole geometry (taper?) and size/number.
    Reply: Thanks for your comment. Relevant content has been added in the new manuscript. The diameter of the damping holes is 4 mm and the number of holes is about 770. The remaining geometric details are depicted in Fig. 2.



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/09/03

    03-Sep-2020

    Dear Prof. Peng:

    Manuscript ID ilt-07-2020-0262 entitled "Leakage and rotordynamic characteristics of labyrinth seal and hole-pattern damping seal with special-shaped 3D cavity" which you submitted to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ilt and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 03-Oct-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Industrial Lubrication and Tribology and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Prof. Carsten Gachot
    Editor, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology
    carsten.gachot@tuwien.ac.at

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Comments to the Author
    1. It is a good work on labyrinth seal. A novel hole-pattern damping seal with special-shaped 3D hole cavity was proposed by the paper to enhance leakage and rotordynamic performance.
    2. A simulation on performance of seal is carried out with CFD software. The result is verified with a reference data.
    3. The paper did found some new structure on the seal which can improve leakage and rotordynamics performance.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: Yes
    No

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes
    Yes
    Yes

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes
    Yes

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes
    Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes
    Yes

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Maybe

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Comments:
    Results are of practical interest and paper is generally clear and well presented.

    A few language improvement that should be made at some sentences. E.g. 3rd and last sentences of Introduction; the last sentence of section 1 ("The value of layer" - perhaps "number" of layers is meant?); Section 2.1 same "accuracy" - accuracy not really valid here - same "value"?. Page 6, line 31 is unclear. plus a few others.

    Figure 5b appears to have error on angle scale. (Also, Figure 5 might be clearer on a 2D plot since only 4 lines - is a 3D plot necessary here?)

    Figure 6 - from which point is this individual cavity taken? Could it be pointed out, and does flow differ elsewhere.

    Figure 8 and 9 - the negative scale is not immediately apparent (a and b) - could be modified to help the reader.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any signficant work ignored?: References are not extensive, but sufficient

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes. Has good match with previously published results for validation.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Mostly well presented. A little confusing with the negative scales on Figures 8 and 9 that could perhaps be improved.

    Analysis and conclusions are clear.

    Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent withthe findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Mostly ok. Presentation is clear, process explained.

    Needs some minor corrections for English at a few places, where words are missing or incorrect. The English is generally good throughout, but there are several sentences that should be edited.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Could add details of hole geometry (taper?) and size/number.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/28

    Results are of practical interest and paper is generally clear and well presented.

    A few language improvement that should be made at some sentences. E.g. 3rd and last sentences of Introduction; the last sentence of section 1 ("The value of layer" - perhaps "number" of layers is meant?); Section 2.1 same "accuracy" - accuracy not really valid here - same "value"?. Page 6, line 31 is unclear. plus a few others.

    Figure 5b appears to have error on angle scale. (Also, Figure 5 might be clearer on a 2D plot since only 4 lines - is a 3D plot necessary here?)

    Figure 6 - from which point is this individual cavity taken? Could it be pointed out, and does flow differ elsewhere.

    Figure 8 and 9 - the negative scale is not immediately apparent (a and b) - could be modified to help the reader.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/03

    1. It is a good work on labyrinth seal. A novel hole-pattern damping seal with special-shaped 3D hole cavity was proposed by the paper to enhance leakage and rotordynamic performance.
    2. A simulation on performance of seal is carried out with CFD software. The result is verified with a reference data.
    3. The paper did found some new structure on the seal which can improve leakage and rotordynamics performance.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.