Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
StructuralIntegrity
Available
Available online
online atProcedia
at 00 (2017) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia600
(2017) 140–145
(2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

XXVII International Conference “Mathematical and Computer Simulations in Mechanics of

XXVII International
Solids Conference
and Structures”. “Mathematical
Fundamentals and
of Static Computer
and DynamicSimulations in Mechanics
Fracture (MCM 2017) of
Solids and Structures”. Fundamentals of Static and Dynamic Fracture (MCM 2017)
Generalized Flexibility Method by the Example of Plane
Generalized
XV Portuguese Flexibility
Conference on Fracture, Method by the
PCF 2016, 10-12 Example
February of Plane
2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
Elastoplastic Problem
Elastoplastic Problem
Thermo-mechanical modeling of a high pressure turbine blade of an
Meleshko V.A., Rutman Y.L.*
airplane
Meleshko V.A., gas turbine
Rutman Y.L.* engine
Saint-Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2-ya Krasnoarmeiskaya st., 4 Saint-Petersburg , 190005, Russia
Saint-Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2-ya Krasnoarmeiskaya st., 4 Saint-Petersburg , 190005, Russia
P. Brandãoa, V. Infanteb, A.M. Deusc*
Abstract
a
AbstractDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Theb structures elastoplastic deformation process can be studied Portugal
using the finite elements method (FEM). However, to perform
IDMEC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
The structures elastoplastic deformation process can be
reliable, adequate and real calculations of structures, it is necessary studied usingtothe finite
create elements
large method (FEM).
finite element However,
models and to use to perform
large-scale
Portugal
reliable,
software
c adequate
systems and
for real
their calculations
analysis. of
Thousandsstructures,
or tens it
ofis necessary
thousands to
of create
equationslarge
are finite element
involved in it. models
These and to use
calculations
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, large-scale
take much
software systems for
time. Application theirflexibility
of the analysis.method
Thousands or tens on
developed of thousands
the bases ofgeneralized
of
Portugal equations are Mohrinvolved
formulain it. These calculations
(generalized flexibilitytake much
method)
time.
allowsApplication of the flexibility
to create numerical algorithmsmethod developed oncalculation
for elastoplastic the bases of ofgeneralized Mohr formula
framed structures (generalized
and to obtain flexibility
adequate results method)
with no
allows
significantto create numerical
processor and timealgorithms for elastoplastic
consumption. As a result, calculation
a numberofofframed structures
preparatory and toincreases,
operations obtain adequate
however, results with no
a number of
significant
algebraic
Abstract processorat and
equations eachtimestep consumption. As a result,
equals to the number a number
of framed of preparatory
structures operations
indetermination only. increases, however, a number of
algebraic equations at each step equals to the number of framed structures indetermination only.
© During
2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Copyright ©their
2017operation,
The Authors.modern
Publishedaircraft engine
by Elsevier B.V.components are subjected to increasingly demanding operating conditions,
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review
especially under
the high Published
responsibility
pressure by
of
turbineElsevier
the MCM
(HPT) B.V.
2017
blades. organizers.
Such conditions cause these parts to undergo different types of time-dependent
Peer-review under responsibility of the MCM 2017 organizers.
Peer-review
degradation, under
one responsibility
of which is creep. of theAMCM
model2017
usingorganizers.
the finite element method (FEM) was developed, in order to be able to predict
the creep
Keywords: behaviour
generalized of HPT
flexibility blades.
method; Flight
integral data ofrecords
function (FDR)
state law for atangent
of section; specific aircraft,
stiffness; provided
elastoplastic by a commercial aviation
deformation
company,
Keywords: were used
generalized to obtain
flexibility thermal
method; andfunction
integral mechanical
of statedata forsection;
law of three tangent
different flight elastoplastic
stiffness; cycles. In order to create the 3D model
deformation
needed for the FEM analysis, a HPT blade scrap was scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
*obtained. The data
Corresponding that
author. was
Tel.: gathered was fed into the FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
+7-921-748-07-16.
E-mail
*rectangular address:
Corresponding blockvl-meleshko@yandex.ru
shape,
author. Tel.:in+7-921-748-07-16.
order to better establish the model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
E-mail expected
overall address: vl-meleshko@yandex.ru
behaviour in terms of displacement was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
1.model can be useful in the goal of predicting turbine blade life, given a set of FDR data.
Introduction
1. Introduction
©Today
2016 The Authors.
software Published
systems basedby Elsevier B.V. elements method (FEM) are used for engineering calculations. When
on the finite
Peer-review
Today under
software responsibility
systems based of the
on Scientific
the finite
nonlinear problems related to elastoplastic processes Committee
elements of PCF 2016.
method (FEM)
in structures are used
are solved for engineering
by this method, timecalculations.
consumed by When
nonlinear problems related to elastoplastic processes in structures are solved
processor highly increases that is frequently unacceptable under the design conditions. by this method, time consumed by
Keywords: High Pressure Turbine Blade; Creep; Finite Element Method; 3D Model; Simulation.
processor
In manyhighly
cases,increases thatconstruction
to calculate is frequentlystructures,
unacceptable under the
the framed design conditions.
structures are used, which cover the large range of
In many cases,
engineering to calculate
problems. For theseconstruction structures, the
systems, elastoplastic framedcan
problems structures arewith
be solved used,generalization
which cover the large range of
of conventional
engineering problems.mechanics.
methods of structural For these systems, elastoplasticintends
This generalization problems canexplicit
using be solved
timewith generalization
computational of conventional
scheme and
methods of structural
determining mechanics.
the system’s tangentialThis generalization
stiffness intends
at each step. Theusing explicit
approach time
based oncomputational
the generalizedscheme and method
flexibility
determining
(generalized the system’s tangential
displacement stiffness
method) allows to at each reducing
highly step. Theaapproach based on the problems
time for elastoplastic generalized flexibility method
solution.
(generalized displacement method) allows to highly reducing a time for elastoplastic problems solution.
2452-3216© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under
2452-3216© 2017 responsibility
The of thebyMCM
Authors. Published 2017
Elsevier organizers.
B.V.
Peer-review underauthor.
* Corresponding responsibility
Tel.: +351of the MCM 2017 organizers.
218419991.
E-mail address: amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
2452-3216 Copyright  2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the MCM 2017 organizers.
10.1016/j.prostr.2017.11.022
 V.A. Meleshko et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 140–145 141
2 Meleshko V.А., Rutman Y.L. / StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

A difference of generalized methods from the finite elements method (FEM) is in exemption of finite elements
during generation of algebraic equations system and their replacement with the sections where distributed stiffness
parameters are integrated (Fig. 1). As a result, a number of equations in the system will correspond to the number of
static (or kinematic) indetermination of the framed structure. Herewith, if the framed structure is statically-
determined then it is not required to solve the equations system. Here any distribution of fluid parameters by rod
length is taken into account by means of the tangent stiffness matrix and the generalized Mohr formula.

a b

Fig.1. Replacement of finite elements with sections where there are tangent stiffness.
To implement the proposed generalization, the generalized Morh formula and the tangent stiffness matrix were
developed by Meleshko V. A. and Rutman Y. L. (2015); Meleshko V. A. and Rutman Y. L. (2017). This matrix was
obtained as an integral characteristic of intensely deformed state of all points of rod cross-section. The specified
articles present that, when calculating the statically indeterminate systems, the generalized flexibility method
consists of the following steps:
-determination of stiffness matrix [Re(T)] or rod element admittance matrix by means of the generalized Mohr
formula;
-creation of equilibrium equations or strains compatibility equations in the form of displacement method
{P}=[R]{} or the flexibility method {}=[]{P};
-determination of reactions in rods nodes {Pe}=[Re]{e};
-determination of internal forces in rods M(), Q();
-determination of stresses in cross-section through the rod curvature in the cross-section {}=[A][S]{};
-determination of rod section tangent stiffness matrix for elestoplastic deformation [T]=[L][A][S]dF,
where ψ – column matrix of kinematic parameters (angular rates and sections curvatures); σ – column matrix of
stresses in a section point; L – matrix depending on section point coordinates, and coupling between stresses and
elementary internal forces in the cross-sections.
The matrix [S] describes the coupling between section kinematic parameters and deformation rates. Components
[S] depend on the coordinates of the considered rod section point. Matrix [A] components depend on stresses in a
section point at each time step. In case of elastoplastic deformation the matrix [A] corresponds to the differential
analogue of the Hooke’s law with pseudo elastic factors depending on stress mode in the point.
When creating computational algorithms at each time step, the above formulas are written as incremental ratios.
2 Mathematical Scheme for Determination of Elastoplastic Deformations in the Plane Framed Structure
For plane framed structures, where a bend of rods composing the structure is taken into account only, tangent
stiffness determination can be significantly simplified. For simplification of the procedure to calculate tangent
stiffness, the integral function of section state is used, which was derived by Kovaleva, N.V., Skvortzov V.R.,
Rutman Y.L. (2007). The integral state function for the rectangular cross-section was obtained in Kovaleva N.V.,
Skvortzov V.R., Rutman Y.L. (2007), and for the round one - in Ostrovskaya N.V. (2015). When the effect of
transversal force is not taken into account, then bending methods are proportional to the integral state function. For
example, for the rectangular cross-section, this function is as follows
 s bh 2
M ( ), (1)
2

h
where () – integral state function,   , s – deformation corresponding to the yield strength, s – yield
2 s
strength,  – rod curvature in the cross-section under consideration, b,h – rectangular cross-section parameters.
142 V.A. Meleshko et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 140–145
Meleshko V.А., Rutman Y.L. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

It is seen from (1), if the cross-section shape is known, a bending moment in the cross-section at simple bending
can be written through the rod curvature in this cross-section (1) implies the incremental ratio

dM
M   . (2)
d
dM
A multiplier in (2)  T ( ) is the tangent stiffness. From (1) we get
d
dM  s bh 2 d  s bh 3
T ( ) 
  ( )   ( ). (3)
d 2 d 4 s
Using the results of Kovaleva, N.V., Skvortzov V.R., Rutman Y.L. (2007), we get the following for the
rectangular cross-section

  s bh 3 1
  ,  1
 4 s 3 E
T     ,a  . (4)
  
3
 s bh  1  1  a  x 3  1 ,  1 E pl
 4 s 3 x 3


Having the tangent cross-sections stiffness, we can determine tangent stiffness of the planar rod at the nodes of its
connection with other rods. There are displacement directions in nodes (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Displacement at nodes

There are stiffness factors appearing in the nodes from single displacements (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Stiffness factors at nodes

The differential equation of bent rod centre line is written in the standard form Volmir A.S. (2007):
P xM
y x   V . (5)
T  
Using the initial parameters method and having integrated them two times as per x, the system of integral
equations can be obtained relative to the known stiffness factors kij. Below there is the equations system for
determination of stiffness factors k22, k32, k52, k62 at 2=1:
 V.A. Meleshko et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 140–145 143
4 Meleshko V.А., Rutman Y.L. / StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

 lk x l k
 y ( x)   x   0   22 dx   32 dx
0 T   0 T  
 (6)
k x k
 y x   f x  f 0   0 x  l  22 dxdx  l  32 dxdx
 0 T   0 T  
The required initial conditions: at the left restraint f0 = 1, 0 = 0; at the right restraint at x = l, fx = 0, x = 0. Then
we determine k52, k62 from the equilibrium equations:
k22+ k52 = 0 (7)
k32+ k62 – k22l = 0 (8)
The equations system for determination of stiffness factors k26, k36, k56, k66 at 6=1:
 lk x l k
 y ( x)   x   0   26 dx   36 dx
0 T   0 T  
 (9)
k x k
 y x   f x  f 0   0 x  l  26 dxdx  l  36 dxdx
0 T   0 T  

The required initial conditions: at the left restraint f0 = 0, 0 = 0; at the right restraint at x = l, fx = 0, x = 1. Then
we determine k56, k66 from the equilibrium equations:
k 26  k 56  0, (10)
k 36  k 66  k 26 l  0, (11)
EA
k11  k 41  , (12)
l
where A – cross-section area.
After determining kij , the matrix of rod element stiffness in the global coordinates is determined by general
method at each step. Then, using the incremental form for load increment at the step, the equations of the flexibility
method or the displacement method are solved for the system as a whole and cross-sections moment increments are
determined M ( x ) .

Determination of rod length curvature at extreme fibers:

M  x 
  x   , (13)
T  
increment of extreme fibers deformation:
h
 x    x  . (14)
2

Determination of stresses and deformation at the step:

 x    x    (x) (15)
 x   E pl  x ,   1
 x    (16)
  x   E x ,   1

Then a new local matrix of rod element stiffness is formed by solving the differential equation of the bent beam
centre line taking into account change of section stiffness. And the cycle is repeated.

2. Comparison of the Obtained Results with FEA in Software Systems

To check the developed mathematical scheme, two test problems were solved by the generalized flexibility
method in MathCad (Fig. 4) and the finite elements method in ANSYS. The following initial data were accepted in
these problems:
144 V.A. Meleshko et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 140–145
Meleshko V.А., Rutman Y.L. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

-elasticity module E=2.11011 Pa;

-tangent elasticity module E=2.11010 Pa;
-Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3;
-yield point T = 240 MPa;
-rod length l = 1 m;
-rectangular cross-section a = 0.2 m;
-cross-section height h = 0.1 m;
-force F = 1.5105 N, for the restrained cantilever beam;
force F = 1.5106 N, for single statically indeterminable beam at both supports.

a b

Fig. 4. (a) cantilever rod; (b) static indeterminable beam.

As the developed mathematical scheme takes into account stresses distribution over the section area, then a solid
model with solid elements was used as a simulation-reference model in ANSYS solid 186 (20,000 elements). When
calculating by the generalized flexibility method, the rods were divided into 10 integration sections. 150 steps were
set in the nonlinear analysis. Calculation results are given in Fig. 5.

b
Fig. 5. Elastoplastic calculation of statically indefinable beam in Ansys:

(a) cantilever rod; (b) static indeterminable beam.

The comparison of the obtained results with ANSYS PC has shown well coincidence of both stresses, and cross-
section displacements (Tab. 1, 2). The calculation of the solid model by means of finite elements took about one
hour of computer time. And the framed structure calculation took 1.5 min. However, in this case, change of stresses
over the cross-section area is not taken into account, which can lead to incorrect results in transferring from the
elastic to the plastic zone of the diagram -. When calculating by the generalized flexibility method, it took less
than 1 second. This is due to that the number of equations in the system is equal to the number of static
indeterminacy, i.e less than those specified in the finite element method. When increasing the number of integration
sections, the solution tends to be accurate with no significant time consumption. Thus, the application of the
generalized flexibility method for the elastoplastic analysis can significantly increase a calculation rate and
accuracy.

Table 1. Cantilever rod

 V.A. Meleshko et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 140–145 145
6 Meleshko V.А., Rutman Y.L. / StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Parameter GFM FEA (SOLID 186) , %

, MPa 345 350 1.43
, mm 24 23.6 1.69

Table 2. Static indeterminable beam

Parameter GFM FEA (SOLID 186) , %
, MPa 732 707 3.54
, mm 16.4 16.2 1.23

References

GAF. Comparison of results with FEM. Eastern European Scientific Journal, 6, 150–161.
Kovaleva, N. V., 2007. Determination of parameters of force field diagram ductile elements of structure / N.V.Kovaleva, V.R.Skvortzov,
Y.L.Rutman // Digest "Materials of the Twenty Second International Conference Mathematical modeling in continuum mechanics. Methods of
boundary and finite elements, 220-225.
Meleshko, V. A., Rutman U. L., 2017. The generalization of the flexibility method for an elasto-plastic calculation of framed structures. Materials
physics and mechanics 31, 67-70.
Meleshko, V. A., Rutman U. L., 2015. Calculation of framed structures considering physical nonlinearity using generalized approach of forces
Ostrovskaya, N.V., 2015. Determination of parameters of force field diagram of ductile curved rod of circular section. Civil Engineers Magazine,
51, 68–73.
Volmir, A. S., Grigoriev, U.P., Stankevich, A.I., 2007. Structural resistance. Drofa, Moscow, pp. 591.