Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tribology International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint

Effect of three-dimensional loading on macroscopic fretting aspects of

an aero-engine blade–disc dovetail interface
K. Anandavel a,b, Raghu V. Prakash a,n
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India
b
Infotech Enterprises Limited, Plot 110A and 110B, Electronics City, Bangalore 560 100, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the effect of three-dimensional loading on macroscopic fretting variables, such as
Received 20 May 2010 contact tractions, slip and contact stresses over the dovetail interface, carried out using three-dimensional
Received in revised form finite element method with frictional contact at the interface. Three-dimensional loading effect is brought
26 September 2010
out by considering a skewed dovetail slot in the geometry and by application of forces and moments
Accepted 14 October 2010
acting on the airfoil. The study reveals that a skewed (201) dovetail experiences about 100% more peak
Available online 29 October 2010
contact pressure and slip amplitude than a straight dovetail slot. The peak contact pressure and contact
Keywords: stress are observed near contact edge, either at the leading or the trailing edge, for all the load cases
Dovetail interface studied for skewed dovetail. The contact traction, stress and slip variation along the dovetail are
3D analysis
significant when compared with two-dimensional results. The study suggests that skew angle and three-
Skew angle
dimensional loading need to be considered, for an improved understanding of the fretting aspects of a
Fretting Fatigue
dovetail interface.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Experimental methods [1–3], analytical approaches [4–6],

Blade–disc dovetail interface is an important element in the fan
and compressor rotor assemblies of aero-engine, as early crack
initiation occurs due to fretting. In the recent times, a system design
approach, incorporating the fretting aspects of a blade–disc
attachment is emphasized by aero-engine community to prevent
premature failure of rotor. In this context, understanding the
mechanics of interface plays an important role in the life assess-
ment of such critical components; such an understanding would
permit design optimization that satisfies the requirements of a
lighter engine, with better performance without any compromise
on safety. The functional requirements of compressor rotor involve
certain geometrical features such as skew angle, cone angle, twist
on the blade, etc. to accommodate maximum power in a given
space. These geometric features along with aerodynamic and
vibration loadings lead to three-dimensional (3D) bulk load
application on the blade–disc interface during normal operation
and under resonance conditions. The acute contact pressure/stress
gradients and non-linearity associated with expanding contact
region in response to complex loading and frictional behaviors
associated with Amonton’s law for friction (Coulomb’s friction)
make the fretting analysis of blade–disc interface more
challenging.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 91 44 2257 4694; fax: + 91 44 2257 4652.
E-mail address: raghuprakash@iitm.ac.in (R.V. Prakash).
numerical models [7–11] and hybrid approaches [12,13] are
generally employed to study a dovetail contact problem assuming
the interface as two-dimensional in nature. In a majority of these
studies, the effect of three-dimensional loading is assumed to be
minimal, presumably, due to the complexities associated with
3D analysis, and the requirement of computational resources.
Analytical solutions available for classical contact problems
[14,15] do not, in general, support the three-dimensional aspects
of dovetail interface. Numerical approaches such as finite element
modeling (FEM) [16], X-FEM [17], boundary element modeling
(BEM) [18–20] and combined BEM–FEM methodology [21] have
been implemented for solving three-dimensional frictional contact
problem, but the geometry and loading do not pertain to dovetail
interface (rolling contact, contact of ellipsoid with rigid flat, etc.).
Three-dimensional finite element analysis of dovetail interface [22]
reveals that the skew angle has a significant influence on the
contact stress variation along the dovetail; however, it is observed
that the level of mesh refinement is not adequate to capture stress
convergence. To address this issue, sub-modeling approach has
been implemented in 3D analysis to obtain converged contact
stress results for a straight dovetail with flat interface [23] and
crowned profile interface [24,25]. A multi-scale approach [26] that
couples FE method and semi-analytical approach has been devel-
oped and applied for the computation of fretting wear at the
dovetail interface. To date, FE capabilities have matured and have
been widely used in three-dimensional contact analysis and for
validation of other numerical tools [11] developed for contact

0301-679X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2010.10.014
 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555 1545

Notations Mt moment on blade during twisting mode of vibration

(N mm)
a initial semi-contact height of dovetail interface along MR, MT, MA moments applied on FE model about R, T and A axes
x (mm) (N mm)
b initial semi-contact width of dovetail interface along MX moment about X at centroid of dovetail interface area
y (mm) (N mm)
C contact cohesion (N) MXG, MYG, MZG effective three-directional moments acting at CG
CG centre of mass of blade of blade about axes X, Y and Z during normal operation
eX, eY, eZ eccentricity of distance between centre of pressure and (N mm)
CG along X, Y and Z (mm) O–R–T–A local coordinate system on a blade cross section above
Fmr centrifugal force of blade in radial (X) direction at CG of blade dovetail root for load application on FE modeling
blade (N) O–X–Y–Z global coordinate system of finite element model
Fp aerodynamic force acting on the blade at centre of aligned to engine axes
pressure (N) o–x–y–z local coordinate system on the interface to display
Fpt aerodynamic force component in tangential (Y) direc- contact results
tion (N) p contact pressure (MPa)
Fpa aerodynamic force component in axial (Z) direction (N) R fillet radius near contact edge (mm)
FR, FT, FA radial, tangential and axial forces applied on FE model SLTO maximum allowable elastic slip—shear contact para-
along the axes R, T and A (N), respectively meter in the penalty method
FXG, FYG, FZG effective three-directional forces acting at CG of y skew angle (deg.)
blade along X, Y and Z (N) t frictional shear stress at the interface (MPa)
h contact element length in x direction (mm) tlim limiting frictional shear stress (MPa)
Mb moment on blade during bending mode of vibration m friction coefficient
(N mm) o angular velocity of rotor (rad/s)

analysis. However, experimental validation of contact results at the contact area between the blade and the disc. The cone angle is
interface is difficult, in view of the inaccessibility of contact regions, necessary to maintain a constant mass flow over the flow passage
which might be one of the reasons why most of the work in this area because of increase in pressure over the rotor stage. Blade twists are
is either analytical or numerical in approach. Interestingly, Papa- essential for better aerodynamic performance. These three-dimen-
nikos et al. [22] have validated the results of 3D finite element sional geometric features, viz., skew, cone and twists, contribute to
stress results of a dovetail using photo-elastic technique for an uneven mass distribution in the blade with dovetail root and
stresses near the contact edges and observed that photo-elasticity
provides a good validation for most of the regions considered.
Contact pressure, slip amplitude and friction coefficient are
generally considered as primary variables [15,27] for the fretting
crack initiation and wear process, and are used in modeling fretting
fatigue [28–30] and fretting wear [26,31]. The influence of friction
coefficient on fretting fatigue life is also emphasized with the
numerical and experimental studies carried out on a specimen by
Swalla and Neu [32].
The present work is aimed at understanding the influence of
three-dimensional loading on macroscopic fretting aspects such as
contact tractions, slip and friction effect at the dovetail interface,
using a three-dimensional finite element approach. The effect of
skew in the dovetail slot is studied as skew results in the
application of an additional moment at the interface, which is
over and above aerodynamics and vibratory loads of the blade. The
effect of friction coefficient, ranging between 0 and 1, is also studied
using the contact capabilities of ANSYS [33].

2. Background on 3D loading of rotor blade

A typical bladed-disc rotor with axial dovetail interface is shown

in Fig. 1, for a single blade sector, with a description of parts and
associated nomenclature. The bladed-disc rotor involves three-
dimensional geometric features such as skew angle, nose cone
angle, airfoil twist, etc. Skew angle, in a bladed-disc rotor, is an
angular offset of dovetail slot axis with relation to disc or engine
axis. Fig. 2 presents a schematic of a straight dovetail (on the left)
and skewed dovetail (on the right). The skew angle is important
from the viewpoint of assembly, as it helps in accommodating a
maximum number of blades within a given space for the desired
airfoil configuration. Further, skew angle dovetail permits higher Fig. 1. Typical bladed-disc rotor.
1546 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555

hence results in an offset between the centre of mass (CG)

Fig. 2. Rotor disc with (a) straight dovetail and (b) skewed dovetail.
of the blade and centre of area of dovetail interface (centroid),
where the blade loads are reacted. The offset would create
three-dimensional moments at the interface, depending on the
magnitude of offset.
Bulk loads acting on a rotor blade are transferred to the disc
through dovetail interface; as the nature of these bulk loads is
different, it has a critical role on the fretting behavior at the
interface. The blade is subjected to centrifugal radial load (Fmr) at
the CG of blade; the centrifugal load is steady and regular
(continuously acting) when the blade is subjected to constant
angular velocity (o). However the centrifugal load rises from zero
at engine-off condition to peak load corresponding to the max-
imum operating steady speed. In addition to the centrifugal load,
aerodynamic and vibratory loads of different sources [34] act on the
blade. The aerodynamic force (Fp) at the centre of pressure of blade
airfoil results in axial (Fpa) and tangential (Fpt) force components.
These loads are cyclic in nature for a constant angular velocity of
the rotor, as the rotor passes through upstream and downstream
static or rotating components, during rotation. The eccentricity of
centre of pressure (eX, eY, eZ) with respect to CG of blade also
produces moments (MXG, MYG, MZG) about the three axes at CG of
blade. The major loads, which regularly act on the blade during
normal engine operation, are shown in Fig. 3a. Combined effect of
these regular loads produces three-dimensional forces and
moment at the CG of blade as shown in Fig. 3b. Magnitude of
these three-dimensional forces and moments depends on the
aerodynamic and structural design configuration of rotor. The
three-dimensional forces and moments that act at the CG of blade
during normal engine operation are shown below, in the cylindrical

Fig. 3. Typical rotor with normal operational loads: (a) centrifugal and aerodynamic loads on blade and (b) 3D forces and moments at blade CG.
 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555
coordinate system O–X–Y–Z. Thus
FXG ¼ Fmr ; FYG ¼ Fpt ; FZG ¼ Fpa ;
MXG ¼ Fpa eY þFpt eZ ; MYG ¼ Fpa eX ; MZG ¼ Fpt eX :
Additional moments may also be produced on the blade due to
initial bending (Mb) and twisting (Mt) modes of vibration as shown
in Fig. 4, if crossover of resonance is encountered during start-up
and shut-down operations of engine. Apart from the resonance
situation, aerodynamic instability, such as surge and stall, if
encountered, also produces severe vibratory forces and moments.
While the intent of the designer is to avoid resonance and
aerodynamic instability conditions during normal operations of
engine, these unwanted/worst-case situations occur during real-
life operation, even though the frequency of such occurrences may
be less. These forces and moments are irregular, dynamic and
three-dimensional in nature, and also get added up with the regular
loads shown in Eq. (1). The three-dimensional nature of loading on
the blade, during engine service, is expected to result in different
contact behaviors at the interface compared to two-dimensional
loading and, hence, requires careful study of contact traction and
stresses at the interfaces to avoid failure.
Fig. 4. Typical rotor with moments due to vibration modes of blades.
1547
3. Three-dimensional finite element modeling
The geometric model used in Ref. [22] is considered for this
study, with (a) straight dovetail and (b) skewed dovetail (y ¼201).
ð1Þ
The geometric details and dimensions of the dovetail attachment
are shown in Fig. 5. A cyclic sector of rotor corresponding to single
blade is considered for the study. In the case of a global model with
fine element size, it is very time-consuming to achieve a good level
of convergence for contact results. In view of the above, global and
sub-modeling approaches, as proposed in Refs. [9,23], are adapted
in this study to achieve good convergence (within 5% [9]) of
contact results at the interface; this approach is effective to solve
with reasonable computational effort. The typical CPU time for
global and sub-model analyses carried out in this study for a load
case is about 70,000 s, on a 64 bit processor with 8 GB RAM.
Material properties of an aero-engine Ti-alloy, viz., Young’s
modulus¼110 GPa, Poisson’s ratio 0.3 and density 4500 kg/m3, are
used in this study. 3D finite element modeling is developed using
eight node solid elements (ANSYS SOLID45) and surface–surface
contact elements (ANSYS-TARG170 and CONTAC173) at the inter-
face regions of dovetail attachment.
A standard unilateral contact is used in dovetail interface
modeling. The contact model developed for this study has no
initial geometric fit or clearance at the dovetail interface. The
Coulomb friction model in Ref. [33] is employed at the interface. In
the Coulomb friction model, two contacting surfaces carry shear
stresses up to a certain magnitude across their interface before they
start sliding relative to each other. The state is known as sticking.
Once the frictional shear stress (t) exceeds tlim, the contact and
target surfaces will slide relative to each other. This state is known
Fig. 5. Geometric details of blade–disc dovetail [22].
1548 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555

as sliding. The sticking/sliding calculations determine when a

contact point transits from sticking to sliding or vice versa.
The Coulomb friction model is defined as
t r tlim for stick ð2Þ

t ¼ tlim for slip ð3Þ

where tlim ¼ mp + C, p is the contact normal pressure, C the contact

Fig. 6. Shear contact behavior representation by (a) Lagrange multiplier method
and (b) penalty method.
cohesion and m the coefficient of friction. The contact cohesion
provides sliding resistance even with zero normal pressure.
Different contact algorithms such as pure penalty method, pure
Lagrangian multiplier, Lagrange multiplier on contact normal and
penalty on frictional direction and an augmented Lagrangian
multiplier method are implemented to solve contact problems,
as per Ref. [33]. Lagrange multiplier and penalty method are
generally used to obtain solutions for normal and shear contacts
in finite element analysis. It may be noted that the Lagrange
approach introduces additional variables in the system, but fulfills
contact constraints correctly, whereas penalty algorithm has no
additional variables, but leads to non-physical penetration under
normal contact, and a slip-in-stick situation of shear contact.
Variational formulation and finite element implementation pro-
cedures incorporating these contact treatments on 3D FE analysis
are detailed in Ref. [35]. Lagrange multiplier for normal contact and
penalty method for frictional contact are used in the current
analysis. This combined approach treats frictional sliding contact
problems much better than the pure Lagrange method; chattering
problems due to transition of contact status between sliding and
sticking, which often occur in the pure Lagrange multiplier method,
are normally overcome by this combined approach. Fig. 6 shows
the shear contact behavior corresponding to Lagrange multiplier
and penalty methods. In the Lagrange multiplier approach, zero
slip for stick condition is satisfied, whereas slip is not zero for
stick condition in the penalty approach. The penalty parameter
associated with the shear contact solution in ANSYS [33] is the

Fig. 7. Details of global model (a) mesh and boundary conditions and (b) 3D load applications.
 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555 1549

maximum allowable elastic slip (SLTO). This contact parameter model is the trade-off with computational advantage to solve shear
could be defined either by an absolute value or a parameter linked contact over the Lagrange method. The maximum allowable elastic
to contact element size. Selection and definition of SLTO in FE slip (SLTO) is taken as 0.1 mm in absolute value in the model, based

Table 1
Analysis of load cases.

Load cases (LC) Skew angle (deg.) Angular velocity (rad/s) Forces (N) Moment (N-mm)

FR FT FA MR MT MA

1 0 1050 – – – – – –
2 20 1050 – – – – – –
3 20 1050 2000 – – – – –
4a 20 1050 – + 1000 – – – –
4b 20 1050 –  1000 – – – –
5a 20 1050 – – +1000 – – –
5b 20 1050 – –  1000 – – –
6a 20 1050 – – – + 10,000 –
6b 20 1050 – – –  10,000 –
7a 20 1050 – – – – +10,000 –
7b 20 1050 – – – –  10,000 –
8a 20 1050 – – – – – + 10,000
8b 20 1050 – – – – –  10,000
9 20 1050 2000  1000 1000 – – –
10 20 1050 2000  1000 1000 + 10,000  10,000  10,000

Table 2
Summary of global model contact results—peak locations and distribution pattern.

Load Pressure side interface Suction side interface Results pattern of Remarks on sub-modeling analysis
case both interfaces requirement
Contact pressure Slip Contact pressure Slip

1 Along bottom/top Over the entire Along bottom/top Over the entire Symmetric Analysis on pressure side flank is
contact edge interface contact edge interface sufficient
2 Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Anti-symmetric Analysis on pressure side flank is
edge at TE edge at LE edge at LE edge at TE sufficient
3 Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Anti-symmetric Analysis on pressure side flank is
edge at TE edge at LE edge at LE edge at TE sufficient
4a – – Bottom contact Bottom contact Different Analysis on pressure side flank for
edge at LE edge at TE both load cases will capture results
4b Bottom contact Bottom contact – – Different of both interfaces, since 4a results
edge at TE edge at LE pattern for pressure side is more or
less same as 4b results of suction
side and vice versa
5a Bottom contact – – Bottom contact Different Analysis on pressure side flank for
edge at TE edge at TE both load cases will capture results
5b – Bottom contact Bottom contact – Different of both interfaces, since 5a results
edge at LE edge at LE pattern for pressure side is more or
less same as 5b results of suction
side and vice versa
6a Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Anti-symmetric Analysis on pressure side flank for
edge at TE edge at LE edge at LE edge at TE both load cases will capture results
6b Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Bottom contact Anti-symmetric of both interfaces. Load case 6a
edge at TE edge at LE edge at LE edge at TE results magnitude is higher than 6b
results though the distribution
patterns are anti-symmetric for
both load cases
7a – Bottom contact Bottom contact – Different Analysis on pressure side flank for
edge at LE edge at LE both load cases will capture results
7b Bottom contact – – Bottom contact Different of both interfaces, since 7a results
edge at TE edge at TE pattern for pressure side is more or
less same as 7b results of suction
side and vice versa
8a – – Bottom contact Bottom contact Different Analysis on one interface for both
edge at LE edge at TE load cases will provide results of
8b Bottom contact Bottom contact – – Different both interfaces, since 8a results
edge at TE edge at LE pattern for pressure side is more or
less same as 8b results of suction
side and vice versa
9 Bottom contact Top contact edge – – Different Analysis on pressure side interface
edge at TE at TE will capture peak contact pressure
and slip
10 Bottom contact Top contact edge – – Different Analysis on pressure side interface
edge at TE at TE will capture peak contact pressure
and slip
1550 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555
on a sensitivity study carried out with varying values of this
parameter. The general default value recommended for SLTO by FE
package is 1% of average element size of contact pair. The model is
analyzed with contact adhesion force as zero.
Fig. 7a shows the details of global finite element model of a rotor
sector with skewed dovetail. A mesh convergence study is carried
out on the global model to ensure that the converged displacement
boundary conditions are imposed on the sub-model. The global
model is sufficiently refined and displacement convergence of less
than 0.5% is achieved at the cut boundaries selected in the model.
The global model is analyzed with the cyclic symmetric boundary
conditions imposed on the sector faces of the disc. One node on the
disc, away from the contact interface, is constrained in the axial and
tangential directions of the global model to prevent rigid body
motion. The global model involves modeling of two interfaces: one
on pressure side flank and other on suction side flank. Each
interface is modeled with an asymmetric contact pair, consisting
of contact element on blade flank and target element on disc flank.
Angular velocity (o) is applied on disc and blade roots about the
engine/rotor axis. It may be noted that the FE model includes only
blade dovetail root and not the blade portion above blade root
(i.e. not a complete blade), as it will minimize the model size.
Hence, the angular velocity application at the blade root simulates
only the centrifugal load effect of blade dovetail root. The cen-
trifugal load due to: (a) blade mass above dovetail root, (b) other
forces (FYG, FZG) and moments (MXG, MYG, MZG) due to aerodynamic
loads and (c) blade vibratory loads are transferred to dovetail
interface through a cross section of blade above dovetail root.
Hence, these loads could be statically transferred and applied at the
centre of area of top surface of blade dovetail root in a local
cylindrical coordinate system O–R–T–A, as shown in Fig. 7a.
Fig. 8. Details of sub-model.
Fig. 9. Contact pressure distribution for (a) straight dovetail model-LC1 and (b) skewed dovetail model-LC2, for friction coefficient of 0.3.
The transferred load at the blade root top surface area will also
be of three-dimensional forces (FR, FT, FA) and moments (MR, MT, MA)
in nature. These three-dimensional forces and moments depend on
the aerodynamic and structural design configurations of rotor,
which are proprietary information of engine manufacturer. Hence
the present analysis is carried out with assumed values for FR, FT, FA,
MR, MT and MA at the blade dovetail top independently and for two
combination cases, to explore and understand the influence of
these loads on fretting variables. Three-dimensional forces are
directly applied on a node at the centre of blade root top surface
area, and moments are simulated by the application of couples on
the blade top surface as shown in Fig. 7b.
Elastic analysis with contact non-linearity is carried out for
uniform temperature of 300 K (room temperature). Analyses are
carried out on the global model for different load cases as listed in
Table 1. The first phase of analysis (LC1, LC2) is carried out for
straight and skewed dovetails, to understand the skew effect of
dovetail interface. Analyses are carried out for the friction coeffi-
cients of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0 for these two load cases. Angular
velocity is the only loading considered in the first phase.
The second phase of analysis (LC3–LC8) is carried out with
additional three-dimensional loadings independently, to get
insight on distribution pattern of traction, slip and contact separa-
tions of these loads, over and above the skew effect. The third phase
analysis considers load cases (LC9, LC10) that are possible combi-
nations of three-dimensional loads that a blade cross section is
expected to pass through during severe operations. Analysis is
carried out for the friction coefficients of 0.3 and 0.7 for load cases of
phases 2 and 3. Load is applied from zero to the full load through
incremental steps, and held constant for all the load cases. Each
incremental step is otherwise called a sub-step. A 2D analysis is
also carried out with same level of refinement for load cases LC1
and LC2, for the sake of completeness and comparison of results.
Analysis is carried out on sub-model for all the load cases using
global model results. Two sub-modeling analyses are required for
convergence of results for both interfaces in the global model. Based
on the results of the global model, the interface that experiences the
peak contact pressure and the peak slip is considered to be more
important for sub-modeling analysis; such an approach is essential
to minimize the number of iterations in sub-model analysis. The
results are summarized in Table 2, for all the load cases. The study
indicates that analysis of one of the interface for all the load cases
will capture results of both interfaces. Hence, the pressure side flank
is chosen for sub-modeling implementation.
Fig. 8 shows the details of meshing and boundary conditions, for
the sub-modeling implemented on the pressure side flank
 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555
Fig. 10. Comparison of contact pressure between straight and skewed dovetails
along bottom and top contact edges, for friction coefficient of 0.3.
Fig. 11. Comparison of slip level between straight and skewed dovetails along
bottom and top contact edges, for friction coefficient of 0.3.
Fig. 12. Effect of friction on (a) peak contact pressure and (b) maximum slip.
1551
interface. Sub-modeling is implemented with very fine mesh
refinement, to achieve contact results convergence. Mesh refine-
ment is implemented up to R/h¼160 (where R is the nearest fillet
edge radius and h the contact element size in radial direction) with
aspect ratios of 2 and 4 in tangential and axial directions,
respectively, at the contact edges of sub-model. Mesh refinement
is carried out to the level of 30 mm at the contact edge zones. The
numbers of spatial and contact elements used for one side of sub-
model are 144,480 and 3200, respectively. With the above refine-
ment levels, the contact stresses and contact pressures converged
within  5–8%. Displacements are chosen as quantities taken from
global model analysis results, for use in boundary conditions of
sub-model grids, as solution convergence is faster compared to
force boundary conditions [23,33,36].
A SPARSE solver is used in this analysis with default non-linear
solution convergence tolerance (0.1%). Sensitivity studies are
carried out to ensure that sufficient numbers of sub-steps are used
in the solving process, to retain the results accurate. A minimum of
50 sub-steps are used in the global model solving, while 10 sub-
steps are used for the sub-model.
4. Results and discussion
Contact traction, slip and contact stresses are studied at the
dovetail interfaces and compared for the different load cases to
understand the effect of three-dimensional loading. The contact
results distribution is displayed in o–x–y–z coordinate system
indicated in Fig. 8
4.1. Effect of skew angle
Figs. 9 and 10 present the effect of skew angle on pressure
distribution pattern for LC1 and LC2 at the dovetail interface. A
skewed dovetail experiences about twice the peak contact pressure
compared to a straight dovetail at the bottom contact edge.
Significant pressure variation is observed along the bottom contact
edge in the skewed dovetail slot while the straight dovetail slot
shows constant pressure. The skew effect also tends to make a local
point contact at the bottom contact edge, compared to the line
contact pattern of a straight dovetail slot. The change in distribu-
tion pattern and rise of peak contact pressure are due to the
additional moment effect caused by the skew effect, about the
1552 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555

radial axis (X). Shear traction distribution over the interface follows
the same pattern of contact pressure, since gross sliding is observed
for the geometric configuration and for the applied bulk loading
considered here. The magnitude of shear traction is friction
coefficient times contact pressure.
The variations of contact traction along the dovetail at the
bottom contact edge (x/a ¼  1) and top contact edge (x/a¼1) are
compared for the straight and skewed dovetail models and the
results are plotted in Fig. 10. The results shown in the figure are for a
friction coefficient of 0.3; a similar trend is observed for friction
coefficient of 0.7 as well.
The variation of contact pressure along dovetail is significant
(zero at y/b¼ 1; peak at y/b¼1) at bottom contact edge (x/a¼  1)
for the skewed dovetail model, while, there is no perceivable
variation for the straight dovetail model. The bottom contact edge
(x/a¼  1) experiences higher peak contact pressure compared to
the top contact edges (x/a ¼1) in both cases. The zero contact
pressure near LE of bottom contact (x/a ¼  1, y/b¼  1) indicates
contact separation; also, the observed slip is zero at this zone. The
contact edge stress variation along dovetail axis follows the similar
pattern of contact pressure shown in Fig. 10. Slip (resultant of slip in
local x- and y-direction at the interface) variation is more along

Fig. 13. Contact pressure distribution patterns for (a) load case 3-LC3, (b) load case 4b-LC4b, (c) load case 5a-LC5a, (d) load case 5b-LC5b and (e) load case 9-LC9.
 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555 1553

skew axis for skewed dovetail, while it is constant for a straight
dovetail as shown in Fig. 11. Slip is observed to be less where
contact pressure is more. This is because of more shear resistance at
the location where contact pressure is more, due to friction
coefficient. Slip in the skewed dovetail is significantly high
compared to that in the straight dovetail. Higher peak slip is
observed for a skew model compared to that of a straight dovetail
model. Analysis of deflection and forces at the interface indicates
that the reason for higher slip may be due to higher tangential
deflection of disc due to the concentrated pressure at the diagonally
opposite sides of interfaces and associated moments (Mx).
This excessive deflection of disc permits the blade to slip more
in radial direction. Analysis of slip components shows higher slip
(  10 mm) in y-direction for a skewed dovetail compared to very
less slip (  1 mm) for straight dovetail.
4.2. Effect of friction
Peak contact pressure and slip amplitude are compared
between straight and skewed dovetails for friction coefficients
ranging from 0 to 1.0, and the same are presented in Fig. 12. The

Fig. 14. Slip distribution pattern for (a) load case 3-LC3, (b) load case 4b-LC4b, (c) load case 5a-LC5a, (d) load case 5b-LC5b and (e) load case 9-LC9.
1554 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555

peak contact pressure is observed at the bottom contact edge of the the different loading combinations studied. These peak contact
interface. The figure indicates decrease in contact pressure with results indicate the significance of three-dimensional loading on
increase in friction coefficient up to 0.7; the response is more or less fretting aspects, in qualitative terms, and would serve as a good
straight beyond the friction coefficient of 0.7, for both straight and input for optimizing the blade design while incorporating the
skewed dovetail slots. The skewed dovetail configuration experi- fretting aspects in the design.
ences two times the peak contact pressure of straight dovetail for
the friction coefficient range 0–0.5. Interestingly, the two-dimen-
sional analysis results also indicate a similar trend. 5. Conclusions
The peak slip amplitude observed over the interface decreases
with increase in friction coefficient. The peak slip amplitude is Based on this study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
stable beyond the friction coefficient of 0.5. The slip difference
between straight and skewed models is very high at zero friction 1. The skew effect increases the peak contact pressure and slip by a
and decreases with increase in friction coefficient. The contact factor of 2 compared to a straight dovetail slot. The skew effect
results of 2D and straight dovetail models match closely, since tends to shift the pressure distribution to a peak point contact
these models do not experience any additional force or moments. loading at the bottom contact edge, compared to the peak line
The minor differences noticed in the results are due to the three- contact loading obtained from a straight dovetail; other contact
dimensional modeling effect. variables and their distributions are also found to be signifi-
cantly different.
2. The blade airfoil loading combined with the skew effect further
4.3. Effect of three-dimensional airfoil loads increases the contact pressure, slip and surface stresses. The
peak contact pressure or contact stress is observed at either
The different types of contact pressure and slip distribution leading or trailing side of bottom or top contact edge, for all the
patterns over the interface, obtained from the load cases LC3–LC three-dimensional airfoil loading cases analyzed here.
10, are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. For the sake of brevity,
Figs. 13 and 14 present representative cases of contact pressure and Fretting variable distributions obtained from the study would
slip distributions obtained from the above load cases. Figs. 13(a) and provide good input for optimizing the blade while incorporating
14(a) indicate the pressure and slip distributions for load case LC3 and the fretting aspects in design. As skew angle is inevitable in the
similar distribution patterns are observed for load cases LC4a, LC6a, rotor assembly design due to dense packing of structure, the effects
Lc6b, LC8a and LC8b. The pressure and slip distribution patterns for of skew angle and three-dimensional loading are essential con-
load case LC4b are shown in Figs. 13(b) and 14(b), respectively. The siderations for accurate prediction of the fretting aspects.
pressure and slip distribution patterns for load case-LC5a are shown
in Figs.13(c) and 14(c), respectively, and similar distribution patterns
Acknowledgements
are observed for load case LC7b. Figs. 13(d) and 14(d) indicate the
pressure and slip distributions for load case LC5b and similar
The authors acknowledge the total support provided by Infotech
distribution patterns are also applicable for load case LC7a. The
Enterprises Limited (IEL), India, for the use of computing resources
pressure and slip distribution patterns for load case-LC9 are shown in
to carry out this study. The first author wishes to thank Dr. Antonio
Figs. 13(e) and 14(e), respectively, and similar distribution patterns
Davis for useful discussions and encouragement during this work.
are also observed for load case-LC10.
These results indicate clearly (1) the reduction in contact area,
(2) different types of distribution patterns for contact slip and References
pressure and (3) the contact separations, in response to three-
dimensional loads applied at the top surface of blade dovetail. The [1] Parks VJ, Sanford RJ. Photoelastic and holographic analysis of a turbine-engine
component. Experimental Mechanics 1978;18(9):328–34.
peak contact pressure, slip and stresses increase with the additional [2] Durelli AJ, Dally JW, Riley WF. Stress and strength studies on turbine blade
forces and moments and the same are summarized in Table 3, for attachments. Proceedings of Society for Experimental Stress Analysis 1958;XVI(1):
friction coefficient of 0.3. One of the important observations of this 171–86.
[3] Kenny B, Patterson E, Said M, Aradhya KS. Contact stress distribution in a
study is that the peak pressure and stresses are observed at the turbine disc dovetail type joint—a comparison of photo-elastic finite element
leading or trailing side of dovetail over the bottom contact edge for results. Strain 1991;27(1):21–4.
[4] Ciavarella M, Demelio G. A review of analytical aspect of fretting fatigue with
extension to damage parameters and application to dovetail joints. Interna-
Table 3 tional Journal of Solids and Structure 2001;38:1791–811.
Results summary of 3D load cases. [5] McVeigh PA, Harish G, Farris TN, Szolwinski MP. Modeling interfacial condi-
tions in nominally flat contacts for application to fretting fatigue of turbine
Load Peak contact pressure Peak von Mises stress Peak slip engine components. International Journal of Fatigue 1999;21:S157–65.
cases (MPa) (MPa) (mm) [6] Rajasekaran R, Nowell D. Fretting fatigue in dovetail blade roots: experiments
and analysis. Tribology International 2005;39:1277–85.
1 232 211 34 [7] Boddington PHB, Chen KC, Ruiz C. The numerical analysis of dovetail joints.
2 425 313 64 Journal of Computers and Structures 1985;20:731–73.
3 475 332 69 [8] Meguid SA, Refaat MH, Papanikos P. Theoretical and experimental studies of
4a 391 354 27 structural integrity of dovetail joints in aero engine discs. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 1996;56:1539–47.
4b 533 352 96
[9] Sinclair GB, Cormier NG, Griffin JH, Meda G. Contact stresses in dovetail
5a 524 363 72
attachments: finite element modeling. ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas
5b 374 261 81
Turbines and Power 2002;124:182–9.
6a 467 330 69 [10] Hammouda MMI, Pasha RA, Fayed AS. Modeling of cracking sites/development
6b 399 287 59 in axial dovetail joints of aero-engine compressor discs. International Journal
7a 398 287 59 of Fatigue 2007;29:30–48.
7b 459 335 67 [11] Murthy H, Harish G, Farris TN. Efficient modeling of fretting of blade/disc
8a 398 284 54 contacts including load history effects. ASME Journal of Tribology 2004;126:
8b 492 332 73 56–64.
9 660 455 114 [12] Hartle MS, Farris TN, Matlik JF, Rajeev PT. A hybrid approach to 3D edge of
10 738 533 130 contact stress analysis using singular integral equations. In: Proceedings of the
2001 national high cycle fatigue conference, Jacksonville, FL, 2001.
 K. Anandavel, R.V. Prakash / Tribology International 44 (2011) 1544–1555
[13] Jeff Calcetterra, Samir Naboulsi. Design methodology to investigate contact fatigue
in turbine engine hardware. International Journal of Fatigue 2005;27:1133–41.
[14] Johnson KL. Contact mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
[15] Hills DA, Nowell D. Mechanics of fretting fatigue. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1994.
[16] Hung Ching Chung. Elastic–plastic contact analysis of an ellipsoid and a rigid
flat. Tribology International 2010;43:491–502.
[17] Pierres E, Baietto MC, Gravouil A, Morales-Espejel G. 3D two scale X-FEM crack
model with interfacial frictional contact: application to fretting fatigue.
Tribology International 2010;43(10):493–503.
[18] Gun H. Elasto-plastic static stress analysis of 3D contact problems with friction
by using the boundary element method. Engineering Analysis with Boundary
Elements 2004;28(7):924–37.
[19] Bangyong Keum, Yijun Liu. Analysis of 3-D frictional contact mechanics
problems by boundary element method. Tsinghua Science and Technology
2005;10(1):16–29.
[20] Rodriguez-Tembleque L, Abascal R, Aliabadi MH. A boundary element for-
mulation for wear modeling on 3D contact and rolling-contact problems.
International Journal of Computers and Structures 2010;47(18–19):2600–12.
[21] Rodriguez-Tembleque L, Abascal RA. FEM–BEM fast methodology for 3D
frictional contact problems. International Journal of Computers and Structures
2010;88:924–37.
[22] Papanikos P, Meguid SA, Stjepanovic Z. Three dimensional nonlinear finite
element analysis of dovetail joints in aero engines disc. Finite Element in
Analysis and Design 1998;29:173–86.
[23] Beisheim JR, Sinclair GB. On the three-dimensional finite element analysis of
dovetail attachments. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery 2003;125:372–9.
[24] Beisheim JR, Sinclair GB. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of dovetail
attachments with and without crowning. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery
2008;130:021012-1.
1555
[25] Beisheim JR, Sinclair GB. Improved three-dimensional crowning profiles for
dovetail attachments. ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
2010;132:064504-1.
[26] Gallego L, Fulleringer B, Deyber S, Nelias D. Multiscale computation of fretting
wear at the blade/disk interface. Tribology International 2010;43:708–18.
[27] Waterhouse RB. Fretting fatigue. London: Applied Science Publishers Ltd.;
1981.
[28] Ruiz C, Boddington PHB, Chen KC. An investigation of fatigue and fretting in a
dovetail joint. Experimental Mechanics 1984;24:208–17.
[29] Ding J, Bandak G, Leen SB, Williams EJ, Shipway PH. Experimental character-
ization and numerical simulation of contact evolution effect on fretting
crack nucleation for Ti–6Al–4V. Tribology International 2009;42(11–12):
1651–2.
[30] Giummarra C, Brockenbrough JR. Fretting fatigue analysis using a fracture
mechanics based small crack growth prediction method. Tribology Interna-
tional 2006;39(10):1166–71.
[31] Fouvry S, Paulin C, Deyber S. Impact of contact size and complex gross-partial
slip conditions on Ti–6Al–4V/Ti–6Al–4V fretting wear. Tribology International
2009;42(3):461–74.
[32] Swalla DR, Neu RW. Influence of coefficient of friction on fretting fatigue crack
nucleation prediction. Tribology International 2001;34(7):493–503.
[33] ANSYS Users Documentation 2007; Rel. 11.
[34] Jinwey Feng. Active flow control for reduction of unsteady stator–rotor
interaction in a turbofan simulator, PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, 2000.
[35] Peter Wrigger. Computational contact mechanics. 2nd ed. The Netherlands:
Springer; 2006.
[36] Rajasekaran R, Nowell D. On the finite element analysis of contacting bodies
using sub-modeling. Journal of Strain Analysis 2005;40(2):95–106.