Department of Engineering and Mathematics

Session: 2019/20
Module: 55-600199
Aerospace Structural Integrity
Module Leader: Dr David Asquith
Assignment number/title: CW1 Blade Root Analysis
Academic contact for guidance: Dr David Asquith

Maximum word count or number of pages: 3000

Percentage contribution to overall module mark: 50 %

Deadline for submission: 30/01/2020 at 15:00

Method and Location for Submission: Blackboard Submission

Deadline for return of feedback: 20/02/2020

Module learning outcomes to be assessed:

• Predict stresses in components using FEA and critically evaluate performance

References/recommended reading:
Literature, module material, and information on Blackboard

Moaveni, S. (2015). Finite element analysis theory and application with ANSYS (Fourth edition.).

Ansys training material available through link on Blackboard

Please ensure that all sources of information used are referenced. For guidance see:
http://libguides.shu.ac.uk/referencing
All assessments are subject to SHU's collusion and plagiarism regulations. Please refer to:
https://students.shu.ac.uk/shuspacecontent/assessment/plagiarism
 55-6660 Aerospace Structural Integrity
Assignment Brief 2019-20

INTRODUCTION
The aim of this assignment is to provide a suitable challenge for you to show your ability with numerical analysis of structures
using commercial FEA. The main areas of competence you need to evidence are detailed below and reflected in the
assessment criteria. The problem is deliberately broad to allow you to show creativity and innovation where possible. Some
additional resources are provided on Blackboard to help guide your work. Additional research is within the scope and will be
awarded credit accordingly. Your role as an analyst is to rigorously assess a design and determine its performance limitations;
there are no specific right or wrong answers, only good or bad application of tools and engineering science.

This assignment will focus on the analysis of a turbine or fan blade root such as that shown in. You should pay most attention
to the root/hub joint, research suggests that the blade root is more prone to failure so focus your analysis here with the hub
section acting as a boundary. The geometry is not specified for this problem and will form part of your solution. The
geometry in the paper on blackboard is simple in 2D but the curvature is more tricky, you can also look at a more modern
design.

Figure 1 Left, a blade root with fir tree design from a Rolls Royce RB211 engine. Right, meshing of a similar root and hub for analysis [1]

PART 1 GEOMETRY DEFINITION

Use the resources provided and your own research to define a geometry and create a solid model. You may do this in either
CAD software or Ansys, be aware that importing geometry has an additional layer of complications, it will however enable
you to demonstrate geometry clean-up. As an analyst it is also acceptable to use an existent geometry, and you may do so,
you must draw the parts yourself and be certain to reference carefully the source of your geometry. Some considerations are
given below:

• Try to make your geometry as realistic as possible

• Ensure you have sufficient features to provide simulation challenges
• Make sure you consider materials and loading at this point but bear in mind you can optimise later

PART 2 GEOMETRY CLEAN-UP

If you import geometry or create a sufficiently complex part, it is probable that some features will have detail that creates
meshing problems. Work through the geometry clean-tutorials and apply the same principles to your design. You may also
wish to consider singularities (notches) and fine fillets. You can deal with these later, but in the first instance an approximate
geometry may be required.
PART 3 LOAD CASE, MATERIAL, AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
This is a crucial stage in any modelling process. You have been given indicative cases for the geometries, but you need to
determine exactly what loads you will apply and how you will apply them. The choices you make here will affect the physics
of your simulation and subsequently influence the results. The simplest application of loads possible is often a good idea and
you should think about how to do this. A good starting place is the paper on Blackboard from RWE npower [2]. You will of
course need to apply a material so that the model has a value of elastic modulus to work with. This is less critical than the
boundary conditions, but you should still make a rational choice.

PART 4 INITIAL MESHING

Using the meshing tool build an initial mesh for your geometry. You may want to consider minimum element size and density
around features such as fillets and holes. You may also want to consider element type, if you are modelling the rib then shell
elements may be needed. Work through the tutorials to help you navigate the options in the meshing dialogue.

• Assess the quality of the mesh analytically

• Run an initial simulation and note key values
o Max stress, max deformation - you may want to select a particular location
• Keep a record of all these values

PART 5 REFINEMENT AND CONVERGENCE

In a logical manner (which you should document) refine the mesh and improve its quality, run a simulation with each major
change and note the same key values as before. Use these key values to plot a convergence study for your report. You may
wish to pick a particular part of your geometry to concentrate the convergence study on.

PART 6 SUB MODELLING

Your root/hub joint will have small scale features which may not work effectively in a full scale model. The general approach
in Ansys to achieve this is to define a sub model of the feature and run a separate simulation. You should aim to sub model at
least one feature of your geometry, the following steps give a brief overview of the process:

• Determine the feature to be sub-modelled (a fillet, contact point, or other ‘stress concentration’)
• You will need to carry out ‘results mapping’ so that your initial displacement case is carried through to the sub model
• Define the region you need to model and place cut boundaries. Be careful how you do this as proximity of concentrations will
reduce the quality of the sub model
• Mesh and solve
• Most importantly – follow the Ansys tutorials to assist you in doing this

EXTRA MILE WORK

There are 20 marks available for extra mile work, this can include, but is not limited to:

• Further refinement and study using different elements

• Detailed stepwise approach to using sub-models to provide a full solution
• Iteration of geometry to improve performance
• Definition of a validation experiment and verification of that
• Considering contact in the turbine blade

[1] W. Song, A. Keane, J. Rees, A. Bhaskar, and S. Bagnall, ‘Turbine blade fir-tree root design optimisation using intelligent
CAD and finite element analysis’, Comput. Struct., vol. 80, no. 24, pp. 1853–1867, Sep. 2002.
[2] ‘Forces on large steam turbine blades’. Royal Academy of Engineering, 2007.
 Criterion: Weighting: 1st (100 to 70%) 2.1 (69 to 60%) 2.2 (59 to 50%) 3rd (49 to 40%) Fail (39 to 0%) Zero:

Excellent and informative description of a well An informative description of the geometry A fairly informative introduction to the Some introduction/narrative included, Detail lost. Technical
implemented geometry creation process creation process, generally completed well. creation process, generally completed but lacking detail and justification. considerations and justifications
Geometry drawing on literature to support decisions. No A bare minimum of mistakes or errors in the well. No major mistakes or errors in the Errors / mistakes in the work missing or severely lacking.
Definition and 15% errors or mistakes in the work presented. work presented. Research used to inform work presented. Geometry clean up presented. No evidence of, or no Multiple or major errors/mistakes
clean up (parts Complex geometry simplified and cleaned design. Attention paid to cleaning geometry attempted and executed with some attempt at, clean up made. included within the geometry
1 and 2) where appropriate with suitable discussion with majority of issues tackled success and supported with cursory definition and clean up.
about implications. appropriately and discussed. discussion.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z
Loads accurately calculated taking account of Appropriate load calculated from Loads calculated in a reasonable Boundary conditions, materials or Major errors in boundary
range of operating conditions and using fundamental dynamics. Boundary manner possibly with some minor loads lacking in accuracy. Lacking conditions, materials or loads
Load case and support from literature. Boundary conditions conditions justified with credible arguments. mistakes. Sensible value for load appropriate research and justification. brought about by a fundamental
boundary 10% selected and justified through research with Material selection and material property selected. Reasonable boundary lack in research and detailed
conditions physics argued appropriately. Material selected values justified by research. conditions selected. justification.
with supporting research and properties
justified in context.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z
Initial mesh created with standard elements Initial mesh created with standard elements Mesh created and analytics output. Mesh created with errors or significant Model not appropriately meshed.
and mesh analytics presented, good discussion and mesh analytics presented. Some Shortcomings presented but not problems. Little or no discussion of the No refinement strategy presented.
Initial meshing 5% of quality and shortcomings with identification discussion of mesh quality and features, discussed, refinement strategy brief or refinement strategy to be undertaken.
of key singularities presented along with a proposals for refinement listed. vague.
strategy for refinement.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z
Comprehensive refinement strategy Refinement strategy followed and Mesh refined without following a logical Refinement not performed suitably. No refinement carried out.
implemented with discussion of effects and improvements discussed (effects of mesh strategy, convergence study presented Convergence not shown (i.e. two Convergence not attempted. Final
Mesh implication of controls used. Documented controls). Convergence study shows but with some errors. Final results points or no data) no discussion of mesh not discussed.
20% convergence study showing improvement in stepwise improvement of the mesh along reasonable but not discussed in detail. mesh quality in final model.
refinement and
convergence results, discussion included of final mesh with discussion of final mesh.
quality.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z
Area to sub model clearly identified based on Sub-model area selected with some Sub-model carried out with sensible Sub-model discussed and attempted No sub-modelling attempted.
meshing, initial results and final refined mesh. justification process implemented with region. Boundary cuts questionably with major errors or mistakes (poor
Boundary cuts considered in the context of minimal errors or issues. Results presented placed or not justified clearly. Results boundary cuts, incomplete results
20% geometry and implemented effectively. Sub- in a reasonable format. contain errors or some mistakes. mapping, no improvement in local
Sub-modelling model run efficiently with results mapping stress field)
successfully implemented and reasonable
output.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z
Several additional pieces of work included to At least one extra mile piece attempted and Extra mile work attempted and Cursory consideration of an extra mile No extra mile work attempted.
similar standards as the rest of the report. some good standard of work presented. included, possibly lacking in detail or task, poor standard and errors evident.
20% contribution to overall assignment not
Extra mile
clear.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z
Concise and professional report consisting of Well-presented report with clear structure Good report, structure not wholly Report presented in a mediocre Poorly presented report,
good data presentation and discussion without and content, no superfluous data or logical, but work understandable. Issues fashion. Figures not easy to read or haphazard and unclear
extraneous information. References included in discussion. References included in a with clarity of figures and/or lacking illogically placed, scale bars and/or presentation of figures and data.
10% a standard format. standard format. discussion or relevance to the text. captions missing. References included References not listed.
Report
References included in a standard in non-standard format or as a
format. bibliography.
VH H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L VL Z