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
StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia
StructuralStructural
IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia600
(2017) 115–121
(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 force method on the example of plane geometrically
Generalized
XV force method
Portuguese Conference onPCF
on Fracture, the2016,
example of plane
10-12 February 2016,geometrically
Paço de Arcos, Portugal
nonlinear problem
nonlinear problem
Thermo-mechanical modeling of a high pressure turbine blade of an
Meleshko V.A.
airplane gas turbine
Meleshko V.A. 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*
Abstracta
AbstractDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugal
Based b on the analytical expression for stiffness of the cross section, together with the developed force method, developed the
IDMEC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Based
numerical on the analytical
algorithm andexpression
computation forprogram
stiffness inofMathCad
the cross tosection,
determine
Portugal together with the developed
the elasto-plastic force method,
deformation. developed
The calculation of the
numerical
plane
c
CeFEMA, algorithm
rod systems andofcomputation
subject
Department Mechanical program inInstituto
to large displacements
Engineering, isMathCad to determine
implemented.
Superior the elasto-plastic
A comparison
Técnico, of the
Universidade deformation.
received
de Lisboa, Av.results The
Roviscowith calculation
Pais,the of the
finite element
1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
plane
methodrod systems
using Ansyssubject
softwareto large displacements is implemented.
is performed. A comparison of the received results with the finite element
Portugal
method using Ansys software is performed.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Copyright
© Abstract
2017 The © 2017 The Authors.
Authors. PublishedPublished
by by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V. B.V.organizers.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of theof MCM
the MCM2017 2017
organizers.
Peer-review under responsibility of the MCM 2017 organizers.
Keywords: generalized flexibility method; integral functioncomponents
During their operation, modern aircraft engine of state law ofare subjected
section; tangentto increasingly
stiffness; demanding
elastoplastic operating
deformation, large conditions,
especially
Keywords:
displacement, the high
generalized pressure
flexibility
Mor’s formula, turbine
method;
geometric (HPT) blades.
.
integral function
nonlinearity Such conditions cause these parts to undergo different types of
of state law of section; tangent stiffness; elastoplastic deformation, large time-dependent
degradation,
displacement, oneformula,
Mor’s of which is creep.nonlinearity
geometric A model .using the finite element method (FEM) was developed, in order to be able to predict
the creep behaviour of HPT blades. Flight data records (FDR) for a specific aircraft, provided by a commercial aviation
company, were used to obtain thermal and mechanical data for three different flight cycles. In order to create the 3D model
1.needed
Introductionfor the FEM analysis, a HPT blade scrap was scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
1.obtained.
Introduction The data that was gathered was fed into the FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
In modernblock
rectangular engineering
shape, in practice quite establish
order to better often it is thenecessary
model, andtothensolve thetheproblems
with connected
real 3D mesh obtainedwith
frommovements, big The
the blade scrap.
In modern
inoverall
comparison engineering
expectedwith
behaviour practice
the design sizes.
in terms quite
of Now often
it is itpossible
displacement iswas
necessary to in
to carry
observed, solve
out thenonlinear
the
particularproblems connected
analysis
at the trailing edge ofwith
only using
the movements,
Thereforebig
powerful
blade. such a
in comparison
computer
model can with the
programs
be useful whichdesign
in the sizes.
are based
goal of Now
on
predicting itturbine
is possible
application to carry
of FEM.
blade life, givenout the
a set of nonlinear
FDR data. analysis only using powerful
computer programs
In this work which arecalculation
elasto-plastic based on application of FEM.
of rod systems taking into account geometrical nonlinearity is considered
© 2016 Elsevier B.V.
by the generalized force method (GFM). The efficiency taking
In this The
work Authors. Published
elasto-plastic by
calculation of rod systems into account geometrical
of use (compulsory nonlinearity
health insurance) for the is considered
solution of
byPeer-review
suchthetasks (inunder
generalized responsibility
force
comparison method of(GFM).
with FEM)the Scientific
consists Committee
The efficiency
in ofofuse
PCF(compulsory
sharp increase 2016.
in high-speed health insurance)
performance andforreduction
the solution of used
of the
such tasksresources.
computer (in comparison
In thewith FEM) method
developed consistsusein sharp
of theincrease
computingin high-speed performance
scheme, explicit and
on time, andreduction of the
definitions used
on each
Keywords:resources.
tangentHigh
computer
step Pressure
rigidity InTurbine
isBlade;
the developed
system Creep;
supposed. Finite use
method Element Method;
of the 3D Model;
computing Simulation.
scheme, explicit on time, and definitions on each
stepUnlike
tangent therigidity system
generalized is supposed.
method of forces, at the solution of elasto-plastic tasks on the basis of FEM on each
Unlike the
temporary stepgeneralized method
it is necessary of forces,
to solve at theof
the system solution of elasto-plastic
the algebraic equationstasks
whichonnumber
the basis of FEM on each
is proportional to number
temporary
of finite elements. At application of the generalized method of forces the number of preparatory operationsto number
step it is necessary to solve the system of the algebraic equations which number is proportional
of finite elements.
increases, howeverAt theapplication
number ofof thethe generalized
algebraic method
equations onof forces
each stepthe number
is equal of to
only preparatory
number ofoperations
indetermination of
increases, however the number of the algebraic equations on each step is equal only to number of indetermination of
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.2017.11.018
116 V.A. Meleshko / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 115–121
2 Meleshko V.A./ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

rod system.
For statically definable systems it is possible to consider geometrical nonlinearity when calculating by the
generalized method of forces by definition on each step of projections of true length of an element of a rod and the
corresponding internal efforts. But for statically indefinable systems, it is previously necessary to solve the system
of the equations which number is equal to degree of static indefinability and then to define projections of a
curvilinear rod. Further the algorithm of nonlinear calculation will be considered by the generalized method of
forces.

Nomenclature

E modulus of elasticity
Epl tangent module
M1 bending moment from a single force
∆Me increment of moment for rod
b, h dimensions of section
σs yield strength
εs yield strain
∆ε increment of strain
∆σ increment of stress
∆χ increment of curvature
u displacement
θ rotation angle
x X component
∆t time step
{∆P̅ } vector of outside forces
{∆̅} vector of displacements
[K̅ ] stiffness matrix of system
[L] matrix of transformation of coordinates
{∆Pe} vector of force in nodes
{ ∆ e} vector of displacement in nodes
[Ke] stiffness matrix of rod

2. Mathematical model for definition of elasto-plastic deformations taking into account geometrical
nonlinearity

For the solution of geometrically nonlinear task the generalized Mor’s formula with a matrix of tangent rigidity
of Meleshko V. A., Rutman U. L. (2015) and Meleshko V. A., Rutman U. L. (2017) is considered . This matrix is
received as the integral characteristic of an intense and deformable condition of all points of section of a rod.
For flat rod systems in which only the bend is considered determination of tangent rigidity can be significantly
simplified. The analytical dependence of bending moment on integral function of a state for rectangular section is
received in Kovaleva, N.V., Skvortzov V.R., Rutman Y.L. (2007), for round in Ostrovskaya, N.V. (2015).
If not to consider influence of lateral force, then bending moments are proportional to integral function of a state.
Using results of Kovaleva, N.V., Skvortzov V.R., Rutman Y.L. (2007), for rectangular section the formula was
received

 σ s bh3 1
 ⋅ ,τ ≤ 1
 4ε s 3 E pl
T (τ ) =  ,a = . (1)
[ ( )]
3
 σ s bh ⋅ 1 ⋅ 1 + a τ (x )3 − 1 ,τ > 1 E
 4ε s 3τ (x )3
 V.A. Meleshko / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 115–121 117
Meleshko V.A./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Having tangents of rigidity of sections, it is possible to calculate tangents of rigidity of a flat rod in nodes of its
connection with other rods.
Sequence of the solution of geometrically nonlinear task (Fig. 1):
- definition of function of change of rigidity of section longwise (1);
- definition of stiffness coefficients of a flat rod element, using a method of initial parameters and the differential
equation of a curved axis of a rod (Appendix A);
- forming of a stiffness matrix of rod system (Appendix A). For comparison with FEM, definition of a stiffness
matrix with four degrees of freedom is considered in Ignatiev A.V. (2015);
- solution of system of the equations of a displacement method. Definition of internal efforts and the moments in
nodes of connection of rods;
- definition of diagrams of bending moments of rods through reactions in nodes (Appendix A);
- definition of distribution of curvature and deformations longwise rods in extreme fibers;
- determination of tension and deformations on the last step;
- definition of projections of a curvilinear rod to the main axes;
- forming of a new local stiffness matrix of a rod element, by means of the solution of the differential equation of a
curved axis of a beam, taking into account function of change of rigidity in section.
During creation of computing algorithms on each temporary step the above-stated formulas register in the form
of incremental ratios.

Fig. 1. Scheme of algorithm computation

118 V.A. Meleshko / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 115–121
4 Meleshko V.A./ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

2. Comparison of the received results with FEM in program complexes

For check of the developed mathematical model programs were written to MathCad for a console rod and
statically indefinable beam. Separate blocks of programs for indeterminable beam are provided to Appendix A.
Within this article, comparison of results with a finite element method in ANSYS was made only for a console rod
(Appendix B). In a task the following basic data were accepted:
- modulus of elasticity E=2,1⋅1011 Pa;
- tangent module of elasticity Epl=2,1⋅1010 Pa;
-коэффициент Пуассона ν = 0,3;
- yield strength σs = 240 MPa;
- rod length l = 1 m;
- width of rectangular section b = 0,2 m;
- section height h = 0,1 m;
- force F = 6⋅105 N, for the jammed console rod.
As the developed mathematical model considers distribution of tension on cross-sectional area, in ANSYS as
rated-reference, the solid-state model with the volume solid 186 elements (2500 elements) was used. When
calculating by the generalized forces method the rod was broken into 10 sites of integration. In the nonlinear
analysis 150 steps were set. Results of calculation are shown on Fig. 2.

a b
Fig. 2. Nonlinear computation of Cantilever rod in Ansys:

(a) displacements; (b) stress.

Comparison of the received results with ANSYS when you turn on the “Large deflection” shown in Tab. 1.
Displacements and rotation angles were defined on the generalized formula of Mora. Taking into account the
geometric nonlinearity the deviation was 11 %. Taking into account only the physical nonlinearity error was 0.25 %.

Table 1. Cantilever rod

Parameter GFM FEA (SOLID 186) δ, %
σ, MPa 1662 1497 11
∆, mm 400 360 11

Nonlinear behavior in the calculation of the generalized method forces was taken into account through the
projection of the curvilinear rod to the horizontal axis. It should be noted that the inclusion of large displacements in
ANSYS activates different types of behavior: large rotations, large deformations and stiffening from the stress state.
All of these models imply the change of stiffness during the deformation of the structure. For calculation in Ansys
took about 1 hour. When calculating the generalized force method took less than 1 second. This is with the
exception of the system of equations is based.
 V.A. Meleshko / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 115–121 119
Meleshko V.A./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

Appendix A. Programs for stiffness matrix of rod and bending moment

T
KLN := x ← ( 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 )
for k ∈ 2 .. 11
k x +x  k
 m −1 m ⋅ 0.1 , integ2  1 
integ1
k −1
← ∑  2⋅ Tk  k −1
← ∑  1⋅ T ⋅ 0.1
m =2   m=2  k 
in1 ← integ1 , in2 ← integ2
k k −1 k k −1
N11 ← in1 , N12 ← in2
k k
k  ( in1 + in1 )  k  ( in2 + in2 ) 
N21 ← ∑  m −1 m
⋅ 0.1 , N22 ← ∑  m −1 m
⋅ 0.1
 2   2 
m=2 m=2
−1 −1
 K11   N11 −N12   0   K14   N11 −N12   1 
  ←  ⋅ ,  ←  ⋅ 
 K21   N21 −N22   −1   K24   N21 −N22   0 
K13 ← −K11, K12 ← K14, K23 ← −K21, K32 ← K23, K31 ← K13, K41 ← K14
K42 ← K24, K43 ← −K21, K34 ← K43, K33 ← K11, K44 ← K14⋅ 1 − K24, K22 ← K44
 K11 K12 K13 K14 
 
K21 K22 K23 K24 
KLN ← 
 K31 K32 K33 K34 
 K41 
 K42 K43 K44 
KLN

 0 0 1 2  0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
∆M := MI ←  ,x ←  
 1 2 0 3  0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
for v ∈ 1 .. 2
KL ← KLN
v
for i ∈ 1 .. 3
for j ∈ 3
K1exp ← 0 , K2exp ←0
i, j i, j
for m ∈ 3 .. 4 , for m ∈ 1 , 2 , 4
for n ∈ 3 .. 4 for n ∈ 1 , 2 , 4
i ← MI i ← MI
1, m 2, m
j ← MI j ← MI
1, n 2, n
K1exp
i, j
← K1exp
i, j
+ KL ( 1) m , n K2exp
i, j
← K2exp
i, j ( 2) m , n
+ KL

−1
KS ← K1exp + K2exp, US ← KS ⋅ PS
for v ∈ 1 .. 2

U ← 0 0 US
1 ( 1
US
2 )T , U2 ← ( US1 US
2
0 US
3 )T
U← U ( 1
U
2 )T , Pv ← KLv⋅Uv
∆M ← for v ∈ 1 .. 2
for k ∈ 1 .. 11
k
∆M1
v, k
← ∑ xv , k ⋅ ( Pv)  − ( Pv)
 1 2
k =1
∆M1
∆M
KLN – local stiffness matrix of the rod at time step; ∆M – increment of bending moment; MI – index matrix.
120 V.A. Meleshko / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 115–121
6 Meleshko V.A./ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Appendix B. Program nonlinear analysis of a cantilever rod

KONSOL( n) := ε ←0
10
T
x ← ( 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 )
for i ∈ 0 .. n
ε
τ ←
εs
T← for k ∈ 0 .. 10
3
σs ⋅ b ⋅ h
⋅ 
1
T1 ←
k 3 ( k
1 + a1⋅  τ
)3 − 1 if τ
k
>1
2⋅ 2⋅ εs
 3⋅ ( τ ) 
 k 
3
σs ⋅ b ⋅ h 1
⋅ otherwise
2⋅ 2⋅ εs 3
T1
∆M ← for k ∈ 0 .. 10
k
∆M1
k
← ∑ (xk ⋅F)
k =0
∆M1
∆M h
∆χ ← , ∆ε ← ∆χ ⋅
T 2
ε ← ε + ∆ε , χ ← χ + ∆χ
σ ← σ + EPL⋅ ∆ε if τ >1
k
σ + E⋅ ∆ε otherwise
∆ ← for k ∈ 0 .. 10
10 χ +χ
[ ( m − 1 − k ) ⋅ Φ( m − 1 − 1.01k ) + ( m − k ) ⋅ Φ( m − 1.01k ) ] 
∆1
k
← ∑  m −1 m
⋅ 0.1⋅ ⋅ 0.1
 2 2 
m=1
∆1
θ ← for k ∈ 0.. 10 ,x ← for k ∈ 0 .. 10
10 χ m −1
+χ
m Φ( m − 1.01k ) 
x1 ←
k ( k)
cos θ ⋅ 0.1 if k > 0
θ1 ←
k ∑ 
 2
⋅ 0.1⋅
1

 0 otherwise
m=1
x1
θ1
T
( T χ ε σ ∆M ∆ θ x )

T –section stiffness; χ – curvature; ε –deformation ; σ – stress; ∆M – increment of bending moment; ∆ –

displacement; θ – rotation angle ; x – length of the integration section.

Displacement Stress
9
0.5 2×10
9
0.4 1.6×10
9
1.2×10
( KONSOL ( n) 5) k0.3 ( KONSOL ( n) 3) k 8
0.2 8×10
8
0.1 4×10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
k k
 V.A. Meleshko / Procedia Structural Integrity 6 (2017) 115–121 121
Meleshko V.A./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

References

Meleshko, V. A., Rutman, U. L., 2017. The generalization of the flexibility method for an elasto-plastic calculation of rod systems. Materials
physics and mechanics, 31, 67-70.
Meleshko, V. A., Rutman, U. L., 2015. Strength computation of rod systems with the consideration of physical nonlinearity using the generalized
flexibility method GFM. The results are compared with FEM. Eastern European Scientific Journal, 6, 150–161.
Kovaleva, N.V., Skvortzov, V.R., Rutman, Y.L., 2007. The definition of the parameters of the power chart plastically deformable structural
elements. Proceedings of the twenty-second international conference "Mathematical modeling in continuum mechanics. Methods of boundary
and finite elements", 220-225.
Ostrovskaya, N.V., 2015. Determination of the force-deformation response of plastically deformable round section curvilinear core. Bulletin of
civil engineers, 51, 68–73.
Ignatiev, A.V., 2015. Main formulations of the finite element method in structural mechanics problems. P.1. Vestnik MGSU, 1, 16-26.