0
Research Papers

Mechanics Modeling of the Contact Loads on Dovetail Attachments

[+] Author and Article Information
Matthew C. Gean

 nanoPrecision Products, 802 Calle Plano, Camarillo, CA 93012matthewgean@yahoo.com

Thomas N. Farris

 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Busch Campus, Engineering B203, 98 Brett Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8058tfarris@soe.rutgers.edu

J. Appl. Mech 78(2), 021004 (Nov 04, 2010) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002566 History: Received January 25, 2009; Revised September 09, 2010; Posted September 16, 2010; Published November 04, 2010; Online November 04, 2010

A procedure for calculating contact loads on a dovetail surface for given engine performance parameters such as speed and temperature is described. The procedure requires a small number of predetermined calibrating finite element analyses to obtain empirical constants. Verification is provided by detailed finite element analyses. Contact loads can be calculated for an entire mission history in near real-time. The contact load histories could be used to calculate local stress necessary for fatigue life prediction.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Topics: Stress , Blades
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Dovetail geometry with loads transmitted from blade to disk

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Typical FEM mesh used to calculate contact loads

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Acceleration/deceleration mission

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Contact loads for acceleration/deceleration mission profile of Fig. 3(Pmax=930 N/mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Q versus P for the mission of Fig. 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Q versus P map for μ=0.6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Influence of friction coefficient (μmax=1.0) and modulus of elasticity (Emax=160 GPa) on the slope (m) given in Eq. 5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Influence of flank angle (θ) on the slope (m) given in Eq. 5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Q versus P for μ=tan(90−θ). The blade remains locked at zero engine speed.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Complicated speed only mission

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Prediction error compared with FEM for the results of the mission shown in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Shorter complicated speed only mission

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Prediction error for Inconel and μ=0.6 for the mission shown in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Prediction error for titanium and μ=0.3 for the mission shown in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Profile for the simple thermal mission

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Temperature difference across blade and disk, ΔTb

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Temperature difference in disk section, ΔTd

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Typical Q versus P results from the simple thermal mission shown in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Speed profile for the complex thermal mission

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Thermal profile for the complex thermal mission

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Results from the complex thermal mission

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In