Chapter 7
Rotor Blade Finite Element
Previous chapters have focused on rotating beams with only the outofplane motion. In this chapter, we study rotating blades which have inplane bending, torsion and axial degrees of freedom. Rotor blades are essential and critical components of helicopters, turbines, compressors and other rotatory machinery [1 –6 ]. Blade failure is a severe accident causing the entire machine to shut down. Among the various factors leading to a blade failure, resonance is regarded as the most important [ 7]. Therefore, determining the free vibration characteristics of the rotating blades is essential toward their reliable design and avoidance of their catastrophic failure. The accurate prediction of natural frequencies of rotating blades using the ﬁnite element methods is an active area of research [8, 9]. In earlier works, as reported in the literature, some researchers have used two and three dimensional ﬁnite ele ment models for accurate prediction of the vibration characteristics. Leissa [10] used shell ﬁnite elements to study the vibrations of turbine engine blades. Ramamurti and Sreenivasamoorthy [11 ] used a three dimensional 20 noded isoparametric ﬁnite ele ment for the analysis of the stresses in a rotating blade. Bogomolov et al. [ 12] used a superparametric shell ﬁnite element to predict the vibrational characteristics of a real blade. Bucco and Mazumdar [13 ] and Repetskii [ 14 ] extended their works with the shell ﬁnite elements to analyze different blade conﬁgurations. Jiang et al. [15 ] studied the nonlinear vibrations of rotating beams by using the tetrahedral and the solid ﬁnite elements. Qin et al. [16 ] used a three dimensional ﬁnite element model with 8noded brick element to model a turbine blade. Typically, detailed 3D and shell ﬁnite element formulations are useful for the stress analysis. The two and three dimensional analysis of the whole structure are computation ally more expensive and not practical for dynamic analysis and control applica tions. To reduce the computation effort and computation time for the analysis, some researchers have used onedimensional beam models for the ﬁnite element analysis of rotating blades. Such models are especially useful for vibration control applications where the model size must be kept small [ 17 ]. Most works on low order FEM model ing have concentrated on beams undergoing outofplane bending motion only. Very
© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 R. Ganguli, Finite Element Analysis of Rotating Beams, Foundations of Engineering Mechanics, DOI 10.1007/9789811019029_7
171
172
7 Rotor Blade Finite Element
few works have addressed the beam undergoing outofplane bending, inplane bend
ing, torsion and axial deformations. Durocher and Kane [ 18 ] investigated the blade deﬂections with a beam ﬁnite element. They included the effects of shear stress, axial torsion coupling and torsional stiffness in their ﬁnite element formulation. Ormiston and Hodges [ 19 ] included the effects of precone, variable elastic coupling, pitch lag coupling and the aerodynamics of induced ﬂow in their formulation and studied the stability characteristics of the rotor blade ﬂaplag oscillations in hover. In an extension of onedimensional ﬁnite element analysis, Qin and Mao [ 20] used a shaft ﬁnite element model with ten degrees of freedom for the coupled torsionalﬂexural vibrations of the rotor systems. Similar models have also been developed for rotary shaft systems by Ruhl and Booker [ 21] and Thorkildson [ 22 ]. Belo and Marques [ 23 ] used the ﬁnite element analysis to analyze a helicopter blade undergoing the coupled motions of ﬂapping, leadlagging, axial stretching and torsion. They also included the pretwist angle and the offsets between the mass and the elastic axes in their blade model. Some researchers have also used nonconventional modeling techniques for the vibration analysis of rotating structures. Putter and Manor [24 ] demonstrated the use of assumed mode approximation method for the modal analysis of a rotating beam. Ramamurti and Kielb [ 25 ] employed a plate theory to calculate the natural frequencies of rotating pretwisted blades. Yoo et al. [26] used a modeling method which employs hybrid deformation variables for the vibration analysis of pretwisted blades. Banerjee [ 27 , 28] used Dynamic Stiffness Method (DSM) for the free vibra tion analysis of centrifugally stiffened uniform and tapered beams. Hashemi and Richard [ 29 ] combined the wellknown weighted residual method, as used in the conventional FEM and some interesting features of DSM, and developed a Dynamic Finite Element (DFE) for vibrational analysis of the rotating structures. Kuang and Hsu [ 30 ] used generalized differential quadrature method to calculate the eigenso lutions of grouped turbo blades.
A set of governing equations of a rotating blade was developed by Hodges and
Dowell [ 31]. A ﬁfteen degree of freedom FEM model was used by Bir et al. [ 32 ] to
develop an aeroelastic analysis based on the equations derived in [ 31 ]. This FE model included the effects of the coupled motions in ﬂapwise bending, leadlag bending, axial deformation and torsion. They considered four degrees of freedom in each of ﬂapwise, leadlag bending and axial deformation, and three degrees of freedom in torsion. In their model, all the shape functions are polynomials. Also, almost all the works on rotating blade ﬁnite element analysis use polynomial shape functions, which may not have good convergence properties.
In the present chapter, we seek to develop new shape functions using the exact
solutions of the governing static differential equations of a rotating blade coupled in ﬂapwise bending, leadlag bending, axial deformation and torsion. Current research shows that such an approach leads to an element with superior convergence prop erties [ 33–35 ]. For example, in Reddy’s superconvergent Timoshenko beam ele ment [ 35 ], the transverse deﬂection is modeled using a cubic polynomial and the rotation ﬁeld by a quadratic polynomial. These polynomials are the exact solutions
of the homogenous form of the equation from Timoshenko beam theory. The result
7
Rotor Blade Finite Element
173
ing element is free from shear locking and gives exact results at the nodes because the basis from the exact solution is also used to represent the ﬁnite element solution. Generally, locking may be avoided if interdependence of the approximated ﬁelds is not neglected; for example, by considering exact solutions. Following Reddy’s work, Gopalakrishnan and his coworkers [33, 34 , 36 ] applied the idea to more com plex structures. In general, these studies consider a uniform structure when devel oping the shape functions which can then be used for nonuniform ﬁnite element analysis. For rotating blade problems, the displacement ﬁeld resulting from such an approach captures the effect of centrifugal stiffening more accurately. Typically, the shape functions derived by using this approach tend to be the functions of the element crosssectional properties. However, the research done till now in this area has considered only simple problems where the exact solution could be easily obtained. In this chapter, we consider a much more complex problem and show that by capturing the primary effect of the centrifugal stiffening, shape functions can be derived which have considerably superior convergence characteristics as compared to polynomials.
7.1 Energy Expressions
The energy expressions for a rotating blade including the effects of moderate rota tions were derived by Hodges and Dowell [31 ] and are used in UMARC [ 32]. This approach assumes moderate deﬂection in deriving the strain displacement relations and isotropic material properties for the stressstrain relations. The rotor blade is idealized as a beam undergoing ﬂap bending, lag bending, torsion and axial defor mation and the blade is pitched at an angle θ _{0} . For the free vibration analysis of a rotating blade, the variation of strain energy expression is given as:
U _{b} m _{0} ^{2} L ^{3} ^{=} 1
δ
0
^{} U u
_{e} δ u _{e} + U _{v} δ v ^{} + U _{w} δ w ^{} + U _{v} δ v ^{}^{} + U _{w} δ w ^{}^{} + U _{φ} δφ
(7.1)
In Eq. (7.1), U _{w} is obtained by collecting together the coefﬁcients of the term δ w ^{} . Other terms are similarly obtained. Where,
+ U _{φ} δφ ^{} + U _{φ} δφ ^{}^{} ^{} dx
U
u
_{e}
= EA u _{e} + K θ
2
A
_{0} ^{} _{φ} _{+} _{w} _{v} ^{} _{+} _{K} _{A} 2 ^{φ} ^{} ^{2}
2
− EAe _{A} ^{} v ^{}^{} ( cos θ _{0} − φ sin θ _{0} ) + w ^{}^{} ( sin θ _{0} + φ cos θ _{0} ) ^{} 
(7.2) 
U _{v} = 0 
(7.3) 
174
7 Rotor Blade Finite Element
U _{v} = v ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} cos ^{2} θ _{0} + EI _{y} sin ^{2} θ _{0} ^{} + w ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos θ _{0} sin θ _{0}
− EAe _{A} u _{e} ( cos θ _{0} − φ sin θ _{0} ) − φ ^{} EB _{2} θ _{0} cos θ _{0}
+ w ^{}^{} φ ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos 2 θ _{0} − v ^{}^{} φ ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin 2 θ _{0}
+
GJ + EB _{1} θ ^{} _{0} φ ^{} w ^{} + EAK
2
2
A
θ _{0} w ^{} u _{e}
U _{w} = GJ + EB _{1} θ _{0} ^{2} φ ^{} v ^{}^{} + EAK
2
A
θ
_{0} v ^{}^{} u
_{e}
(7.4)
(7.5)
U _{w} = w ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{y} cos ^{2} θ _{0} + EI _{z} sin ^{2} θ _{0} ^{} + v ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos θ _{0} sin θ _{0}
−
+ w ^{}^{} φ ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin 2 θ _{0} + v ^{}^{} φ ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos 2 θ _{0}
EAe _{A} u _{e} ( sin θ _{0} + φ cos θ _{0} ) − φ ^{} EB _{2} θ _{0} sin θ _{0}
U _{φ} = w ^{}^{} ^{2} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin θ _{0} cos θ _{0} + v ^{}^{} w ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} _{−}_{E}_{I} _{y} ^{} cos 2 θ _{0}
− v ^{}^{} ^{2} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin θ _{0} cos θ _{0}
U _{φ} = GJ ^{} φ ^{} + w ^{} v ^{}^{} ^{} + EB _{1} θ _{0} ^{2} φ ^{} + EAK
A
^{} θ _{0} + φ ^{} ^{} u
e
2
EB _{2} θ _{0} ^{} v ^{}^{} cos θ _{0} + w ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} ^{}
= EC _{1} φ ^{}^{} + EC _{2} ^{} w ^{}^{} cos θ _{0} − v ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} ^{}
−
(7.6)
Here, E and G are nondimensionalized with m _{0} ^{2} . All the dimensional quan tities having dimension of length are nondimensionalized with blade radius L. An antisymmetric warping function, λ _{T} , is assumed (λ _{T} ∝ ηζ ) . Here EC _{1} and EC _{2} are related to the restraint of warping displacements. Therefore, they are generally more important for the open section beams. The variation of kinetic energy expression for the blade is given as:
U
φ
T _{b} m _{0} ^{2} L ^{3} ^{=} 1
δ
0
m ^{} T _{u} _{e} δ u _{e} + T _{v} δ v + T _{w} δ w + T _{v} δ v ^{} + T _{w} δ w ^{} + T _{φ} δφ + T _{F} ^{} dx
Where,
T _{u} _{e}
= x + u _{e} + 2 v˙ − u¨ _{e}
T _{v} =
e _{g} ^{} cos θ _{0} + θ _{0} sin θ _{0} ^{} + v − φ e _{g} sin θ _{0} + 2 w˙ β _{p} + 2 v˙ ^{} e _{g} cos θ _{0}
¨
+ 2 w˙ ^{} e _{g} sin θ _{0} − v¨ + φ e _{g} sin θ _{0} − 2 u˙ _{e} + 2
¨
^{x}
^{} v ^{} v˙ ^{} + w ^{} w˙ ^{} ^{} d ζ
0
T _{v} =
T _{w} =
− e _{g} ( x cos θ _{0} − φ x sin θ _{0} + 2 v˙ cos θ _{0} )
¨
− x β _{p} − θ _{0} e _{g} cos θ _{0} − 2 v˙β _{p} − w¨ −
¨
φ e _{g} cos θ _{0}
T _{w} = − e _{g} ( x sin θ _{0} + φ x cos θ _{0} + 2 v˙ sin θ _{0} )
T _{φ} =
− K φ − K _{m} _{2} − K _{m} _{1} cos θ _{0} sin θ _{0} − x β _{p} e _{g} cos θ _{0} − ve _{g} sin θ _{0} − we¨ _{g} cos θ _{0}
2
m
¨
2
2
T _{F}
¨
+ v ^{} xe _{g} sin θ _{0} − w ^{} xe _{g} cos θ _{0} + ve¨ _{g} sin θ _{0} − φ K _{m} _{2} − K _{m} _{1} cos 2 θ _{0} − K θ
2
2
2
m
_{0}
= − ( x + 2 v˙)
0
^{x} ^{} v ^{} δ v ^{} + w ^{} δ w ^{} ^{} d ξ
(7.7)
(7.8)
(7.9)
(7.10)
(7.11)
(7.12)
(7.13)
(7.14)
7.1
Energy Expressions
175
As indicated by the foreshortening term, T _{F} , the variation of kinetic energy, δ T _{b} , results in the following double integral expression.
−
1 mT _{F} dx = 1 m ( x + 2 v˙) x ^{} v ^{} δ v ^{} + w ^{} δ w ^{} ^{}
0
0
0
Integrating Eq. ( 7.15) by parts yields,
−
1 mT _{F} dx =
0
0
1 ^{} v ^{} δ v ^{} + w ^{} δ w ^{} ^{}
x
1 m ( x + 2 v˙)
=
1 F _{A} ^{} v ^{} δ v ^{} + w ^{} δ w ^{} ^{} dx
0
+ 1 ^{} v ^{} δ v ^{} + w ^{} δ w ^{} ^{} 1 2 m vd˙
0
x
ξ
with the axial centrifugal force F _{A} , deﬁned as,
F _{A} ( x ) = 1 mxd ξ
x
d ξ dx 
(7.15) 
d ξ dx 

dx 
(7.16) 
(7.17) 
Here, F _{A} reﬂects the “centrifugal stiffening” effect on the ﬂap and lag equations.
7.2 Governing Differential Equations
The rotor blades are modeled as Euler–Bernoulli beams undergoing axial, ﬂap, lag and torsion deformations. The chordwise offset of mass centroid (center of gravity) and area centroid (tension axis) from elastic axis, initial precone and pretwist angles are considered in the formulation. Hamilton’s variational principle is used to derive the blade equations of motion. In the absence of any external loads, the Hamilton’s principle can be written as,
δ _{b} =
t
1
t
2
(δ U − δ T ) dt = 0
(7.18)
where δ U is virtual strain energy and δ T is virtual kinetic energy. By using Eqs. ( 7.1), ( 7.7) and ( 7.18 ), the governing differential equations of a rotating blade are obtained. By solving these differential equations, we can ﬁnd the displacements u _{e} , v , w and φ . Here u _{e} and φ have continuous second derivatives and v and w have continuous fourth derivatives.
176
7 Rotor Blade Finite Element
m ( x + u _{e} + 2 v˙ − u¨ _{e} ) + EAu
e
2
+ EAK ^{} θ φ ^{} + θ _{0} φ ^{}^{} ^{} − EAe _{A} v ^{}^{}^{} cos θ _{0}
A
0
+EAe _{A} v ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} θ _{0} − EAe _{A} ^{} w ^{}^{} cos θ _{0} θ _{0} + w ^{}^{}^{} sin θ _{0} ^{} = 0
(7.19)
¨
2 me _{g} cos θ _{0} + m θ _{0} sin θ _{0} + mv − 2 m φ e _{g} sin θ _{0} + 2 m w˙ β _{p} − m v¨ + 4 m v˙ ^{}
e _{g} cos θ _{0} + 2 m w˙ ^{} e _{g} sin θ _{0} + m φ e _{g} sin θ _{0} − 2 m u˙ _{e} − mxe _{g} sin θ _{0} θ _{0} − me _{g}
φ ^{} x sin θ _{0} − me _{g} φ x cos θ _{0} θ _{0} − 2 me _{g} v˙ sin θ _{0} θ _{0} − v ^{I}^{V} ^{} EI _{z} cos ^{2} θ _{0} + EI _{y} sin ^{2} θ _{0} ^{}
¨
+ 2 EI _{z} v ^{}^{}^{} sin 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} − 2 EI _{y} v ^{}^{}^{} sin 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} + 2 EI _{z} v ^{}^{} cos 2 θ _{0} θ
sin 2 θ _{0} θ − 2 EI _{y} cos 2 θ _{0} v ^{}^{} θ _{0} ^{2} − EI _{y} sin 2 θ _{0} v ^{}^{} θ − w ^{I}^{V} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin 2 θ _{0}
_{0} ^{2} + EI _{z} v ^{}^{}
0
0
− 2 w ^{}^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} + 2 w ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin 2 θ _{0} θ
0
2
2
− 3φ ^{} EB _{2} sin θ _{0} θ
− EAe _{A} u _{e} cos θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} − EAe _{A} u _{e} sin θ _{0} θ + φ ^{}^{}^{} EB _{2} θ _{0} cos θ _{0}
+ EAe _{A} u cos θ _{0} − 2 EAe _{A} u sin θ _{0} θ
0
^{θ}
0
e
e
0
0
+ 2 φ ^{}^{} EB _{2} θ cos θ _{0} − 2 φ ^{}^{} EB _{2} sin θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} − φ ^{} EB _{2} cos θ _{0} θ
0
0
3
− w ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos 2 θ _{0} θ + φ ^{} EB _{2} θ cos θ _{0} + v ^{} 1 mxd ξ = 0
0
0
x
(7.20)
¨
¨
− mx β _{p} − m θ _{0} e _{g} cos θ _{0} − 2 m v˙β _{p} − m w¨ − m φ e _{g} cos θ _{0} + me _{g} sin θ _{0} + me _{g} x
cos θ _{0} θ _{0} + me _{g} φ ^{} x cos θ _{0} + me _{g} φ cos θ _{0} − me _{g} φ x sin θ _{0} θ _{0} + 2 me _{g} v˙ ^{} sin θ _{0} + 2 me _{g} v˙
cos θ _{0} θ _{0} − w ^{I}^{V} EI _{y} cos ^{2} θ _{0} + EI _{z} sin ^{2} θ _{0} − 2 w ^{}^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} sin 2 θ _{0} − EI _{y} sin 2 θ _{0} ^{}
θ _{0} − 2 w ^{}^{} EI _{z} cos 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} − w ^{}^{} EI _{z} sin 2 θ _{0} θ
0
+ 2 w ^{}^{} EI _{y} cos 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} + 2 EI _{y} w ^{}^{} sin 2 θ _{0} θ
− v ^{I}^{V} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} ^{s}^{i}^{n} ^{2} ^{θ} ^{0} − 2 v ^{}^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} + EAe _{A} u sin θ _{0}
2
e
+ 2 v ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} sin 2 θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} − v ^{}^{} ^{} EI _{z} − EI _{y} ^{} cos
2 θ _{0} θ + 2 EAe _{A} u cos θ _{0} θ
0
e
0
0
+ EAe _{A} u _{e} cos θ _{0} θ + EAe _{A} u _{e} sin θ _{0} θ
0
_{0} ^{2} + φ ^{}^{}^{} EB _{2} θ
_{0} sin θ _{0} + 2 φ ^{}^{} EB _{2} θ sin θ _{0}
0
+ 2 φ ^{}^{} EB _{2} cos θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} − φ ^{} EB _{2}
sin θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{3} + 3φ ^{} EB _{2} cos θ _{0} θ
0 ^{θ}
0
+
φ EB _{2} sin θ _{0} θ
0
+ w ^{} ^{1} mxd ξ
x
= 0
(7.21)
2
m
− mK
φ − m K _{m} _{2} − K
¨
2
2
m 1 ^{} sin 2 θ _{0}
2
− mx β _{p} e _{g} cos θ _{0} − mve _{g} sin θ _{0} + mv ^{} xe _{g} sin θ _{0}
− mw ^{} xe _{g} cos θ _{0} − m φ K _{m} _{2} − K _{m} _{1} cos 2 θ _{0} + m ve¨ _{g} sin θ _{0} − m we¨ _{g} cos θ _{0} − mK
2
2
2
m
¨
θ
0
+ GJ φ ^{}^{} + EB _{1} θ _{0} ^{2} φ ^{}^{} + 2EB _{1} θ
− EB _{2} θ _{0} w ^{}^{}^{} sin θ _{0} − EB _{2} θ ^{} v ^{}^{} cos θ _{0} + w ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} ^{} + EB _{2} v ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} θ
cos θ _{0} θ _{0} ^{2} − EC _{1} φ ^{I}^{V} − EC _{2} w ^{I}^{V} cos θ _{0} + 2EC _{2} w ^{}^{}^{} sin θ _{0} θ _{0} + EC _{2} w ^{}^{} cos θ _{0} θ
+ EC _{2} w ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} θ + EC _{2} v ^{I}^{V} sin θ _{0} + 2EC _{2} v ^{}^{}^{} cos θ _{0} θ
_{0} ^{2} = 0
+ EC _{2} v ^{}^{} cos θ _{0} θ − EC _{2} v ^{}^{} sin θ _{0} θ
0 ^{θ}
0
φ ^{} + EAK θ
A
0 ^{u}
2
_{e} + EAK θ
A
0 ^{u}
e
− EB _{2} θ _{0} v ^{}^{}^{} cos θ _{0}
_{0} ^{2} − EB _{2} w ^{}^{}
0
2
(7.22)
2
0
0
0
0
7.3
Derivation of the Shape Functions
177
7.3 Derivation of the Shape Functions
Ideally, the shape functions could be derived using exact solutions of the static part of the differential equations given by Eqs. ( 7.19)–( 7.22). However, these equations are complicated due to coupling terms. For example, the presence of twist θ _{0} strongly
couples the lag equation ( 7.20) and ﬂap equation ( 7.21). Our aim is to capture the effect of centrifugal stiffening in the shape functions, as it is the primary effect of rotation. For simplifying the derivation of the shape functions, we set a number of
˙
¨
θ _{0} , e _{g} , β _{p} and e _{A} . We also
variables to zero. These variables are θ _{0} , θ _{0} , θ
0 ^{,} set EC _{1} , EC _{2} , EB _{1} and EB _{2} equal to zero, as they are higher order effects relating to warping. By making these assumptions, the nondimensional differential equations ( 7.19)– ( 7.22) reduce to,
θ _{0} ,
EAu
e
+ m ( x + u _{e} + 2 v˙ − u¨ _{e} ) = 0
(7.23)
EI _{z} v ^{I}^{V} − mv + m v¨ + 2 m u˙ _{e} − v ^{}
x
1
mxd ξ = 0
(7.24)
_{y} w ^{I}^{V} + m w¨ − w ^{} 1 mxd ξ =
EI
x
0
(7.25)
(7.26)
To derive the shape functions based on the logic discussed in the introduction section, we remove the inertial and velocity terms to obtain the static part of the governing homogenous differential equations. These equations in dimensional form are given as:
GJ φ ^{}^{} − mK
m
φ − m φ ^{} K _{m} _{2} − K _{m} _{1} ^{} = 0
2
¨
2
2
EAu + m ^{2} u _{e} = 0
e
(7.27)
_{z} v ^{I}^{V} − m ^{2} v − v ^{} L m ^{2} xd ξ = 0
EI
x
_{y} w ^{I}^{V} − w ^{} L m ^{2} xd ξ = 0
EI
x
GJ φ ^{}^{} − m ^{2} φ ^{} K _{m} _{2} − K _{m} _{1} ^{} = 0
2
2
where,
T = L m ^{2} xd ξ
x
(7.28)
(7.29)
(7.30)
(7.31)
178
7 Rotor Blade Finite Element
Fig. 7.1 Element geometry of the rotating blade
The axial and torsion equations are second order equations and can be solved for constant coefﬁcients. Therefore they ‘strongly’ satisfy the requirements for a superconvergent element. But the exact solutions for the ﬂap and the lag equations are not possible, even for a uniform blade. In these bending cases, we assume T as a constant value. The dimensionalized differential equations ( 7.27)–( 7.31) are solved using Maple ^{T}^{M} [ 39 ] by assuming constant tension T _{i} prevailing in the i th ﬁnite element. For the full blade, the approximation of the constant tension is not appropriate. But, if we discretize the blade into N number of ﬁnite elements, then the approximation of constant tension for the ﬁnite element becomes realistic. We can say that the bending shape functions satisfy the superconvergence requirements in a ‘weak’ sense. The constant tension T _{i} for the element is approximated by taking the average centrifugal tension in the element. The centrifugal tension T _{i} for the i th element as shown in Fig. 7.1 can be expressed as:
T i =
x
i
L
m _{i} ^{2} xdx
(7.32)
Here x _{i} is the location of the left edge of the ﬁnite element. The solutions of the differential equations ( 7.27)–( 7.31) are obtained as:
u _{e} = C _{1} sin ^{m} ^{} ^{2} x + C _{2} cos ^{m} ^{} ^{2} x
EA
EA
(7.33)
v = C _{3} exp ⎡
_{⎣} _{−} T − ^{} T ^{2} + 4 EI _{z} m ^{2}
2
EI _{z}
x ⎦ ⎤ + C _{4} exp ⎡
_{⎣} T − ^{} T ^{2} + 4 EI _{z} m ^{2}
2
EI _{z}
⎦
x ⎤
7.3
Derivation of the Shape Functions
179
+ C _{5} exp ⎡
_{⎣} _{−} T + ^{} T ^{2} + 4 EI _{z} m ^{2}
2
EI _{z}
⎤ x ⎦
+ C _{6} exp ⎡
_{⎣} T + ^{} T ^{2} + 4 EI _{z} m ^{2}
2
EI _{z}
x
⎤
⎦
w =
C _{7} + C _{8} x + C _{9} exp _{E}_{I} y x + C _{1}_{0} exp − _{E}_{I} y x
T
T
φ
= C _{1}_{1} exp ⎡
_{⎣} m ^{2} ^{} K _{m} _{2} − K
2
m 1
2
GJ
x
⎤
⎦
+ C _{1}_{2} exp ⎡
_{⎣} − m ^{2} ^{} K _{m} _{2} − K GJ
2
m 1
2
⎤
x ⎦
(7.34)
(7.35)
(7.36)
These solutions are used to derive the new shape functions. The new shape func tions so derived satisfy the static homogenous part of the governing differential equations at the elemental level. For this reason, these new shape functions have better convergence properties, as discussed in literature [33 , 34 ] and proved later by numerical studies. These new shape functions are functions of the rotational speed, blade length, element mass, element stiffness and the location of the element from the root. So, they capture the effect of the rotation speed and the element location from the rotation axis on the element displacements, which is not possible with Hermite cubic or linear shape functions used conventionally for the ﬁnite element analysis of the rotating structures. The new shape functions for each type of motion are studied in detail in the next few sections.
7.3.1 Shape Functions for Flapwise Bending
Consider a ﬁnite element for ﬂapwise bending with displacement and slope degrees of freedom at the two ends, as shown in Fig. 7.2. Let
λ 1 =
T
i
EI _{y}
(7.37)
Writing the solution of the differential equation ( 7.35) for ﬂapwise bending in terms of λ _{1} , we get,
180
7 Rotor Blade Finite Element
Fig. 7.2 Flapwise degrees of freedom of a rotating blade
w = C _{7} + C _{8} x + C _{9} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} + C _{1}_{0} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x}
(7.38)
Boundary
w ^{} ( l ) = w _{4} . Putting these boundary conditions into Eq. ( 7.38), we get,
conditions are: w ( 0 ) = w _{1} , ^{d}^{w} ^{(} ^{0} ^{)} = w ^{} ( 0 ) = w _{2} , w ( l ) = w _{3} and ^{d}^{w} ^{(} ^{l} ^{)} =
dx
dx
(7.39)
(7.40)
(7.41)
(7.42)
From these equations, the values of C _{7} , C _{8} , C _{9} and C _{1}_{0} can be found out. So the shape functions are derived as,
w _{1} =
C _{7} + C _{9} + C _{1}_{0}
w _{2} = C _{8} + λ _{1} C _{9} − λ _{1} C _{1}_{0}
w _{3} =
C _{7} + C _{8} l + C _{9} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + C _{1}_{0} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l}
w _{4} = C _{8} + λ _{1} C _{9} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − λ _{1} C _{1}_{0} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l}
H _{w} _{1} = α ^{} −λ ^{2}
1
le ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − 2 λ _{1} + λ _{1} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + λ _{1} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − λ _{1} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x}
+ λ _{1} e ^{(}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)}
− λ _{1} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} − λ ^{2} xe ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + λ ^{2}
1
1
xe ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + λ _{1} e ^{(}^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{+}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} + λ ^{2}
1
le ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{}
(7.43)
H _{w} _{2} = α −e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{x}
− e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − 2 λ _{1} x + e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} −
+ 
λ _{1} le ^{(}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} + e ^{(}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} 1l + λ _{1} xe ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} + 

− 
λ _{1} le ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + 
λ _{1} xe ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{} 
e ^{(}^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{+}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} − λ _{1} le ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l}
λ _{1} le ^{(}^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{+}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)}
(7.44)
_{H} _{w}
_{3}
=
α −2 λ _{1} + λ _{1} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + λ _{1} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + λ _{1} e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{x}
+ λ ^{2} xe ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − λ ^{2} xe ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − λ _{1} e ^{(}^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{+}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} ^{}
1
1
+ λ _{1} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} − λ _{1} e ^{(}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)}
(7.45)
H _{w} _{4} = α ^{} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + e ^{(}^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{+}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} + 2 λ _{1} l − 2 λ _{1} x − e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + e ^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} − e ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x}
− e ^{(}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} ^{)} + λ _{1} xe ^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} + λ _{1} xe ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{l} − λ _{1} le ^{λ} ^{1} ^{x} − λ _{1} le ^{−}^{λ} ^{1} ^{x}
^{}
(7.46)
7.3
Derivation of the Shape Functions
181
where
α =
1
λ _{1} ^{} λ _{1} le ^{−}^{λ} 1 ^{l} − 4 + 2 e ^{−}^{λ} 1 ^{l} − λ _{1} le ^{λ} 1 ^{l} + 2 e ^{λ} 1 ^{l} ^{}
^{(}^{7}^{.}^{4}^{7}^{)}
Thus, the ﬂapwise bending shape functions are given as:
(7.48)
These shape functions become Hermite cubics as the analytical limit of the rotation speed tends to zero.
H _{w} = ^{} H _{w} _{1} H _{w} _{2} H _{w} _{3} H _{w} _{4} ^{}
0 _{H} w 1 _{=} 2 x ^{3} − 3x ^{2} l + l ^{3}
_{l} ^{3}
lim
→
0 _{H} w 3 _{=} −2 x ^{3} + 3x ^{2} l
_{l} ^{3}
lim
→
,
,
0 _{H} w 2 _{=} x ^{3} − 2 x ^{2} l + xl ^{2}
_{l} ^{2}
lim
→
lim
→ 0
_{H} w 4 _{=} −x ^{2} l + x ^{3}
_{l} ^{2}
(7.49)
(7.50)
As the rotation speed tends to inﬁnity, the shape functions H _{w} _{1} and H _{w} _{3} become linear and H _{w} _{2} and H _{w} _{4} vanish, which are the solutions for a stiff string.
lim _{→}_{∞} H _{w} _{1} = 1 − ^{x} _{l} ,
→∞ ^{H} ^{w} ^{3} ^{=} x
lim
_{l} ,
lim _{→}_{∞} H _{w} _{2} = 0
lim _{→}_{∞} H _{w} _{4} = 0
(7.51)
(7.52)
The asymptotic behavior show the beauty of the new shape functions as they capture the effects of both zero and very high rotation speeds.
7.3.2 Shape Functions for LeadLag Bending
The leadlag degrees of freedom are shown in Fig. 7.3. Again, displacement and slope are taken at both the ends.
Fig. 7.3 Leadlag degrees of freedom of a rotating blade
182
Let
λ 2 =
T _{i} − T + 4 EI _{z} m ^{2}
2
i
2
EI _{z}
,
7 Rotor Blade Finite Element
λ _{3} =
T _{i} + T + 4 EI _{z} m ^{2}
2
i
2
EI _{z}
(7.53)
Writing the solution of the differential equation ( 7.53) for leadlag bending in terms of λ _{2} and λ _{3} , we get,
(7.54)
Boundary conditions are: v ( 0 ) = v _{1} , ^{d}^{v} ^{(} ^{0} ^{)} = v ^{} ( 0 ) = v _{2} , v ( l ) = v _{3} and ^{d}^{v} ^{(} ^{l} ^{)} = v ^{} ( l ) = v _{4} Putting these boundary conditions into Eq. ( 7.54), we get,
v = C _{3} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{2} ^{x} + C _{4} e ^{λ} ^{2} ^{x} + C _{5} e ^{−}^{λ} ^{3} ^{x} + C _{6} e ^{λ} ^{3} ^{x}
dx
dx
(7.55)
(7.56)
(7.57)
(7.58)
The values of C _{3} , C _{4} , C _{5} and C _{6} can be found out and the shape functions are derived as,
v _{1} = C _{3} + C _{4} + C _{5} + C _{6}
v _{2} =
v _{3} =
−λ _{2} C _{3} + λ
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.