Static Analysis

T040116-00-K
Static and simple dynamic analysis of BTF blades Justin Greenhalgh, RAL, May/July 2004 Aim: To compare FEA, blade equations, and measured results of the BTF blades. To extend this to the controls prototype blades in order to arrive at a suitable bend radius. This continues work reported in T040115, which explained how the parameters were chosen for the BTF blades.
1. Basic model
The dimensions of the model have been taken from the drawings used to produce the BTF blades, reproduced in appendix 2. The blades are near-triangles (not trapezoidal), with a truncated triangular portion and a plain section near the tip of the blade to allow fixing of the wire clamp. The wire break-off point is at the tip of the triangle. Key dimensions are (in metres): trilength=.48 blength=0.469 rootwidth=0.095 tipwidth=0.013 bthick=0.0044 bendrad=0.4278 Length of triangle to wire breakoff point Length of blade Width at root Width of plain portion at tip Thickness of blade Radius of bend at neutral axis of blade (differs from band radius on drawing by half the thickness). Nominal load is 61.936 kg
tipload=61.936*9.81
For the reasoning behind this choice of dimensions see T040115. The basic model uses a cylindrical co-ordinate system to specify the blade shape. It includes a thick portion at the tip, beyond the end of the blade, to simulate the wire clamp and to allow loading at the wire break-off point. This extra piece is shown in blue in the diagram below.
T040116-00-K
The bend radius is 427.8mm, giving a theoretical undeflected tip height of, from the ANSYS geometry, (428-186)=242mm. ANSYS can be used to calculate the deflection under the nominal load of 61.936 kg. See macro in appendix 1 for a calculation including geometric nonlinearity. The maximum deflection is 250.84mm.
T040116-00-K
By updating the geometry to reflect the distorted shape and then plotting the coordinates of the nodes we can see the distorted shape with respect to a theoretical flat blade:
0.002
0 deviation from flat blade (m) 0 -0.002 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
-0.01 distance from blade root
Note that in the region near the root the blade develops a curvature across its width due to Poisson effects. This is expected in a relatively thin, wide beam. The classic curl-up near the tip, due to the fact that the blade is wider than a triangle there, is also clearly to be seen.
2. Comparison with blade equations

This is a pseudo-triangular blade. By that I mean, a blade of a basically triangular shape, and with the load applied at the tip of the triangle, but with the tip cut away and with a rectangular portion near the tip - both changes being made to allow to for the wire clamp. Given this, I would expect the blade equations, if applied with the same youngs modulus as the FEA and with alpha=1.5 (see, eg, T030285) should give a deflection slightly higher than the FEA. The FEA will be stiffer because it includes the stiffness of the rectangular portion of the blade near the tip. Method Blade eqns FEA, nonlinear Blade eqns FEA, nonlinear FEA, nonlinear FEA, nonlinear E (GPa) 186 176 176 186 165 195 alpha 1.36 n/a 1.5 n/a n/a n/a Result 242.9 (design value) 250.84 283.1 236.1 268.3 223.7
The exact numbers used in the blade equations fro the first line are shown in this extract from the spreadsheet:
constants l (length) Value 0.48 Units m
T040116-00-K
a (root width) h (thickness) E (young's modulus) alpha (shape factor) mt (total mass on spring) m (mass of next stage, per spring) g (gravitational acceleration) elastic limit of Marval 18 calculated values I (2nd moment of area) lambda (tip deflection) k (spring constant) f (uncoupled vertical frequency) SigmaMAX (max blade stress) does SigmaMAX exceed elastic limit? ratio of elastic limit to SigmaMAX undeflected radius (read from graph) NO
0.095 0.0044 1.86E+11 1.36 61.936 10.95 9.81 1.60E+09
m m Mpa kg kg m/s^2 Mpa
6.74373E-10 2.429E-01 2501.911637 2.40574203 9.51E+08 m n/m hz Mpa
0.59 0.426323713 m
For the blade equations, the result will vary simply as (alpha/E). The FEA result does not quite vary as (1/E). Summarising in a graph:
Modulus vs deflection
300 290 Deflection, mm 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 160 170 180 190 Modulus, GPa 200 210
FEA 1.36 1.5
Interestingly, the geometrical value of alpha=1.5 is a long way from the FE results too much to be explained by the added stiffness of the rectangular portion near the tip. The well-tried value of alpha = 1.36 is much closer.
T040116-00-K
3. Comparison with experimental results

Tests have been made to measure the Youngs modulus of samples of material cut from the same plate as the springs. The results are tabulated below Samples cut near midplane of sheet 1 178 2 200 3 192 4 204 5 186 Ave +/- 1SD 192+/-10.5 Samples cut near surface of sheet 1 187 2 196 3 188 4 197 5 183 190.2+/-6.1
We intend to remeasure the moduli of all the samples to check for experimental error, but results taken on a the same machine with a similar method on a cast aluminium alloy were much less spread, suggesting that at most of the spread seen above is a real material variability. If this is the case, it will not be possible to predict the stiffness of a blade with any great accuracy. (The failure stress was between 1766 and 1811 MPa). A measurement has been made of one blade in the blade test facility, loaded with a mass of 61.478 +/-.035 kg. The deflection was 241+/-2 mm. Scaling this up for the nominal load of 61.936 kg gives a deflection of 243+/-2mm.
FEA 1.36 1.5 Meas. Range
Natural frequency was measured at 100 oscillations in 103 seconds +/-1 sec, giving a frequency of 0.97 +/-0.01 Hz.
T040116-00-K
4. Commentary and conclusions so far

The blade equations with alpha=1.5 do not match the nonlinear FEA very well. This could be explained by the fact that there are large deflections involved or that the blade, having width and curling laterally, is not behaving as a perfect beam. The blade equations with alpha=1.36 match the nonlinear FEA much better. Alpha=1.36 has been found empirically to be a good value. The measurements of modulus are variable and the mean value is higher than we were expecting. With the measured modulus value, the measured deflection matches alpha=1.36 more closely than any other method.
We now need to decide how to proceed with the design of the CP blades. Given the results above, we may choose to ignore the odd measured modulus result and instead decide what modulus would have had to be used to give the observed deflection result. We can then apply that method to the CP blades. The results are
FEA 1.36 1.5 Meas result
Method
Modulus to give observed deflection in BTF blades 181.31 185.92 205.06
Corrected bend radius to give a flat blade under load See below 426.1mm 426.1mm
Nonlinear FEA Blade equations, alpha = 1.36 Blade equations, alpha = 1.5
Derived COUPLED frequency with 61.478kg See below 1.015 Hz 1.015 Hz
Blade equations: Both the blade equation methods should give the same result as we are in fact only adjusting the ratio alpha/E to match the measured result. The blade equations with the tried and trusted formula of E=186, alpha=1.36 give almost exactly the right answer in this case.
T040116-00-K
FEA: A modulus of 181.31 gave a deflection of 242.9mm as expected. Using that value I reran the analysis reported in the start of T040114 to find the natural frequency, with these parameters: ! values of parameters trilength=.48 blength=0.469 rootwidth=0.095 hroot=rootwidth/2 tipwidth=0.013 htip=tipwidth/2 inter=trilength*tipwidth/rootwidth taperl=trilength-inter tipmass=61.478 bthick=0.0044 maryoung=1.8131e11 marpoiss=0.3 mardens=7800 Frequency was 0.679 Hz which is clearly too low by a significant amount. I do not understand this result.
5. Implications for controls prototype blades

Some aspects of the above are puzzling, but it seems to me that the best combination of accuracy and simplicity is to use the blade equations with E=186 and alpha=1.36.
T040116-00-K
Appendix. Basic macro for nonlinear statics.

!Macro for nonlinear statics on BTF blade finish /CLEAR,START *abbr,doit,doit /PREP7 !* ! values of parameters trilength=.48 blength=0.469 rootwidth=0.095 hroot=rootwidth/2 tipwidth=0.013 htip=tipwidth/2 inter=trilength*tipwidt h/rootwidth taperl=trilength-inter bthick=0.0044 maryoung=1.76e11 marpoiss=0.3 mardens=7800 dampratio=5e-5 tipload=61.936*9.81 bendrad=0.4278 !* raddeg=180/3.1415926 thtip=blength/bendrad* raddeg thwaist=taperl/bendrad *raddeg thtri=trilength/bendrad *raddeg !* ET,1,SHELL93 R,1,bthick, , , , , , R,2,bthick*10 !* MPTEMP,,,,,,,, MPTEMP,1,0 MPDATA,EX,1,,mary oung MPDATA,PRXY,1,,m arpoiss MPTEMP,1,0 MPDATA,DENS,1,,m ardens /VIEW, 1, 0.370848664746 0.543743333662 0.752870808940 /ANG, 1, 84.2975399159 AL,1,2,3,4,5,6 AL,3,7,8,9 aplot ESIZE,hroot/4,0 real,1 amesh,1 real,2 amesh,2 eplot !AATT, MAT, REAL, TYPE, ESYS, SECN csys,0 DL,6,,all,0 FK,7,FX,tipload/2 FK,8,FX,tipload/2 FINISH /SOL !* ANTYPE,0 ANTYPE,0 NLGEOM,1 NSUBST,10,0,0 /STATUS,SOLU SOLVE FINISH /POST1 PLDISP,0 PLDISP,1 :end
,,
csys,1 k,1,bendrad,0,-hroot ,2,bendrad,thwaist,-htip ,3,bendrad,thtip,-htip ,4,bendrad,thtip,htip ,5,bendrad,thwaist,htip ,6,bendrad,0,hroot ,7,bendrad,thtri,-htip ,8,bendrad,thtri,htip L,1,2 ,2,3 ,3,4 ,4,5 ,5,6 ,6,1 ,3,7 ,7,8 ,8,4
T040116-00-K
Appendix 2 drawings of blades
Maraging steel Top Stress-Stroke

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 Stress MPa 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 Stroke mm 5 6 7 8
T1 Stress 1811MPa T2 Stress 1766MPa T3 Stress 1798MPa T4 Stress 1782MPa T5 Stress 1793MPa
Maraging Core
2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 Stress MPa 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -1 0 1 2 3 Stroke mm 4 5 6 7 8 C1 test2 C2 C3 C4 C5 C1
Maraging steel CORE Stress-strain

1400 C1(2) Stress 1813MPa 1200 C1 Stress 1784MPa C2 Stress 1804MPa 1000 C3 Stress 1820MPa C5 Stress 1810MPa Stress MPa 800 C3 for E
600 MODULUS C1 178GPa C1 Test2 179GPa C2 200GPa C3 192GPa C4 204GPa C5 186GPa
400
200
0 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Strain 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Maraging steel TOP Stress-strain

1200
1000
T2 Stress 1766MPa 800 Stress MPa T3 Stress 1798MPa T4 Stress 1782MPa T5 Stress 1793MPa 600 T1 Stress 1811MPa Linear (T1 Stress 400 MODULUS T1 187GPa T2 196GPa T3 188GPa T4 197GPa T5 183GPa
200
0 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 Strain 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Static Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Static Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Static Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T040116-00-K

-0.01 distance from blade root

2. Comparison with blade equations

0.095 0.0044 1.86E+11 1.36 61.936 10.95 9.81 1.60E+09

m m Mpa kg kg m/s^2 Mpa

6.74373E-10 2.429E-01 2501.911637 2.40574203 9.51E+08 m n/m hz Mpa

3. Comparison with experimental results

4. Commentary and conclusions so far

Modulus to give observed deflection in BTF blades 181.31 185.92 205.06

Derived COUPLED frequency with 61.478kg See below 1.015 Hz 1.015 Hz

5. Implications for controls prototype blades

Appendix. Basic macro for nonlinear statics.

Appendix 2 drawings of blades

Maraging steel Top Stress-Stroke

Maraging steel CORE Stress-strain

600 MODULUS C1 178GPa C1 Test2 179GPa C2 200GPa C3 192GPa C4 204GPa C5 186GPa

0 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Strain 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Maraging steel TOP Stress-strain

0 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 Strain 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.