A DESIGN ANALYSIS OF STEAM

TURBINE BLADE ROOTS UNDER

CENTRIFUGAL LOADING

M. D. ROBERTSON NEI-Allen Limited, Bedford, and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of

Birmingham*

D. WALTON Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham. MIMechE.

Steam turbines are a fundamental component in most electrical power generation systems around the world. Their
efficiency and capital cost are dependent on the quality of the blade roots which secure the thermodynamic aerofoil
sections to the high speed rotor. This paper outlines a design analysis for such a root system using classical stress
analysis and the finite element method. Comparisons are made between the results of both and experimental pull tests.
For reasons of simplicity, the analysis considers only the primary centrifugal load on the root and not secondary
steam bending loads.

1 INTRODUCTION spacing of the serrations in the turbine’s axial direction

The efficiency of a steam turbine may be improved by makes the straddle root much stronger in respect of the
reducing that proportion of the total steam flow which is axial bending caused by s k i m bads. In view of these
disrupted by the end walls of the steam passages and that advantages, the authors chose the stmddle root for the
which is lost by leakage around the tips of the moving
blades. The best way to achieve this reduction is to
increase the lengths of the blades so that there is more
uninterrupted flow and smaller losses at each end.
However, in order to increase the blade length, the rotor
diameter must be reduced so that the annulus area swept
out by the blades is maintained, at the same time increas-
ing the rotational speed so that, in turn, the blade speed
is kept constant. This creates a significant problem. The
longer blades have a higher mass which, combined with
the higher rotational speed, increases the centrifugal load
on the blade root sytem securing the aerofoil sections to
the rotor. In the worst cases this becomes the limiting Closing blade rivets
factor on the design of the turbine (1)t.
If the blade root fixing is strong enough to accommo-
date longer blades at higher speeds, the turbine may be Straddle root system and closing blade
made more efficient and cheaper, since it will be physi-
cally smaller, require smaller foundations, and so on.
Therefore, the blade root is a critical component in steam
turbine design, warranting special investment in its
design and analysis.
NEI-Allen Ltd have used three types of root system,
depending on the blade conditions, for many years. Two
of these are circumferentially located, while the third is of
the axial location type. Figure 1 shows the three root
systems. In all cases serrations are cut into the blade root
which match up with similar serrations in the rotor disc,
or wheelhead as it is known. Of the three types of root,
the straddle design is probably the most cost effective,
being stronger than the firtree type yet much cheaper to strip
produce than the axial entry root. Also, the greater 9 before bending

The M S of this paper Ha5 received at the lnstltution on 13 September 1989 and Axial entry root
acceptedfor publication on 22 Febmary 1990 Firtree root
Now at Westland Heliropters Limited, Yeouil, Somerset
t References are givrn in the Appendix Fig. 1. Current root systems(by kind permission of NEI-Allen Ltd)

JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990 185

0309-3247/90/07oM>l85 $02.00 + .05

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015
 M. D. ROBERTSON AND D. WALTON

following analysis, but the techniques are entirely applic- (i.e., 1% Cr Mo V and Firth Vickers FV520 steels,
able to the other types of root. The proportions of the respectively), rather than rotational tests of complete
root are indicated in Fig. 2. This also shows the primary‘ discs. In this way the tests were an approximation of the
features of the root, including the four load bearing sur- real world, most significantly in the fact that the plate
faces and the leg restraints which prevent the legs from was flat, whereas a real blade root is tapered as a
opening out and sliding over the serrations. segment of an annulus around the rotor disc. However,
the taper is small and the tests have proved to be a
1.1 Notation reasonable basis for the current stressing practice used
by the company. The results of these tests form the basis
A Area of section above plane on which shear stress
of a comparison between theory and reality.
acts
As part of the test procedure, a number of photo-
a Bending moment arm
B Width of section under shear graphs were taken of the root system at various load
increments. Figure 3 shows the situation just before ulti-
d Width of neck of ‘T’ head
E Young’s modulus mate failure. The aerofoil section would normally be
Depth factor attached at the top of the figure and the rest of the disc
e
would be at the bottom. It should be clear from this
h Depth of ‘T’ head
photograph that failure occurs by a shearing of the
I Second moment of area, based on the section m
m Depth of serration wheelhead serrations. The blade serrations show much
P Load applied to serration less deformation because of the superior blade material,
Tensile stress which has a limit of proportionality at room temperature
(T

Tensile strength some 25 per cent higher than the rotor material, Fig. 4.
CYP
t Thickness of section Consequently, to predict the yield strength of the root
Maximum shear stress system analytically, close attention must be paid to the
Tm*x
V Shear load on individual serration yield of the wheelhead serrations.
V Poisson’s ratio The first approximation is to assume that the serra-
Distance from neutral axis to centroid of A tions yield by pure shear, and that the shear stress dis-
Y tribution is uniform. This gives an over-estimate of the
load carrying capacity of the section since, in reality, the
2 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS shear distribution is non-uniform. At the top and bottom
The form of straddle root being considered in this paper of the section the shear stress parallel to the free surface
was tested by NEI-Allen to establish its experimental must be zero since there is no material to carry any
strength. These tests were simple pull tests of plate stress. Therefore, the shear stress rises from zero at the
material, using actual wheelhead and blade materials edges of the section to a maximum at the centre. The

15.4
I c
I 9.1

I
Outer load
bearing serrations

2 Inner load
bearing serrations

i
0

Roo1 Z= 18 wide
(b)
Fig. 2. The straddle root:(a) proportions and features, (b) nominal dimensions(in mm, not to scale)

JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015

 STEAM TURBINE BLADE ROOTS
Fig. 3. Yielding of root in pull tests (by kind permission of NEI-Allen
Ltd)
maximum transverse shear stress can be obtained follow-
ing Case (2) which gives
VAj
7msx =-
IB
The area A is based on the dimension m shown on Fig.
2, with the load carried by the serrations on each side.
For the maximum shear stress A is equal to m/2 times C.
Based on the Huber-von Mises-Hencky yield criterion,
, , ,z = 0.577 gyp(3),it is possible to calculate the load at
which yield will start. For the dimensions of the root
being considered, the maximum load is 78 kN based on
the load being shared equally between the load bearing
serrations. This load is plotted on Fig. 5 together with
the maximum load permitted by the uniform shear stress
assumption. Both are superimposed on a graph of the
pull test for comparison. The extension/load curve across
the root shown in Fig. 5, was measured over a 50 mm
length straddling the whole of the root system. Uniform
shear is shown to give an over-estimate of the load carry-
ing ability of the root, but the maximum shear stress
JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 N O 3 1990 0 IMechE
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015
theory is much closer to the turning point of the pull test
curve where bulk yield commences. Therefore, one may
assume that the theory gives a reasonably good approx-
imation to the actual stress distribution.
Both the foregoing theories are based purely on shear
and take no account of the bending of the serrations.
This has a lesser effect, but should still be included. Lewis
(4) presented an analysis of the bending of gear teeth
which is relevant to this work owing to the similarity
between gear teeth and blade root serrations. Heywood
(5) then extended the analysis to include a proximity
factor (to account for the shear stress) and a stress con-
centration factor, thus the boundary stress at the root
serrations is
CT = K(M + L) (2)
where
K = stress concentration factor
M = bending moment term
L = proximity factor
Heywood developed his analysis for a general loaded
projection, and then applied it to a ‘T’ head very similar
to the wheelhead serration used in the straddle root. In
this case
where
5.6hld + 1
K = 1 + 0.26(:) O.’
x
2.0hld + 1
P = load applied to projection
t = thickness of projection
h = depth of ‘T’ head
d = width of neck of ‘T’
Other factors in the equation are specified in Fig. 6.
If the stress concentration factor is ignored, equation
(3) can be used to calculate the bulk yield of the serra-
tions, which for the actual dimensions give a load of 73
kN. Applying the same dimensions to the calculation of
the stress concentration factor gives a value of K = 2.12
for the outer serrations and K = 2.00 for the inner ones,
implying that local yield around the fillet radii occurs at
a load of approximately 35 and 37 kN,respectively. Both
the local and bulk yielding loads are illustrated in Fig. 5.
More recently Fessler and Woods (6)examined tensile
stresses in rectangular ‘T’ heads (c wide, b high) sym-
metrically joined to shanks of width a and with smoothly
blending 90 degrees circular arc fillets of radius r. In
these shapes the maximum tensile stresses were shown to
primarily depend on the fillet radius ratio r/a and on the
positions of the reactive forces on the shoulders, defined
by e/a, where e was the distance from the shank outer
edge to the position of the resisting load acting under the
‘T’ head. The ratios c/a and b/a became unimportant
when these ratios were small. The smallest value of stress
concentration, defined as Kmin,was found to be
-0.39
Kmin= 1.16(:) (4)
1990 187
 M. D. ROBERTSON AND D. WALTON
I I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Strain/%
Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves for (a) blade, and (b) wheelhead material
Applying equation (4) to the outer wheelhead projections
(suitably modified to allow for the influence of e/a and
b/a ratios as stated in (6)), the stress concentration is
higher than the Heywood figure and the root load is
estimated to be 43.6 kN. This figure is speculative as the
Fessler and Woods results do not consider h/d ratios as
low as that used in the root. For these reasons loads for
inner serrations cannot be given as their geometry is far
outside the range considered. In a later paper Fessler and
Woods (7) examined the stress concentrations in 'T' slots,
work which is closely related to the geometry of a strad-
dle root. As for the 'T' head, the stress concentrations for
'T' slots were shown to reach a limiting value.
It will be seen from Fig. 6 that the Heywood analysis
for bulk yield is in good agreement with the pull test
results. It accurately predicts the load at which the curve
turns to bulk yield. When the stress concentration factor
is included, a very low load is predicted which seems
unrealistic in comparison to the observed yield in the
pull test and the apparently linear region of the curve.
However, careful inspection of the pull test curve reveals
a small upward turn starting around 35 kN so that the
centre section of the curve is not quite linear. Heywood
showed that the highest stresses occur round the fillet
radius, so that at loads between 35 kN and 73 kN local
plastic deformation occurs. At higher loads, the yielding
becomes a bulk condition and the root may be con-
sidered to have yielded. Bulk yield is a situation where
yielding occurs in a section in a manner which cannot be
attributed to local stress concentration effects. The finite
element analysis carried out confirmed that local yield-
ing would take place.
188
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015
I I I I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Strain/%
(b)
3 ELASTIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
In the previous section, a number of hand calculations
were carried out in order to arrive at the stresses in the
turbine blade root. Stress is, however, only half the
picture. The extension of the root is also important, but
for a complex component such as this it is almost impos-
sible to predict this by hand calculation. Finite element
analysis (FEA) can be used to determine the extension of
the root and to confirm the stress calculations of the
previous section. It can also be used to investigate the
effects of uneven load carrying by the serrations as a
result of manufacturing tolerances. The particular FE
package used for this analysis was PAFEC-FE running
on Apollo workstations and a VAX 8700 mainframe.
3.1 Themodel
The straddle root used by NEI-Allen was modelled
using 2D isoparametric elements for plane stress and
plane strain, although only the plain stress condition was
used. These were a combination of 8-noded quadrilateral
and 6-noded triangular elements. The model contained
608 elements with 3633 degrees of freedom.
The mesh is shown in Fig. 7. From this it will be noted
that the only one half of the root is modelled, the other
half being a mirror image. Nodes along the axis of sym-
metry (x axis) were restrained in the y direction whilst
allowing movement in the x direction. Similarly, nodes at
the base of the wheelhead structure (y axis) were
restrained in the x direction, with movement permitted
in the y direction. The loading was applied evenly to the
elements across the end of the blade structure and in
JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990
 STEAM TURBINE BLADE ROOTS

0.20

0.18
&I
I1
-"E l
1 I
2p

31
0.16
I
I
0.14
I
I
E I
.
s
E
.-
0.12
I
n
C

5 0.10 I
I
0.08 I
I
Fig. 6. Geometry for Heywood analysis
0.06
I
I
0.04 I I I and would not be truly 2D. Where the blade root comes
I I I into contact with the wheelhead at the load bearing sur-
faces and at the leg restraint, the FE model included gap
0.02 I I I elements which allow a separation to be defined between
I I I the surfaces. Such a gap may open or close according to
the loads applied and the deflection of the structure.
20 40 60
480- 7 -loob I20
When the gap is closed, compression forces may act
across the gap element. The particular type of element
LoadlkN
used in this problem also takes account of the friction
Fig. 5. Comparison of theoretical results between the two surfaces when they come into contact.
In order to investigate the effects of manufacturing
tolerances, and to make the analysis representative of the
accordance with the normal 1 4 1 load distribution for real case, the interaction of the blade root and wheelhead
parabolic finite elements. The loads were in the x direc- was modelled in two ways, as follows.
tion only and were calculated to give a particular overall
load to the structure. The model was chosen to be a true ( I ) First, the basic structure was created and gap ele-
representation of the pull test specimens, i.e., 2D with ments were positioned across the load bearing sur-
parallel faces. A real blade would have a tapered root faces and across the leg restraint. These elements
forming a segment of an annulus round the turbine disc linked corner nodes and mid-side nodes between the

Fig. 7. FE model
189
JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015
 M. D. ROBERTSON AND D. WALTON

II
0.20-

0.18- Pull test

Case (2)
Case(l)

.E
E 0.12-
.-v10
5
2 0.10-
w

0.08 -

0.06-

0.04-

20 40 60 80 I00 120
LoadIkN

Fig. 9. Comparison of FE results

nodes. In this way the stiffness of the metal structure

Fig. 8. Deformed structure
two structures so that there were five gap elements
across each of the load bearing surfaces and nine at
the leg restraint. All gaps had zero offset, i.e., were
closed. The gap elements along the main load bearing
surfaces were given a coefficient of friction, ,u = 0.50,
whilst those across the leg restraint had ,u = 0.25. A
value of p = 0.25 was chosen to be representative of
the limiting friction between two steel surfaces and
the higher value.for the load bearing surfaces was
chosen to reflect the degree of digging - in which the
surfaces would experience in practice.
(2) The second case was identical to the first except that
the gap elements at the outer load bearing surface
were given offsets of 0.02 mm. This is the largest gap
which may occur between blade and wheelhead
without exceeding the manufacturing tolerance. The
positions of the nodes around the gap were modified
so that the offset specified in the gap elements module
was the same as the actual distance between the
190
was changed. It is also possible to specify an offset in
the gaps module only, without any change in the
main mesh. For such a small gap there is virtually no
difference since the change in mesh stiffness will be
very small.
3.2 Comparison of results
The PAFEC finite element system provides output in
several forms. Figure 8 shows a plot of the deformed
structure (case (l)),illustrating the distortion of the root
as it is loaded. Any errors in the mesh are likely to show
up as discontinuities in such a plot, but in this case the
model is consistent.
The main comparison which can be made between the
pull test and the FE analysis is via the load - extension
curve. Figure 9 shows the results from the two FE
models superimposed on the previous pull test curve.
This may be divided into three regions: a, non-linear
lower section; a linear central section, and a final plastic
region before ultimate failure. Discussion of the plastic
region is reserved to section 4 of this paper. The lower
sections of the curve may be considered as below.
Non-linear lower section
By using the finite element technique, it was possible to
show that the non-linear lower section of the pull test
was attributable to two causes. One is due to the
bedding-in of the contact surfaces which involves verL
localised crushing of any burrs or irregularities on the
JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015

 STEAM TURBINE BLADE ROOTS
surfaces coming into contact. It is impossible to model
this by the finite element technique at this scale. The
second is when there may be a situation where only one
of the load bearing surfaces is actually in contact. The
second load bearing surface shows a gap due to manu-
facturing tolerances. The maximum gap allowed within
tolerance is modelled in case (2) as described above, also
shown in Fig. 9. In this model 14 load cases were applied
rising in magnitude from 2 to 100 kN. The status of the
gap elements at the outer load bearing surface was
checked for each load, and it was seen that all the gap
elements closed together at a load of 18 kN. From Fig. 8
it is clear that this causes the change of slope of the load
extension curve. The lower section of the curve shows the
more flexible situation of only one surface in contact,
while the upper section shows the stiffer, twin loading
case. This loading characteristic need not be a problem,
providing that at the normal turbine running speed, both
surfaces are in contact. If not, the root will be a less rigid
and poorer platform for the blade, in terms of vibration
characteristics.
Vibration of the blades receives much attention in
steam turbine design because it is quite easy to excite
the blade at one of its natural frequencies causing
catastrophic failure. The problem is overcome by deter-
mining the natural frequencies of the blades and ensuring
that there are no sources of vibration close to these fre-
quencies. If the nature of the blade root is variable or
loose, it would be more difficult to be sure of the blade’s
von Mises
(MW
J = 720
I =644
H = 568
C = 492
F =416
E = 341
D = 265
C = 189
B = 113
A = 37
Max. stress
= 750
Min. stress
= 0.00
Load = 17.5 kN
Fig. 10. Stress pattern around inner serrationswhen unevenly loaded
JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 N O 3 1990 0 IMKhE
Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015
natural frequency and therefore more difficult to design
away from it.
Whilst the closing of the gap is important for vibration
reasons, it is also necessary to consider the effect of a gap
on the strength of the root. As long as a gap exists, one
pair of serrations will carry all the applied load, whereas
with no initial gap, the serrations all carry very similar
loads. As a result, local yielding will occur at approx-
imately half the load it would normally. Figure 10 shows
a close-up view of the stress contours around the inner
serrations for case (2) with a load of 17.5 kN, which is the
load at which the Heywood analysis predicts local plastic
deformation will start if only one pair of serrations carry
the load. The maximum stress contour around the inter-
face between the serrations, I , has a value similar to the
limit of proportionality of the wheelhead material, so
that it is possible to conclude that this load represents
the limit of proportionality foi the root and the start of
local yielding. It should be noted that the gap has not
quite closed at this load. It would be useful to follow
through this loading pattern with elastic-plastic material
properties, but as will be explained in section 4, this is
not possible with PAFEC because of the presence of gap
elements. Instead, it is reasonable to suppose that the
serrations which are initially unloaded will carry a higher
proportion of further loading once the other serrations
have begun to yield. Ultimate yield failure may be judged
to occur when all serrations have started to experience
bulk yield. This will be the same, irrespective of the gap,
1990 191
 M. D. ROBERTSON AND D. WALTON

as long as the pre-loaded serrations do not fail com-
pletely before unloaded serrations take up some of the
load. Consequently,the ultimate strength of the root will
be unaffected by small manufacturing tolerances on the
serration spacing.
Linear region
In the linear region of Fig. 9, from 20 to 60 kN, the FE
models have the same slope. This is because the
stiffnesses of the two structures are the same. They are, in
fact, equivalent once the gap closes. The amount of load
taken by each projection will be slightly different in the
two cases since in case (2) the inner projection has an
effective pre-load before the outer projection takes any
load at all.
The slope of the FE analyses is slightly less than that
of the pull test. This may just be due to manufacturing
tolerances in the root used for the pull tests. If the root
was narrower in any areas, it would be less stiff and
would extend more for any given load. Another, more
important factor, is the local plastic deformation of the
blade root structure around the fillet radii. Figure 11
shows the von-Mises stress contours (around the loaded
projections) for a load of 35 kN on the root (case (1)).
This is the load at which the Heywood theory predicts
local plastic deformaton will begin if all the serrations
are equally loaded. The figure shows that the stresses
around the radii are approximately the same as the limit
of proportionality of the wheelhead material (600 MPa),
suggesting that in the pull tests, local plastic deformation
starts to occur at this load. At higher loads the wheel-
head structure will plastically deform and, therefore, the
extension of the root will be greater than the elastic case
simulated by the FE analysis. There is quite a large
increase in load before the local plastic deformation
becomes bulk plastic deformation. In this region, the
extension will be only slightly greater than the !inear
elastic case. In section 4, elastic-plastic material proper-
ties will be considered and it will be shown that this local
plastic deformation does indeed change the apparent
slope of the pull test curve.
4 ELASTIC-PLASTIC FINITE ELEMENTS
ANALYSIS
In the previous section it was shown that local plastic
deformation starts to occur at a load of approximately
35 kN (when there is no gap), yet this design of root has
been used successfully up to a load of 80 kN. In this way
the linear finite element analysis cannot predict the bulk
failure of the root. Figure 11 shows the stress concentra-
tions very well, but fails to indicate the stresses in the
bulk material. It is the bulk condition which is more
important in this type of situation under steady load,
since stress concentrations will yield locally and will not
affect the bulk strength. The authors concluded that the
only way to investigate the bulk yield condition was to
use elastic-plastic analysis, as has been done previously
for gas-turbine wheels (8) where wheel stresses exceed
yield under start-up conditions due to the combination
of steep thermal gradients and centrifugal forces.
The PAFEC systems solves elastic-plastic problems
by the initial stress/initial strain method. Detailed dis-

von Mises
(MPa)
J = 713
I =638
H = 563
G = 488
F =412
E = 337
D = 262
C = 187
B = 112
A = 37
Max. stress
= 750
Min. \tress
= 0.00
Load = 35 kN

Fig. 11. Stress pattern around serrationswhen evenly loaded

192 JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 1MechE 1990

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015

 STEAM TURBINE BLADE ROOTS

cussion of the technique would be inappropriate here.
Instead, reference should be made to PAFEC (9).
4.1 Alterations to the FE model
The PAFEC system has limitations when solving elastic-
plastic situations that involve gap elements. The
problem is that the solution of the states of the gap ele-
ments requires one level of iteration while the elastic-
plastic solution requires a further level of iteration.
PAFEC has not been designed to solve both problems
simultaneously and the literature specifically excludes
models which require both. As a result it was necessary
to alter the model used in section 3 and remove the gap
elements. The new model linked the wheelhead and
blade directly together at the main load bearing projec-
tions, although it was still possible to specify two
material properties for the separate components. In this
way the mesh was continuous over the whole model,
rather than being in two sections. At the leg restraint, the
authors considered it unwise to link the structures solidly
together as this would significantly increase the stiffness
of the model and prevent relative motion between root
and wheelhead. The photographic evidence from the pull
tests clearly shows that this exists in the real case (see Fig.
3). Instead, nodes on the blade structure were restrained
to move only in the x direction, as though the wheelhead
restraint were rigid with zero friction. This is perhaps as
close as it is possible to come to the real case without
using gap elements.
As the new model was fundamentally different from
that used previously, it was decided that a linear analysis
should be performed first. The model extended by 0.122
mm under a load of 100 kN. This is shown in comparison
to the previous FE work and the pull test results in Fig.
12. The new model, without gaps is a little more stiff than
the previous one with gaps. This was expected because
the solid linking of the structure will inevitably make the
structure more stiff locally. This is reflected in the smaller
total extension of the root system. As the earlier FE
model is a better representation of the real case, the
elastic extension of the earlier model was taken in prefer-
ence to that of this new model when analysing the results,
i.e., the total root extension was taken as the elastic
extension of the gaps model plus the plastic extension of
the new model.
The elastic-plastic analysis required the stress-strain
characteristics of the two materials in uniaxial tension. In
order to provide these, special material tests had to be
carried out, Fig. 4, because the material data which was
available only quoted the 0.2 per cent proof stress and
ultimate tensile strength. The load for analysis was
applied in increments to arrive at a total load of 100 kN.
The first increment was 40 per cent of the total and was
designed to give a small amount of plastic deformation.

0.20 0.2c

0.18 Pull lest 0.18

0.16 0.16

0.14 0. I4
Gap = Zero

0. I 2 Solid structure 2
. 0.12
z
.
s2
.-
.-0
LI1
C
0.10 2 0.10
u
I I2
L2
0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

20 40
,
60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
-
LoadlkN LoadlkN

Fig. 12. Load/extension curve for elastic-plastic test case Fig. 13. Comparison of elastic-plastic FE results and pull test

JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990 193

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015

 M. D. ROBERTSON AND D. WALTON

(c) Load = 100 kN

Fig. 14. Yielding pattern from elastic-plastic analysis

194 JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS V O L 25 NO 3 1990 0 1MechE 1990

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015

 STEAM TURBINE BLADE ROOTS

The rest of the load was applied in diminishing
increments of either 10 or 15 per cent so that yielding of
elements in each increment was kept to a minimum.
4.2 Results
The extension of the root system for each load was
extracted from the text output file. It has already been
shown (Fig. 11) that the elastic stiffness of the elastic-
plastic model is too great and that the first elastic FE
model was better. In order to take account of this it is
necessary to replace the elastic extension of the elastic-
plastic model by the elastic extension of the original
model. At the same time it was possible to take the
opportunity of adding onto the FE results the offset
caused by bedding in and manufacturing tolerances. This
is represented by the difference in extension between FE
curve (1) and the pull test curve of Fig. 9 at a load of 20
kN. To summarise, the true extension of the root is cal-
culated as
illustrate the progression of the plastic region from the
stress concentrations to the bulk material. This has been
done in Fig. 14. Initial yielding is very localised around
the contact zones and fillet radii, confirming the theory
that local yield starts at approximately 35 kN. As the
load increases, the yielding moves through the load pro-
jections rather than through the width of the blade or the
wheelhead. This is in good agreement with the photogra-
phic evidence from the pull tests, which shows failure by
shear. The figure also agrees with the photograph in that
it shows that there is more yielding of the wheelhead
than the blade. However, more detailed information can
be gained from the figure regarding the nature of the
initial yield, which cannot be seen in a pull test because
of the size of the effect.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The theoretical analysis of section 2 has been shown to
correlate well with the pull test so that its validity would

I
Extension = extension due to bedding appear justified. By using Heywood’s equation it is pos-
of contact surfaces sible to determine the loads at which bulk and local yield
offset
+ extension due to will commence. Future work should use this analysis to
manufacturing tolerance re-proportion the root in such a way that it does not fail
+ elastic extension of case (1) by shearing of the wheelhead serrations only, but by
(section 2) yielding of all areas simultaneously. When such work is
+ plastic extension of undertaken, the steam bending loads, though small,
elastic-plastic model might also be taken into account.
While only one turbine blade root geometry has beer
The results of carrying out this calculation are given in investigated, the value of elastic finite element analysis as
Table 1 and are shown graphically in Fig. 13. In the a design tool has been demonstrated, including the
Figure, the smooth curve shows the pull test result and effects of various manufacturing tolerances. Extending
the points are plotted from the ‘Total’ column of Table 1. this work to an elastic-plastic analysis will show very
The agreement between FE results and pull test is clearly the yielding pattern of the root, and its strength
remarkable. It shows that in future, it might not be neces- may be determined accurately without cutting any metal.
sary to make expensive test pieces and pull tests because A new root form may be fine tuned with the F E analysis
FE analysis can produce most of the information neces- before an actual pull test is finally carried out to confirm
sary to evaluate a particular root design. The only aspect the results.
which cannot easily be found from the FE analysis is the
ultimate strength of the root, which may be of interest as ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
regards the factor of safety. With a ductile material this
should not be a problem since the design practice will be The authors wish to thank Mr P. G. Watson, Turbine
well clear of this level at loading. Technical Manager, NEI-Allen Ltd, for permission to
The text output from PAFEC indicates which ele- publish this paper.
ments have yielded at each load increment. The locations
of these elements may be plotted on the original mesh to APPENDIX
REFERENCES
Table 1
(1) KEARTON, W. J. Steam turbine theory and practice, 1948 (Pitman,
Extension (mm) London).
Load (2) CASE, J. The strength of materials, 1941 (Edward Arnold, London).
(kN) Offset Elastic Plastic Total (3) TIMOSHENKO, S. Strength of materials, 1946 (Van Nostrand,
0.026 - 0.045 New York).
20 0.019
0.039 0.058 (4) LEWIS, W. Investigation of the strength of gear teeth, 1892
30 0.019 -
0.052 0.071 (EngineersClub, Philadelphia).
40 0.019 -
0.065 0.084 (5) HEYWOOD, R. B. Designing by photoelasticity, 1952 (Chapman
50 0.019 -
0.098
and Hall, London).
60 0.019 0.078 0.001
(6) FESSLER, H. and WOODS, P. J. ‘Stress concentrations at axially
65 0.019 0.084 0.002 0.105
loaded projections of flat bars,’ J . Strain Analysis, 1980, 15, 137-
70 0.019 0.091 0.002 0.112
143.
75 0.019 0.097 0.003 0.119
(7) FESSLER, H. and WOODS, P. J. Stress concentrations on axially
80 0.019 0.104 0.005 0.128
loaded, unsymmetrical projections on flat bars, J . Strain Analysis,
85 0.019 0.110 0.009 0.139
1982,17,23-29.
90 0.019 0.117 0.014 0.151
(8) TANG, S. C. and PETROF, R. C. Elasto-plastic analysis of stress
95 0.019 0.123 0.020 0.163
in a gas-turbinewheel, Trans. S A E , 1974,83,144>1460.
100 0.019 0.130 0.027 0.177
(9) P A F E C theory, 1984 (PAFEC, Nottingham).

JOURNAL OF STRAIN ANALYSIS VOL 25 NO 3 1990 0 IMechE 1990 195

Downloaded from sdj.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 24, 2015