Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T03:38:25.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hovering rotor computations using an aeroelastic blade model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

F. Dehaeze  and
G. N. Barakos
F. Dehaeze
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G. N. Barakos*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
*
G.Barakos@Liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, helicopter rotor blades are analysed in hover using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with a structural model. The method relies on a mesh deformation algorithm that allows for exchange of forces and deformations between a beam-based finite-element model and the fluid flow volume mesh. The method is demonstrated against experimental data, and the aerodynamic predictions appear to improve when the aeroelastic model is used. For all employed cases the flexibility of the method allows the CFD mesh deformation to be spread over the computational domain in a controlled fashion. The influence of the aeroelastic deformations on the blade loads was limited yet evident on the rotor performance. The lack of adequate test cases and experiments for validation of CFD/CSD methods is also highlighted.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1180 , June 2012 , pp. 621 - 649
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Maier, T.H., Sharpe, D.L. and Lim, J.W. Fundamental investigation of hingeless rotor aeroelastic stability, test data and correlation, 1998, 51st American Helicopter Society Forum, 9–11 May 1995, Fort Worth, TX, USA.Google Scholar
2. Johnson, W. Rotorcraft aerodynamics models for a comprehensive analysis, 1998, 54th American Helicopter Society Forum, 20–22 May 1998, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
3. Dequin, A.M., Benoit, B., Kampa, K., Von Grünhagen, W., Basset, P.M. and Gimonet, B. HOST, a general helicopter simulation tool for Germany and France, 2000, 56th American Helicopter Society Forum, 2-4 May 2000, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.Google Scholar
4. Potsdam, M., Yeo, H. and Johnson, W. Rotor airloads prediction using loose aerodynamic/structural coupling, J Aircr, 2006, 43, (3), pp 732–742.Google Scholar
5. Lim, J.C. and Strawn, R.C., Computational modeling of HART II blade-vortex interaction loading and wake system, J Aircr, 45, (3), 2008, pp 923–933.Google Scholar
6. Biedron, R.T. and Lee-Rausch, E.M. Rotor airloads prediction using unstructured meshes and loose CFD/CSD coupling, 2008, AIAA-2008-7341, 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 18– 21 August 2008, Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
7. Pahlke, K. and Van der Wall, B.G. Chimera simulations of multibladed rotors in high-speed forward flight with weak fluid-structure-coupling, Aerospace Sci Tech, 2005, 9, (5), pp 379–389.Google Scholar
8. Dietz, M., Kessler, M. and Krämer, E. Aeroelastic simulations of isolated rotors using weak fluid-structure coupling, High Performance Computing in Science and Engineering 06, 2007, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
9. Beaumier, P., Arnaud, G. and Castellin, C. Performance prediction and flowfield analysis of rotor in hover, using a coupled Euler/boundary layer method, Aerospace Sci Tech, 1999, 3, (8), pp 473–484.Google Scholar
10. Altmikus, A.R.M., Wagner, S., Beaumier, P. and Servera, G. A comparison -weak versus strong modular coupling for trimmed aeroelastic rotor simulations, 2002, 58th American Helicopter Society Forum, 11–13 June 2002, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
11. Sitaraman, J. and Roget, B. Prediction of helicopter maneuver loads using a fluid-structure analysis, J Aircr, 2009, 46, (5), pp 1770–1784.Google Scholar
12. Potsdam, M., Yeo, H. and Johnson, W. Rotor airloads prediction using loose aerodynamics/structural coupling, 2004, 60th American Helicopter Society Forum, 7–10 June 2004, Baltimore, MD, USA.Google Scholar
13. Schmitz, S., Bhagwat, M., Moulton, M.A., Caradonna, F.X. and Chattot, J.-J. The predictions and validation of hover performance and detailed blade loads, 2009, J American Helicopter Soc, 54, (1), pp 1–12.Google Scholar
14. Yoon, S.-H., Kwak, J.S., Shin, S. and Kim, C. Loosely coupled CFD/CSD analysis for a helicopter rotor in hover and forward flight, 2010, AHS Aeromechanics Specialists Conference 2010, 20–22 January 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
15. Truong, K.V. Dynamics studies of the ERATO blade, based on finite element analysis, 2005, 31th European Rotorcraft Forum, 13–15 September 2005, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
16. Datta, A. and Johnson, W. A multibody formulation for three dimensional brick finite elements based parallel and scalable rotor dynamic analysis, 2010, 66th American Helicopter Society Forum, 11–13 May 2010, Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
17. Thepvongs, S., Cook, J.R., Cesnik, C.E.S. and Smith, M.J. Computational aeroelasticity of rotatingwings with deformable airfoils, 2009, 65th American Helicopter Society Forum, 27–29 May 2009, Grapevine, TX, USA.Google Scholar
18. Lorber, P.F., Stauter, R.C. and Landgrebe, A.J. A Comprehensive hover test of the airloads and airflow of an extensively instrumented model helicopter rotor, 1989, 45th American Helicopter Society Forum, 22–24 May 1989, Washington, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
19. Lorber, P.F. Aerodynamic results of a pressure-instrumented model rotor test at the DNW, J American Helicopter Soc, 1991, 36, (4), pp 12–19.Google Scholar
20. Wake, B.E. and Baeder, J.D. Evaluation of a Navier-Stokes analysis method for hover performance prediction, J American Helicopter Society, 1996, 41, (1), pp 7–17.Google Scholar
21. Shinoda, P.M., Yeo, H. and Norman, T.R. Rotor performance of a UH-60 rotor system in the NASA Ames 80- by 120-foot wind tunnel, J American Helicopter Soc, 2004, 49, (4), pp 401–413.Google Scholar
22. Beaumier, P., Chelli, E. and Pahlke, K. Navier-Stokes predictions of helicopter rotor performance in hover including aeroelastic effects, J American Helicopter Soc, 2001, 46, (4), pp 301–309.Google Scholar
23. Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S. Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries, J Computational Physics, Jan–Feb 1983, 50, pp 447–481.Google Scholar
24. Axelsson, O. Iterative Solution Methods, 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
25. Steijl, R., Barakos, G. and Badcock, K. A framework for CFD analysis of helicopter rotors in hover and forward flight, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 51, (8), pp 819–847.Google Scholar
26. Dubuc, L., Cantariti, F., Woodgate, M.A., Gribben, B., Badcock, K.J. and Richards, B.E. A grid deformation technique for unsteady flow computations, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2000, 32, (3), pp 285–311.Google Scholar
27. Arcidiacono, P. and Zincone, R. Titanium UTTAS main rotor blade, J American Helicopter Soc, 1976, 21, (2), pp 12–19.Google Scholar
28. Van der Wall, B.G., Burley, C.L., Yu, Y., Richard, H., Pengel, K. and Beaumier, P. The HART II test measurement of helicopter rotor wakes, Aerospace Sci Tech, 2004, 8, (4), pp 273–284.Google Scholar
29. Ho, J.C., Yeo, H. and Ormiston, R.A. Investigation of rotor blade structural dynamics and modeling based on measured airloads, J Aircr, 2008, 45, (5), pp 1631–1642.Google Scholar
30. Hamade, K.S. and Kufeld, R.M. Modal analysis of UH-60A instrumented rotor blades, 1990, NASA Technical Report, TR-4239, NASA.Google Scholar
31. Goura, G.S.L., Badcock, K.J., Woodgate, M.A. and Richards, B.E. Implicit method for the time marching analysis of flutter, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1046), pp 199–214.Google Scholar
32. Blom, F.J., Considerations on the spring analogy, Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2000, 32, (6), pp 647–668.Google Scholar
33. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
34. Kim, K.C. Analytical calculations of helicopter torque coefficient (CQ) and thrust coefficient (CT) values for the helicopter performance (HELPE) model, 1999, Army Research Laboratory Technical Report, ARL-TR-1986, Army Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
35. Ortun, B., Petot, D., Truong, K.V. and Ohayon, R. Towards a new generation of rotorcraft comprehensive analysis; coupling with CSM and CFD, 2008, 34th European Rotorcraft Forum, 16–18 September 2008, Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar