Optimization and Design Space Exploration of the Compound Helicopter Considering Future Technologies

HyunSeop Lee*, Henry Won*, Sang-Joon Yoon**, Byung-Ho Ahn*, Dimitri N. Mavris* and Dong-Hoon Choi**
* School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA, TEL: +1-404-933-0069, FAX: +1-404-894-6596, E-mail: hlee@asdl.gatech.edu ** The Center of Innovative Design Optimization Technology, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, South Korea, TEL: +82-2-2220-0443, FAX: +82-2-2291-4070, E-mail: dhchoi@hanyang.ac.kr
Abstract: The need for a VTOL aircraft that can achieve high forward speed has been a topic of aerospace design for the past decades. A compound helicopter is one of the concepts considered for the purpose of significantly increasing the flight envelopment of the helicopter. The goal of this study is to apply FRAMAX, which is one of the process integration and design optimization (PIDO) tool, to a compound helicopter design problem in order to find its optimum configuration for future technologies. Since compound helicopter analysis needs a multi-disciplinary analysis (MDA), which includes sizing and mission synthesis, it requires links between the interdisciplinary variables of the disciplinary analysis solvers to handle the passing and feedback of large amounts of data automatically. To perform integration and optimization automatically, FRAMAX, a robust and user-friendly multidisciplinary design environment, is chosen. FRAMAX can wrap each disciplinary analysis into a common environment that includes the execution of the Design of Experiments (DOE) and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO). As MDA solvers of the compound helicopter, the Requirements-Driven Fuselage Design (RDFD) and the Georgia Tech Preliminary Design Program (GTPDP) are utilized simultaneously. GTPDP is a preliminary helicopter design code which can perform the vehicle and component sizing, mission analysis, performance estimation, and cost analysis. RDFD, which is based upon a set of regressions to historical data and semi-empirical, physics-based equations for geometry calculations, is coupled with the GTPDP to better estimate the fuselage weight and drag based on mission requirements. This study follows three design processes to develop a compound helicopter. The first is to investigate the effects of compound technology such as wing addition and auxiliary propulsion on a baseline helicopter. The second is the optimization of compound configurations to minimize the mission gross weight with regard to various forward speeds. The last is the design exploration considering various mission profiles and future technologies. In addition to compound technology, the reduction of hub-drag and fuel consumption is considered to be the most effective future technology. The simulation results show that overall mission performance can be improved by optimizing the combination of wing size and additional propulsive ratio along with generic technologies. Compared to the baseline helicopter, the final optimized configuration to which compound and future technologies have been applied, achieves an increase of approximately 47 % in speed from 174 kts to 256 kts at the threshold mission range. Key words: Compound Helicopter, FRAMAX, Optimization, Multi-Disciplinary Analysis (MDA) Nomenclature = azimuthal blade position tpp = tip path plane angle zl = section zero lift angle of attack cyc = first cyclic pitch magnitude tw = blade twist angle col = collective pitch angle

1. INTRODUCTION
The forward speed of a helicopter is limited by the drag divergence of the advancing blade tip resulting from compressibility, the retreating blade stall, and aeroelastic stability issues [1]. As the rotorcraft enters forward flight after take-off, the velocity and angle of attack experienced by the blade become asymmetric as shown in Figure 1. That is because free stream velocity is added to the rotors speed due to rotation on the advancing side. On the retreating side, free stream velocity is subtracted from rotors rotational speed. Near the center of rotation, some of the free stream air passes over the blade from the rear, which is typically called a reverse flow.

Figure 1 Definition of Advancing and Retreating Blades

As the forward speed of the helicopter increases, the advance ratio and tip Mach number also increases. In general, the advancing tip begins to experience signs of drag divergence at Mach numbers greater than 0.8. On the retreating side of the rotor at higher forward speeds, the blade tip begins to experience stall [2], [3] since high angles of attack are required to generate lift. In addition, the forward tilt of the tip path plane required to generate forward propulsive thrust only serves to increase the required angle of attack on the retreating side. As a result, on the advancing tip the airflow is near sonic, while on the retreating side the blade is near stall. Thus, both compressibility near the advancing blade tip and retreating blade stall combine to limit forward speed [4]. To increase the forward speed, the rotational velocity must be decreased because of the limited tip Mach number. However, decreased rotational velocity causes a reduction in thrust which consists of lift and propulsion. By adding a wing at the fuselage and auxiliary propulsion at the tail, reduced lift and propulsion can be compensated for. It also causes autorotation problems which must be evaluated during the design phase [5], [6]. To avoid excessive pitching of the fuselage and tip-path plane which is otherwise necessary to achieve high forward speeds, auxiliary propulsion should be used [3]. Among the turbofan engine, turbojet engine, and shaft-driven propeller, the shaft-driven propeller is selected as the most suitable candidate considering the weight of the device and its specific fuel consumption. To analyze a compound helicopter, three analyzers are employed; the Georgia Tech Preliminary Design Program (GTPDP), the Requirements-Driven Fuselage Design Program (RDFD), and the Average Lift Coefficient Calculator (named CLBAR in this study). GTPDP is a preliminary helicopter design code which can perform vehicle and component sizing, mission analysis, performance estimation, and cost analysis. RDFD is based upon a set of regressions to historical data and semi-empirical physics-based equations for geometry calculations. CLBAR also calculates the average and root mean square (RMS) lift coefficient of the rotor blade. Because these analyzers are coupled with one another, we integrate all design codes into FRAMAX [7], which is one of the process integration and design optimization (PIDO) tool, environment for fully automated analysis of compound vehicles. FRAMAX provides an environment where variables can automatically be passed between analysis codes, and the multidisciplinary analysis can be performed. To develop a compound helicopter by using the above coupled analyzers, this study follows a couple of design processes. The first is to investigate the effects of compound technology such as the addition of wings and auxiliary propulsion on a baseline helicopter. The second is to determine compound configurations optimally in order to minimize the mission gross weight thereby satisfying constraints with regard to the variation of forward speeds. In addition, design space explorations are performed to find a feasible area with regard to mission range and velocity. As the most effective future technologies, reductions of hub-drag and specific fuel consumption are also considered in this study.

2. ANALYSIS OF COMPOUND HELICOPTER

2.1 Georgia Tech Preliminary Design Program (GTPDP) GTPDP is a preliminary helicopter design code. It is made to be a simple and quick method to obtain a rough configuration for a user's specifications. GTPDP needs only a limited number of inputs in a simple format for easy usage. The results of the program have proved to be accurate when compared to the flight test. GTPDP uses simple approaches and equations for a configuration analysis which has an iterative process for the analysis of a helicopter. A wide range of performance and configuration options are available to the user and the analysis results can be obtained in a few minutes. GTPDP can perform vehicle and component sizing, mission analysis, performance estimation, cost analysis and trade-off studies because GTPDP includes a weight and balance routine, direct operating costs and maneuverability analyses. The GTPDP model for the notional helicopter baseline vehicle has the configuration listed in Table 1. The engine deck is modeled after the GE CT7-8 engine. Because of the complexity of analyzing helicopter performance, the parameters as stated above are not completely sufficient for an analysis code such as GTPDP. Figure 2 shows the shaft horse power of 2 helicopters predicted by GTPDP and plotted along with the actual shaft horse power.
Table 1 Notional Helicopter Data Maximum Gross Weight (lbs) Mission Gross Weight (lbs) Maximum Fuel (lbs) Empty Weight (lbs) Crew and Misc. (lbs) Length (ft) Width (ft) Height (ft) Volume (ft3) Fuselage Frontal Area (ft2) 26150 21977 5130 16200 647 20.0 6.6 6.0 790 75 Main Rotor Radius (ft) Main Rotor 75% Chord (ft) Tail Rotor Radius (ft) Tail Rotor 75% Chord (ft) Main Rotor Solidity Tail Rotor Solidity Disk Loading (lbs/ft2) Blades, Main Rotor Blades, Tail Rotor 28.20 1.64 5.50 0.86 0.074 0.159 10.49 4 4

(a) XH-59A (b) US-101 Figure 2 Shaft Horse Power vs. Forward Speed Plot

2.2 Requirements-Driven Fuselage Design Program (RDFD) The RDFD code was created to estimate an empty weight and flat plate drag area calculation based on the requirements of the mission. The code is based upon a set of regressions to historical data, and semi-empirical physics-based equations for geometry calculations. In the dynamic modeling problem of a compound helicopter, the size of the vehicle varies widely due to severe variation from the threshold to the ideal mission requirements. RDFD is a small subroutine designed to ameliorate this situation. It estimates the major component weights depending on fundamental design parameters and also estimates

the geometric scale of the vehicle depending on payload requirements and required fuel amount. The geometric scale of the vehicle refers to the external surface area and the internal volume of each vehicle component. This geometry is used to predict the aerodynamic flat plate drag area of each component, and finally to apply the component-build-up method for the vehicles total flat plate drag and downloading value. The method for the helicopter empty weight estimation has been adopted from the method of Boeing-Vertol, RTL [3]. These formulas are statistically sophisticated semiempirical equations dependent on the vehicles physical geometric and/or non-geometric characteristics. The method has shown accurate predictions of empty weight. Figure 3a shows the empty weight of 15 military helicopters predicted by RDFD and plotted along with the actual empty weight. Across the board, this method shows general agreement with the known values of total empty weight.
25000

60.000

Known Values
50.000
20000

Known Values RDFD Results

RDFD Results
40.000

Empty Weight (LB)

FE (sqft)
1 2 6D 7D 3D

15000

30.000

10000

20.000

5000

10.000

0.000

7D

6D

3D

4A

6B

0A

A+

4A

6B

0A

5N

10

5N

2L

6A

2L

-9

-1

-1

-6

-6

-3

-1

-3

-1

92 SU

-6

AH

33

76

31

31

-4

-4

-5

-4

-4

-5

S-

36

33

-7

36

-6

-6

-6

S-

AS

AS

(a) Empty Weight

(b) Flat Plate Drag Area

Figure 3 RDFD Predictions Validated

There is a vast amount of knowledge on the component-build-up drag estimation method for the various helicopter configurations [8-12]. In general, these methods are broken down into two categories, one which is applicable to streamlined components such as the fuselage, pylon, lifting components, etc., and the other to non-streamlined components of rotor hubs and landing gear systems. In the RDFD formulation, streamlined component estimations are performed based on calculated surface area, and the estimation for nonstreamlined components is based on regression to historical gross-weight dependent trends. For streamlined components, a more refined geometric description of the sub-components is required. To facilitate these estimated parameters, a statistical method and genetic algorithm have been used to build the Equivalent Airframe Model (EAM). EAM creates subcomponent models based upon the original Rapid Helicopter Model (RHM) mesh, and then calculates the flat plate drag of each sub-component, treating it as a simple shape with known characteristic drag models. Figure 4 shows several EAM models compared to their RHM counterparts. Once the component drags have been accumulated, the flat plate drag area of the entire aircraft, with variation of attack angle is predicted. The result of the RDFD calculations compared to historical data is shown in Figure 3b. Vertical download is calculated in a similar manner.

Figure 4 EAM (Left) and RHM (Right) Geometry Models

-1

01

2.3 Average Lift Coefficient Calculator (CLBAR) Although GTPDP accounts for an increase in rotor induced power due to high lift coefficients, as well as increased profile power due to stall, it does not explicitly check if the blade is stalled and the required amount of lift can be produced. Therefore, CLBAR is created to use the geometry and rotor velocity outputs of GTPDP to calculate the average and root mean square (RMS) angle of attack on the rotor, assuming that a linear lift curve slope calculates an average lift coefficient. This value can then be used to assess whether or not the rotor is stalled, or near stall. CLBAR is formulated as below:
C 1 L, clavg := dr d 2 R
2 1 CL, clrms := dr d 2 R 0.5

(1)

(2)

( , r ) := col +

4 tw r 3 R

v cyc sin( ) atan zl r + V sin( ) cos( tpp )

(3)

The outcome of this calculation should be taken as a metric of the blade stall, and not as a direct indication, because in forward flight the lift coefficient varies dramatically around the azimuth. The value should be compared against a baseline value, or, allowed a maximum of 1.2 [2]. A graphical display of the relative angle of attack around the blade azimuth is shown in Figure 5 along with the calculated average and RMS lift coefficients for the notional helicopter at maximum gross weight and at 135 kts. In this case, the average and RMS lift coefficients are 0.87 and 0.97, respectively.
90 120 30 40 60

150

0
20 30

10

180

210

12

.5

12

.5

330

CL,avg = 0.8741

CL,RMS = 0.9745

240 270

300

Figure 5 Relative AOA Contours of Notional Helicopter Based on CLBAR

3. INTEGRATION AND COUPLING ANALYZERS

It has been shown that GTPDP is able to handle the necessary analyses for compound configurations and furthermore to produce valid results for constraint analysis exploration when involving information such as empty weight and flat plate drag area scaling by RDFD. Simultaneously, RDFD can perform an analysis more accurately when gross weight, fuel weight, engine size and vehicle geometry are given by GTPDP. In addition, CLBAR should be integrated with those two analyzers. A conceptual view of the integrated sizing environment is shown in figure 6. Because of coupling variables, to perform this multidisciplinary analysis, the framework is definitely required, which can provide an

interactive and automated environment. FRAMAX, which has been developed by FRAMAX Co., Ltd., is able to provide a suitable environment.

Figure 6 Diagram of Compound Helicopter Analysis System

FRAMAX provides an environment where variables can automatically be passed between analysis codes. Furthermore, algorithms are available for convergence and various design techniques, such as the design of experiments, optimization, reliability-based design optimization, etc. After the execution of these design technologies, FRAMAX stores all results automatically to perform post processes such as parametric study, sensitivity analysis, regression and so on. In the result, the followed data are included: rotor sizes, fuselage dimensions, engine size, gross weights, fuel consumption, maximum range and forward speed. By using the design framework FRAMAX, the optimization problem of a compound helicopter considering future technologies can be performed conveniently and systematically. Figure 7 shows integration through the use of FRAMAX.

Figure 7 Integration by Using FRAMAX

4. DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 Parametric study Parametric study of thrust and lift-sharing is performed in order to determine the trends in performance with sizing. Throughout this study, the atmospheric conditions are static at 6,000 ft in height and 73.4 F. The parametric study includes four variables. As design variables, wing area and auxiliary thrust fraction are selected. The wing area is confined to 200 sq ft due to the following: The first reason is span and size limitations, considering that a wing of which the aspect ratio is 6, and the area of which is 200 sq ft, would have a 35 ft span. The second is excessive download and weight if it has wings that are too wide. The third is control and stability issues, and the last is modeling convergence issues. Auxiliary thrust ratio means a fraction of the propulsion by auxiliary thrust over total

propulsion. To keep the comparison fair, it is necessary to optimize the incidence angle of the wing for each combination of flight conditions and vehicle configuration. The reasoning behind this is that a configuration with auxiliary thrust tends to maintain a level angle of attack, whereas a wing without or with less than full auxiliary thrust tends to pitch forward thus reducing the relative angle of attack of the wing and requiring a higher incidence angle for optimal performance. Figure 8 shows the parametric effect of compounding on mission performance. The red star marks the point of minimum gross weight and the blue arrows show the tendency toward gross weight reduction.

(a) 135 kts (b) 180 kts Figure 8 Contour Plot of Thrust and Lift Compounding

(c) 225 kts

All results indicate 100% auxiliary propulsion for best performance. Optimal lift share depends on speed, and it is essential in the cases of 185 and 225 kts, where wing lift is required. Gross weight reductions from baseline are 7.4% at 135 kts, 49.6% at 180kts and the feasible design is found at 225 kts. 4.2 Design Optimization Design requirements for the compound helicopter with regard to three forward speeds are as follows: Requirement 1: Gross weight should be reduced as much as possible. Requirement 2: Intermediate rated power of the engine (PIRP) should be less than the specific number. Requirement 3: Maximum continuous power of the engine (PMCP) should be less than the specific number. Requirement 4: Lift coefficient of the main rotor (CL_rms) should be feasible theoretically. Requirement 5: Radius of the main rotor (R) should be reasonable physically. Because the gross weight is most important to the vehicle design, the first requirement is selected as the objective function and the other requirements are considered to be constraints in this study. To meet these requirements, the seven factors in Table 2 are selected as design variables. Among these variables, the first four design variables are just for an ordinary rotorcraft system, and the other three design variables are factors for a compound helicopter system.
Table 2 Design Variables for Optimization Problem Design Variables Contents DL Disk loading Main rotor blade twist Solidity of main rotor Stilt Main rotor shaft tilt Taux Propulsion fraction of auxiliary thrust Swing Surface area of Additional Wing Xiwing Wing incidence angle of attack

Therefore, this optimization problem can be formulated as follows:

Given Mission range = 300 [nm] Forward speed = 135, 180 and 225 [kts], find to minimize satisfying D L , , , S tilt , Taus , S wing , Xi wing Gross Weight [ lb ] PIRP 9500 [ SHP ] PMCP 7500 [ SHP ] C L _ rms 1 . 2 R 40 [ ft ]

(4)

To estimate effectively a solution at each function call during the iterative numerical design process, a metamodel of the compound helicopter is created as a statistical regression of the original model. A Design of Experiments (DOE) is a set list of variable inputs to find minimum number of experiments. In this study, as a DOE method, the Latin Hyper Cube is used, which is one of the space-filling methods and builds a random point model optimally to cover as much of the design space as possible. The second order response surface model (RSM) is a well known and simple mathematical form based on a series of statistical regressions. Because the second order RSM cannot consider asymmetric responses of the compound helicopter model, the third order RSM is employed in this study. As the results of multidisciplinary optimization show in Table 3, FRAMAX found the minimum gross weights with regard to three different forward speeds, respectively, satisfying all design requirements. Similar to parametric studies, all results show 100% auxiliary propulsion for best performance. Even though the baseline design of a notional helicopter cannot reach a speed of 225 kts, its optimum design can reach that speed by applying compound technologies. Among the constraints, the intermediate rated power of an engine has proved to be most critical.
Table 3 Optimization Results 135 Kts 180 Kts
Initial Objective Optimum Initial Optimum

225 Kts Initial X X X X X Optimum

Gross Weight [lb] PIRP 9500 [SHP]

31937.3 5348.2 4057.9 1.19 31.1

2

29591.6 4788.8 3633.2 1.17 30.8 10.0 -9.0 0.08 -5.0 1.0 0.0 25.0

57741.6 12156.5 9637.1 1.29 41.8 10.5 -10.0 0.085 -4.5 0.55 100.0 17.5

31188.6 5544.5 4164.6 1.19 32.1 10.0 -10.98 0.08 -4.7 1.0 165.4 14.54

45738.4 9355.3 7502.2 1.11 37.2 10.56 -11.0 0.09 -5.0 1.0 200.0 13.57

Constraints

PMCP 7500 [SHP] CL_rms 1.2 R 40 [ft] 10 DL 11 [lbs/ft ] -11 -9 [deg] 0.08 0.09

10.5 -10.0 0.085 -4.5 0.55 100 17.5

10.5 -10.0 0.085 -4.5 0.55 100.0 17.5

Design Variables

-5 Stilt -4 [deg] 0.1 Taux 1 0 Swing 200 [ft ] 10 Xiwing 25 [deg]

2

4.3 Design Space Exploration

A constraint analysis is performed by plotting the constraint metric contours on the axes defined by the requirements of the mission. Within a suitable range defined, we can see what regions of the mission requirements can be satisfied. In this study, we choose ingress speed (135-225 kts) and mission radius (300-400 nm) to define the requirements space. These requirements are chosen since they have been shown to be the most stringent requirements. Then, at each point in the space, the integrated analysis simulates the mission and keeps track of the metrics. So, each point analyzed produces a different vehicle. We then choose, in this case, maximum values for each metric and see what region of the requirement space is feasible according to the integrated environment. The following five scenarios are used as follows and results are shown in Figure 9:
Step 1: Resize the baseline vehicle All variables are fixed as constants. Step 2: Optimally resize the baseline vehicle Objective: To minimize Gross Weight Design variables: DL, , , Stilt Step 3: Optimally resize the compounded baseline vehicle Objective: To minimize Gross Weight Design variables: DL, , , Stilt, Taux, Swing, Xiwing Step 4: Optimally resize the compounded baseline vehicle considering the hub-drag reduction (66%) Objective: To minimize Gross Weight Design variables: DL, , , Stilt, Taux, Swing, Xiwing Step 5: Optimally resize the compounded baseline vehicle considering the hub-drag reduction (66%) and specific fuel consumption (10%) Objective: To minimize Gross Weight Design variables: DL, , , Stilt, Taux, Swing, Xiwing

(a) Resize

(b) Optimization

(c) Compound Technologies

(d) Drag Reduction (66%)

(e) SFC Reduction (10%) Figure 9 Design Space Exploration

The above constraint analysis shows the requirement space opening up from the ingress velocity of 174 kts to that of 256 kts at the threshold mission range with the implementation of compounding. This is not a solid definition of what it means to be the best vehicle because it is based on the assumptions and simplification. The best vehicle can only be defined when there is a definite determination of the technology assumptions and constraints to be imposed. However, we can note that from these results, the designed model opens up its flight envelope significantly through compound implementation and future technologies. 5. CONCLUSION In order to predict the usefulness of compound technologies in rotorcraft, three analyzers were built. A preliminary helicopter design code, GTPDP, an empty weight and flat plate drag area estimation code, RDFD, and the average and root mean square lift coefficient calculation code, CLBAR, were integrated by the design framework, FRAMAX. After building an interactive and automated environment, the third order response surface models were created through the design of experiment technique. This method is loaded in FRAMAX and can reduce the time and cost of parametric study, optimization and design space exploration. The parametric studies of a compound helicopter were performed at three forward speeds. This shows that auxiliary thrust is useful in all cases and an additional wing is required only at 225kts. As a result of the optimization of compound helicopter, the optimum solutions were acquired satisfying all constraints. At the optimum, the gross weight is reduced 7.4% at 135 kts and 46.0% at 180 kts. Furthermore, the optimum designs were obtained at 225 kts, which the baseline helicopter cannot reach. In addition, the design space exploration technique was executed, and this shows the effect on compound technologies and future technologies. Consequently, the multidisciplinary analysis is applied completely in the FRAMAX environment and other various design techniques also are performed successfully.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Center of Innovative Design Optimization Technology (iDOT), and Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. Special thanks to FRAMAX Co., Ltd. and Woong Je Sung of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

REFERENCE
[1] Prouty, R.W., Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control. 1986, Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company. [2] Johnson, W., Helicopter Theory. 1994, New York: Dover Publications. [3] Stepniewski, W.Z., A Comparative Study of Soviet versus Western Helicopters. Part 1: General Comparison of Designs. 1983, International Technical Associates, Inc., Upper Darby, PA. [4] Stepniewski, W.Z. and R.A. Shinn, A Comparative Study of Soviet versus Western Helicopters. Part 2: Evaluation of Weight, Maintainability and Design Aspects of Major Components. 1983, International Technical Associates, Inc., Upper Darby, PA.

10

[5] Orchard, M. and S. Newman, Some Design Issues for the Optimization of the Compound Helicopter Configuration. 2000, Alexandria, VA: AHS International. [6] Newman, S., The Compound Helicopter Configuration and the Helicopter Speed Trap. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology (0002-2667), 1997. 69(5): p. 407-413. [7] FRAMAX users manual v1.0, 2006. [8] Sheehy, T.W., A General Review of Helicopter Rotor Hub Drag Data. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, April, 1977. [9] Keys, C.N., Rosenstein, H.J., Summary of Rotor Hub Drag Data. NASA-CR-152080. [10] Keys, C.N., Wiesnwe, R., Guidelines for Reducing Helicopter Parasite Drag. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, July, 1975. [11] Fradenburgh, E.A., Aerodynamic Design of the Sikorsky S-76 Spirit Helicopter. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, July, 1975. [12] Chae, H.G., Parasite Drag Estimation Method. 1999, Georgia Tech.

11