AE 545 Notes Part1

Aeromechanics of Rotary Wing
Vehicles
Class Notes for AE 545
Peretz P. Friedmann
FXB Professor
Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Michigan
September 13, 2010

CONTENTS
1 Introduction to Rotary Wing Aerodynamics 1
1.1 Momentum Theory of Rotors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Blade Element Theory 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Rotor Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Vertical Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 Rotor Tip Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5 Extended Blade Element Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.1 Optimum Rotor for Hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5.2 Rotors Hovering in Ground Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5.3 Descent in Axial Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6 Blade Element Theory of Descent Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.6.1 Partial Powered Vertical Descent . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7 Autorotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.8 Rotors in Non-axial Forward Flight - or Momentum Analysis
in Forward Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.9 Rotors in Non-axial Forward Flight (Alternate Derivation) . . 48
ii
iii
2.10 Simple Control Concepts for Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.11 Response of a Fully Articulated Rotor with Centrally Hinged
Blades to Cyclic Pitch Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.12 Blade Element Theory in Non-axial Flight and Some Forward
Flight Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.12.1 Flapping Motion and Flapping Angles . . . . . . . . . 65
2.12.2 Reversed Flow Region and Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.12.3 Torque Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.12.4 Horizontal Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.12.5 Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.13 Forward Flight Performance Using Blade Element Theory . . 72
2.14 Forward Flight Performance Using Energy Concepts . . . . . . 74
2.14.1 Induced Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.14.2 Profile Drag Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.14.3 Parasite Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.14.4 Climb Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.14.5 Total Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.15 Reference Planes Used in Forward Flight Analysis . . . . . . . 81
2.15.1 Change in Reference Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3 Flapping Dynamics of a Rotor Blade 86
3.1 Forward Flight Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

iv
3.2 Special Case for Hovering Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.3 Spacial Case for Forward Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.4 Helicopter Control Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.5 Application to the Hingeless Rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.6 A More Comprehensive Treatment of Blade Flapping Dynamics104
3.6.1 Aerodynamic Moment in Hover Case . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.6.2 Equations of Motion in Hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.6.3 Response to Cyclic Control in Hover . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.6.4 Blade Dynamics in Forward Flight for Stability and
Control Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4 Trim Analysis 122
4.1 Propulsive Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2 Some Additional Comments on the Solution of the Trim Equa-
tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5 “Classical” Flutter of Rotor Blades 136
5.1 Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.2 Stability Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.2.1 Static Stability-Divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.2.2 Dynamic Stability- Flutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.3 A Brief Critique of the Classical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 156

v
6 Dynamic Equations of Equilibrium of a Centrally Hinged
Spring Restrained Blade in Hover with Coupled Flap, Lag,
and Torsional Dynamics 157
List of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
6.1 Coordinate Systems and Ordering Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 165
6.2 Distributed Inertia Loads on the Blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
6.3 Distributed Aerodynamic Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.4 Distributed Structural Damping Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.5 Rotor Blade Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.6 Coupled Flap-Lag Stability of Hingeless Rotor Blades . . . . . 193
6.6.1 Equations of Dynamic Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.7 Solution of the Coupled Flap-Lag Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 199
6.7.1 Flutter Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7 Some Typical Numerical Results 210
7.1 General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
7.2 Numerical Results and Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
8 Effect of Additional Degrees of Freedom on the Stability of
Rotor Blades in Hover 226
8.1 Coupled Flap-Lag-Torsional Behavior of Blades in Hover . . . 226
8.2 Coupled Flap-Lag-Torsional Results in Hover . . . . . . . . . . 230

vi
References 237
Appendix 240
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to Rotary Wing Aerodynamics
1.1 Momentum Theory of Rotors (Actuator Disk Theory)
Assumptions:
1. Low disk loading
2. No rotational effects
3. Incompressible flow
4. Assume v-inflow velocity, uniformly distributed over the disk (Equiva-
lent to assuming infinite number of blades)
5. Hover
Mass flow through rotor = ρAv = ṁ (1.1.1)
Thrust from momentum equation is given by considering stations 0 and 3,
shown in Figure 1.1.
T = ρAv (w − 0) = ρAvw = ṁw (1.1.2)
1
c
Copyright Peretz P. Friedmann
Figure 1.1: Rotor slipstream
Applying Bernoulli’s equation between stations 0 and 1
ρ
p0 = p∞ = p1 + v 2 (1.1.3)
2
Applying Bernoulli’s equation between stations 2 and 3
ρ ρ
p2 + v 2 = p0 + w2
2 2
ρ 2
p2 − p0 = w − v2 (1.1.4)
2
From Eq. (1.1.3) and (1.1.4)
2
c
ρ 2 ρ ρ
p2 − p1 = ∆P = p0 + w − v 2 − p0 + v 2 = w2 (1.1.5)
2 2 2
From Eq. (1.1.2) and (1.1.5)
ρ 2
T = ∆P A = (p2 − p1 ) A = w A = ρAvw (1.1.6)
2
From Eq. (1.1.2) and (1.1.6)
T = 2ρAv 2 (1.1.7)
or, the inflow is given by
s
T
v= (1.1.8)
2ρA
The inflow ratio is defined as,
s r
v T CT
λ= = = (1.1.9)
ΩR 2ρAΩ2 R2 2
where,
T
CT = is the thrust co-efficient of the rotor (1.1.10)
ρAΩ2R2
The dynamic pressure variation in the axial direction is shown in Fig. 1.2.
3
c
Figure 1.2: Pressure variation plot in axial direction
4
CHAPTER 2
Blade Element Theory
2.1 Introduction
Consider the case of hovering flight or axial flight:
Assumptions:
1. Blade chord c = const., pitch setting θ0 = const.
2. Axial flight (radial flow effects are negligible)
3. Incompressible flow
4. Low disk loading
Denote the velocity of vertical flight by V .
From Fig. 2.1, the blade element angle of attack is given by,

−1 V +v
α (r) = θ0 − tan (2.1.1)
Ωr
For low axial velocities, V + v << Ωr, and a radial position sufficiently
outboard from the axis of rotation.
From Fig. 2.1, the blade element angle of attack is given by,

V +v
α (r) ∼
= θ0 − (2.1.2)
Ωr
5
c
The elemental lift associated with a segment of width dr is,
1 1
dL = ρ (Ωr)2 + (V + v)2 Cl cdr ∼ 2
= ρ (Ωr) Cl cdr (2.1.3)
2 2
where, the following assumption is used:
2
V +v
<< 1
Ωr
Figure 2.1: Geometry for blade element theory
6
c
Recall
Cl = aα (r) where a is the lift curve slope
Therefore

1 2 1 2 V +v
dL = ρ (Ωr) aα (r) cdr = ρ (Ωr) ac θ0 − dr (2.1.4)
2 2 Ωr
Similarly one can write the following expression for drag
1
dD0 = ρ (Ωr)2 Cd0 cdr (2.1.5)
2
where, Cd0 is assumed to be some representative constant profile drag coef-
ficient, which in reality can be considered to be of the form,
2
Cd0 = δ0 + δ1α (r) + δ2 α (r) (2.1.6)
where,
δ0, δ1 , δ2 are some constants which can be determined.
In rotor dynamics it is customary to resolve things into components per-
pendicular and parallel to the plane of rotation (hub plane).
The inflow angle is given by,

−1 V +v ∼ V +v
φ (r) = tan = using small angle assumptions
Ωr Ωr
(2.1.7)
Referring back to Fig. 2.1 and taking components,
7
c
CD0
α
Usual operating range
Figure 2.2: Profile drag coefficient as a function of effective angle of attack
dT = dL cos φ (r) − dD0 sin φ (r) (2.1.8)

| {z }
negligible
dD0 = dL sin φ (r) + dD0 cos φ (r) (2.1.9)
The lift L is approximately one order of magnitude larger than the drag

L ∼
D = 6 − 9 and thus the last term in Eqn. 2.1.8 is negligible.
D
Using small angle approximation for φ (r),
cos φ (r) ∼
= 1.0; sin φ (r) ∼
= φ (r)
Thus,
dT ∼
= dL (2.1.10)
dD0 = φ (r) dL +dD0 (2.1.11)

| {z }
Induced drag
8
c
For a rotor with b blades, the total thrust is given by using 2.1.10 and
r
2.1.11 with r = as integration variable,
R
Z R Z 1
1 V +v
T =b dT = ρΩ2 R3 abc 2
r θ0 − dr
0 2 0 ΩRr

1 2 3 θ0 V +v
= ρΩ R abc − (2.1.12)
2 3 2ΩR
Recall
T
CT =
ρ (πR2) Ω2 R2
Define
Blade area bcR bc
Solidity = σ = = 2
=
Disk area πR πR
Inflow ratio for axial flight is,
V +v
λ= (2.1.13)
ΩR
Thus Eq. (2.1.12) can be rewritten as,

σa θ0 λ
CT = − (2.1.14)
2 3 2
2.2 Rotor Torque
Another important quantity associated with rotor behavior is the torque,
or the moment needed to overcome the drag, and keep the rotor turning at
a certain RPM in steady state conditions.
9
c
One can express the elemental torque as,
dQ = rdD0 dr
and the total torque as

Z R Z R
0
Q=b rdD dr = b (dLφ + dD0 ) rdr
0 0
Z R
1 2 2 V +v V +v 1 2 2
=b r ρΩ r ac θ0 − + ρcCd0 Ω r dr
0 2 Ωr Ωr 2
Z " " 2 # #
R
1 2 V +v 2 V +v 1
= ρΩ abc θ0 r − r + ρbcCd0 Ω2r3 dr
0 2 Ω Ω 2
" 3 2 2 #
1 V + v R V + v R 1 R4
= ρabcΩ2 θ0 − + ρbcCd0 Ω2
2 Ω 3 Ω 2 2 4

1 θ0 λ 1 R4
= ρabcΩ2 − λR4
+ ρbcCd0 Ω2 (2.2.15)
2 3 2 2 4
Define torque coefficient as,
Q
CQ = Torque coefficient = (2.2.16)
ρπR2 (ΩR)2 R
Combining Eqs. (2.2.15) and (2.2.16) one has

1 abc θ0 λ bc 1
CQ = − λ + Cd0
2 πR 3 2 2πR 4
10
c

σa θ0 λ σCd0
CQ = − λ + (2.2.17)
2 3 2 8
Combining Eqs. (2.1.14) and (2.2.17)
σCd0
CQ = CT λ + (2.2.18)
8
The first term in Eq. (2.2.18) is usually called the induced torque (because
it is due to induced drag) and the second term is called the profile torque.
Using the expression for the torque, Eq. (2.2.15), it is also easy to define
the power required.
P = QΩ (2.2.19)
The power coefficient is defined as,
P QΩ
CP = 3 = = CQ (2.2.20)
ρπR2 (ΩR) ρπR2 (ΩR)3
Next it is interesting to connect the expressions which have been derived
with momentum theory, in hovering flight. Recall for this case power is given
by,
P = Tv
Therefore,
Tv T v
CPi = 3 = 2 = CT λ
ρπR2 (ΩR) ρπR2 (ΩR) ΩR
11
c
since for hover

v
λ=
ΩR
Thus,
CQi = CPi = CT λ (2.2.21)
i.e. the ideal torque coefficient, in absence of friction is identical from both,
blade element theory and momentum theory.
In hovering flight,
s r
v T CT
λ= = = (2.2.22)
ΩR 2ρAΩ2 R2 2
Combining Eqs. (2.1.14) and (2.2.22) one has

" r #
σa θ0 1 CT
CT = − (2.2.23)
2 3 2 2
from which,
r
2CT θ0 1 CT
= −
σa 3 2 2
r
1 CT θ0 2CT
= −
2 2 3 σa
2
CT θ0 2CT θ02 4 θ0 CT 4CT2
= − = − +
8 3 σa 9 3 σa (σa)2

θ02 θ0 4 1 4CT2
− + CT + 2 = 0
9 3 σa 8 (σa)
12
c

σ 2 a2 4θ0 1 (σa)2 2
CT2 − + CT + θ =0 (2.2.24)
4 3σa 8 36 0
Equation (2.2.24) is sometimes a useful quadratic equation for CT , when the
value of collective pitch θ0 is given.
Also recall Eq. (2.2.18) and combine it with Eqn. 2.2.22, thus
3
σCd0 (CT ) 2
CQ = + √ = CQ0 + CQi (2.2.25)
8 2
where CQ0 is the profile torque coefficient.
From Eq. (2.2.21) the ideal torque coefficient is
3
(CT ) 2
CQi = √
2
Another useful quantity often used in helicopter engineering is the Rotor
Figure of Merit (F.M), which is defined as, clearly this expression is for the
case of hover
3
CQideal 1 (CT ) 2
F.M = =√ (2.2.26)
CQ 2 (CQ0 + CQi )
So the ideal rotor Figure of Merit is
3
1 (CT ) 2
√ =1
2 CQi
For an actual rotor the Figure of Merit indicates the magnitude of the
losses due to non-uniformity of flow, tip loss and profile drag for a particular
rotor. For a good rotor F.M ∼

= 0.75, where “good” implies a well designed
13
c
rotor.
In the equations used above Cd0 has appeared a number of times, a good
approximate relation for Cd0 is given by,
Cd0 = 0.0081 − 0.0216α + 0.4α2 (2.2.27)
where, α is the angle of attack measured in radians. For a reasonable angle
of attack α, this normally yields a value of Cd0 ∼

= 0.012
2.3 Vertical Climb
At high rates of vertical climb, the drag of the fuselage has to be included.
However for the relatively simple situation discussed in the class, this effect
will be neglected.
Recall that for a rotor in hover, the torque coefficient is
CQH = CQ0 + λH CT (2.3.28)
and for climb or axial flight, it is
CQ = CQ0 + λCT (2.3.29)
assuming that CQ0 does not change in an appreciable manner for vertical
flight at constant axial velocity, also from equilibrium W = T (still true).
Therefore, one can combine Eqs. (2.3.28) and (2.3.29) to get,
∆CQ = CQ − CQH = (λ − λH ) CT
14
c
r
∆CQ CT
= (λ − λH ) = λ −
CT 2
Therefore,
r
∆CQ CT
λ= + (2.3.30)
CT 2
Also recall that by definition,
V +v
λ=
ΩR
V v
=λ− (2.3.31)
ΩR ΩR
For the case of axial flight one can go through momentum theory in a
manner similar to our initial derivation for the case of hover.
Using the same assumptions as was used for momentum theory for hover,
Mass flow through rotor = ρA (V + v) = ṁ (2.3.32)
Thrust from momentum equation is given by considering stations 0 − 3
T = ρA (V + v) w
Applying Bernoulli’s equation between station 0 − 1 and 2 − 3 yields again,
2v = w
Thus,
T = 2ρA (V + v) v
15
c
Figure 2.3: Geometry for momentum theory in axial flight
Therefore,

T V +v v
CT = 2 = 2
ρA (ΩR) ΩR ΩR
CT v
= (2.3.33)
2λ ΩR
Combining Eqs. (2.3.30), (2.3.31) and (2.3.33) yields

r !
CT
V CT ∆CQ CT 2
=λ− = + − q
ΩR 2λ CT 2 ∆CQ CT
CT
+ 2
2 q
∆CQ 2∆CQ CT
CT
+ CT
+ C2T −
2
CT
2
= q
∆CQ CT
CT
+ 2
16
c
q
∆CQ ∆CQ
CT CT
+ 2 C2T
∼ ∆CQ
= q =2 (2.3.34)
∆CQ CT
CT
+ C2T
Therefore,
V ∼ ∆CQ
=2
ΩR CT
∆CQ
Equation (2.3.34) is based on the assumption that is small compared
r CT
CT
to , which implies a low rate of climb R/C of less than V < 10 ft/sec
2
or V < 600 ft/min.
For a given R/C (desired) and a helicopter with a specific weight (CT = CW ),
the required differential torque coefficient is provided by Eq. (2.3.34).
Typical power losses for hovering rotors (single rotor):
Mechanical Gear friction 3%
Tail rotor 7%
Aerodynamic Interference (download on fuselage) 2%
Tip losses 3%
Slipstream rotation 0.2%
nonuniform inflow (no twist 4%, or taper 3%) 7%
17
c
Figure 2.4: Geometry illustrating tip losses
2.4 Rotor Tip Losses
BR is determined from balance of the two areas shown. For lightly loaded
rotors, Betz came up with a simple relation,
√
2CT
B =1−
b
where, b is the number of blades.
Typically,
B = 0.97
Z BR
T = dT
AR
Z R Z BR
Q= dQ0 + b dQi
0 AR
Note that only induced torque needs to be corrected. Also the correction in
the root region is not very important because the moment arm is very small.
18
c
2.5 Extended Blade Element Theory
Consider an actuator disc, in axial flight, and select an annular element
of the disc as shown in Fig. 2.5. the elemental thrust of the b blade elements
contained in the annular ring based on blade element theory is given by,

1 2 V + v (r)
dT = ρabc (r) (Ωr) θ (r) − dr (2.5.35)
2 Ωr
Figure 2.5: Geometry for extended blade element theory
For the same annular ring shown, the elemental thrust based on mo-
mentum theory, see Fig. 2.6, is given by,
dT = ρ2πrdr [V + v (r)] 2v (r) (2.5.36)
Equating these two different representations of elemental thrust yields

1 2 V + v (r)
ρabc (r) (Ωr) θ (r) − dr = ρ2πrdr [V + v (r)] 2v (r)
2 Ωr
(2.5.37)
19
c
which is a quadratic equation for v (r).

r
Rewriting the equation in nondimensional form by introducing x =
R
bc (x)
and using the definition of solidity as σ (x) = ,
πR

2 V + v (x)
abc (x) Ω Rx θ (x) − = 4π [V + v (x)] 2v (x)
ΩxR
Figure 2.6: Momentum theory in axial flight

bc (x) 2 2 V + v (x)
a Ω R x θ (x) − = 4 [V + v (x)] 2v (x)
πR ΩxR

2 2 V v (x)
aσ (x) Ω R x θ (x) − − aσ (x) Ω2 R2 x = 8V v (x) + 8v 2 (x)
ΩxR ΩxR

2 2 2 V
8v (x) + v (x) [8V + aσ (x) ΩR] − aσ (x) Ω R x θ (x) − =0
ΩxR
20
c

2 1 1 2 2 V
v (x) + v (x) V + aσ (x) ΩR − aσ (x) Ω R x θ (x) − =0
8 8 ΩxR
Solution of this quadratic equation yields,
s !
V 1 2 (θ (x) xΩR − V )
v (x) = + aσ (x) ΩR −1 + 1 + 4V 2 1
2 16 σ(x)aΩR
+ V + 16 aσ (x) ΩR
(2.5.38)
Equation (2.5.38) is an important and useful equation for determining
the inflow in hover or axial flight. Once the induced velocity is known, the
inflow angle at the blade element can determined from
V +v
φ= (2.5.39)
ΩRx
Equation (2.5.38) is a completely general expression which allows one to
determine the inflow velocity for any blade planform and pitch distribution.
A number of special forms of this equation are quite useful.
For example when c = constant and the blade twist is inversely propor-
θt
tional to x, θ (x) = , where θt is blade twist at the tip, one obtains v (x)
x
constant over the disc.
s !
1 2 (θt ΩR − V )
v (x) = V + aσΩR −1 + 1 + 4V 2 1
(2.5.40)
16 σaΩR
+ V + 16 aσΩR
Another useful relation is obtained for the case of hover V = 0 and

3
constant chord c (x) = c. Assuming that the inflow velocity at R is repre-
4
sentative of a uniformly distributed inflow for θ = constant, one has
21
c
s !
1 2θ 3 ΩR
v (x) = aσΩR −1 + 1+ 1 4
16 16
aσΩR
r !
1 24θ
v (x) = aσΩR 1+ −1 (2.5.41)
16 aσ
r !
v (x) aσ 24θ
λ= = 1+ −1 (2.5.42)
ΩR 16 aσ
which is an approximate relation for uniform inflow frequently used in aero-
elastic calculations.
2.5.1 Optimum Rotor for Hover
Here we are interested in the optimum rotor for hover including real fluid

effects. We are seeking αopt for max(L/D) α(Cl /Cd )max , with friction
Clopt
αopt = for all r
a
We still want v = constant over the disc. Returning to Eq. (2.5.37) for V = 0
one has,

1 2 v (r)
abc (r) Ω r θ (r) − = 4πv 2 (r) (2.5.43)
2 Ωr
| {z }
α(r)
we want α (r) = opt., and v = constant.
v (r)
Let θ (r) = αopt + (2.5.44)
Ωr
Therefore abcΩ2rαopt = 8πv 2 (r)
22
c

R
where v (r) = constant if c (r) = ct , i.e. tapered blade.
r
R
abctΩ2 Rαopt = 8πv 2
R
v 2 abc α
t opt
=
ΩR 8πR
q
v abct αopt
ΩR
= 8πR
(2.5.45)
and combining Eqs. (2.5.44) and (2.5.45)

r
Cl 1 abctαopt
θ (x) = opt + (2.5.46)
a x 8πR
2.5.2 Rotors Hovering in Ground Effect
Consider a rotor hovering near the ground. Recall that when the rotor hovers
far from the ground, one can obtain the inflow from momentum theory, shown
in Fig. 2.7.
Figure 2.7: Momentum theory for rotor out of ground effect
23
c
When the rotor is near the ground one expects the inflow v 0 < v for an equal
amount of thrust, as shown in Fig. 2.8. One can develop a fairly simple
analytical model for this case by using an analytic image effect, which is
schematically shown in Fig. 2.9.
Figure 2.8: Rotor inflow v 0 in ground effect
The presence of ground reduces the size of the induced drag and therefore
the power requirement is lower. At a constant power setting, descent tends
to increase thrust, as shown in Fig. 2.10.
T = K1 T ∞
Out of ground effect, the torque coefficient is given by,
3
σCd0 (CT∞ ) 2
CQ = + √
8 2
In ground effect,
CT = K1 CT∞
24
c
Figure 2.9: Geometry for rotor operating in ground effect
and at constant power,
3
σCd0 (CT ) 2
CQ = + √ K2
8 2
25
c
Figure 2.10: Thrust changes in ground effect
For constant power, one can equate torque coefficients

3 3
σCd0 (CT∞ ) 2 σCd0 (CT ) 2
+ √ = + √ K2
8 2 8 2
32 32
CT∞ 1
K2 = =
CT K1
and thus
32
σCd0 1 CT
CQ = +√
8 2 K1
For forward flight, the effect of V , wind or forward flight velocity has a
beneficial effect, as shown in Fig. 2.11.
26
c
Figure 2.11: Effect of forward flight velocity on thrust change in ground effect
2.5.3 Descent in Axial Flight
Condition I: Power-on Vertical Climb
Figure 2.12: Slipstream while descending in axial flight
There is an established slipstream and momentum theory applies.
T = 2ρA (V + v) v
27
c
Figure 2.13: Slipstream in hover
Condition II: Hover
Again there is an established slipstream and momentum theory applies.
T = 2ρAv 2
Condition III: Partial Power Descent (Vortex Ring State)
A ring vorticity stays with the disk, possible at an angle of descent or
wind. Momentum theory can not be applied since there is no established
slipstream. The flow is not defined both from geometry and stability point
of view; this situation is shown in Fig. 2.14.
Condition IV: Turbulent Wake State
Minimum power-off rate of descent. Disk approaches a state correspond-
ing to an almost solid disk. Redefine positive V from below and v as opposed
28
c
Figure 2.14: Vortex ring state
to it in direction and almost equal in magnitude. There is no established slip-
stream and hence momentum theory is invalid. This is a flow state for ideal
autorotation. This situation is depicted in Fig. 2.15.
Condition V: Windmill Brake State
Here there is an established slipstream and momentum theory applies; This
situation is depicted in Fig. 2.16.
w = 2v
T = 2ρA (V − v) v
Applying momentum theory
ρ ρ
p0 + V 2 = p1 + (V − v)2
2 2
29
c
Figure 2.15: Turbulent wake state
Figure 2.16: Slipstream while in windmill brake state
ρ ρ
p2 + (V − v)2 = p0 + (V − w)2
2 2
ρ 2 ρ
p1 − p2 = V − (V − w)2 = 2V w − w2
2 2
ρ
T = ρA (V − v) w = A 2V w − w2
2
30
c
thus,
w = 2v (2.5.47)
T = 2ρA (V − v) v (2.5.48)
T 1
V = +v (2.5.49)
2ρA v
Equation (2.5.49) represents the rate of descent in the windmill brake
state, from it the minimum rate of descent can be also obtained.
dV T
=0⇒− +1 =0
dv 2ρAv 2
s
T
vmin =
2ρA
s s s
T T T 2T
Vmin = q + =2 = (2.5.50)
T
2ρA 2ρA 2ρA 2ρA ρA

lb-sec2
At sea level using the appropriate value of ρ0 = ρ ρ0 = 0.0023769
ft4
r r r r
2 T T ∼ T ft
Vmin = = 29.0074 = 29
0.0023769 A A A sec
This minimum rate of descent almost represents the inverse of hover. One
can also relate this to the inflow velocity of hover vH ,
s
T
vH =
2ρA
2 T
vH =
2ρA
31
c
Figure 2.17: Figure showing momentum theory in vertical descent
For vertical climb (assuming equal weight or thrust)
T = 2ρA (V + v) v
or
T
= (V + v) v
2ρA
thus
2
vH = (V + v) v
or

V v v
+ =1 (2.5.51)
vH vH vH
Similarly for vertical descent, see Fig. 2.17, from windmill brake state Eq.
(2.5.48) above
2
vH = (V − v) v
32
c
or

V v v
− =1 (2.5.52)
vH vH vH
All the results can be plotted conveniently on one curve as shown in
Fig. 2.18, where the portion of the curve denoted by “empirical” should be
assumed to be obtainable from either flight test or wind tunnel test.
Figure 2.18: Various flight regions in axial flight
In turbulent wake state,
s
Vmin T.W ∼ T
= 1.72 or Vmin T.W ∼
= 1.72vH = 1.72
vH 2ρA
33
c
Figure 2.19: Blade element theory in descending flight
2.6 Blade Element Theory of Descent Problem
Again assume small angles and c, θ0, v =constant then,

∼ 1 2 2 V −v
dT = dL = ρacΩ r θ0 + dr (2.6.53)
2 Ωr
and we have to redefine the inflow ratio for vertical descent as
V −v
λ= (2.6.54)
ΩR
Z R
1 2 3 θ0 λ
T =b dT = ρabcΩ R + (2.6.55)
0 2 3 2
Thus the only difference between the vertical climb and descent is the
sign in the square brackets in Eq. (2.6.55), the positive sign convention for
this case is
↑V+ ↓V−
and

1 θ0 λ
CT = aσ + (2.6.56)
2 3 2
34
c
Figure 2.20: Inplane sectional forces in descending flight
From this figure it is clear that the inplane component of lift opposes the
profile drag term
dQ = r (dD0 − φdL)
Z R
Q=b (dD0 − φ(r)dL) rdr
0
V −v
φ(r) =
Ωr
Z R
1 1
Q=b { ρcΩ2 r2 Cd0 − ρacΩ2 r2 [θ0 + φ(r)] φ(r)}rdr
0 2 2
Z R
1 2 4 1 2 2 V −v V −v
= ρbcΩ R Cd0 − ρabcΩ r θ0 + rdr
8 0 2 Ωr Ωr
 
1 1  θ0 1 V − v  V − v
= ρbcΩ2 R4 Cd0 − ρabcΩ2R4  + 
8 2 3 2 | ΩR
{z } ΩR
λ
Cd0 σ
CQ = − λCT
8

Cd0 σ 1 θ0 λ
CQ = − aσ + λ (2.6.57)
8 2 3 2
35
c
The only change is the sign after the first term on the R.H.S of the above
equation.
2.6.1 Partial Powered Vertical Descent
Solve torque expression, Eq. (2.6.57), for λ

Cd0 σ 1
λ= − CQ (2.6.58)
8 CT
For a given throttle setting CQ is prescribed

V −v V v vH
λ= ≡ −
ΩR vH vH ΩR
and recall that
r
vH CT
=
ΩR 2
from momentum theory
r
V v CT Cd0 σ 1
− = − CQ
vH vH 2 8 CT
and
√
V v Cd0 σ 2
− = − CQ 3 (2.6.59)
vH vH 8 (CT ) 2
One can also replot the empirical portion of the curve shown in Fig. (2.18)
as done on the next page.
36
c
1.0 0.25 -1.0 -2.0
V v
vH vH
1.0
1.72
2.0
V
vH
WB TW VR
Figure 2.21: Partial plot of Fig. 2.18
In the windmill brake range, where momentum theory is valid one can
assume approximately

V v v
− = 1.0
vH vH vH
On the other hand, using Fig. 2.21

V v
− = 0.25
vH vH
for minimum rate of descent, power off and turbulent wake state,
V
= 1.72
vH
37
c
Therefore, at sea level
s r
T T
V = 1.72vH = 1.72 = 25 (2.6.60)
2ρA A
For a parachute CD ∼
= 1.4.
therefore
1
T =D∼
= ρV 2 CD A
2
s r s s r
2T 4 T T T
V = = = 1.69 = 24.5 (2.6.61)
ρACD 1.4 2ρA 2ρA A
Comparing Eqs. (2.6.60) and (2.6.61) it is evident that they are very close
to each other.
2.7 Autorotation
It is assumed that it is a power-off condition. This condition is governed
by energy balance between losses due to friction and kinetic energy due to
rotation. Power or moment coefficient given by
Cd0 σ
CQ = − λCT = 0
8
Cd0 σ
= λCT
8
From blade element theory in descending flight

1 θ0 λ σCd0
CT = aσ + = (2.7.62)
2 3 2 8λ
38
c
this yields a quadratic equation for the inflow λ
2θ0 λ Cd0
λ2 +
− =0
s3 2a
2
θ0 θ0 Cd
λ=− + + 0 (2.7.63)
3 3 2a
Once λ has been determined, assuming the pitch setting is known, CT can
be determined from blade element theory, Eq. (2.7.62), by definition
T
CT =
ρA(ΩR)2
T
T = W and for a rotor A is known, this is known and thus (ΩR) can be
A
obtained.
Recall that the definition of λ for descending flight is

r
V −v V v vH V v CT
λ= = − = −
ΩR vH vH ΩR vH vH 2

V v λ
− =q (2.7.64)
vH vH CT
2
Using Eq. (2.7.64) one can use Fig. 2.21 to determine in which region the
rotor is operating. If one is in turbulent wake state, one needs to use empirical
part of the curve, if one is in the windmill brake state then one can use
momentum theory.
T
= (V − v) v → momentum for windmill brake state
2ρA
since ΩR is known

T CT V −v v
2
= = (2.7.65)
2ρA(ΩR) 2 ΩR ΩR
39
c
From this discussion λ is known, what is not known is V, v, Eqs. (2.7.64) and
(2.7.65) provide a solution. However θ0 needs to be adjusted so that one is
in the proper region, windmill brake.
Next, consider the equilibrium of the autorotating blade under the influ-
ence of forces acting on the blade. Recall the Fig. 2.19 that depicts blade
element theory in descending flight.
Blade at any station r has two different forces acting on it.
Figure 2.22: Geometry of a blade in autorotation
1
dL ∼
= ρΩ2 r2 a [θ0 + φ(r)] cdr
2
1
dD0 = ρΩ2 r2 cCd0 dr
2
V −v
φ(r) =
Ωr
At some station re , the inplane component of profile drag balances the inplane
component of lift, i.e.
dD0 − φe dL = 0
40
c
dD0
φe =
dL
Furthermore, φ(r) is large at the root and decreases toward the tip.
1 2 2 1
ρΩ r a [θ0 + φe (r)] φe (r)cdr = ρΩ2 r2 cCd0 dr
2 2
a [θ0 + φe (r)] φe (r) = Cd0
which yields a quadratic equation for φe (r)
aφe(r)2 + aθ0 φe (r) − Cd0 = 0
Cd
φe (r)2 + θ0φe (r) − 0 = 0
a
s
2
θ0 θ0 Cd
φe (r) = − + + 0
2 2 a

V −v V −v R
φe (r) = =
Ωre ΩR re
or
re λ
=
R φe (re )
this determines the location of the equilibrium point, assuming that λ is
known, from the previous consideration in this section. The effective angle
of attack is
α(r) = θ0 + φ(r)
Here, φ(r) is largest at the root, so angle of attack increases as one goes
inboard on an autorotating blade, and therefore the inboard portion of the
blade, for a region shown in Fig. 2.22 will be stalled. If stall exceeds 40%
41
c
of the blade span, autorotation cannot be sustained and the helicopter will
crash.
In practical (actual conditions) autorotation in vertical flight will usually
take place in the turbulent wake state (TW) where the flow is not smooth
and leads to a certain amount of unsteadiness in the rotor. Therefore it is
desirable to autorotate in forward flight (low forward flight speed) because
the rotor will operate under smoother conditions.
Under established autorotative conditions there is energy balance. The
decrease in aircraft potential energy per unit time is equal to the power re-
quired to sustain the rotor speed. The pilot gives up altitude, at a controlled
rate, in return for energy to turn the rotor and produce thrust.
For vertical autorotation we have seen that
dQ = (dD − φ(r)dL) rdr
This condition can exist only at two radial stations on the blade. In reality,
some stations on the rotor will absorb power from the relative airstream
and some will consume power such that the net power at the rotor shaft
is approximately zero. When assuming uniform inflow over the disk, the
induced angle of attack is,
V −v
φ(r) = tan−1
Ωr
Induced angles inboard are large, and near the tip small. Therefore the
inboard sections are producing an accelerating torque, while the outboard
42
c
stations are producing a decclerating torque; this situation is depicted in
Fig. 2.23.
Establishing stable autorotational flight requires a skilled pilot, The rotor
RPM and rate of descent are controlled by judicious selection of the collective
pitch angle θ0.
Figure 2.23: Regions of the blade in autorotation
Autorotation in forward flight is a more realistic case that in vertical
43
c
descent. The energy balance remains the same, essentially, however, due to
forward flight there is a loss of symmetry (axial symmetry) in the induced
velocity and angle of attack. This tends to move the portions of the rotor
disk that consume power and absorb power as shown in Fig. 2.24.
Figure 2.24: Autorotation in forward flight
The basic physics of the autorotational problem remain the same. The
forward flight speed is controlled by the pilot using the cyclic controls. The
flight conditions that will allow safe entry to an autorotation and recovery
of the helicopter are usually summarized in the form of height velocity of
“H-V” curves. These are often called the “dead man’s” curves for obvious
44
c
reasons. Figure 2.25 depicts a typical H-V curve for a single engine helicopter,
such curves are provided to the pilot in the flight manual. The curves that
define the “avoid” regions are established through systematic flight tests
prior to certification of the helicopter. The tests are conducted at altitude
relative to a virtual “floor” by incrementally approaching the combination
of airspeed and altitude where acceptable autorotational capability becomes
questionable, based on pilot’s rating.
Figure 2.25: Height-velocity curve for a typical single engine helicopter
The actual size and shape of the H-V curve depends on many factors,
including characteristics of the helicopter gross weight, disk loading, number
of engines and operational density altitude.
45

AE 545 Notes Part1

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

AE 545 Notes Part1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aeromechanics of Rotary Wing

Department of Aerospace Engineering

September 13, 2010

1 Introduction to Rotary Wing Aerodynamics 1

1.1 Momentum Theory of Rotors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Blade Element Theory 5

2.2 Rotor Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3 Vertical Climb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4 Rotor Tip Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.5 Extended Blade Element Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5.1 Optimum Rotor for Hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.5.2 Rotors Hovering in Ground Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.5.3 Descent in Axial Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.6 Blade Element Theory of Descent Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.6.1 Partial Powered Vertical Descent . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.8 Rotors in Non-axial Forward Flight - or Momentum Analysis

2.9 Rotors in Non-axial Forward Flight (Alternate Derivation) . . 48

2.10 Simple Control Concepts for Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.11 Response of a Fully Articulated Rotor with Centrally Hinged

Blades to Cyclic Pitch Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2.12 Blade Element Theory in Non-axial Flight and Some Forward

2.12.1 Flapping Motion and Flapping Angles . . . . . . . . . 65

2.12.2 Reversed Flow Region and Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

2.12.3 Torque Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2.12.4 Horizontal Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

2.12.5 Lateral Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

2.13 Forward Flight Performance Using Blade Element Theory . . 72

2.14 Forward Flight Performance Using Energy Concepts . . . . . . 74

2.14.1 Induced Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

2.14.2 Profile Drag Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

2.14.3 Parasite Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2.14.4 Climb Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

2.14.5 Total Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

2.15 Reference Planes Used in Forward Flight Analysis . . . . . . . 81

2.15.1 Change in Reference Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3 Flapping Dynamics of a Rotor Blade 86

3.1 Forward Flight Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.2 Special Case for Hovering Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3.3 Spacial Case for Forward Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3.4 Helicopter Control Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

3.5 Application to the Hingeless Rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

3.6 A More Comprehensive Treatment of Blade Flapping Dynamics104

3.6.1 Aerodynamic Moment in Hover Case . . . . . . . . . . 106

3.6.2 Equations of Motion in Hover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

3.6.3 Response to Cyclic Control in Hover . . . . . . . . . . 111

3.6.4 Blade Dynamics in Forward Flight for Stability and

Control Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

4 Trim Analysis 122

4.1 Propulsive Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

4.2 Some Additional Comments on the Solution of the Trim Equa-

5 “Classical” Flutter of Rotor Blades 136

5.1 Equations of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.2 Stability Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5.2.1 Static Stability-Divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5.2.2 Dynamic Stability- Flutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

5.3 A Brief Critique of the Classical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 156

6 Dynamic Equations of Equilibrium of a Centrally Hinged

Spring Restrained Blade in Hover with Coupled Flap, Lag,

and Torsional Dynamics 157

List of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

6.1 Coordinate Systems and Ordering Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6.2 Distributed Inertia Loads on the Blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

6.3 Distributed Aerodynamic Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

6.4 Distributed Structural Damping Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185