applied

sciences
Article
Helicopter Blade-Vortex Interaction Airload and
Noise Prediction Using Coupling CFD/VWM Method
Yinyu Zhao, Yongjie Shi * and Guohua Xu
National Laboratory of Science and Technology on Rotorcraft Aerodynamics, Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Nanjing 210000, China; yinyuzhao@nuaa.edu.cn (Y.Z.); ghxu@nuaa.edu.cn (G.X.)
* Correspondence: shiyongjie@nuaa.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-25-8489-6911

Academic Editor: Antonio Ficarella

Received: 13 January 2017; Accepted: 7 April 2017; Published: 11 April 2017

Abstract: As a high resolution airload with accurate rotor wake is pivotal for rotor BVI (Blade-vortex
interaction) analysis, a hybrid method with combined Navier-Stokes equation, viscous wake
model, and FW-H (Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings) equation is developed for BVI airload and noise
in this paper. A comparison with the CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)/FW-H method for the
AH-1/OLS (Operational Load Survey) rotor demonstrates its capability for favorable accuracy and
high computation efficiency. This paper further discusses the mechanisms for the impacts of four
flight parameters (i.e., tip-path-plane angle, thrust coefficient, tip Mach number, advance ratio) on
BVI noise. Under the BVI condition, several BVI events concurrently occur on the rotor disk. Each
interaction has a distinct radiation direction which depends on the interaction azimuth, and its
noise intensity is highly associated with the characteristic parameters (e.g., miss-distance, interaction
angle, vortex strength). The BVI noise is dominated by the interactions at 30–90◦ in azimuth on the
advancing side, of which the wake angle range is from 180◦ to 540◦ . Furthermore, the tip-path-plane
angle, thrust coefficient, and tip Mach number change the noise intensity mainly via miss-distance,
interaction angle, and vortex strength, but for different advance ratios, the noise intensity and
propagation direction are more dependent on the interaction angle and interaction azimuth.

Keywords: blade-vortex interaction noise; rotor; hybrid method; Navier-Stokes equation; viscous
wake model

1. Introduction
It is well known that helicopter rotor impulsive noise originates from high-speed impulsive noise,
which is due to a high tip Mach number on the rotor’s advancing side, and the blade-vortex interaction
noise on the advancing and retreating sides of the rotor disk. Blade-vortex interaction (BVI) [1] occurs
when the strong tip vortices shed from the main rotor pass in close to the following blades during
descending or maneuvering flight; this results in impulsive changes in blade loading, which radiates
noise. Not only does BVI noise have significant effects on passenger comfort but the vibratory loads
also increase pilot workload and maintenance costs. The calculation and analysis of BVI noise remain
a challenging task in the field of helicopter aerodynamics and aerodynamic acoustics [2].
The BVI aerodynamic load and noise strength, as well as the radiation direction, relate to many
factors, such as the location of BVI events, the blade tip vortex structure, and the miss-distance. Within
the past several decades, considerable effort has been devoted towards noise mechanisms and the
alleviation of BVI [3–6], but most of these studies have been focused on experiments. In numerical
studies, the complexity of BVI renders simulation and analysis more difficult, consequently slowing
its development. The rotor wake structure and the unsteady aerodynamic load distribution on the
blade surface have been recognized as the most important parameters in order to better predict BVI
noise. In 1990s, the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method was gradually applied to rotor

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381; doi:10.3390/app7040381 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

aerodynamic research [7–10]. Some scholars further utilized this method to study BVI aerodynamics 
and noise [11–13]. However, the numerical dissipation inherent in the difference schemes and the 
interpolation errors make it hard to accurately capture the rotor tip vortices. Despite grid refinement, 
high  order‐accuracy 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381
schemes  and  adaptive  grids  can  be  used  to  reduce  numerical  dissipation,  2 of 20
 
but  these  methods  are  still  insufficient  at  capturing  the  wake  structure  entirely;  furthermore,  vast 
amounts  of  computation  time  and  resources  limit  their  applications  in  researching  the  rotor  BVI 
aerodynamic research [7–10]. Some scholars further utilized this method to study BVI aerodynamics
problem. In recent years, a coupled method combining the wake model with the Euler solver was 
and noise [11–13]. However, the numerical dissipation inherent in the difference schemes and the
developed  [14–17] 
interpolation and make
errors several  remarkable 
it hard to accuratelystudies  on rotor
capture the BVI tipnoise  have 
vortices. been grid
Despite reported  in  [18,19] 
refinement,
demonstrating  the  capability 
high order-accuracy schemes of 
andthe  coupled 
adaptive method 
grids can be usedto 
to predict  BVI  noise; 
reduce numerical however, 
dissipation, the  wake 
but these
solutions rely on empirical formulations due to the assumption of inviscid flow, resulting in some 
methods are still insufficient at capturing the wake structure entirely; furthermore, vast amounts of
computation time and resources limit their applications in researching the rotor BVI problem. In recent
errors regarding BVI airload prediction. 
years, a coupledthe 
To  overcome  method combining the
deficiencies  of  wake model withcoupled 
the  existing  the Euler methods 
solver was developed [14–17]prediction, 
in  BVI  noise  and  
several remarkable studies on BVI noise have been reported in [18,19] demonstrating the capability of
a  high‐resolution  method  coupling  CFD  and  the  viscous  wake  method  (VWM),  developed  by   
the coupled method to predict BVI noise; however, the wake solutions rely on empirical formulations
Shi et al. in [20,21], is employed for rotor wake simulation and impulsive airload calculation, and the 
due to the assumption of inviscid flow, resulting in some errors regarding BVI airload prediction.
generalized Farassat formulation based on the Ffowcs Williams‐Hawkings (FW‐H) Equation [22] is 
To overcome the deficiencies of the existing coupled methods in BVI noise prediction, a
applied  for  noise  prediction. 
high-resolution The  details 
method coupling CFD and of  the
the viscous
coupled wake method 
method are  described 
(VWM), in  this 
developed by paper.   
To  validate  this  method,  the  rotor  wake  structure,  blade  airload,  and  noise  characteristics  are 
Shi et al. in [20,21], is employed for rotor wake simulation and impulsive airload calculation, and
the generalized
performed  Farassat formulation
for  the  AH‐1/OLS  based onLoad 
(Operational  the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings
Survey)  rotor  under  the (FW-H)
BVI Equation [22] isand  we 
condition, 
applied for noise prediction. The details of the coupled method are described
present a comparison between it and the CFD/FW‐H method. In addition, important parameters for  in this paper. To validate
this method, the rotor wake structure, blade airload, and noise characteristics are performed for the
governing  BVI  noise  have  been  identified:  the  tip‐path‐plane  angle,  the  thrust  coefficient,  the  tip 
AH-1/OLS (Operational Load Survey) rotor under the BVI condition, and we present a comparison
Mach numbers and the advance ratio. This work further examines the mechanisms for the effects of 
between it and the CFD/FW-H method. In addition, important parameters for governing BVI noise
these four parameters on BVI noise amplitude and propagation direction by analyzing the effects of 
have been identified: the tip-path-plane angle, the thrust coefficient, the tip Mach numbers and the
those on the characteristic parameters under different flight conditions. 
advance ratio. This work further examines the mechanisms for the effects of these four parameters on
BVI noise amplitude and propagation direction by analyzing the effects of those on the characteristic
2. Computational Method 
parameters under different flight conditions.

2. Computational Method
2.1. Aerodynamic Model 
2.1. Aerodynamic Model
The  prerequisite  for  predicting  BVI  noise  is  accurate  calculation  of  the  unsteady  impulsive 
The prerequisite for predicting BVI noise is accurate calculation of the unsteady impulsive airload
airload on the blade surface. As Figure 1 shows, the flow field is divided into two zones in the coupled 
on the blade surface. As Figure 1 shows, the flow field is divided into two zones in the coupled method:
method: a Navier‐Stokes code is used to model the tip vortex generation region, and a viscous wake 
a Navier-Stokes code is used to model the tip vortex generation region, and a viscous wake model is
model is used to account for the effect of the far wake. 
used to account for the effect of the far wake.

 
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the present coupling method. 
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the present coupling method.

2.1.1. Navier‐Stokes Solver 
2.1.1. Navier-Stokes Solver
In area 
In  the  the area around
around  the therotor 
rotorgrid 
grid computational 
computational domain,
domain, thethe 
conservation form form 
conservation  of the of  the   
Navier-Stokes equation is established to capture the nonlinear characteristics and wake generation
Navier‐Stokes equation is established to capture the nonlinear characteristics and wake generation in  in
the near-body zone. With the coordinate system defined on the inertial system, the equation can be
the near‐body zone. With the coordinate system defined on the inertial system, the equation can be 
expressed as
expressed as 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 3 of 20

∂y { {
WdV + FdS − GdS = 0 (1)
∂t s s
V

where V is the cell volume, and S denotes the face area. F and G are the convective (inviscid) and the
viscous flux vectors, respectively, W is the vector of conserved variables and W = [ρ, ρu, ρv, ρw, ρE]T ,
u = (u, v, w). ρ and E are the density and energy, respectively.
In this paper, a dual-time stepping method is applied for the time discretization to solve the
governing equation. LU-SGS (Lower-upper Symmertric Gauss-Seidel) [23] is adopted for sub-iteration
at every pseudo-time step. The inviscid terms are calculated by the Roe scheme [24], and the
Baldwin-Lomax model is employed as the turbulence model for the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) closure.

2.1.2. Viscous Wake Model

As the wake movement is independent of the initial conditions after leaving the rotor at a distance,
the Lagrangian-based viscous wake method [25] is adopted. In the VWM, the wake vorticity is
discretized into a set of regular distributed vortex particles, and the process of wake rollup, distortion,
and dissipation is numerically simulated with a Lagrangian description. The discrete vorticity field
can be described by the vorticity kinematic and dynamic equations [21]:

dx p (t)

= u xp, t (2)
dt
dff p
= ff p · ∇u x p , t + ν∇2 ff p


(3)
dt
where x p (t) is the position of the particle, α p is the vector-valued total vorticity inside the particle p,
u(x p , t) = u∞ + u p(ind) , u∞ is the free stream velocity, and u p(ind) is the local induced velocity. In the
right-hand side of Equation (3), the first term is the stretching-effect term and the velocity field is
analytically differentiated to solve the velocity gradient. The second term is the viscous diffusion term,
and the Particle Strength Exchange (PSE) method [26] is utilized for the solution.
For the viscous wake simulation, the blade surface is treated as a vorticity source that sheds the
vorticity into the rotor wake. At one time-step, between the n-th blade azimuth and the (n + 1)-th blade
azimuth, new vortex particles are generated behind each rotor blade for azimuthal and radial variation
of the bound circulation. The radial and time derivatives of the bound vortex denote the circulation of
the trailed and shed vortices, respectively. Therefore, the vorticity of new vortex particles is expressed
as follows:
dΓ
ω = − b + vb ∇ · Γ b (4)
dt
where Γb is the blade-bound vortex circulation at the (n + 1)-th azimuth, and νb is the relative velocity
of the blade section at the (n + 1)-th azimuth due to the free stream velocity, rotor rotation velocity, and
blade flapping velocity. The total vorticity source ω is distributed onto an interpolation surface which
represents the convected trajectory of the blade during that time-step. An equal annulus area rule is
adopted for the blade spanwise discretization for aerodynamics. The vorticity variation of the new
vortex particles shed into the rotor wake is governed by Equation (3) and the vorticity strength α p in it
is obtained by the following formulation:

α p = ωVp (5)

where Vp is the volume of particle p, which takes the product of the cross-sectional area and the length
of the filament segment p, as the new vorticity is discreted into a set of filament segments with the
vortex core radius during the time-step.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 4 of 20

2.1.3. Coupling Algorithm

The “integrated vorticity approach” [21] is utilized to transmit the vorticity from the CFD solution
to the VWM. In this approach, the blade spanwise load distribution is first calculated using the
Navier-Stokes equation; the bound vortex circulation Γb is calculated by the Kutta-Joukowski theorem:

1
Γb = v C (6)
2 b l
where Cl is the lift coefficient of the blade section obtained by integrating the pressure on the blade
surface. The vorticity of new vortex passed to the viscous wake method (VWM) is calculated by the tip
vortex strength using Equations (4) and (5).
The “outer boundary correction” approach [21] is adopted to pass the induced velocity from the
VWM which is only imposed on the outer boundary of the blade grid to the CFD domain. At the
outer boundary of the CFD domain, the velocity, density, energy, and pressure are obtained from the
following equations:    
u u a − u g + ui
V =  v  =  v a − v g + vi  (7)
   
w w a − w g + wi
1/(γ−1)
a2

ρ= (8)
a2∞
a2 u2 + v2 + w2
 
e=ρ + (9)
γ ( γ − 1) 2
u2 + v2 + w2
 
p = ( γ − 1) ρ e − (10)
2
γ − 1h 2  2 i
a2 = a2∞ + V∞ − u + v2 + w2 (11)
2


here, (u a , v a , wa ) are the free-stream velocities, u g , v g , w g are the blade moving velocities, and
(ui , vi , wi ) are the wake induced velocities. γ is the ratio of specific heats and a is the local Mach
number. The subscript ∞ denotes the free stream.

2.2. Acoustic Model

Noise prediction in the current work depends on the well-known Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings
(FW-H) Equation which is based on the Lighthill acoustic analogy method. Monopole and dipole
sources physically denote the blade thickness and loading noise, and the quadrupole source involves
the nonlinear effect from the flow-field compression. In this paper, it is assumed that the contribution
to noise from the quadrupole term is negligible which simulates nonlinear noise at high speed, as
strong blade-vortex interactions are known to occur at low-speed descent conditions. The integral
formulation 1A developed by Farassat [22] is used in BVI noise prediction, i.e.,
* * *
p0 ( x , t a ) = p0t ( x , t a ) + p0l ( x , t a ) (12)

where
. ! . !
ρ0 v n ρ0 vn (re Mi r̂i + c0 Mr − c0 M2
Z Z
*
4π p0t ( x , ta ) = ds + ds (13)
f =0 re (1 − Mr )2 ret
f =o re 2 (1 − Mr )3 ret
 4 p t (x, t a ) =  
0 n
 ds   
0 n e i i 0 r 0
 ds   (13)
f 0 r
 e (1  M r ) 2  ret f o
 re 2 (1  M r ) 3  ret

 1  li rˆi   l l M 
4 pl(x,t a ) =
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381
c0  f  o  re (1  M r ) 2  ds   f  0  re 2 r(1  iM ri ) 2  ds   5 of 20
ret ret
(14)
1  lrR( re Mi rˆi . c0 M  r  c0 M R
2
 
4π pl ( x , ct a ) f =o c0 f =o r 2 (1  M2 ) 3 ds + f =0
  ds lr −li Mi

0 * 1 l i r̂ i
ds
0   ere (1− Mr ) r ret   ret re (1− Mr ) ret
2 2
. (14)
1
R lr (re Mi r̂i +c0 Mr −c0 M2
+ ds
The subscript  ret   indicates that the integrals are evaluated at the retarded time 
c0 f = o re 2 (1− Mr )3
ret
 e  ta  re / co . 
The blade surface is divided into panels and the loads from each panel are used to obtain the total 
The subscript ret indicates that the integrals are evaluated at the retarded time τe = t a − re /co .
noise by integration. More descriptions about F1A formulation can be found in [22]. 
The blade surface is divided into panels and the loads from each panel are used to obtain the total
noise by integration. More descriptions about F1A formulation can be found in [22].
Figure 2 shows the flowchart of the BVI airload and noise prediction. The calculation process of 
Figure 2 shows the flowchart of the BVI airload and noise prediction. The calculation process
this method mainly includes three parts: (1) Calculate the spanwise sectional circulation around the 
of this method mainly includes three parts: (1) Calculate the spanwise sectional circulation around
blade using CFD and pass the vorticity to the VWM module; (2) Generate the source term, solve the 
the blade using CFD and pass the vorticity to the VWM module; (2) Generate the source term, solve
rotor  wake and  the  induced  velocity using  VWM,  and  feed  the induced  velocity  back  to  the  CFD 
the rotor wake and the induced velocity using VWM, and feed the induced velocity back to the CFD
domain;  (3)  Based 
domain; (3) Basedon  the 
on the desired 
desired precision, 
precision, select 
select the the  blade 
blade surface surface 
element, element, 
calculate calculate  the 
the corresponding
corresponding retarded time on the basis of observation time and location, and predict the BVI noise 
retarded time on the basis of observation time and location, and predict the BVI noise sound radiation
sound radiation using the FW‐H equation. 
using the FW-H equation.

 
Figure 2. Flow chart of the CFD/VWM/FW‐H method. 
Figure 2. Flow chart of the CFD/VWM/FW-H method.

3. Results and Discussions

3. Results and Discussions 
To validate the BVI prediction capability of the CFD/VWM/FW-H method, the AH-1/OLS rotor
To validate the BVI prediction capability of the CFD/VWM/FW‐H method, the AH‐1/OLS rotor 
model under the BVI condition is performed in this section. A parametric study on the blade airload
model under the BVI condition is performed in this section. A parametric study on the blade airload 
and BVI noise is further carried out.
and BVI noise is further carried out. 
3.1. Numerical Setup
3.1. Numerical Setup 
The two-bladed AH-1/OLS rotor model considered has a diameter of R = 1.916 m, an aspect
ratio of 9.22 and a BHT-540 symmetric airfoil. The rotor model operates at µ = 0.164, CT = 0.0054,
The two‐bladed AH‐1/OLS rotor model considered has a diameter of R = 1.916 m, an aspect ratio 
= 1o , Matip = 0.664, which is the baseline of the computational parameters in the following
symmetric  airfoil.  The  rotor  model  operates  at    0.164 ,  CT  0.0054 , 
α
of  9.22 tpp
and  a  BHT‐540 
parametric study. Specifically, the control inputs are shown in Table 1 from the experimental data [3].
 tpp  1The
o
Matip  0.664
,  longitudinal ,  which 
pitch is  the 
and lateral baseline 
flapping (resp.of  the cyclic
lateral computational  parameters 
and longitudinal flapping),in  the 
refer tofollowing 
the
SIN component (resp. COS) of the first harmonic. The numerical condition is presented in Table 2.
parametric study. Specifically, the control inputs are shown in Table 1 from the experimental data [3]. 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    6 of 19 

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 6 of 20

The longitudinal pitch and lateral flapping (resp. lateral cyclic and longitudinal flapping), refer to the 
SIN component (resp. COS) of the first harmonic. The numerical condition is presented in Table 2.   
Table 1. Control and flapping angles of the OLS rotor for the BVI condition.
Table 1. Control and flapping angles of the OLS rotor for the BVI condition. 
Blade Blade Lateral Longitudinal Blade Coning Longitudinal Lateral
Motion Collective Pitch Lateral 
Blade  Cyclic Pitch Longitudinal 
Cyclic Pitch Angle
Blade Coning  Flapping Angle
Longitudinal  Flapping Angle
Lateral 
Blade Motion 
ControlCollective Pitch 
6.14◦ Cyclic Pitch
0.9◦ Cyclic Pitch 
−1.39◦ Angle 
0.5◦ Flapping Angle 
−1◦ Flapping Angle
0◦
Inputs
Control Inputs  6.14°  0.9°  −1.39°  0.5°  −1°  0° 

Table 2. Numerical condition of the OLS rotor for the BVI condition.
Table 2. Numerical condition of the OLS rotor for the BVI condition. 
Numerical Number of Blade
Number of Blade  Number of Rotor Revolutions
Number of Rotor Revolutions 
Numerical Condition  Blade Grid
Blade Grid  Time Step Size
Time Step Size
Condition Aerodynamic Segments
Aerodynamic Segments CFD VWM 
CFD VWM
CO type
CO type
Set Values 
Set Values 60 
60 4 4  6 6  2◦2° 
223 
223 45×101
×45 101 

The observation locations in the numerical simulation, same with the microphones in the test 
The observation locations in the numerical simulation, same with the microphones in the test
condition,  are  distributed 
condition, on  a on
are distributed spherical  surface, 
a spherical 3.44 
surface, R  from 
3.44 R fromthe 
therotor 
rotor hub, 
hub, as  seen in
as seen in Figure
Figure 3a.3a.   
The  Lambert  projection 
The Lambert is  applied 
projection for 
is applied forturning 
turning the  acoustic 
the acoustic radiation 
radiation spherical 
spherical arc a into 
arc into planea for
plane 
betterfor 
observation, and Figure 3b shows the projection developed drawing.
better observation, and Figure 3b shows the projection developed drawing.   

(a)  ( b)
Figure 3. Observation locations in the OLS model test. (a) Acoustic radiation spherical arc; (b) Lambert 
Figure 3. Observation locations in the OLS model test. (a) Acoustic radiation spherical arc; (b) Lambert
projection of spherical arc. 
projection of spherical arc.

3.2. Analysis of BVI Airload and Noise 
3.2. Analysis of BVI Airload and Noise
As the rotor wake has been recognized as one of the most important parameters for generating
As the rotor wake has been recognized as one of the most important parameters for generating 
BVI  noise,  the  the
BVI noise, vorticityiso‐surfaces 
vorticity  iso-surfaces calculated
calculated  using the full
using  the CFD method
full  CFD and the coupling
method  CFD/VWM
and  the  coupling 
method are shown in Figure 4, and the non-dimensional vorticity magnitudes |ω | of both methodsare
CFD/VWM  method  are  shown  in  Figure  4,  and  the  non‐dimensional  vorticity  magnitudes  of 
set as 0.4. With the rotor wake influenced by forward flow and induced velocity, the formation and 
both methods are set as 0.4. With the rotor wake influenced by forward flow and induced velocity, 
rollup of the rotor tip vortex occur on both the advancing and retreating sides; two more intense vortex
the formation and rollup of the rotor tip vortex occur on both the advancing and retreating sides; two 
bunches form there. However, the prominent diffusion in the wake-developing zone is observed
more intense vortex bunches form there. However, the prominent diffusion in the wake‐developing 
in the full CFD method, reflecting that the numerical dissipation problem causes the vorticity to
zone is observed in the full CFD method, reflecting that the numerical dissipation problem causes the 
diffuse rapidly. By contrast, in the coupling method, the rotor wake is well preserved when traveling
downstream. This indicates that the coupling method is capable of capturing distortion and the wake
vorticity to diffuse rapidly. By contrast, in the coupling method, the rotor wake is well preserved 
boundary, effectively
when  traveling  downstream. improving
This the numerical
indicates  dissipation
that  problemmethod 
the  coupling  in the CFD
is domain, and
capable  of enhancing
capturing 
the ability to capture the BVI characteristics.
distortion and the wake boundary, effectively improving the numerical dissipation problem in the 
CFD domain, and enhancing the ability to capture the BVI characteristics. 
 
blade and the vortex filament, the interactions #A3 and #R2 in the outer part of the blade are referred 
to as parallel interactions, because each blade’s leading edge is nearly parallel to the vortex filament, 
while others are referred to as oblique interactions. Figure 6 presents the miss‐distance, which varies 
with the azimuth angle on the axial plane, and the interaction strength of BVI depends on both the 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381
interaction angle and the miss‐distance.  7 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    7 of 19 

During descent flight, specific BVI events are observed at several azimuth angles. Utilizing the 
blade and tip vortex geometry equations in Sim et al.’s research [27], we can capture the BVI loci. 
Figure 5 shows the locations of BVI events and the lift distribution on the rotor disk. Six BVI events 
are identified in Figure 5a, of which four on the advancing side are marked as: #A1, #A2, #A3, #A4, 
and the other two on the retreating side are marked as: #R1, #R2. Figure 5b shows that complicated 
lift fluctuations occur near the locations of BVI events. According to the relative position between the 
blade and the vortex filament, the interactions #A3 and #R2 in the outer part of the blade are referred 
 
to as parallel interactions, because each blade’s leading edge is nearly parallel to the vortex filament, 
while others are referred to as oblique interactions. Figure 6 presents the miss‐distance, which varies 
with the azimuth angle on the axial plane, and the interaction strength of BVI depends on both the 
interaction angle and the miss‐distance. 

(a)  ( b)
Figure 4. Predicted rotor wake structure. (a) Full CFD method; (b) CFD/VWM method. 
Figure 4. Predicted rotor wake structure. (a) Full CFD method; (b) CFD/VWM method.

During descent flight, specific BVI events are observed at several azimuth angles. Utilizing the
blade and tip vortex geometry equations in Sim et al.’s research [27], we can capture the BVI loci.
Figure 5 shows the locations of BVI events and the lift distribution on the rotor disk. Six BVI events
are identified in Figure 5a, of which four  on the advancing side are marked as: #A1, #A2, #A3, #A4,
and the other two on the retreating side are marked as: #R1, #R2. Figure 5b shows that complicated
lift fluctuations occur near the locations of BVI events. According to the relative position between the
blade and the vortex filament, the interactions #A3 and #R2 in the outer part of the blade are referred
to as parallel interactions, because each blade’s leading edge is nearly parallel to the vortex filament,
while others are referred to as oblique interactions. Figure 6 presents the miss-distance, which varies
(a)  ( b)
with the azimuth angle on the axial plane, and the interaction strength of BVI depends on both the
Figure 4. Predicted rotor wake structure. (a) Full CFD method; (b) CFD/VWM method. 
interaction angle and the miss-distance.

(a)  ( b)
Figure 5. Locations of BVI events and lift distribution on the rotor disk. (a) BVI events occur on the 
rotor plane; (b) Lift distribution on the rotor disk. 

(a)  ( b)
Figure 5. Locations of BVI events and lift distribution on the rotor disk. (a) BVI events occur on the 
Figure 5. Locations of BVI events and lift distribution on the rotor disk. (a) BVI events occur on the
rotor plane; (b) Lift distribution on the rotor disk. 
rotor plane; (b) Lift distribution on the rotor disk.
 -0.2 #A1 #R1

Miss-distance, c
-0.4 #A2

-0.6
#A3
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 8 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    -0.8 #R2 8 of 19 
-1.0
0.2 #A4
-1.2 rotor plane
0.0
-1.4
0 90 180 270 360
-0.2 #A1 #R1
Azimuth Angle, deg
 

Miss-distance, c
-0.4 #A2
Figure 6. Miss‐distance variance with the azimuth angle. 
-0.6
#A3
-0.8 #R2
The contour plots of SPL on the 3.44 R hemi‐spherical surface are shown in Figure 7a. As shown, 
-1.0
the high noise level (acoustic “hotspot”) appears at 120° in azimuth and 45° below the rotor plane, 
#A4
implying that the typical BVI noise has strong directivity, approximately down and forward from the 
-1.2
rotor.  Figure  7b  presents  the  predicted  sound  pressure  distributions  using  the  CFD/VWM/FW‐H 
-1.4
method  at  four  observation  locations  0 (#2, 
90 #3,  #7, 180
#9).  For 270
comparison, 
360 the  results  of  using  the   
Azimuth Angle, deg
CFD/FW‐H method are also included in the figures. BVI noise is found to dominate at #3, #7, and #9, 
 
and each noise signature consists of positive and negative impulses, which are respectively induced 
Figure 6. Miss-distance variance with the azimuth angle.
Figure 6. Miss‐distance variance with the azimuth angle. 
by interactions on the advancing side and the retreating side. We also observed that a large negative 
peak  occurs  at  #2,  attributed  to  the  blade  thickness  noise  mechanisms.  Compared  with  the   
The contour plots of SPL on the 3.44 R hemi-spherical surface are shown in Figure 7a. As shown,
The contour plots of SPL on the 3.44  R hemi‐spherical surface are shown in Figure 7a. As shown, 
CFD/FW‐H method, the hybrid method is found to better predict the noise peak in amplitude and 
the high noise level (acoustic “hotspot”) appears at 120◦ in azimuth and 45◦ below the rotor plane,
the high noise level (acoustic “hotspot”) appears at 120° in azimuth and 45° below the rotor plane, 
phase,  because 
implying thatthe 
therotor  wake 
typical simulation 
BVI noise is  more 
has strong accurate, 
directivity, which  demonstrates 
approximately its  capability 
down and forward from the for 
implying that the typical BVI noise has strong directivity, approximately down and forward from the 
favorable accuracy. Moreover, Table 3 illustrates the comparison of the computation time between 
rotor. Figure 7b presents the predicted sound pressure distributions using the CFD/VWM/FW-H
rotor.  Figure 
method7b at presents  the  predicted 
four observation locations sound 
(#2, #3,pressure 
#7, #9). Fordistributions 
comparison, using 
the two methods. As shown, about 148 h and 21 h are required, respectively, further demonstrating the  CFD/VWM/FW‐H 
the results of using the
the developed method to have high computation efficiency. 
method  at  four  observation  locations  (#2,  #3,  #7,  #9).  For  comparison,  the  results 
CFD/FW-H method are also included in the figures. BVI noise is found to dominate at #3, of  using 
#7, and #9, the   
and each noise signature consists of positive and negative impulses, which are respectively induced
CFD/FW‐H method are also included in the figures. BVI noise is found to dominate at #3, #7, and #9, 
by interactionsTable 3. Comparison of the computation time between the two methods. 
on the advancing side and the retreating side. We also observed that a large negative
and each noise signature consists of positive and negative impulses, which are respectively induced 
peak occurs at #2, attributed to the blade thickness noise mechanisms. Compared with the CFD/FW-H
by interactions on the advancing side and the retreating side. We also observed that a large negative 
CFD/FW‐H Method
method, the hybrid method is found to better predict the noise peak in amplitude
Method  and phase, because
CFD/VWM/FW‐H 
peak  occurs  (Unsteady Solution) 
the rotorat 
wake#2, simulation
attributed  to  the 
is more blade 
accurate, thickness 
which noise 
demonstrates itsmechanisms.  Compared 
capability for favorable with  the   
accuracy.
Blade grid  1, 013, 535  2   1, 013, 535  2  
CFD/FW‐H method, the hybrid method is found to better predict the noise peak in amplitude and 
Moreover, Table 3 illustrates the comparison of the computation time between the two methods.
Background grid/particle number  9,175,040  24,439 
phase,  because 
As shown,the  rotor 
about 148wake 
h and simulation 
Total Time  is  more 
21 h are required, accurate, 
respectively, which 
148 h  further demonstrates 
demonstrating the its 
21 h  capability  for 
developed
method to have high computation efficiency.
favorable accuracy. Moreover, Table 3 illustrates the comparison of the computation time between 
 
the two methods. As shown, about 148 h and 21 h are required, respectively, further demonstrating 
the developed method to have high computation efficiency. 

Table 3. Comparison of the computation time between the two methods. 

CFD/FW‐H Method
Method  CFD/VWM/FW‐H 
(Unsteady Solution) 
Blade grid  1, 013, 535  2   1, 013, 535  2  
Background grid/particle number  9,175,040  24,439 
Total Time  148 h  21 h 
 

(a)

Figure 7. Cont.
 Appl. Sci. 2017, 7,  381
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381  9 of 20
9 of 19 

50
50

Sound Pressure, Pa
25
Sound Pressure, Pa

25

0
0

#2 #3
-25
-25 Measurement
Measurement
CFD/VWM/FW-H CFD/VWM/FW-H
CFD/FW-H CFD/FW-H
-50 -50
0 45 90 135 180 0 45 90 135 180

Blade Azimuth, deg Blade Azimuth, deg  

50

50
Sound Pressure, Pa

25
Sound Pressure, Pa

25

0
0

#7
-25
Measurement -25
#9
Measurement
CFD/VWM/FW-H
CFD/VWM/FW-H
CFD/FW-H
CFD/FW-H
-50 -50
0 45 90 135 180 0 45 90 135 180

deg Blade Azimuth, deg  

(b)
Figure 7. Radiation direction and sound pressure signatures of the BVI noise. (a) Contour plot of SPL 
Figure 7. Radiation direction and sound pressure signatures of the BVI noise. (a) Contour plot of SPL
on the sphere surface; (b) Noise sound pressure at four observation locations. 
on the sphere surface; (b) Noise sound pressure at four observation locations.

During the calculation of BVI noise, the surface blade load is stored along the azimuth angle at 
Table 3. Comparison of the computation time between the two methods.
each  spanwise  location.  The  impulsive  surface  loads  from  one  interaction  are  extracted,  with  a 
Method CFD/FW-H Method (Unsteady Solution) CFD/VWM/FW-H
smooth processing applied to the impulsive loads from others. The propagation characteristics of six 
Blade grid
BVIs  can  be  distinguished  effectively  from  each 1,other,  × 2 the  peak  noise  level 
013, 535 and  535 × 2
1, 013,contours  on  the   
Background grid/particle number 9,175,040 24,439
3.44 R hemi‐spherical surface are presented in Figure 8. It is clearly shown that the noise from each 
Total Time 148 h 21 h
interaction  has  a  definite  radiation  direction  and  noise  intensity,  which  determines  the  spatial 
occurrence of acoustic “hotspots.” Interactions #A1 and #R1 are oblique interactions, the noise from 
During the calculation of BVI noise, the surface blade load is stored along the azimuth angle
which radiates to around 160° and 325° in azimuth and about 40° below the rotor plane, respectively. 
at each spanwise location. The impulsive surface loads from one interaction are extracted, with a
Despite the small miss‐distance of #A1 and #R1, the interaction angle changes with the azimuth angle 
smooth processing applied to the impulsive loads from others. The propagation characteristics of six
during the interaction process, which causes the offset of the generated noise phase, thus the noise 
BVIs can be distinguished effectively from each other, and the peak noise level contours on the 3.44 R
intensity is not strong. By contrast, interaction #A3 is a parallel interaction as well as #R2 at the tip of 
hemi-spherical surface are presented in Figure 8. It is clearly shown that the noise from each interaction
the  blade,  inducing 
has a definite a  strong 
radiation impulsive 
direction effect 
and noise that  causes 
intensity, whichstronger 
determinesnoise.  It  is  also 
the spatial evident 
occurrence of that 
acoustic “hotspots.” Interactions #A1 and #R1 are oblique interactions, the noise from which radiates
interaction #A3 radiating to around 120° in azimuth and 45° below the rotor plane dominates six BVIs, 
to around 160◦ and 325◦ in azimuth and about 40◦ below the rotor plane, respectively. Despite the
the peak noise level contour of which determines the BVI noise radiation field. In addition, interaction 
small miss-distance
#A2  radiating  of #A1
its acoustic  and #R1,
energy  the interaction
to  170–200° in  angle changes
azimuth  down with the azimuth
the  rotor  angle during
is  stronger  the but 
than #A1 
interaction process, which causes the offset of the generated noise phase, thus the noise intensity is
weaker than #A3 in noise intensity because of the fact that the wake angle, the miss‐distance, and the 
interaction angle lie between those of #A1 and #A3. The noise from interaction #A4 is weaker due to 
the large value of the miss‐distance, radiating to 70° in azimuth down the rotor.   
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 10 of 20

not strong. By contrast, interaction #A3 is a parallel interaction as well as #R2 at the tip of the blade,
inducing a strong impulsive effect that causes stronger noise. It is also evident that interaction #A3
radiating to around 120◦ in azimuth and 45◦ below the rotor plane dominates six BVIs, the peak noise
level contour of which determines the BVI noise radiation field. In addition, interaction #A2 radiating
its acoustic energy to 170–200◦ in azimuth down the rotor is stronger than #A1 but weaker than #A3 in
noise intensity because of the fact that the wake angle, the miss-distance, and the interaction angle lie
between those of #A1 and #A3. The noise from interaction #A4 is weaker due to the large value of the
miss-distance, radiating
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    to 70◦ in azimuth down the rotor. 10 of 19 

 
Figure 8. Peak noise level contours for six BVIs on the sphere surface. 
Figure 8. Peak noise level contours for six BVIs on the sphere surface.

3.3. Sensitivity Study of BVI Noise 
3.3. Sensitivity Study of BVI Noise
In  this  section,  the  parametric  study  on  the  blade  airload  and  BVI  noise  is  investigated.  The 
In this section, the parametric study on the blade airload and BVI noise is investigated.
computational parameters considered are as follows: (1) tip‐path‐plane angle; (2) thrust coefficient; 
The computational parameters considered are as follows: (1) tip-path-plane angle; (2) thrust coefficient;
(3) tip Mach number; (4) advance ratio. The baseline of the computational parameters of   tpp  1oo , 
(3) tip Mach number; (4) advance ratio. The baseline of the computational parameters of αtpp = 1 ,
CT ==0.0054
C T
Matip =0.664
0.0054,,  Ma tip and µ=
0.664,, and  = 0.164
0.164  isis used for all further cases, unless otherwise stated. 
used for all further cases, unless otherwise stated.

3.3.1. Tip-Path-Plane Angle

3.3.1. Tip‐Path‐Plane Angle 
The BVI 
The  BVI airload
airload  and
and noise
noise characteristics
characteristics atat five
five tip-path-plane
tip‐path‐plane angles
angles varied
varied from 2◦ to
from −−2°  ◦
to 33° 
(negative tilted forward) have been discussed with CC
(negative tilted forward) have been discussed with  ,  and
T T, µ, Matip kept
, and Ma constant.
tip kept constant. 

The  tip‐path‐plane  angle  affects  the  wake  axial  movement,  making an

The tip-path-plane angle affects the wake axial movement, making an evident
evident change
change to to the
the 
miss-distance. Figure 9 shows the miss-distance varying with the azimuth angle
miss‐distance. Figure 9 shows the miss‐distance varying with the azimuth angle at α at αtpp = −2◦ .
tpp = −2°. Compared 
Compared
with  with the
the  results  in results
Figure in6, Figure 6, the miss-distance
the  miss‐distance  increases  increases with
with  a  a tilted
tilted  forward
forward  angle.
angle.  We Wesee see
in 
in Equation (14) that the amplitude of BVI noise depends on the interaction airload
Equation  (14)  that  the  amplitude  of  BVI  noise  depends  on  the  interaction  airload  and  its  time  and its time
derivative, thus the impacts on the sectional airload at 0.9 R are illustrated in Figure 10. As shown, with
derivative, thus the impacts on the sectional airload at 0.9 R are illustrated in Figure 10. As shown, 
the rotor
with  the disk tilted
rotor  forward,
disk  the impulse
tilted  forward,  load
the  amplitude
impulse  load decreases
amplitude  anddecreases 
the impulse and  characteristics
the  impulse 
become weaker due to the increase in the miss-distance.
characteristics become weaker due to the increase in the miss‐distance. 

rotor plane
0.0
#A1
#R1
-0.4
#A2
iss-distance, c

-0.8

-1.2 #A3
#R2
 with  the  results  in  Figure  6,  the  miss‐distance  increases  with  a  tilted  forward  angle.  We  see  in 
Equation  (14)  that  the  amplitude  of  BVI  noise  depends  on  the  interaction  airload  and  its  time 
derivative, thus the impacts on the sectional airload at 0.9 R are illustrated in Figure 10. As shown, 
with  the  rotor  disk  tilted  forward,  the  impulse  load  amplitude  decreases  and  the  impulse 
characteristics become weaker due to the increase in the miss‐distance. 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 11 of 20

rotor plane
0.0
#A1
#R1
-0.4
#A2

Miss-distance, c
-0.8

-1.2 #A3
#R2
-1.6

-2.0 #A4

-2.4
0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth Angle, deg
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381   
  11 of 19 
Figure 9. Miss-distance at αtpp tpp
Figure 9. Miss‐distance at α =  = −2°.  −2◦ .
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    11 of 19 

(a)  (b) 
(a)  (b) 
Figure  10.  Sectional  airload airload
Sectional variance  with with
variance the the
tip‐path‐plane 
tip-path-planeangle 
angle at 
at 0.9 R.
R.  (a)  Loading;  (b)  Time 
Figure
Figure  10.Sectional 
10.  airload  variance  with  the  tip‐path‐plane  angle  at  0.9
0.9  R. (a)
(a) Loading;
Loading; (b)
(b) Time
Time 
derivative of loading. 
derivative of loading.
derivative of loading. 
The  predicted  sound 
The  predicted  pressure 
sound  pressure varying  with 
varying  the 
with  tip‐path‐plane 
the  angle at 
tip‐path‐plane  angle  at #7, 
#7, #3, 
#3,  and 
and  #9 #9 
are are 
The predicted sound pressure varying with the tip-path-plane angle at #7, #3, and #9 are presented
presented in Figure 11. At each observation location, the sound pressure exhibits similar waveform 
presented in Figure 11. At each observation location, the sound pressure exhibits similar waveform 
in Figure 11. At each observation location, the sound pressure exhibits similar waveform characteristics
characteristics at different   tpp , the amplitude of which quickly declines with the rotor disk tilted 
characteristics at different 
at different α , the amplitude
tpp
 tpp , the amplitude of which quickly declines with the rotor disk tilted 
of which quickly declines with the rotor disk tilted forward due to the
forward due to the increase in the miss‐distance. Furthermore, in a strong BVI state, strong impulse 
increase in the miss-distance. Furthermore, in a strong BVI state, strong impulse characteristics appear,
forward due to the increase in the miss‐distance. Furthermore, in a strong BVI state, strong impulse 
characteristics  appear, 
characteristics inappear, 
while a weak BVI while 
state,
while  a in 
in not a  weak 
only
weak  is the
BVI BVI 
noisestate,  not 
amplitude
state,  not  only 
small
only  is but
is  the the
the  noise  amplitude 
frequency
noise  is alsosmall 
amplitude  low. but 
small  the the 
but 
frequency is also low. 
frequency is also low. 

 
Figure 11. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the tip‐path‐plane angle. 
Figure 11. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the tip-path-plane angle.  
Figure  12  shows  the  effects  of  the  tip‐path‐plane  angle  on  BVI  noise  directivity.  At  αtpp  =  2°,   
Figure 11. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the tip‐path‐plane angle. 
a high noise level appears at 120° in azimuth and the noise energy is relatively concentrated; this is 
Figure  12  shows  the  effects  of  the  tip‐path‐plane  angle  on  BVI  noise  directivity.  At  αtpp  =  2°,   
largely from the parallel interaction #A3 for the small miss‐distance. With the rotor disk tilted forward, 
a high noise level appears at 120° in azimuth and the noise energy is relatively concentrated; this is 
the BVI noise weakens and the radiation direction is no longer concentrated. At this time, the blade 
thickness noise becomes more influential, radiating its acoustic energy to the front of the rotor near 
largely from the parallel interaction #A3 for the small miss‐distance. With the rotor disk tilted forward, 
the rotor plane (Figure 12b). 
the BVI noise weakens and the radiation direction is no longer concentrated. At this time, the blade 
thickness noise becomes more influential, radiating its acoustic energy to the front of the rotor near 
  
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 12 of 20
Figure 11. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the tip‐path‐plane angle. 

Figure Figure
12  shows  the  the
12 shows effects  of of
effects the 
thetip‐path‐plane  angle 
tip-path-plane angle onon 
BVIBVI  noise 
noise directivity. 
directivity. At αtppAt 
=2α◦tpp
, a  =  2°,   
a high noise level appears at 120° in azimuth and the noise energy is relatively concentrated; this is 
◦
high noise level appears at 120 in azimuth and the noise energy is relatively concentrated; this is
largely from the parallel interaction #A3 for the small miss‐distance. With the rotor disk tilted forward, 
largely from the parallel interaction #A3 for the small miss-distance. With the rotor disk tilted forward,
the BVI noise weakens and the radiation direction is no longer concentrated. At this time, the blade
the BVI noise weakens and the radiation direction is no longer concentrated. At this time, the blade 
thickness noise becomes more influential, radiating its acoustic energy to the front of the rotor near the
thickness noise becomes more influential, radiating its acoustic energy to the front of the rotor near 
rotor plane (Figure 12b).
the rotor plane (Figure 12b). 

(a)  (b)
Figure 12. Contour plots of SPL on the sphere surface for different tip‐path‐plane angles. (a) α
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    tpp = 2°; 12 of 19 
 
Figure 12. Contour plots of SPL on the sphere surface for different tip-path-plane angles. (a) αtpp = 2◦ ;
(b) αtpp = −2°. 
(b) αtpp = −2◦ .
The effects of tip‐path‐plane angle on the peak BVI noise level are correspondingly shown in 
Figure 13. When the rotor disk is tilted forward, the peak noise level changes slowly with   tpp because 
The effects of tip-path-plane angle on the peak BVI noise level are correspondingly shown in
Figure 13. When the rotor disk is tilted forward, the peak noise level changes slowly with αtpp because
the rotational noise dominates the acoustic field. However, when the rotor disk is tilted backward, 
the rotational
BVI  occurs  noise peak 
and  the  dominates the acoustic
noise  field. However,
level  changes  whenwith 
quickly   tppdisk.  isThis 
the rotor tiltedindicates 
backward, BVI
that  the   
occurs and the peak noise level changes quickly with αtpp . This indicates that the tip-path-plane angle
tip‐path‐plane angle has more influence in the BVI state but less influence in the non‐BVI state. 
has more influence in the BVI state but less influence in the non-BVI state.

120
118
Max BVISPL, dB

116
Weak BVI State
114
112
110 Strong BVI State

108
106
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
 tpp , deg  
Figure 13. Max BVISPL variance with the tip‐path‐plane angle. 
Figure 13. Max BVISPL variance with the tip-path-plane angle.

3.3.2. Thrust Coefficient 
3.3.2. Thrust Coefficient
In this section, by holding the advance ratio, tip-path-plane angle, and tip Mach number constant,
In this section, by holding the advance ratio, tip‐path‐plane angle, and tip Mach number constant, 
we can examine the impact of the thrust coefficient from 0.0047 to 0.0080 on the BVI noise characteristics.
we  can  examine  the  impact  of  the  thrust  coefficient  from  0.0047  to  0.0080  on  the  BVI  noise 
The thrust coefficient impacts the wake-induced downwash but has less impact on the interaction
characteristics. 
angle. Figure 14 shows the predicted sound pressure at different thrust coefficients at #7, #3, and #9.
The  thrust  coefficient  impacts  the  wake‐induced  downwash  but  has  less  impact  on  the 
interaction angle. Figure 14 shows the predicted sound pressure at different thrust coefficients at #7, 
#3,  and  #9.  The  sound  pressure  waveforms  at  the  three  observation  locations  are  seen  to  be  less 
sensitive  to  the  thrust  coefficient  due  to  the  double  effects  of  vortex  strength  and  miss‐distance.   
On the one hand, the BVI noise increases with the vortex strength, which is proportional to the thrust 
 3.3.2. Thrust Coefficient 
In this section, by holding the advance ratio, tip‐path‐plane angle, and tip Mach number constant, 
we  can  examine  the  impact  of  the  thrust  coefficient  from  0.0047  to  0.0080  on  the  BVI  noise 
characteristics. 
The 
Appl. Sci. thrust 
2017, 7, 381 coefficient  impacts  the  wake‐induced  downwash  but  has  less  impact  on  the 
13 of 20
interaction angle. Figure 14 shows the predicted sound pressure at different thrust coefficients at #7, 
#3,  and  #9.  The  sound  pressure  waveforms  at  the  three  observation  locations  are  seen  to  be  less 
The sound pressure waveforms at the three observation locations are seen to be less sensitive to the
sensitive  to  the  thrust  coefficient  due  to  the  double  effects  of  vortex  strength  and  miss‐distance.   
thrust coefficient due to the double effects of vortex strength and miss-distance. On the one hand, the
On the one hand, the BVI noise increases with the vortex strength, which is proportional to the thrust 
BVI noise increases with the vortex strength, which is proportional to the thrust coefficient. On the
coefficient.  On  the  other  hand,  the  miss‐distance  increases  with  the  thrust  coefficient,  producing 
other hand, the miss-distance increases with the thrust coefficient, producing reductions in BVI noise.
reductions in BVI noise. 

 
Figure 14. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the thrust coefficients. 
Figure 14. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the thrust coefficients.

The contour plots of SPL at two thrust coefficients are compared in Figure 15. At  CT  0.0065 , 
The contour plots of SPL at two thrust coefficients are compared in Figure 15. At CT = 0.0065,
two peak noise levels appear in space, respectively, from the parallel interaction #A3 and the oblique 
two peak noise levels appear in space, respectively, from the parallel interaction #A3 and the oblique
interaction #A2, which radiates to 180°–240° in azimuth down the rotor. With  C T increasing to 0.0080, 
interaction #A2, which radiates to 180◦ –240◦ in azimuth down the rotor. With CT increasing to
interaction  #A2  becomes 
0.0080, interaction stronger 
#A2 becomes than  than
stronger #A3, #A3,
and and
finally  dominates 
finally the 
dominates theBVI 
BVInoise 
noisepropagation. 
propagation.
Meanwhile, as the vortex strength influences more strongly than the miss‐distance, the BVI noise at 
Meanwhile, as the vortex strength influences more strongly than the miss-distance, the BVI noise at
CT  0.0080   is stronger than that at  C  0.0065 . 
C T = 0.0080 is  stronger than that at CTT = 0.0065.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381  13 of 19 

 
(a)  (b) 

Figure  15. 15.Contour 
Figure plots 
Contour plots of  SPL 
of SPL on theon  the surface
sphere sphere  surface thrust
for different for  coefficients.
different  thrust 
(a) CT =coefficients. 
0.0065;  
T 
(a)  C(b) CT0.0065 ; (b)  CT  0.0080 . 
= 0.0080.

In the above analysis,   tpp
In the above analysis,   is kept constant so the miss‐distance and vortex strength both make 
αtpp is kept constant so the miss-distance and vortex strength both make
contributions when the thrust coefficient increases. Therefore, another sample trimming αtpp to keep
contributions when the thrust coefficient increases. Therefore, another sample trimming  tpp   to keep 
the miss-distance constant is provided to analyze the isolated effect of the vortex strength. Figure 16
the miss‐distance constant is provided to analyze the isolated effect of the vortex strength. Figure 16 
accordingly presents the predicted sound pressure varying with CT at #3. Compared with the results
accordingly 
in Figurepresents  the  predicted 
14, the relative sound 
strength of the pressure 
sound pressurevarying 
from eachwith  CT   at 
interaction #3.  Compared 
is seen to be similar with 
and the 
the amplitude changes proportionately with the thrust coefficient.
results in Figure 14, the relative strength of the sound pressure from each interaction is seen to be 
similar and the amplitude changes proportionately with the thrust coefficient. 
contributions when the thrust coefficient increases. Therefore, another sample trimming   tpp   to keep 
the miss‐distance constant is provided to analyze the isolated effect of the vortex strength. Figure 16 
accordingly  presents  the  predicted  sound  pressure  varying  with  CT   at  #3.  Compared  with  the 
results in Figure 14, the relative strength of the sound pressure from each interaction is seen to be 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 14 of 20
similar and the amplitude changes proportionately with the thrust coefficient. 

 
Figure 16. Predicted acoustic pressure at #3 variance with the thrust coefficients. 
Figure 16. Predicted acoustic pressure at #3 variance with the thrust coefficients.

Figure 17 shows the peak BVI noise level varying with the thrust coefficient in different states. 
Figure 17 shows the peak BVI noise level varying with the thrust coefficient in different states.
If we only consider the impact of vortex strength, the peak noise amplitude is linear to CT , whileCifT the
If we only consider the impact of vortex strength, the peak noise amplitude is linear to  , while if 
effects of both vortex strength and miss-distance are considered, the peak noise amplitude seems to be
the effects of both vortex strength and miss‐distance are considered, the peak noise amplitude seems 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 
less sensitive to  C , which means that variation in the thrust coefficient changes the noise propagation, 14 of 19 
to  be  less  sensitive  to T CT ,  which  means  that  variation  in  the  thrust  coefficient  changes  the  noise 
but has little effect on the noise intensity.
propagation, but has little effect on the noise intensity. 
118

117 Keep tip-path-plane angle constant

Keep miss-distance constant
Max BVISPL, dB

116

115

114

113

112

111
0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
CT  

Figure 17. Max BVISPL variance with the thrust coefficient. 
Figure 17. Max BVISPL variance with the thrust coefficient.

3.3.3. Tip Mach Number

3.3.3. Tip Mach Number 
By holding the advance ratio, thrust coefficient, and tip-path-plane angle constant, the tip Mach
By holding the advance ratio, thrust coefficient, and tip‐path‐plane angle constant, the tip Mach 
number increases from 0.55 to 0.725 to analyze the effects on the BVI noise characteristics.
number increases from 0.55 to 0.725 to analyze the effects on the BVI noise characteristics. 
The locations of BVI events on the rotor plane and the miss-distance on the axial plane are less
The locations of BVI events on the rotor plane and the miss‐distance on the axial plane are less 
sensitive to Matip because the wake skew angle and the basic epi-cycloid are not affected by Matip .
sensitive to Ma tip because the wake skew angle and the basic epi‐cycloid are not affected by Ma
Figure 18 illustrates the sound pressure at #7, #3, and #9 at different tip Mach numbers. With each tip. 

Figure 18 illustrates the sound pressure at #7, #3, and #9 at different tip Mach numbers. With each 
increasing tip Mach number, the impulse waveform seems unaffected, while the amplitude increases
at each observation location. When Matip increases to 0.7, the local Mach number on the advancing
increasing tip Mach number, the impulse waveform seems unaffected, while the amplitude increases 
side reaches transonic speed, and interactions
at each observation location. When Ma #A1 and #A2 are more influential which accounts for the
tip increases to 0.7, the local Mach number on the advancing 
stronger noise impulse characteristics. However, it should be noted that the calculation of BVI noise in
side reaches transonic speed, and interactions #A1 and #A2 are more influential which accounts for 
this paper treats Equations (13) and (14) as linear equations which are nonlinear at transonic speed.
the stronger noise impulse characteristics. However, it should be noted that the calculation of BVI 
noise  in  this  paper  treats  Equations  (13)  and  (14)  as  linear  equations  which  are  nonlinear  at   
transonic speed. 
 increasing tip Mach number, the impulse waveform seems unaffected, while the amplitude increases 
at each observation location. When Matip increases to 0.7, the local Mach number on the advancing 
side reaches transonic speed, and interactions #A1 and #A2 are more influential which accounts for 
the stronger noise impulse characteristics. However, it should be noted that the calculation of BVI 
Appl. Sci.in 
noise  2017, 7, 381
this  15 of at 
paper  treats  Equations  (13)  and  (14)  as  linear  equations  which  are  nonlinear  20  

transonic speed. 

 
Figure 18. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the tip Mach number. 
Figure 18. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the tip Mach number.

Figure  19  shows  the  contour  plots  of  SPL  for  three  tip  Mach  numbers.  As  Matip  increases, 
Figure 19 shows the contour plots of SPL for three tip Mach numbers. As Matip increases,
interactions #A1 and #A2 become more influential (Figure 19b), and two peaks of sound pressure 
interactions #A1 and #A2 become more influential (Figure 19b), and two peaks of sound pressure
appear. When the tip Mach number reaches 0.725, one can observe that the BVI noise largely from 
appear. When the tip Mach number reaches 0.725, one can observe that the BVI noise largely from #A1
#A1 and #A2 become stronger; on the other hand, another strong noise which radiates to the rotor 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    15 of 19 
and #A2 become stronger; on the other hand, another strong noise which radiates to the rotor plane
plane appears in space. 
appears in space.  
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381  15 of 19 

 
(a)    (b) (c) 
(a)  (b) (c) 
Figure 19. Contour plots of SPL on the sphere surface for different tip Mach numbers. (a)  Matip  0.6 ; 
Figure 19. Contour plots of SPL on the sphere surface for different tip Mach numbers. (a)  Ma  0.6 ; 
tip
(b) Figure
Matip 19. Contour
 0.7 plots 
; (c)  Ma of0.725 .  the sphere surface for different tip Mach numbers. (a) Matip = 0.6;
SPL on
(b)  Matip =0.7
(b) Ma 0.7;; (c)  Matip =0.725
tip
(c) Ma . 
0.725.
tip tip

Figure 
Figure 20 20presents 
Figure 20  presents variations 
presents variations 
variations in 
in peak
peak noise 
in peak 
noise  levels 
noise levels 
levels as 
as  functions 
as functions 
functions of 
of  tip
of the 
the Mach 
the tip 
tip  Mach 
Mach number. 
number. 
number. It 
It is 
is
It  is 
observed that 5 dB increases in the maximum BVI noise occur when the tip Mach number varies from 
observed that 5 dB increases in the maximum BVI noise occur when the tip Mach number varies from 
observed that 5 dB increases in the maximum BVI noise occur when the tip Mach number varies
0.55  to to 
0.55 
from 0.725, 
0.725, 
0.55 demonstrating 
demonstrating 
to 0.725, that that
that 
demonstrating the the
the  tip tip
tip  Mach 
Mach  number 
number 
Mach number is one
is  is
one  one  of 
thethe 
of ofthe  most 
most most  sensitive 
sensitive 
sensitive governing 
governing 
governing
parameters of BVI noise. 
parameters of BVI noise. 
parameters of BVI noise.
116
116
115
115
dBdB

114
BVISPL,

114
BVISPL,

113
113
Max

112
Max

112
111
111
110
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
110 Ma
0.55 0.60 tip 0.65 0.70 0.75  
Matip
Figure 20. Max BVISPL variance with the tip Mach number.   
Figure 20. Max BVISPL variance with the tip Mach number. 
Figure 20. Max BVISPL variance with the tip Mach number.
3.3.4. Advance Ratio 
To study the effect of the advance ratio, the BVI noise at three BVI states (   0.164, 0.194, 0.224 ) 
3.3.4. Advance Ratio 
are simulated with a tip‐path‐plane, thrust coefficient, and tip Mach number that are all constant. 
To study the effect of the advance ratio, the BVI noise at three BVI states (   0.164, 0.194, 0.224 ) 
When  the  advance  ratio  changes,  the  relative  motion  between  the  wake  and  rotor  disk 
are simulated with a tip‐path‐plane, thrust coefficient, and tip Mach number that are all constant. 
dramatically impacts the locations of BVI events and interaction angles; Figure 21 shows the locations 
 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
Matip  
Figure 20. Max BVISPL variance with the tip Mach number. 

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 16 of 20

3.3.4. Advance Ratio 
To study the effect of the advance ratio, the BVI noise at three BVI states (   0.164, 0.194, 0.224 ) 
3.3.4. Advance Ratio
are simulated with a tip‐path‐plane, thrust coefficient, and tip Mach number that are all constant. 
To study the effect of the advance ratio, the BVI noise at three BVI states (µ = 0.164, 0.194, 0.224)
When  the  advance  ratio  changes,  the  relative  motion  between  the  wake  and  rotor  disk 
are simulated with a tip-path-plane, thrust coefficient, and tip Mach number that are all constant.
dramatically impacts the locations of BVI events and interaction angles; Figure 21 shows the locations 
When the advance ratio changes, the relative motion between the wake and rotor disk dramatically
of  BVI  events 
impacts the on  the  rotor 
locations of BVI disk  andinteraction
eventsat  = 0.194, 0.224
angles;.  Figure
Compared  with 
21 shows the  results 
the locations in events
of BVI Figure  5a,   
the  interaction 
on the rotor locations 
disk at µ = undoubtedly  move  backward 
0.194, 0.224. Compared with 
with the results Figure 5a, theinteraction
in increasing  ,  and  interaction 
locations #A2 
undoubtedly move backward with increasing µ, and interaction #A2 changes into a parallel interaction.
changes into a parallel interaction. 

 
(a)  (b)
Figure 21. BVI events occur on the rotor plane at different advance ratios. (a)   0.194;
Figure 21. BVI events occur on the rotor plane at different advance ratios. (a) µ = = 0.194(b); (b)   = 0.224 . 
µ = 0.224.

Figure 22 presents the impact of the advance ratio on the predicted sound pressure at #7, #3,
and #9. As #7 is located between the noise level peaks from interactions #A2 and #A3, a negative
impulse from #A3 dominates the sound pressure signature at µ = 0.164. With increasing µ, the impulse
characteristics increase
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381    because interaction #A2 changes to a parallel interaction. However, at the same16 of 19 
time the noise radiation direction will move down the rotor disk (Figure 23), which is why the sound
pressure at #3 and #9 reach their maximum values at µ = 0.194 rather than µ = 0.224. The conclusion
Figure 22 presents the impact of the advance ratio on the predicted sound pressure at #7, #3,   
we#9. 
and  haveAs drawn from these
#7  is located  analyses
between  is noise level 
the  that the sound pressure
peaks  signature at one
from interactions  observation
#A2 and  #A3, location is
a  negative 
closely from 
impulse  associated
#A3 with the dominant
dominates  interaction
the  sound  in BVI,
pressure  signature  at    0.164
which generates stronger impulse
.  With  noise.  ,   
increasing 
A change in the interaction angle makes a difference in noise directivity. At µ = 0.194 (Figure 23a),
the  impulse  characteristics  increase  because  interaction  #A2  changes  to  a  parallel  interaction. 
interactions #A2 and #A3 dominate the BVI noise propagation as compared with the radiation direction
However, at the same time the noise radiation direction will move down the rotor disk (Figure 23), 
at µ = 0.164. However, when the advance ratio increases to 0.224, the noise from #A2 becomes
which is why the sound pressure at #3 and #9 reach their maximum values at   = 0.194   rather than 
dominant because the interaction #A2 changes to a parallel interaction. We also observed that the
 =radiation
0.224 . The conclusion we have drawn from these analyses is that the sound pressure signature 
direction of the BVI noise moves down the rotor disk. This agrees with the conclusions
at  of
one 
theobservation 
rotor/isolated location  is  closely 
vortex line associated 
interference with 
instances the  dominant 
in which interaction 
an interaction changesin 
to BVI,  which 
a parallel
generates stronger impulse noise. 
interaction, and then the noise radiation direction from it moves down the rotor disk [28].

 
Figure 22. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the advance ratio. 
Figure 22. Predicted acoustic pressure at #7, #3, and #9 variance with the advance ratio.

A change in the interaction angle makes a difference in noise directivity. At   = 0.194   (Figure 23a), 

interactions  #A2  and  #A3  dominate  the  BVI  noise  propagation  as  compared  with  the  radiation 
direction  at    0.164 .  However,  when  the  advance  ratio  increases  to  0.224,  the  noise  from  #A2 
becomes dominant because the interaction #A2 changes to a parallel interaction. We also observed 
 interactions  #A2  and  #A3  dominate  the  BVI  noise  propagation  as  compared  with  the  radiation 
direction  at    0.164 .  However,  when  the  advance  ratio  increases  to  0.224,  the  noise  from  #A2 
becomes dominant because the interaction #A2 changes to a parallel interaction. We also observed 
that  the  radiation  direction  of  the  BVI  noise  moves  down  the  rotor  disk.  This  agrees  with  the 
conclusions of the rotor/isolated vortex line interference instances in which an interaction changes to 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 17 of 20
a parallel interaction, and then the noise radiation direction from it moves down the rotor disk [28]. 

 
(a)  (b)
Figure  23.  Contour  plots  of  SPL  on  the  sphere  surface  for  different  advance  ratios.  (a)   = 0.194 ;   
Figure 23. Contour plots of SPL on the sphere surface for different advance ratios. (a) µ = 0.194;
(b)   = 0.224 . 
(b) µ = 0.224.

The  peak  noise  level  varying  with   tpp   at  different  advance  ratios  is  presented  in  Figure  24.   
The peak noise level varying with αtpp at different advance ratios is presented in Figure 24. At the
At the same tip‐path‐plane angle, the greater the forward speed is, the stronger the BVI noise will be 
same tip-path-plane angle, the greater the forward speed is, the stronger the BVI noise will be due
due  to  higher   noise  radiation  efficiency  on  the  advancing  side.  However,  with  an  increasing 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381  17 of 19 
to higher noise radiation efficiency on the advancing side. However, with an increasing backward
backward tilt angle, an inflection point appears at   = 0.224 ; the explanation for this is that at larger 
tilt angle, an inflection point appears at µ = 0.224; the explanation for this is that at larger values of
values  of   ,  the  vortex  filament  moves  faster  above  the  rotor  disk,  thus  the  BVI  noise  decreases 
µ, the vortex filament moves faster above the rotor disk, thus the BVI noise decreases earlier for the
earlier for the inverse miss‐distance. 
inverse miss-distance.

122
120
Max BVISPL, dB

118
116
114
=0.164
112 =0.194
110 =0.224

108
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
tpp, deg  
Figure 24. Max BVISPL variance with α
Figure 24. Max BVISPL variance with    at different advance ratios. 
tpp at
tpp different advance ratios.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions 
In this study, a high-resolution coupled method CFD/VWM was adopted to study the
In this study, a high‐resolution coupled method CFD/VWM was adopted to study the aerodynamic 
aerodynamic characteristics of blade-vortex interaction, and the FW-H equation was utilized to
characteristics  of  blade‐vortex  interaction,  and  the  FW‐H  equation  was  utilized  to  calculate  the 
calculate the acoustic characteristics. The BVI condition of the AH-1/OLS rotor was analyzed using
acoustic characteristics. The BVI condition of the AH‐1/OLS rotor was analyzed using the new hybrid 
the new hybrid method. A parametric study was performed to examine the effects on the BVI airload
method.  A  parametric 
and noise study 
characteristics. Thewas  performed 
following to  examine 
conclusions the drawn
have been effects  on  this
from the study:
BVI  airload  and  noise 
characteristics. The following conclusions have been drawn from this study: 
(1) The rotor wake is an important parameter that contributes to the accuracy of BVI noise prediction.
(1) The  rotor  wake  is  an  important  parameter  that  contributes  to  the  accuracy  of  BVI  noise 
Compared with the CFD/FW-H method, the hybrid CFD/VWM/FW-H method predicts a more
prediction.  Compared 
accurate rotor wake andwith 
the the  CFD/FW‐H 
impulsive method, 
sound pressure the  hybrid 
agrees CFD/VWM/FW‐H 
better with method 
the available test data.
predicts a more accurate rotor wake and the impulsive sound pressure agrees better with the 
available  test  data.  The  hybrid  method is also  capable  of  reducing  the  computation  time  and 
resources, given that the computation time is about one‐seventh of the CFD/FW‐H method. 
(2) Variation  in  the  tip‐path‐plane  angle  changes  the  miss‐distance,  affecting  the  BVI  noise.  In  a 
strong BVI state, BVI noise is dominated by the parallel interaction #A3 that radiates to 120° in 
azimuth and 45° below the rotor plane. With the rotor disk tilted forward, BVI noise becomes 
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 18 of 20

The hybrid method is also capable of reducing the computation time and resources, given that
the computation time is about one-seventh of the CFD/FW-H method.
(2) Variation in the tip-path-plane angle changes the miss-distance, affecting the BVI noise. In a
strong BVI state, BVI noise is dominated by the parallel interaction #A3 that radiates to 120◦ in
azimuth and 45◦ below the rotor plane. With the rotor disk tilted forward, BVI noise becomes
weaker, and even disappears due to the reduction in the parallel interaction #A3. Meanwhile, the
noise intensity decreases with increases in the miss-distance.
(3) Increases in thrust coefficient oppositely impact the vortex strength and miss-distance, which
accounts for the little changes in the sound pressure and the peak noise level. However, the
radiation direction of the BVI noise moves from around 120◦ to 200◦ in azimuth down the rotor
as the oblique interaction #A2 becomes stronger and dominates the BVI noise propagation.
(4) Increasing the tip Mach number has little effect on the interaction angle and miss-distance, but
greatly increases the noise radiation efficiency and the dynamic pressure on the advancing side,
enhancing interactions #A1 and #A2. Therefore, the BVI noise intensity increases and the radiation
directions from #A1 and #A2 become the main propagation direction of BVI noise. When the tip
Mach number reaches transonic, BVI noise will never dominate the acoustic field in space.
(5) Increases in the advance ratio greatly changes the interaction azimuth and interaction angle such
that the interaction locations move backward and interaction #A2 changes to a parallel interaction.
Thus BVI noise dominated by the parallel interaction #A2 radiates to around 160◦ in azimuth
down the rotor. Also, the BVI noise intensity increases provided that the angle of the backward
tilt is small. When it is not, the increase in the inverse miss-distance reduces the BVI noise.
(6) Reductions in BVI noise can be obtained by increases in the miss-distance of the parallel
interaction with the proper tip-path-plane angle and forward speed adjustment or by decreases
in the tip Mach number. Decreases or increases in thrust coefficient change only the propagation
direction, not its magnitude.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number:
11302103).
Author Contributions: Yinyu Zhao, Yongjie Shi and Guohua Xu contributed to the formulation and analysis of
BVI noise problem; Yinyu Zhao and Yongjie Shi performed the numerical simulation; Guohua Xu offered useful
suggestions for the writing thought; Yinyu Zhao wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notation
a Sound speed, m/s
Cl Lift coefficient of the blade section
CT .Rotor thrust coefficient
E Energy
F Inviscid convective flux vector
f =0 Equation of the body surface in motion
G Viscous flux vector
li Force/unit area on medium
Matip Rotor tip Mach number
Mr Local Mach number in radiation direction
R Rotor radius
re Source-to-observation distance
ta Observation time
u Velocity field
u∞ Free stream velocity
Vp Volume of the pth vortex particle
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 19 of 20

νb Relative velocity of the blade section

W Conserved variables vector
x (x, y, z) vortex particle displacement from the rotor hub center
α Vorticity strength
αtpp Tip-path-plane angle
Γb Rotor bound circulation
µ Rotor advance ratio
ν Kinematic viscosity
ρ Air density
ω Vorticity field
|ω | Non-dimensional vorticity magnitude
∇ Hamiltonian operator
p Particle index
∞ Free stream

References
1. Malovrh, B.; Gandhi, F. Sensitivity of Helicopter Blade-Vortex-Interaction Noise and Vibration to Interaction
Parameters. J. Aircr. 2005, 42, 685–697. [CrossRef]
2. Yu, Y.H. Rotor blade–vortex interaction noise. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2000, 36, 97–115. [CrossRef]
3. Boxwell, D.A.; Splettstoesser, W.R.; Schultz, K.J.; Schmitz, F.H. Helicopter Model Rotor-Blade Vortex
Interaction Impulsive Noise: Scalability and Parametric Variations. J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 1987, 32, 5–12.
4. Yu, Y.H.; Tung, C.; Gallman, J.; Schultz, K.J.; van der Wall, B.; Spiegel, P.; Michea, B. Aerodynamics and
Acoustics of Rotor Blade-Vortex Interactions: Analysis Capability and its Validation. In Proceedings of the
15th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference DLR, Long Beach, CA, USA, 25–27 October 1993.
5. Chung, K. Numerical predictions of rotorcraft un-steady air-loadings and BVI noise by using a time-marching
free-wake and acoustic analogy. In Proceedings of the 31st European Rotorcraft Forum, Florence, Italy,
13–15 September 2005.
6. Wall, B.G.V.D. Extensions of prescribed wake modelling for helicopter rotor BVI noise investigations.
CEAS Aeronaut. J. 2012, 3, 93–115. [CrossRef]
7. Strawn, R.C.; Caradonna, F.X.; Duque, E.P.N. 30 Years of Rotorcraft Computational Fluid Dynamics Research
and Development. J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 2006, 51, 5–21. [CrossRef]
8. Harris, R.E.; Sheta, E.F.; Habchi, S.D. An Efficient Adaptive Cartesian Vorticity Transport Solver for
Vortex-Dominated Flows. AIAA Pap. 2010, 48, 2157–2164. [CrossRef]
9. Yang, A.; Yang, X. Multigrid Acceleration and Chimera Technique for Viscous Flow Past a Hovering Rotor.
J. Aircr. 2015, 48, 713–715. [CrossRef]
10. Lakshminarayan, V.K.; Kalra, T.S.; Baeder, J.D. Detailed Computational Investigation of a Hovering
Microscale Rotor in Ground Effect. AIAA J. 2013, 51, 893–909. [CrossRef]
11. Gennaretti, M.; Bernardini, G. Novel Boundary Integral Formulation for Blade-Vortex Interaction
Aerodynamics of Helicopter Rotors. AIAA J. 2007, 45, 1169–1176. [CrossRef]
12. Dimanlig, A.; Jayaraman, B.; Lim, J.; Wissink, A. Application of adaptive mesh refinement technique in
helios to blade-vortex interaction loading and rotor wakes. In Proceedings of the 68th Annual Forum of the
American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 1–3 May 2012.
13. Fogarty, D.E.; Wibur, M.L.; Sekula, M.K.; Boyd, D.D., Jr. Prediction of BVI noise for an active twist rotor
using a loosely coupled CFD/CSD method and comparison to experimental data. In Proceedings of the 68th
Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 1–3 May 2012.
14. Biava, M.; Bindolino, G.; Vigevano, L. Single blade computations of helicopter rotors in forward flight.
In Proceedings of the 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 6–9 January 2003.
15. Shi, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Fang, F.; Xu, G. A New Single-blade Based Hybrid CFD Method for Hovering and
Forward-flight Rotor Computation. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2011, 24, 127–135. [CrossRef]
16. Hamid, F.; Ahmad, R.P. A New Coupled Free Wake-CFD Method for Calculation of Helicopter Rotor
Flow-Field in Hover. J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag. 2014, 6, 129–147.
17. Wie, S.Y.; Im, D.Y.; Kwon, J.H.; Lee, D.J. Numerical Simulation of Rotor Using Coupled Computational Fluid
Dynamics and Free Wake. J. Aircr. 2010, 47, 1167–1177. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 381 20 of 20

18. Sugiura, M.; Tanabe, Y.; Sugawara, H. Development of a Hybrid Method of CFD and Prescribed Wake Model
for Helicopter BVI Noise Prediction. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 2013, 27, 343–350. [CrossRef]
19. Inada, Y.; Yang, C.; Iwanaga, N.; Aoyama, T. Efficient Prediction of BVI Noise Using Euler Solver with Wake
Model. In Proceedings of the 1st International Forum on Rotorcraft Multidisciplinary Technology, Seoul,
Korea, 15–17 October 2007.
20. Shi, Y.J.; Xu, G.H.; Wei, P. Rotor wake and flow analysis using a coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian method.
Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2016, 10, 386–404. [CrossRef]
21. Shi, Y.; Xu, Y.; Xu, G.; Wei, P. A coupling VWM/CFD/CSD method for rotor airload prediction. Chin. J. Aeronaut.
2016, 30, 204–215. [CrossRef]
22. Farassat, F. Derivation of Formulations 1 and 1A of Farassat; NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS): Hampton,
VA, USA, 2007.
23. Luo, H.; Baum, J.D.; Löhner, R. A Fast, Matrix-free Implicit Method for Computing Low Mach Number
Flows on Unstructured Grids. Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2000, 14, 133–157. [CrossRef]
24. Roe, P.L. Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 1981,
43, 357–372. [CrossRef]
25. Cottet, G.H.; Koumoutsakos, P.D. Vortex Methods: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2000.
26. Eldredge, J.D.; Leonard, A.; Colonius, T. A general deterministic treatment of derivatives in particle methods.
J. Comput. Phys. 2002, 180, 686–709. [CrossRef]
27. Sim, B.W.; Schmitz, F.H. Acoustic Phasing and Amplification Effects of Single-Rotor Helicopter Blade-Vortex
Interactions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Montreal, QC,
Canada, 25–27 May 1999.
28. Shi, Y.J.; Zhao, Q.J.; Xu, G.H. An Analytical Study of Parametric Effects on Rotor–Vortex Interaction Noise.
J. Proc. IMechE G J. Aerosp. Eng. 2011, 225, 259–268. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).