You are on page 1of 231

Basics of Aerodynamics

Airfoil Description

Equal amounts of thickness is added to camber


in a direction normal to the camber line. Camber Line

Chord Line
Pressure Forces acting on the Airfoil

Low Pressure
High velocity
High Pressure
Low velocity

Low Pressure High Pressure


High velocity Low velocity

Bernoulli’s equation says where pressure is high, velocity will be low and vice versa.
Characteristics of Cl vs. a
Stall

Cl

Slope= 2p if a is in radians.

a = a0
Angle of
zero lift

Angle of Attack, a in degrees


or radians
The angle of zero lift depends on
the camber of the airfoil
Cambered airfoil

Cl

a = a0 Symmetric Airfoil
Angle of
zero lift

Angle of Attack, a in degrees


or radians
Skin Friction
Particles away
from the
airfoil move
unhindered.

Particles near the


airfoil stick to the
surface, and try to
slow down the
nearby particles.

A tug of war results - airfoil is dragged back with the flow.


This region of low
speed flow is called
the boundary layer.
Lift on Aerofoil
• Pressure Differential
Between Upper & Lower Airfoil Surfaces Creates Lift
• Lift Equation L  2 V 2 SC L
1

• Cambered Airfoil in Positive Lift


Drag on Aerofoil

• Types of Drag
– Induced: Caused by the Production of Lift
– Parasite: All Drag Not Caused by Lift
• Profile: Parasitic Drag of Rotor Blades Passing
Through the Air
D  2 V 2 SC D
1
• Drag Equation

• Largest Contributor to Total Drag


– Low Speed: Induced Drag
– High Speed: Parasite/Profile Drag
Flow over Aerofoil
Angle Between Chord Line &
Rotational Relative Wind (Tip Path
Angle Between Chord Plane)
Line & Rotational Relative
Wind (Tip Path Plane) Vector Sum of
Vector Sum of Rotational Relative
Airfoil Lift & Drag Acts Perpendicular Wind & Induced Flow
to Resultant
Relative Wind

Vertical
Component
Opposes Direction of Blade of Airflow
Acts Parallel Rotation in Tip Path Plane Drawn
& Opposite Through the
to Resultant Rotor System
Relative
Wind
Induced Flow through Rotor
How does a real helicopter fly
Helicopter flies by accelerating column
of air downwards through the rotor.

The rotor creates a


pressure difference Δp
which accelerates flow
through it. The velocity
far upstream is 0, at
the rotor v’ and far
downstream v".

Flow through the disk can be estimated by Momentum theory


Momentum Theory
• Momentum theory concerns itself with the global
balance of mass, momentum, and energy.
• It does not concern itself with details of the flow
around the blades.
• It gives a good representation of what is happening
far away from the rotor.
• This theory makes a number of simplifying
assumptions. Rotor is modeled as an actuator disk
which adds momentum and energy to the flow.
• Flow is incompressible.
• Flow is steady, inviscid, irrotational.
• Flow is one-dimensional, and uniform through the
rotor disk, and in the far wake.
• There is no swirl in the wake.
12
Control Volume is a Cylinder
Station1 V Climb Velocity (velocity up-strem)

Control Volume
Consider a
control
volume of 2
V+v2
flow 3 V+v3
enclosing Disk area A Velocity across
the disk
rotor disk

Velocity down
4 stream
V+v4

Total area S
13
Flows through Control Volume

Inflow through t he top  VS


Inflow through t he side  m
1
Outflow through t he bottom 
VS - A 4    (V  v4 ) A4

14
Conservation of Mass through the Rotor
Disk
Flow through the rotor disk =

m  AV  v 2   AV  v3 
 A4 V  v 4 
Thus v2=v3=vi
There is no velocity jump across the rotor disk
The quantity vi is called
induced velocity at the rotor
disk
Global Conservation of Momentum
Momentum inflow through t op  V 2 S
Momentum inflow through t he side  m 1V
 A 4 v 4V
Momentum outflow through bottom 
 S - A 4 V 2   V  v 4 2 A4
Pressure is atmospheri c on all
the far field boundaries .
Thrust , T  Momentum rate out -
Momentum Rate in
T  A 4 (V  v 4 ) v 4  m v 4
Mass flow rate through the rotor disk times
Excess velocity between stations 1 and 4
Conservation of Momentum at the Rotor Disk

p2 V+vi Due to conservation of mass across the


Rotor disk, there is no velocity jump.

p3 V+vi Momentum inflow rate = Momentum


outflow rate

Thus, Thrust T = A(p3-p2)


Conservation of Energy
Consider a particle that traverses from station 1 to station 4
Aapply Bernoulli equation between stations 1 and 2, and
1 between stations 3 and 4.
Recall assumptions that the flow is steady, irrotational,
inviscid.
p2   V  vi   p  V 2
1 2 1
2 2
2 V+vi
p3   V  vi   p   V  v4 
1 2 1 2

3 2 2
 v4 
p3  p2   V  v4
 2
 v4 
4 V+v4 T  A p3  p2   AV  v4
 2
Thrust equals mass flow rate through the rotor disk times excess
velocity between stations 1 and 4
T  AV  vi v 4 Thus, vi = v4/2
Induced Velocities
V The excess velocity in the
Far wake is twice the induced
Velocity at the rotor disk.

V+vi
To accommodate this excess
Velocity, the stream tube
has to contract.

V+2vi
© L. Sankar Helicopter
19
Aerodynamics
Induced Velocity at the Rotor Disk
Induced velocity at the rotor disk can be
computed in terms of the rotor thrust

Thrust = (Mass flow rate through the rotor disk ) X


(Excess velocity between 1 and 4).
T = 2  A (V+vi)vi
There are two solutions.
The – sign Corresponds to
a wind turbine, where
2 energy Is removed from the
V V  T flow. v is negative.
v-    
2  2  2 A The + sign corresponds to a
rotor or Propeller where
energy is added to the flow.
In this case, v is positive.
20
Induced Velocity at Rotor Disk in Hover
2
V V  T
v-    
2 2 2 A
In Hover, climb velocity V  0
T
v
2 A

Non-dimensional v 1 T CT
form of induced i   
velocity R R 2 A 2
Ideal Power Consumed by the Rotor

P  Energy flow out - Energy flow in

 m V  2v   m V 2
1 2 1
2 2
 2m vV  v   T V  v 
V  
V
2
T 
T      
2  2  2 A 
 

T
In hover, ideal power T
2 A
Observations from Momentum Theory

• According to momentum theory, the downwash in


the far wake is twice the induced velocity at the rotor
disk.
• Momentum theory gives an expression for induced
velocity at the rotor disk.
• It also gives an expression for ideal power consumed
by a rotor of specified dimensions.
• Actual power will be higher, because momentum
theory neglected many sources of losses- viscous
effects, compressibility (shocks), tip losses, swirl,
non-uniform flows, etc.
Implications of Temperature and rotor disk area

• What happens on a hot day, and/or high altitude?


– Induced velocity is higher.
– Power consumption is higher
• What happens if the rotor disk area A is smaller?
– Induced velocity and power are higher.
• There are practical limits to consider large A .
Figure of Merit
• Figure of merit is defined as the ratio of ideal power
for a rotor in hover obtained from momentum theory
and the actual power consumed by the rotor.
• For most rotors, it is between 0.7 and 0.8.

Ideal Power in Hover


FM 
Actual Power in Hover
CT
CT
Tv 2
 
P CP
Observations on Figure of Merit

• Because a helicopter spends considerable portions


of time in hover, designers attempt to optimize the
rotor for hover (FM~0.8).
• A rotor with a lower figure of merit (FM~0.6) is not
necessarily a bad rotor as the rotor parameters are
optimized for other conditions (e.g. high speed
forward flight).
Example #1 (Continued)
• A tilt-rotor aircraft Disk Area  A  p 19
2

has a gross weight A  1134.12 square feet


of 60,500 lb. Density  0.00238 slugs/cubi c feet
(27500 kg).
There are two rotors. T  30250 lbf
• The rotor diameter
is 38 feet (11.58 T
Induced velocity, v 
m). 2 A
• Assume FM=0.75, v  74.86 ft/sec
Transmission Downwash in the far wake  150 ft/sec !
losses=5% Ideal Power  Tv  30250 x 74.86 lb ft/sec
• Compute power Ideal Power  4117 HP
needed to hover at Actual Power  ideal Power/FM  4117/0.75
sea level on a hot Actual power  5490 HP
day.
For the two rotors, total actual power  10980 HP
There is 5% transmiss ion loss
Power supplied by the engine to the shaft  10980 *1.05  11528 HP

28
Effects of Tip Losses
A portion of the rotor near the tip
does not produce much lift
Due to leakage of air from
The bottom of the disk to the top.
One can crudely account for it by
using a smaller, modified radius
BR, where B is given by

2CT b = Number
B  1 of blades.

b
1 1 CT
Power Consumption in Hover
Including Tip Losses..
CP   CT
FM B 2
Non-dimensionalization of Rotor Forces
Thrust, Torque and Torque are usually expressed in
non-dimensional form .

Thrust Coefficient R Rotor Radius


Ω Rotor speed(rad/sec)
A Rotor disk area
N Number of blades
Torque Coefficient ρ Air density
c Rotor chord

P
Power Coefficient C Q  = CQ
AR 3
Non Dimensional Rotor Parameters

Flow throw disk


Rotor inflow
Rotor tip velocity

Solidity factor
Disk Loading
The ratio T/A is called disk loading.

The higher the disk loading, the higher the


induced velocity, and the higher the power.

Disk Loading
Helicopters 5 to 10 lb/m2
Tilt Rotors 20 to 40 lb/m2 Less efficient in hover
Vtol aircraft 500 lb/m2 Small fans
Power Loading
The ratio of thrust to power T/P
is called the Power Loading.

Power Loading
Helicopter 6 to 10 lb/HP High
Tilt Rotors 2 to 6 lb/HP Low
VTOL 2 lb/HP Lowest
Momentum theory advantages and dis-
advantages
• Momentum theory gives • It does not take into
rapid, back-of-the- account
envelope estimates of • Number of blades
Power. • Airfoil characteristics
• This approach is (lift, drag, angle of
sufficient to size a rotor zero lift)
(i.e. select the disk area) • Blade planform (taper,
for a given power plant sweep, root cut-out)
(engine), and a given
gross weight. • Blade twist
distribution
• This approach is not
adequate for designing • Compressibility
the rotor. effects
Typical Blade Strip

Tip

Blade Element Torque  b  dT


Cut  Out
Tip

Power  b  dP
Cut  Out
Flow over Airfoil Section of the strip
V  v  Line of Zero Lift
  arctan  
 r 
aeffective = q  
q

V+v 
r

Knowing the effective angle of attack is known, the lift


and drag coefficients for the airfoil section at that strip
can be estimated.
Aerofoil Sectional Forces
Sectional lift and drag forces acting on the elemental
strip can be written as

1
 
L   U T2  U P2 cCl dr
2 UT= wr

 
1 UP= V+v
D   U T2  U P2 cCd dr
2
These forces will act normal to and along
the resultant velocity vector.
Resolution of Forces on aerofoil Section
The elemental forces are
T L resolved normal and inplane
(plane of rotation) directions

Fx
V+v
r D

T  L cos   D sin  

 
  U T2  U P2 cCl cos   Cd sin  dr
1
2
Fx  D cos   L sin  

 
  U T2  U P2 cCd cos   Cl sin  dr
1
2
dP  U T Fx  rFX
Blade Element Theory
Blade Element Theory
• Blade Element Theory rectifies
many of the drawbacks of the
momentum theory. First
proposed by Drzwiecki in 1892.
• It is a “strip” theory. The blade is
divided into a number of strips, of
width r.
• The lift generated by that strip,
and the power consumed by that
strip, are computed using 2-D
airfoil aerodynamics.
• The contributions from all the
strips from all the blades are
summed up to get total thrust,
and total power.
Unedited_slides
Closed form Solutions

Closed form expressions of the integrals of the rotor can be


derived for cases with the chord c is constant and
simple linear twist.
The inflow velocity v and climb velocity V are assumed
small wrt to rotor tip velocity. Thus, φ << 1 which leads
to an approximate cos(φ ) by unity, and approximate
sin(φ) by φ .
The lift coefficient is a linear function of the effective angle
of attack, that is, Cl=a(θ - φ) where a is the lift curve
slope.
Cd is small. So, Cd sin(φ) may be neglected.
The in-plane velocity ωr is much larger than the normal
component V+v over most of the rotor.
Thrust and Power
from Blade Element theory

r R
1  V v  2
Rotor Thrust  cba  q 
2
 r dr
2 r 0 
r r 

r R
1  V v  V v   3
Rotor Power  cba  q 
3
     Cd r dr
2 r  0 
r r  r r  
Thrust of Rotor with Linearly Twisted Blade
Assume that the blade pitch angle varies as q  E  Fr
b 1  3  V  v 3
Thrust T   ca   E  FR  
2
 R
2 3  4  2 R 
q .75 R 
 ca R  R 
b
  / 2
2

2  3 
abc q .75  a q .75 R 
CT 
2pR  3   / 2  2  3   / 2 
   
where
  solidity  BladeArea/ DiskArea  bc / pR
a  Lift Curve slope (~ 2p ) , b number of blades
V v
  Inflow Ratio 
R
Thrust dependence on Pitch
Notice that the thrust coefficient is linearly proportional to the
pitch angle q at the 75% Radius.

This is why the pitch angle is usually defined at 75% R


in industry.
The expression for power can be integrated in a similar
manner, if the drag coefficient Cd is assumed to be a
constant, equal to Cd0.

C d 0
C P  CT 
8
Induced Power Profile Power
Ideally Twisted Rotor

q tip R
q
r
a
CT  q tip  
4
Cd 0
C P  CT  Same as linearly
8 Twisted rotor!
Figure of Merit from Blade Element Theory
CT
FM  ;
CT  Cd 0 / 8
where   Inflow Ratio  (V  v)/ R;
  Solidity  Blade Area/Disk Area

High solidity (lot of blades, wide-chord, large blade area)


leads to higher Power consumption, and lower figure of
merit.
Figure of merit can be improved with the use of low drag
airfoils.
Average Lift Coefficient
Assume that every Average Lift Coefficien t  Cl
section of the entire R
  2 3
cr  Cl dr 
1 bc C R
rotor is operating at T  b
2 l

an optimum lift 0
2 6
coefficient.
T bc Cl Cl
Assume the rotor is CT   
untapered. pR R  pR 6
2 2
6
CT
Cl  6

Generally rotor will stall if average lift coefficient
exceeds 1.2 . Thus, in practice, CT/σ is limited to 0.2 .
Optimum Lift Coefficient in Hover

CT CT
In Hover FM  ;  ; C T  Cl / 6
Cd 0 2
CT 
8
3/ 2
C T
2 1
FM  
CT3 / 2 Cd 0 1  (3 3Cd 0 / C l )
3/ 2

2 8

FM can be maximized if C d0 / Cl3 / 2 is minimized.


Drawbacks of Blade Element Theory
• It does not handle tip losses.
– This can be accounted by considering tip loss factor B.
Numerically integrate thrust from the cutout to BR
Integrate torque from cut-out all the way to the tip.
• It assumes that the induced velocity v is uniform.
• It does not account for swirl losses.
• The Predicted power is sometimes empirically
corrected for these losses.

Cd 0
C P  CT  where   1.15
8
Flap, Lag, and Feathering
There are three potential applications for the Flex Pivot in an
articulated rotor. Currently, bearings are being utilized in the
following locations, as denoted by the circles in Figure 1.

Flapping (Side View) Lagging (Top View) Feathering (Side View)


Blade Free Body Diagram
z

AF
Omega

CF

K IF
Beta
n, y

e
Force Equation
The forces acting on the blades of a fully articulated
hub include:
• Inertia Force, IF
• Centrifugal Force, CF
• Aerodynamic Force, AF
• Spring Moment, SF
After analyzing these various forces, it was determined
that the bulk of the forces on the blade comes from
the centrifugal force, expressed by the following
force equation:
• F=ma, where a=Rω2
In a helicopter, you can move in any direction or you can rotate 360 degrees
The swash plate assembly consists of two plates -- the fixed and the rotating swash plates
shown above in blue and red, respectively.
•The rotating swash plate rotates with the drive shaft (green) and the rotor's blades (grey)
because of the links (purple) that connect the rotating plate to the drive shaft.
•The pitch control rods (orange) allow the rotating swash plate to change the pitch of the
rotor blades.
•The angle of the fixed swash plate is changed by the control rods (yellow) attached to the
fixed swash plate.
•The fixed plate's control rods are affected by the pilot's input to the cyclic and collective
controls.
•The fixed and rotating swash plates are connected with a set of bearings between the two
plates. These bearings allow the rotating swash plate to spin on top of the fixed swash plate.
Paul Cornu (1907)
First man to fly in helicopter mode..

© L. Sankar Helicopter
105
Aerodynamics
De La Cierva
invented Autogyros (1923)

© L. Sankar Helicopter
106
Aerodynamics
Cierva introduced hinges at the root
that allowed blades to freely flap

Hinges

Only the lifts were transferred to the fuselage,


not unwanted moments.
In later models, lead-lag hinges were also used to
Alleviate root stresses from Coriolis forces
© L. Sankar Helicopter
107
Aerodynamics
Igor Sikorsky
Started work in 1907, Patent in 1935

Used tail rotor to counter-act the reactive torque exerted by


the rotor on the vehicle.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
108
Aerodynamics
Sikorsky’s R-4

© L. Sankar Helicopter
109
Aerodynamics
Ways of countering the
Reactive Torque

Other possibilities: Tip jets, tip mounted engines

© L. Sankar Helicopter
110
Aerodynamics
Single Rotor Helicopter

© L. Sankar Helicopter
111
Aerodynamics
Tandem Rotors (Chinook)

© L. Sankar Helicopter
112
Aerodynamics
Coaxial rotors
Kamov KA-52

© L. Sankar Helicopter
113
Aerodynamics
NOTAR Helicopter

© L. Sankar Helicopter
114
Aerodynamics
NOTAR Concept

© L. Sankar Helicopter
115
Aerodynamics
Tilt Rotor Vehicles

© L. Sankar Helicopter
116
Aerodynamics
Helicopters tend to grow in size..

AH-64A AH-64D

Length 58.17 ft (17.73 m) 58.17 ft (17.73 m)

Height 15.24 ft (4.64 m) 13.30 ft (4.05 m)

Wing Span 17.15 ft (5.227 m) 17.15 ft (5.227 m)

Primary Mission Gross 15,075 lb (6838 kg) 16,027 lb (7270 kg) Lot
Weight 11,800 pounds Empty 1 Weight

© L. Sankar Helicopter
117
Aerodynamics
Power Plant Limitations
• Helicopters use turbo shaft engines.
• Power available is the principal factor.
• An adequate power plant is important for
carrying out the missions.
• We will look at ways of estimating power
requirements for a variety of operating
conditions.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
118
Aerodynamics
High Speed
Forward Flight Limitations
• As the forward speed increases, advancing side
experiences shock effects, retreating side stalls. This
limits thrust available.
• Vibrations go up, because of the increased dynamic
pressure, and increased harmonic content.
• Shock Noise goes up.
• Fuselage drag increases, and parasite power
consumption goes up as V3.
• We need to understand and accurately predict the
air loads in high speed forward flight.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
119
Aerodynamics
Hover Performance
Prediction Methods

II. Blade Element Theory

© L. Sankar Helicopter
120
Aerodynamics
Drawbacks of Momentum Theory

© L. Sankar Helicopter
121
Aerodynamics
Blade Element Theory
• Blade Element Theory rectifies many of these
drawbacks. First proposed by Drzwiecki in 1892.
• It is a “strip” theory. The blade is divided into a
number of strips, of width r.
• The lift generated by that strip, and the power
consumed by that strip, are computed using 2-D
airfoil aerodynamics.
• The contributions from all the strips from all the
blades are summed up to get total thrust, and total
power.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
122
Aerodynamics
Approximate Expressions
• The integration (or summation of forces) can
only be done numerically.
• A spreadsheet may be designed. A sample
spreadsheet is being provided as part of the
course notes.
• In some simple cases, analytical expressions
may be obtained.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
123
Aerodynamics
Example
(From Leishman)
• Gross Weight = 16,000lb
• Main rotor radius = 27 ft
• Tail rotor radius 5.5 ft
• Chord=1.7 ft (main), Tail rotor chord=0.8 ft
• No. of blades =4 (Main rotor), 4 (tail rotor)
• Tip speed= 725 ft/s (main), 685 ft/s (tail)
• K=1.15, Cd0=0.008
• Available HP =3000Transmission losses=10%
• Estimate hover ceiling (as density altitude)

© L. Sankar Helicopter
124
Aerodynamics
Step I
• Multiply 3000 HP by 550 ft.lb/sec.
• Divide this by 1.10 to account for available power to
the two rotors (10% transmission loss).
• We will use non-dimensional form of power into
dimensional forms, as shown below:
• P= Tv+ (R)3A [Cd0/8]
• Find an empirical fit for variation of  with altitude:


4.2553
 0.00198h 
 1  
 sealevel  288.16 
© L. Sankar Helicopter
125
Aerodynamics
Step 2
• Assume an altitude, h. Compute density, .
• Do the following for main rotor:
– Find main rotor area A
– Find v as [T/(2A)]1/2 Note T= Vehicle weight in lbf.
– Insert supplied values of , Cd0, W to find main rotor P.
– Divide this power by angular velocity W to get main rotor torque.
– Divide this by the distance between the two rotor shafts to get tail
rotor thrust.
• Now that the tail rotor thrust is known, find tail rotor power
in the same way as the main rotor.
• Add main rotor and tail rotor powers. Compare with
available power from step 1.
• Increase altitude, until required power = available power.
• Answer = 10,500 ft

© L. Sankar Helicopter
126
Aerodynamics
Hover Performance
Prediction Methods
III. Combined Blade Element-Momentum
(BEM) Theory

© L. Sankar Helicopter
127
Aerodynamics
Background
• Blade Element Theory has a number of
assumptions.
• The biggest (and worst) assumption is that
the inflow is uniform.
• In reality, the inflow is non-uniform.
• It may be shown from variational calculus that
uniform inflow yields the lowest induced
power consumption.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
128
Aerodynamics
Consider an Annulus of the rotor Disk

Area = 2prdr
dr
Mass flow rate =2prV+vdr

r dT = (Mass flow rate) * (twice


the induced velocity at the
annulus)
= 4pr(V+v)vdr

© L. Sankar Helicopter
129
Aerodynamics
Blade Elements Captured by the Annulus

Thrust generated by these


dr blade elements:

dT  b    r  c  Cl  dr
1 2

2
r
2  V v
 abc    r   q 
1
  dr
2  r 

© L. Sankar Helicopter
130
Aerodynamics
Equate the Thrust for the Elements
from the
Momentum and Blade Element
Approaches
 a  a r
    c   q  0
2

 8  8 R
  a r  a c 
2
 a c 
where,       q   
V  16 2  8 R  16 2 
c 
R
V v
 Total Inflow Velocity from Combined
R Blade Element-Momentum Theory

© L. Sankar Helicopter
131
Aerodynamics
Numerical Implementation of Combined
BEM Theory
• The numerical implementation is identical to
classical blade element theory.
• The only difference is the inflow is no longer
uniform. It is computed using the formula
given earlier, reproduced below:

 a c  a r  a c 
2

      q   
 16 2  8 R  16 2 
Note that inflow is uniform if q= CR/r . This twist is therefore
called the ideal twist. © L. Sankar Helicopter
132
Aerodynamics
Effect of Inflow on Power in Hover
R R
Pinduced   vdT   4 prv 3 dr
0 0
R R
T   dT   4 prv 2 dr constraint
0 0

We wish to minimize induced power, for a specified value of T.


Therefore, we minimize P - T where  is a Lagrangean multiplier .  P - T   0
R 
 3 2

   4 prv  4prv dr   0 Variation of a functional
0 

 
R

 p  2 v vdr  0
2
4 r 3 v
0


The only way t he integral will vanish for all possible variation s v is if 3v 2  2  v  0 
Since  is a contant (Lagrangea n multiplier ), it follows that v must be a constant.
Uniform inflow produces least induced power, for a specified level of thrust!
© L. Sankar Helicopter
133
Aerodynamics
Ideal Rotor vs. Optimum Rotor
• Ideal rotor has a non-linear twist: q= CR/r
• This rotor will, according to the BEM theory, have a uniform
inflow, and the lowest induced power possible.
• The rotor blade will have very high local pitch angles q near
the root, which may cause the rotor to stall.
• Ideally Twisted rotor is also hard to manufacture.
• For these reasons, helicopter designers strive for optimum
rotors that minimize total power, and maximize figure of
merit.
• This is done by a combination of twist, and taper, and the use
of low drag airfoil sections.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
134
Aerodynamics
Optimum Rotor
• We try to minimize total power (Induced power + Profile
Power) for a given T.
• In other words, an optimum rotor has the maximum figure
of merit.
• From earlier work (see slide 72), figure of merit is
3
maximized if Cl 2 is maximized.
Cd

• All the sections of the rotor will operate at the angle of


attack where this value of Cl and Cd are produced.
• We will call this Cl the optimum lift coefficient Cl,optimum .
© L. Sankar Helicopter
135
Aerodynamics
Optimum rotor (continued..)
3
Cl 2
All radial stations will operate at an optimum a at which is maximum.
Cd
Once angle of attack a is selected, we find q from
 v  v CT
a  q - arctan   and 
 r  R 2
This determines how the blade must be twisted.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
136
Aerodynamics
Variation of Chord for the Optimum Rotor

dT  b    r  c  Cl  dr
1 2

2
dT = (Mass flow rate) * (twice the induced velocity at the annulus)
= 4pr(v)vdr

Compare these two. Note that Cl is a constant (the optimum value).

It follows that

bc  8v 2  1 Const
 r     2  
pR   RCl r r

Local solidity
© L. Sankar Helicopter
137
Aerodynamics
Planform of Optimum Rotor
Root
Cut out Chord is proportional to 1/r

Tip

r=R r

Such planforms and twist distributions are hard to manufacture, and are optimum
only at one thrust setting.

Manufacturers therefore use a combination of linear twist, and linear variation


in chord (constant taper ratio) to achieve optimum performance.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
138
Aerodynamics
Accounting for Tip Losses
• We have already accounted for two sources of
performance loss-non-uniform inflow, and blade
viscous drag.
• We can account for compressibility wave drag effects
and associated losses, during the table look-up of
drag coefficient.
• Two more sources of loss in performance are tip
losses, and swirl.
• An elegant theory is available for tip losses from
Prandtl.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
139
Aerodynamics
Prandtl’s Tip Loss Model
Prandtl suggests that we multiply the sectional inflow by
a function F, which goes to zero at the tip, and unity in the interior.

F
p
2
arcCos e   f

When there are infinite number of blades,


where, F approaches unity, there is no tip loss.

b 1  r 
f 
2 
© L. Sankar Helicopter
140
Aerodynamics
Incorporation of Tip Loss Model in BEM

All we need to do is multiply the lift due to inflow by F.

Thrust generated by the annulus:


dr

dT =
r = 4prF(V+v)vdr

© L. Sankar Helicopter
141
Aerodynamics
Resulting Inflow (Hover)

 a  a r  a 
2

    q  
 16 F  8F R  16 F 
a  32 F r 
  1 q  1
16 F  a R 

© L. Sankar Helicopter
142
Aerodynamics
Hover Performance
Prediction Methods
IV. Vortex Theory

© L. Sankar Helicopter
143
Aerodynamics
BACKGROUND
• Extension of Prandtl’s Lifting Line Theory
• Uses a combination of
– Kutta-Joukowski Theorem
– Biot-Savart Law
– Empirical Prescribed Wake or Free Wake Representation of Tip
Vortices and Inner Wake
• Robin Gray proposed the prescribed wake model in 1952.
• Landgrebe generalzied Gray’s model with extensive
experimental data.
• Vortex theory was the extensively used in the 1970s and
1980s for rotor performance calculations, and is slowly giving
way to CFD methods.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
144
Aerodynamics
Background (Continued)
• Vortex theory addresses some of the drawbacks of
combined blade element-momentum theory
methods, at high thrust settings (high CT/).
• At these settings, the inflow velocity is affected by
the contraction of the wake.
• Near the tip, there can be an upward directed inflow
(rather than downward directed) due to this
contraction, which increases the tip loading, and
alters the tip power consumption.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
145
Aerodynamics
Kutta-Joukowsky Theorem
G : Bound Circulation surrounding
T
the airfoil section.

This circulation is physically stored


r Fx As vorticity in the boundary Layer
V+v
over the airfoil

T   (r) G

Fx=  (V+v) G

© L. Sankar Helicopter
146
Aerodynamics
Representation of
Bound and Trailing Vorticies

Since vorticity can not abruptly increase in space, trailing


vortices develop. Some have clockwise rotation,
others have counterclockwise
© L. Sankar rotation.
Helicopter
147
Aerodynamics
Robin Gray’s Conceptual Model

Tip Vortex has a


Contraction that can
be fitted with
Inner wake descends at a near an exponential curve
constant velocity. It descends fit.
faster near the tip than at the root.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
148
Aerodynamics
Landgrebe’s Curve Fit for the
Tip Vortex Contraction

Rv
R
Rv   0.707 R
2
v 2v

© L. Sankar Helicopter
149
Aerodynamics
Radial Contraction

Radial position of the tip vortex :


R vortex
 A  (1  A)e  v
R
A  0.78
  0.145  27CT
 v  Vortex Age
 Azimuthal Position of the vortex
Filament measured from the blade

© L. Sankar Helicopter
150
Aerodynamics
Vertical Descent Rate

Zv

v

© L. Sankar Helicopter
151
Aerodynamics
Landgrebe’s Curve Fit for
Tip Vortex Descent Rate
zV 2p
 k1 V 0 V 
R b
zV 2p  2p  2p
 k1  k 2  V   V 
R b  b  b
 CT 
k1  0.25  0.001q twist,degrees 
 
k 2   CT  0.01 CT q twist,degrees

qtwist,degrees: Blade twist=Tip Pitch angle – Root Pitch Angle


This quantity is usually negative.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
152
Aerodynamics
Circulation Coupled Wake Model
• Landgrebe’s earlier curve fits (1972) were
based on the thrust coefficient, blade twist
(change in the pitch angle between tip and
root, usually negative).
• He subsequently found (1977) that better
curve fits are obtained if the tip vortex
trajectory is fitted on the basis of peak bound
circulation, rather than CT/.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
153
Aerodynamics
Tip Vortex Representation in
Computational Analyses

• The tip vortex is a continuous helical structure.


• This continuous structure is broken into piecewise
straight line segments, each representing 15 degrees
to 30 degrees of vortex age.
• The tip vortex strength is assumed to be the
maximum bound circulation. Some calculations
assume it to be 80% of the peak circulation.
• The vortex is assumed to have a small core of an
empirically prescribed radius, to keep induced
velocities finite.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
154
Aerodynamics
Tip Vortex Representation
Control Points on the Lifting Line where induced flow is calculated
Lifting Line

15
degrees

The x,y,z positions of the


End points of each segment
Are computed using
Landgrebe’s
Prescribed Wake Model

© L. Sankar Helicopter
155
Aerodynamics
Biot-Savart Law

Control Point 
r2

r1
Segment

© L. Sankar Helicopter
156
Aerodynamics
Biot-Savart Law (Continued)

 
r1  r2 1  r1  r2
 G   
 r1  r2  r1 2
r
 
Vinduced   2 2 2 2  
4p r1r2   r1  r2   rc r1  r2  2r1  r2
2

Core radius used to keep


Denominator from going to zero.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
157
Aerodynamics
Overview of Vortex Theory Based
Computations (Code supplied)
• Compute inflow using BEM first, using Biot-Savart law during
subsequent iterations.
• Compute radial distribution of Loads.
• Convert these loads into circulation strengths. Compute the
peak circulation strength. This is the strength of the tip vortex.
• Assume a prescribed vortex trajectory.
• Discard the induced velocities from BEM, use induced
velocities from Biot-Savart law.
• Repeat until everything converges. During each iteration,
adjust the blade pitch angle (trim it) if CT computed is too
small or too large, compared to the supplied value.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
158
Aerodynamics
Free Wake Models
• These models remove the need for empirical
prescription of the tip vortex structure.
• We march in time, starting with an initial guess for
the wake.
• The end points of the segments are allowed to freely
move in space, convected the self-induced velocity at
these end points.
• Their positions are updated at the end of each time
step.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
159
Aerodynamics
Free Wake Trajectories
(Calculations by Leishman)

© L. Sankar Helicopter
160
Aerodynamics
Vertical Descent of Rotors

© L. Sankar Helicopter
161
Aerodynamics
Background
• We now discuss vertical descent operations, with
and without power.
• Accurate prediction of performance is not done. (The
engine selection is done for hover or climb
considerations. Descent requires less power than
these more demanding conditions).
• Discussions are qualitative.
• We may use momentum theory to guide the analysis.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
162
Aerodynamics
Phase I: Power Needed in
Climb and Hover

Power

Descent Climb Velocity, V


P  T V  v 
V  V 
2
T 
T     
2  2  2 A 
 
© L. Sankar Helicopter
163
Aerodynamics
Non-Dimensional Form
It is convenient to non-dimensionalize these graphs, so that
universal behavior of a variety of rotors can be studied.

Climb or descent ve locity is


non - dimensiona lized by hover
T
inflow velocity v h 
2 A
Power T(V  v) is non - dimensiona lized
by Tv h

© L. Sankar Helicopter
164
Aerodynamics
Momentum Theory gives incorrect
Estimates of Power in Descent
(V+v)/vh
P  T V  v 
V  V
2
T 
T     0
2  2  2 A 
 

Descent Climb
V/vh
No matter how fast we descend, positive power is
still required if we use the above formula.
This is incorrect!
© L. Sankar Helicopter
165
Aerodynamics
The reason..
V is down
V is up

V+v is down
V+v is down

V is down
V+2v is down V is down
V is up V is up
V+2v is down

Climb or hover Descent: Everything inside


Physically acceptable Flow Slipstream is down
© L. Sankar Outside flow is up
Helicopter
166
Aerodynamics
In reality..
• The rotor in descent operates in a number of
stages, depending on how fast the vertical
descent is in comparison to hover induced
velocity.
– Vortex Ring State
– Turbulent Wake State
– Windmill Brake State

© L. Sankar Helicopter
167
Aerodynamics
Vortex Ring State
(V is up, V+v is down, V+2v is down)
The rotor pushes tip vortices down.

V+v is down Oncoming air at the bottom pushes


them up

Vortices get trapped in a


donut-shaped ring.

The ring periodically grows


and bursts.
V is up
V is up
Flow is highly unsteady.

© L. Sankar
Can only
Aerodynamics be empirically analyzed.
Helicopter
168
Performance in Vortex Ring State

Descent Power/TVh Climb

Vortex Ring State

Experimental data
Has scatter

V/vh

Cross-over
At V=-1.71vh
© L. Sankar Helicopter
169
Aerodynamics
Turbulent Wake State
(V is up, V+v is up, V+2v is down)

V+v is up
Rotor looks and behaves like a bluff
Body (or disk). The vortices look
Like wake behind the bluff body.

Again, the flow is unsteady,


Can not analyze using momentum
V+2v is theory
V is up
down
V is up
Need empirical data.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
170
Aerodynamics
Performance in Turbulent Wake State

Descent Power/TVh Climb

Vortex Ring State

Turbulent V/vh
Wake State Cross-over
At V=-1.71vh
Notice power is –ve
Engine need not supply power
© L. Sankar
Aerodynamics
Helicopter
171
Wind Mill Brake State
(V is up, V+v is up, V+2v is up)

V+v is up
Flow is well behaved.

No trapped vortices, no wake.

Momentum theory can be used.

V is up T = - 2Av(V+v)
V+2v
V is up
up Notice the minus sign. This is because
v (down) and V+v (up) have opposite signs.
© L. Sankar The product must be positive..
Helicopter
172
Aerodynamics
Power is Extracted in
Wind Mill Brake State
We can solve the equation :
T  -2Av(V  v)
to get
2
V V  T
v    
2  2  2 A
P  T (V  v)
Sign convention :
V  0 is climb, V  0 is descent
P  0 means power is consumed
P  0 means power is extracted.
In this case, power is extracted
from the freestream , as in a wind mill.
© L. Sankar Helicopter
173
Aerodynamics
Physical Mechanism for Wind Mill Power
Extraction

Lift

V+v

r
The airfoil experiences an induced thrust, rather than
induced drag!
This causes the rotor to rotate without any need for
supplying power or torque. This is called autorotation.
Pilots can take advantage
© L. Sankar
of this if Helicopter
power is lost.
174
Aerodynamics
Complete Performance Map
Descent Power/TVh Climb

Vortex Ring State

Turbulent Wake V/vh


State
Cross-over
At V=-1.71vh

Wind Mill Brake State


© L. Sankar Helicopter
175
Aerodynamics
Consider the cross-over Point
We can estimate the drag
coefficien t of the rotor as follows :
If the vehicle descents
T  ACD 1.7 v h 
1 2
at this speed, power is 2
neither supplied, T
Use v h 
nor extracted. 2 A
V  -1.7vh C D  1.4
The rotor has the same drag coefficien t
as a parachute with equivalent area A.
As good as a parachute! !!
© L. Sankar Helicopter
176
Aerodynamics
Hover Performance

Coning Angle Calculations

© L. Sankar Helicopter
177
Aerodynamics
Background
• Blades are usually hinged near the root, to alleviate
high bending moments at the root.
• This allows the blades t flap up and down.
• Aerodynamic forces cause the blades to flap up.
• Centrifugal forces causes the blades to flap down.
• In hover, an equilibrium position is achieved, where
the net moments at the hinge due to the opposing
forces (aerodynamic and centrifugal) cancel out and
go to zero.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
178
Aerodynamics
Schematic of Forces and Moments
dL

r
dCentrifugal
Force
0

We assume that the rotor is hinged at the root, for simplicity.


This assumption is adequate for most aerodynamic calculations.
Effects of hinge offset are discussed in many classical texts.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
179
Aerodynamics
Moment at the Hinge due to
Aerodynamic Forces
From blade element theory, the lift force dL =
1
2
 2 2

c r   v Cl dr  cr  Cl dr
1
2
2

Moment arm = r cos0 ~ r


Counterclockwise moment due to lift =
1
 
c r rC l dr
2

2
Integrating over all such strips,
Total counterclockwise moment =
r R

r 0 2 cr  rCl dr
1 2

© L. Sankar Helicopter
180
Aerodynamics
Moment due to Centrifugal Forces
The centrifugal force acting on this strip = r 
2
dm
  2 rdm
r
Where “dm” is the mass of this strip.
This force acts horizontally.
The moment arm = r sin0 ~ r 0
Clockwise moment due to centrifugal forces =  2 r 2  0 dm

Integrating over all such strips, total clockwise moment =


r R

     0
2 2 2
r 0 dm I
r 0

© L. Sankar Helicopter
181
Aerodynamics
At equilibrium..

r R
I  0   cr  rCl dr
2 1 2

r 0
2
rR
1
r 0 2 Cl dr acR 4
 3
cr r R 3
r r
0 
I

I r 0  R  a effectived R

Lock Number, g
© L. Sankar Helicopter
182
Aerodynamics
Lock Number, g
• The quantity g=acR4/I is called the Lock number.
• It is a measure of the balance between the aerodynamic
forces and inertial forces on the rotor.
• In general g has a value between 8 and 10 for articulated
rotors (i.e. rotors with flapping and lead-lag hinges).
• It has a value between 5 and 7 for hingeless rotors.
• We will later discuss optimum values of Lock number.

© L. Sankar Helicopter
183
Aerodynamics
Chapter 4
Rotating Blade Motion

Yanjie Li
Harbin Institute Of Technology
Shenzhen Graduate School
Outline
• Blade motions
• Types of rotors
• Equilibrium about the flapping hinge
• Equilibrium about the lead-lag hinge
• Equation of motion for a flapping blade
• Dynamics of blade flapping with a hinge offset
• Blade feathering and the swashplate
• Dynamics of a lagging blade with a hinge offset
• Coupled flap-lag motion and pitch-flap motion
• Other types of rotors
• Rotor trim
4.1 Rotating Blade Motion

3 blade motions

• flapping
– balance asymmetries in
forward flight
• lead-lag
– balance Coriolis forces
• feathering
– change pitch – change
collective thrust
– cyclic: pitch, roll control
4.2 Types of Rotors
4.3 Equilibrium about the Flapping Hinge
• balance of aerodynamic, centrifugal forces
– flapping (conning) angle
Centrifugal Force (CF)

Moment at the
rotational axis by CF
Aerodynamic moment about the flap hinge:

Equilibrium Coning angle for


equilibrium

For a parabolic lift, the center of lift is at ¾ radius

Ideal twist and uniform inflow produces linear lift


4.4 Equilibrium about the Lead-Lag Hinge
Centrifugal Force on the blade element component ⊥ blade axis

Aerodynamic forces = induced + profile drag =

Lag moment
From geometry:

 which shows that centrifugal force acts at R (1 + e)/2


4.5 Equation of Motion for Flapping Blade
 In hovering flight, coning angle is a constant
 In forward flight, coning angle varies in a periodic manner with azimuth

Centrifugal moment:

Inertial moment:
Aerodynamic
moment:

M>0,
clockwise,
reducing
Define mass moment of inertia about the flap hinge
For uniform inflow

UT  y

Define Lock number

Flapping equation for


e=0
A more general form:
where

Similar to a spring-mass-damper system


Undamped natural frequency
1
If no aerodynamic forces the flapping motion reduces to

 The rotor can take up arbitrary orientation

In forward flight, the blade flapping motion can be represented as infinite Fourier series

Fourier coefficient
Assume: uniform inflow, linearly twisted blades, can
M  be founded analytically

Substituting UT ,Uin
P Section 3.5

 In forward flight(   ),0 periodic coefficients; no analytical solution


The general flapping equation of motion cannot be solved analytically for 0

Two
options:

Assume the solution for the blade flapping motion to be given by the first harmonics only:

We have
Notice by setting

 There is an equivalence between pitching motion and flapping motion

If cyclic pitch motion is assumed to be

the flapping response

 flapping response lags the blade pitch (aerodynamic) inputs by 90°


4.7 Dynamics of Blade Flapping with a Hinge Offset

 Hinge at eR
 Forces
 inertia
 centrifugal
 aerodynamic
Moment balance

Mass moment of
inertia Non-dimensional flap frequency
Analogy with a spring-mass-damper system:
undamped natural frequency

 1/ rev

Flapping equation

In hover, the flapping response to cyclic pitch inputs is given

Phase lag will be less than 900


4.8 Blade Feathering and the Swashplate

Blade pitch

where

Blade-pitch motion comes from two sources:


 control input

 Elastic deformation (twist) of the blade and control system


Swashplate=Rotating plate + No-rotating plate
The movement of the swashplate result in changes in blade pitch
4.9 Review of Rotor Reference Axes
Several physical plane can be used to describe the equations of motion of the rotor blade.
Each has advantages over others for certain types of analysis.
 Hub Plane (HP)
 Perpendicular to the rotor shaft
 An observer can see both flapping and feathering
Complicated, but linked to a physical part of the aircraft; often used for blade dynamic
and flight dynamic analyses
 No Feathering Plane (NFP) :
 An observer cannot see the variation in cyclic pitch, i.e.
 still see a cyclic variation in blade flapping angle; used for performance analyses
Tip Path Plane (TPP)
 cannot see the variation in flapping, i.e.
 used for aerodynamic analyses
 Control Plane (CP)
 represents the commanded cyclic pitch plane; swashplate plane
Schematic of rotor reference axes and planes
4.10 Dynamics of a Lagging Blade with a Hinge Offset

Offset = eR

A wrong typo
Taking moments about the lag hinge:

Moment of inertia about the lag hinge Lag frequency with a hinge offset

Equation of motion about lead/lag hinge


 Centrifugal moment about the lag
hinge is much smaller than in flapping
Uncoupled natural frequency is
much smaller
4.11 Coupled Flap-Lag Motion
coupled equation of motion

where

moment about flap hinge:


coupled equation for motion

where

moment about lead/lag hinge


4.12 Coupled Pitch-Flap Motion
 Pitch-flap coupling using a hinge to reduce cyclic flapping
 Used to avoid a lead-lag hinge, save weight
 Achieved by placing the pitch link/pitch horn connection to lie off the flap hinge axis
 Flapping by , pitch angle is reduced by

Eq. 4.39

Where uniform inflow has been assumed. Flapping frequency is increased to

Coning angle becomes


4.13 Other Types of Rotors

Teetering rotor Flapping motion


4.13.2 Semi-Rigid or Hingeless Rotors

• Flap and lag hinges are replaced by flexures


• If feathering is also replaced: bearingless
• Equivalent spring stiffness at an equivalent hinge offset e

• is the pre-cone angle,

• nonrotating flapping frequency


 Natural flapping frequency

where we assumed . If , the frequency reduces to that for an articulated


rotor

Equivalent hinge offset and flap stiffness can be found by looking at the slope at a
point at 75% of the radius

 effective spring stiffness


4.14 Introduction to Rotor Trim

• Trim
– calculation of rotor control settings, rotor disk orientation(pitch, flap) &
overall helicopter orientation for the prescribed flight conditions
• Controls
– Collective pitch
• increases all pitch angles change thrust
– Lateral & Longitudinal cyclic pitch
• Lateral ( ) tilts rotor disk left & right
• Longitudinal ( ) tilts rotor disk forward & aft
– Yaw
• use tail rotor thrust

cross coupling is possible, flight control system can minimize cross-coupling effects
4.14.1 Equations for Free-Flight Trim
Moments can be written in terms of the contribution from different parts

where hub plane (HP) is used as reference and flight path angle is
Assume: No sideslip (fuselage side force ) ;no contribution from horizontal and
vertical tails
vertical force equilibrium

longitudinal force equilibrium


Lateral force equilibrium

Pitching moment about the hub

Rolling moment about the hub


Assume small angles

Torque
Thrust = average blade lift number of blades

Complexity of the expression of , this should be evaluated numerically

Assume ; ;

 rotor torque, side force, drag force & moments can be computed similarly

rotor drag force


rotor side force

the rotor torque is given by

rotor rolling and pitching moments


additional equations for  ' s

The vehicle equilibrium equations, along with the inflow equations, can be written as

Where X is the vector of rotor trim unknowns, defined as

 Nonlinear equations ------solved numerically

Section 4.14.2 introduce a typical trim solution procedure


Tables 5.1 from White
Induced Flow Production
Non-dimensional forms..
v 1 T CT
Induced inflow  i   
R R 2 A 2
Ideal Power in Hover
FM 
Actual Power in Hover
CT
CT
Tv 2
 
P CP
© L. Sankar Helicopter
222
Aerodynamics
Off Set Hinges
Induced Flow
Angle of Attack
AIRFLOW DURING A HOVER
The rotor creates a
pressure difference !p
which accelerates flow
through it. The velocity
far upstream is 0, at
the rotor vi and far
downstream v".

•! By accelerating downwards a column of


air through the rotor.