This research was partially funded by the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate under Agreement No.

W911W6-08-2-0004. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon.

Active Rotor Controls for Vibration Reduction

and Performance Enhancement

Kumar Ravichandran* Shreyas Ananthan† Inderjit Chopra‡ Benjamin Hein

Graduate Research Asst. Asst. Research Scientist Alfred Gessow Professor Senior Engineer

Alfred Gessow Rotorcraft Center Sikorsky Aircraft

Department of Aerospace Engineering Stratford, CT
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

ABSTRACT

The comprehensive analysis UMARC was used to quantify the capabilities of trailing-edge flaps
(TEFs) for helicopter vibration reduction and performance improvement. The rotor performance in
hover was improved significantly with a combination of torsionally softer blades and positive TEF
deflections. The TEF was shown to be capable of suppressing vibratory loads at a range of forward
speeds, using half peak-to-peak deflections of about 5◦ . Softening the blades in torsion resulted in
larger flap actuation requirements for vibration reduction. A combination of 2, 3, 4 and 5/rev TEF
inputs resulted in a power reduction of 1.9%, while also reducing vibratory loads by more than 70%
in high speed forward flight. A combination of 1, 3, 4 and 5/rev inputs resulted in a power reduction
of 7.5%, while also reducing the vibratory hub loads by 80% and the severity of the dynamic stall in
high thrust forward flight.

Nomenclature HP P Half Peak-to-Peak

J vibration objective function
CW vehicle weight coefficient = W/ρπR2 (ΩR)2 L/D lift-to-drag ratio
CT rotor thrust coefficient = T /ρπR2 (ΩR)2 M blade section Mach number
CT ors high harmonic root torsion moment coefficient Mx Nb /rev hub roll moment
= HPP moment/m0 Ω(ΩR)2 mx blade root torsion moment
Cm blade section pitching moment coefficient My Nb /rev hub pitch moment
Cn blade section normal force coefficient my blade root flapwse bending moment
c blade chord, (ft) m0 blade reference mass/length
F M rotor hover figure of merit Nb number of rotor blades
Fx Nb /rev hub longitudinal shear R rotor radius, (ft)
Fy Nb /rev hub lateral shear T rotor thrust
Fz Nb /rev hub vertical shear Wz weighting matrix for hub loads
fz blade root vertical shear Wθ weighting matrix for flap control inputs
GJ torsional stiffness z vector of hub loads
The views and conclusions contained in this document are αs longitudinal shaft tilt (positive nose down), (deg)
those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing δ flap deflection (positive down), (deg)
the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Aviation δ0 HPP flap deflection amplitude, (deg)
Applied Technology Directorate or the U.S. Government.
µ advance ratio = V∞ /(ΩR)
*email:<rkumar@umd.edu> σ rotor solidity = Nb c/(πR)
† email:<shreyas@umd.edu>
φ phase angle of TEF input, (deg)
‡ email:<chopra@umd.edu>
φs lateral shaft tilt (positive advancing side up), (deg)
Presented at the AHS Specialists’ Conference on Aeromechan-
c
ics, Jan 20-22, 2010, San Francisco, CA. Copyright 2010 by ψ azimuth angle, (deg)
the American Helicopter Society International, Inc. All rights Ω rotor rotational speed
reserved.

1
 INTRODUCTION
Many studies on active rotor controls have been con-
ducted in recent years to assess their contributions to
reduction of vibratory loads and performance enhance-
ment (reduced power and improved stall characteristics).
Concepts such as fixed and active slats, variable droop
leading-edge airfoils, circulation control and trailing-edge
flaps have been considered for aerodynamic flow con-
trol. Of these, trailing-edge flaps (TEFs) and leading-
edge slats have received the most attention due to their
success on fixed-wing aircraft and the relative simplicity
of their implementation. It is important to be able to
gauge the capabilities of active control concepts in light
of the costs and complexities of actuation, fabrication
and required testing.
Integrated TEFs have been shown to be capable of vi-
bration suppression (Refs. 1-4), stall alleviation (Ref. 5)
and reduction of power consumption through higher har-
monic inputs (Ref. 6). Most of these studies have focused
on using flaps to achieve a single objective, namely, either
vibration control or stall alleviation or power reduction.
The objective of this paper is to use a comprehensive
analysis to assess and quantify the capabilities of TEFs
for combined vibration reduction and performance im-
provement, and determine TEF actuations that maxi-
mize the benefits in vibration as well as performance.
Helicopters are prone to high vibration levels, which
affect the life of structural components adversely. The
primary source of vibration in the helicopter is the main
rotor, and can be attributed to the highly unsteady flow
field and complex wake structure surrounding the rotor,
the aeroelastically coupled blade motions, rotor-fuselage
interactions, and time-varying control inputs. For a rotor
with Nb identical blades, the main rotor hub acts as a
filter for the blade loads, and only transmits harmonic
loads at multiples of Nb /rev to the fuselage. Typically,
the Nb /rev components of the vibratory hub loads are
the most dominant.
Passive vibration reduction methods such as pendu-
lum absorbers or frequency attenuators (Ref. 7) gener-
ally have poor off-design performance as well as a sig-
nificant weight penalty (Ref. 8). Active vibration con-
trol in the fixed frame enhances vibration reduction at
reduced weight. However, these systems cannot address
the source of the vibration and require valuable drive sys-
tem space around the gearbox. On the other hand, active
control methods that use multicyclic pitch excitation can
be far more effective because they eliminate vibration
at its source. These systems actuate the rotor blades
at higher harmonics to generate unsteady forces which
counteract existing vibratory air loads. These techniques
include higher harmonic swashplate control (HHC), indi-
vidual blade control (IBC), active twist and actively con-
2
trolled trailing-edge flaps. The former two methods re-
quire complex mechanisms for actuation, with associated
weight penalties and considerable actuation forces. The
advent of compact and lightweight smart material actu-
ators makes vibration control with TEFs an attractive
alternative, especially as the flaps are capable of other
functions than mere vibration reduction.
Dynamic stall is a critical phenomenon occurring in
high-thrust foward flight conditions. The rotor blade sec-
tions operate at low dynamic pressures and high angles of
attack on the retreating side of the disk. The unsteady
flow conditions and proximity to the airfoil stall limit
leads to a phenomenon called dynamic stall, character-
ized by the production of a leading edge vortex which
convects over the upper surface of the airfoil. There is
a large increase in the nose-down pitching moment as
the vortex convects over the airfoil and lift stall once it
convects beyond the trailing edge. The large pitching
moment oscillations lead to severe vibratory hub loads
and performance penalties. One approach to combating
dynamic stall is to design airfoil sections with improved
dynamic characteristics. However, the benefits of supe-
rior airfoils are limited to a narrow range of operating
conditions. Another approach involves active control us-
ing TEFs or LE Slats, with suitably prescribed inputs to
target the retreating blade.
It is possible to improve rotor performance using 1
and 2/rev TEF inputs, especially at high speeds, where
the disk loading is highly non-uniform, making small re-
distributions of the loads beneficial to power consump-
tion. Ref. 9 contains a study using 2/rev inputs on the
UH-60A rotor specifically for performance improvement.
Performance and vibration are, however, often conflict-
ing objectives, as will be established in subsequent dis-
cussions.
In order to exploit the benefits of trailing-edge flaps
and minimize the drag penalties, they need to be ac-
tively controlled to address phenomena occurring at mul-
tiples of rotor frequency - 1/rev for dynamic stall, 1
and 2/rev for rotor performance and Nb /rev for hub vi-
bratory loads. Different objectives such as vibration or
power reduction, and dynamic stall alleviation have dif-
ferent actuation requirements. Fixed-frame vibration is
targeted by exciting the flaps at the frequencies of the
unsteady airloads, so as to generate forces to counteract
them. Power reduction is achieved by the redistribution
of the disk loading to make it more uniform and modify
blade angle of attack to reduce compressibility drag, and
thereby minimize associated drag penalties. Stall allevi-
ation is carried out by reducing the operating angles of
attack in the regions of stall. Hence, it is inevitable that
a compromise must be arrived at between the various
benefits of using TEFs.
The presentation of the results is organized so as to sys-
tematically build on the objectives of this study, namely,
the effects of active control with TEFs on performance Table 1: Basic rotor and flap data
in terms of power consumption, vibration, and dynamic Properties Value
stall. First, hover performance is considered. Next, the UH-60A rotor data
standard high speed, high vibration, moderate thrust Rotor type Articulated
flight condition C8534 from the UH-60A airloads pro- Number of blades Nb 4
gram (Ref. 14) is fully explored separately for vibration Radius R 26.83 ft.
reduction and power reduction, and finally for simultane- Chord c 1.73 ft.(nominal)
ous power and vibration reduction with TEFs. Finally, Rotor speed Ω 258 RPM
the standard high altitude, high thrust flight condition Solidity σ 0.0832
C9017 is explored for power reduction, stall alleviation Lock number 6.33
and vibration reduction with TEFs. The paper concludes C9017: 4.02
with a summary of key observations from the study. Trailing-edge flap data
Length 10%R
METHODOLOGY Chord 15%c
Midspan location 65%R
Analytical Model Hinge location Flap leading-edge
Flight conditions (Ref. 14)
The University of Maryland Advanced Rotor Code C8534 µ=0.368, CW /σ=0.0783
(UMARC) (Ref. 10) was modified to accommodate the C9017 µ=0.237, CW /σ=0.1325
effects of trailing-edge flaps (Ref. 11) and leading-edge
slats. The blades are modeled as second order, nonlin-
ear, isotropic, Euler-Bernoulli beams capable of under- marily on the blade first torsional mode: the first torsion
going coupled flap, lag, torsion, and axial motion. Each frequency reduces from 4.3/rev for the baseline blade to
blade was discretized into 20 spanwise beam elements, 3.3/rev for the 50% stiff blade. This will be shown later
each with 15 degrees of freedom. The equations of mo- to influence the vibratory loads.
tion are solved using modal reduction and finite element
in time with 12 equal time elements. The flap is modeled TEF blade section characteristics
as a single, additional degree of freedom. The motion of
C-81 look-up tables for the TEF airfoil sections were
the flap is prescribed in the analysis.
generated using 2D-TURNS. The aerodynamic charac-
The lifting-line aerodynamic model incorporates either
teristics of the TEF section, at a representative Mach
thin airfoil theory for the main blade and flapped sec-
number (with the TEF midspan blade section at 65%R)
tions or C-81 table look-up for section lift, drag, and
of 0.5, are shown in Fig. 2 for the baseline SC1094R8
moment coefficients, a Weissinger-L near wake model, a
airfoil, and TEF deflections of −5◦ and 5◦ . A downward
refined Bagai-Leishman pseudo-implicit free wake model
(positive) TEF deflection increases the lift, increases drag
(Ref. 12), and Leishman-Beddoes unsteady models for at-
at positive angles of attack and decreases drag at nega-
tached flow/dynamic stall. The coupled blade response
tive angles of attack, and increases nose-down pitching
and vehicle trim equations are solved simultaneously to
moments. Overall, a positive TEF deflection improves
obtain the blade deflections and trim control settings.
section L/D at small angles of attack.
The rotor properties, flap geometry and standard flight
conditions used in this study are listed in Table 1.
Multicyclic Controller
Blade torsional stiffness and TEF effectiveness For the vibration reduction studies, a multicyclic con-
The TEF used in this study is a ‘moment flap’. It op- trol algorithm was used to determine optimal TEF actua-
erates by modifying the section pitching moments and in- tion schedules. The algorithm is based on a linear, quasi-
ducing a blade elastic twist in response to the moments. static representation of the rotor hub vibration response
A parameter that directly affects the blade twist, and to TEF inputs (see Chopra and McCloud, Ref. 13). A
therefore effectiveness of the TEF, is the torsional stiff- scalar vibration objective function J was defined to min-
ness (GJ) of the blade. As part of this study, the tor- imize the target hub loads and, optionally, the TEF de-
sional stiffness of the blade was reduced by up to 50% to flections
investigate any performance benefits from torsional soft-
ening of the blade. The rotor fan plots for the baseline J = z n T Wz z n + θ n T Wθ θ n (1)
blade and a soft blade (50% of baseline blade GJ) are Here zn is a vector containing the cosine and sine com-
shown in Fig. 1. The effect of torsional stiffness is pri- ponents of the non-dimensional Nb /rev fixed system hub

3
 6/rev
6/rev

30 8/rev 7/rev 6/rev

30 8/rev 7/rev 6/rev
F F F 5/rev
5 5/rev 5 4
F
4
25
25
F3 F
4/rev 3 4/rev
20

Natural frequency, Hz
20
Natural frequency, Hz

T
1

3/rev 3/rev
T
15 1
15
F F
2 2
2/rev 2/rev
10 10

F F
1 1 1/rev
5
1/rev 5

L L
1 1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Normalized Rotor Speed Normalized Rotor Speed

(a) Baseline (100% GJ) blade (b) 50% GJ blade

Figure 1: UH-60A rotor blade frequencies in vacuo; F:Flap, L:Lead-Lag, T:Torsion

1.5 0.2
C : M = 0.5 C : M = 0.5
l d Baseline
°
δ = −5
1
°
0.15 δ=5

0.5
0.1
0

Baseline 0.05
−0.5 °
δ = −5
°
δ=5
−1 0
−10 −5 0 5 10 −10 −5 0 5 10
α α
(a) (b)

80 0.1
C /C : M = 0.5 C : M = 0.5
l d m

60
0.05
40

20 0

0
Baseline −0.05
Baseline
−20 °
δ = −5 δ = −5°
δ = 5° δ=5
°
−40 −0.1
−10 −5 0 5 10 −10 −5 0 5 10
α α
(c) (d)
Figure 2: 2D CFD-generated airfoil characteristics (SC1094R8) with −5◦ and 5◦ TEF deflections at M = 0.5

4
loads Fx , Fy , Fz , Mx and My , and θ n is a vector con- 0.9
taining the harmonics of the flap control inputs at a time −5°
step n. The shear and moment hub loads are respec- Baseline
tively non-dimensionalized by the quantities m0 (ΩR)2 0.8
5°
°
and m0 (ΩR)2 R. For the reduction of Nb /rev hub loads, 10
the flap actuations consist of (Nb − 1, Nb , Nb + 1)/rev

Figure of Merit
components. The matrices Wz and Wθ contain penalty
0.7
weights for the vibration harmonics and control inputs
respectively. Choosing the weights suitably enables tar-
geting specific loads and using specific input flap har-
0.6
monics.
The system vibration response zn is linearized about
the current control state using the sensitivity matrix T
0.5
calculated once at the uncontrolled operating condition
using a forward difference method.
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
C /σ
T
zn = zn−1 + T (θ n−1 − θ n ) (2)
Minimizing J by solving ∂J/∂θ n = 0 yields the algo-
rithm for updating the control input vector θ n Figure 3: Effect of TEF (10%R, 15%c, midspan location
at 65%R) deflection on baseline UH-60A rotor figure of
∆θ n = Czn−1 − Cθ θ n−1 (3) merit; hover
In Eq. 3,
with different steady flap deflections (−5◦ , 0◦ , 5◦ , 10◦ ).
The results with TEFs and/or hypothetical blade tor-
C = −DT T Wz
sional stiffnesses indicate the predicted trends only.
Cθ = DWθ (4) UMARC FM changes should be considered qualitative
T −1
D = (T Wz T + Wθ ) only, as the flowfield model does not fully capture vortex
interaction effects.
In the present study, the diagonal weighting matrix Wz
Figure 3 compares the rotor figure of merit for the
was assumed to have the form
baseline blade with different steady flap deflections. A
positive (downward) flap deflection improves the rotor
2
 
ǫ/Fx0 performance, especially at higher thrust levels. The
2

 ǫ/Fy0 
 percent changes in power and the induced and profile
2
Wz = (1−β) 
 1/Fz0 
 power components from the no-flap condition are given
2
 1/Mx0  in Fig. 4. A negative value indicates a reduction in the
2
1/My0 component of power from the corresponding value for the
(5) baseline blade at the same thrust level.
in order to target the hub Fz , Mx and My alone. The first The effect of positive (downward) TEF deflections is
three elements are weights for both components of the 3 to increase the nose-down elastic twist of the blade from
hub shears and the final two elements are weights for root to tip, thus making the peak of the spanwise loading
both components of the hub moments. Wθ was assumed move inboard and hence reducing induced power. The
to be of the form power reduction with flap deflections is therefore largely
attributable to the induced power. Since the flap an-
Wθ = βI (6) alyzed (Table 1) operates by inducing blade twist, the
In the present study, β = 0 was used, so the controller effectiveness of the TEF with variation in the blade tor-
attempts to minimize the hub loads without constraining sional stiffness was also investigated. The rotor figure of
the amplitude of the flap motion. merit for the baseline and 75% torsional stiffness blades
is compared in Fig. 5a and the combined effect of re-
duced stiffness and steady flap deflections is illustrated
RESULTS
in Fig. 5b, which shows the figure of merit for the rotor
with a 75% stiff blade and with 10◦ TEF deflection.
Hover performance
As an illustration of the benefits of both TEF deflec-
The impact of TEFs on hover performance was exam- tions and softer blades, the spanwise elastic twist and
ined by estimating the UH-60A rotor figure of merit(FM) loading of the blade are shown in Fig. 6, for the base-

5
 15 15

10 10

5 5

(%)
(%)

(%)
noTEF
0 0
noTEF

notef
∆ CP /CP
P

P
∆ C /C

∆ C /C
0
−5 −5
i

P
P

°
−5
−10 Baseline −10
°
5
−15 −15
°
10
−20 −20
0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
CT/σ CT/σ CT/σ

(a) Induced power (b) Profile power (c) Total power

Figure 4: Percent change in induced, profile and total power for UH-60A rotor in comparison to baseline for different
TEF deflections; hover

0.9 0.9

75%GJ,
0.8 75%GJ 0.8 δ=10°

Figure of Merit
Figure of Merit

100%GJ
0.7 100%GJ 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

C /σ CT/σ
T

(a) Effect of GJ with no TEF (b) Effect of a 25% reduction in GJ and 10◦ TEF deflection

Figure 5: Effect of blade stiffness and TEF deflection on UH-60A rotor figure of merit; hover

−2 0.3

100%GJ
75%GJ,
75%GJ δ=10°
0.2
Cn M2

−4
φ

100%GJ,
δ=10°
0.1
75%GJ, 100%GJ
−6
δ=10°

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r r
(a) Elastic twist (b) Normal force Cn M 2

Figure 6: Effect of a 25% reduction in blade GJ and 10◦ TEF deflection on the spanwise variation of UH-60A rotor
blade elastic twist and section normal force; hover, CT /σ=0.12

6
line (100% GJ) blade, 75% GJ blade and the 100% and loads were the 4/rev hub vertical shear, rolling moment
75% GJ blades with TEF deflection of 10◦ . Hence, there and pitching moment (Fz , Mx and My ). The analysis
is a net increase in the blade elastic twist response as a used shaft-fixed trim (αs = 7.31◦ , φs = 3.0◦ ) with target
result of either reduced stiffness or a positive TEF deflec- thrust (CT /σ = 0.084), hub roll and pitch moments.
tion, and the spanwise loading gets redistributed inboard
compared to the baseline blade. The integrated induced
losses are thus reduced. Contours of vibratory loads: The TEF input har-
monics used for 4/rev vibration control are 3–5/rev, since
these are the frequencies of the rotating frame loads that
High speed flight condition (C8534):
contribute to the hub loads. Initially, open loop vibration
µ=0.368, CW /σ=0.0783 characteristics of the blade with TEFs were examined in
This is a high speed, moderate thrust condition, char- order to gain insight into the sensitivity of vibration to
acterized by high vibration levels. First, vibration reduc- various TEF input harmonics, amplitudes and phases.
tion at C8534 using TEFs is addressed. Then, the effects Any one harmonic has different effects on the different
of 1 and 2/rev TEF inputs on power are discussed, and vibratory loads. This is illustrated in Fig. 7, which maps
inputs for power reduction are presented. Finally, the the % changes in each of the 5 hub loads from the base-
possibility of combining benefits in vibration and power line values, as a function of 4/rev sine and cosine TEF
with multiple actuation frequencies is explored. deflections. Deflections with sine and cosine components
upto ±2.5◦ are shown. Each point corresponds to a par-
ticular 4/rev cosine and sine deflection, or equivalently, a
Vibration reduction
particular amplitude and phase of actuation. Each con-
Results obtained for vibration reduction investigated tour line corresponds to a specific value of the % change
for C8534 using TEFs are presented here. The target hub in the vibratory load from its baseline value, as a result

5 100 100
−7
−25

−50

0 200
2 2 20 2
0
4/rev sine TEF input (deg)

0 20
−7

10
100
0

20
1 1 0 1 10

0
−50 −25
−2
5 −25 0
50

−50
0 0 0
−25

−5

100
200

0
0

0
100

0
−1 −1 −50 −1
0

10
0
50
−25
−2 −2 −2 100
50 0 200
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1100 0 1 2 −2 −1 0 1 2
4/rev cosine TEF input (deg) 4/rev cosine TEF input (deg) 4/rev cosine TEF input (deg)
(a) Fx (b) Fy (c) Fz
0

5
−25
10

−25
−50

2 2 −7
4/rev sine TEF input (deg)

4/rev sine TEF input (deg)

0

−50 −50
−2
50

1 1 5
−25

−75 0 −25 0

0 −5 0 0
0
0

50
−1 −25 −1 50
50

50
−2 0 100
−2
10
0

−2 −1 0 50 1 2 −2 −1100 0 1 2
4/rev cosine TEF input (deg) 4/rev cosine TEF input (deg)
(d) Mx (e) My

Figure 7: UH-60A 4/rev hub loads with 4/rev TEF inputs; high speed forward flight (C8534: µ=0.368,
CW /σ=0.0783). Values shown are % changes in vibratory amplitude relative to the baseline (no flaps). The high-
lighted region corresponds to reduction of the respective vibratory load.

7
 100
40
2 00 200 0 2 50

0
0
4

15
80 20
4/rev sine TEF input (deg)

4/rev sine TEF input (deg)

0

50
600
1 1

200
0

100
0 0 0

−25

5
−2

−2
0 0
400

5
0

150
0
−1 −1 0

50
600

20
0

10
0
−2 40 200 −2 50
0
80

15
0
0 100

0
−2 −1 0 1 2 −2 −1 1 2
4/rev cosine TEF input (deg) 4/rev cosine TEF input (deg)
(a) Vibration objective function J (b) Vibration Intrusion Index

Figure 8: Vibration objective function J and Vibration Intrusion Index with 4/rev TEF inputs; UH-60A rotor in
high speed forward flight (C8534). Values shown are % changes relative to the baseline (no flaps). The highlighted
regions correspond to reduction of the respective vibratory index.

of 4/rev TEF deflections. the algorithm to minimize a single load (Fz - case 1, Mx
It is clear that the specific actuations that cause the - case 2, or My - case 3) and the fourth case targeted
largest reductions in Fz , Mx and My , are quite different, all three loads, corresponding to the objective function
and could even lead to an increase in the non-targeted J defined earlier, simultaneously. Figure 9 shows the
loads. Contours of 2 consolidated vibration indices are changes obtained in the five hub loads Fx , Fy , Fz , Mx
also plotted in Fig. 8 as a % change from the baseline and My in each of these four cases. The horizontal lines
value, due to 4/rev TEF deflections. The indices are represent the levels of the baseline vibratory hub loads.
The four targets of reduction, namely Fz , Mx , My and
(i) Index J vibration objective function J, are along the x-axis, and
J = z T Wz z the values of the five vibratory hub loads with the optimal
where z is a vector containing the cosine and sine actuation in each case constitute the five bars.
components of the non-dimensional Nb /rev fixed This figure shows that a reduction in a particular hub
system hub loads Fx , Fy , Fz , Mx and My , and the load may be accompanied with an increase in the other
weighting matrix Wz is defined in Eqn. 5. hub loads. For instance, targeting only My (case 3) re-
sulted in near-100% reduction of My , but there were sig-
(ii) A load-based Vibration Intrusion Index, defined only nificant increases in the levels of Fy , Fz and Mx . It also
using the 4/rev non-dimensional vibratory shears as indicates that some loads are more sensitive to small TEF
deflections than others. The results that follow target the
p
(0.5 Fx )2 + (0.75 Fy )2 + Fz2 , assigning weights to
the 3 shears as per the ADS-27A standard (Ref. 16) vibration index J (hub loads Fz , Mx and My ) for reduc-
tion.
This procedure was used to estimate the actuations
at individual harmonics for reduction of different target Vibration reduction at various speeds: The TEF
loads, and the multicyclic feedback controller method- is capable of vibration suppression at different flight
ology was validated by comparing its predictions with speeds, requiring higher deflections in the high vibra-
those obtained from the parametric studies. All subse- tion regimes. The highest vibrations occur at transi-
quent results for vibration reduction were obtained by tion speeds and at high speeds, as shown in the over-
applying the multicyclic control algorithm. all
q vibratory levels indicated by the hub in-plane shear
( Fx 2 + Fy 2 ), vertical shear Fz and in-plane moment
Multicyclic Controller - different targets: It was q
possible to eliminate close to 100% of each of the target ( Mx 2 + My 2 ), as shown in Fig. 10a, for a constant
loads using a combination of 3–5/rev flap inputs. As an weight coefficient CW /σ=0.0783 (termed Flight 85).
illustration of the working of the multicyclic algorithm, Flight C8534 corresponds to the highest speed in this
four cases were considered. The first three cases used case. High-speed vibration is due to unsteady pitching

8
moments, which cause large elastic twist deformations. Mx and My at different forward speeds. The fractions of
Low speed vibration, on the other hand, is caused by the actuations corresponding to the individual frequen-
blade-vortex interactions. Figure 10b shows the flap ac- cies (3, 4 and 5/rev) are indicated as well.
tuation amplitudes required to suppress combined Fz ,

2500
Fx (lb)

Fy (lb) 2202

Fz (lb)
2000
Mx (lb−ft)
My
My 1617
(Baseline)
1500 (lb−ft)
Mx

1126 1135

1000

721 Fx
700
645
567
500 403 432 Fy
310
239 208
Fz
1 5 1 5 2 13 10
0
Case 1 − Fz 2 − Mx 3 − My 4−J

Target for reduction

Figure 9: UH-60A rotor baseline (no flap) and reduced 4/rev vibratory loads for different targets for reduction using
the multicyclic control algorithm; high speed forward flight (C8534). Fx : longitudinal shear, Fy : lateral shear, Fz :
vertical shear, Mx : rolling moment, My : pitching moment, J: target Fz , Mx and My . The horizontal lines indicate
the baseline vibratory hub loads (uncontrolled).

2500 6
3/rev
4/rev
5 5/rev
2000

4
HPP amplitude (deg)
4/rev hub loads

1500 In−plane moment (lb−ft)

1000

In−plane shear (lb) 2

500
1

Vertical shear (lb)

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Advance ratio µ Advance ratio µ

(a) Baseline 4/rev hub loads (b) HPP optimal TEF deflections for vibration reduction

Figure 10: UH-60A rotor baseline (no flap) vibratory loads and optimal TEF actuation amplitudes for various speeds;
moderate thrust forward flight (Flight 85), CW /σ=0.0783
9
 Baseline
1500
With flaps

F (lb)
750

z
0

M (lb−ft)
2000

1000
x

0
M (lb−ft)

2000

1000
y

1500
F (lb)

750
x

1500
F (lb)

750
y

0
100 75 60 50
Torsional Stiffness (%)

Figure 11: UH-60A rotor baseline (no flap) and reduced vibratory loads for different blade torsional stiffnesses (GJ);
high speed forward flight (C8534). Fx : longitudinal shear, Fy : lateral shear, Fz : vertical shear, Mx : rolling moment,
My : pitching moment. The loads targeted for reduction were Fz , Mx and My .

Effect of torsional stiffness on vibration reduc- 0.01

tion: In order to determine if a torsionally softer blade

fz

requires smaller flap deflections for vibration suppression

at C8534, the torsional stiffness of the blade was reduced 0
by up to 50% and the optimal actuation requirements in 100%
−5
each hypothetical case were estimated. 5
x 10 75%
50%
Figure 11 shows the baseline loads and reductions ob-
mx

tained with the optimal flap actuations, for blades of dif-

ferent torsional stiffnesses. The baseline vibrations (un- 0
controlled) increase steadily with a reduction in blade
stiffness. This can be explained by examining the ro- −4
x 10
4
tating and fixed frame loads, and the natural response
characteristics of the blade, as stiffness is reduced. Fig-
my

ure 12 shows the 3, 4 and 5/rev components of the blade

root vertical shear fz and torsion and flapwise bending 0
3/rev 4/rev 5/rev 3:5/rev
moments mx and my . The 3/rev component is clearly Frequency

the most dominant one, and increases as the torsional

stiffness is reduced. Indeeed, the blade response, par-
ticularly the elastic twist, contains a large 3/rev com-
ponent which increases for the softer blades. The rotor
fan plots (see Fig. 1) illustrate that the blade 1st torsion
frequency approaches 3/rev as the torsion stiffness is re-
duced. Consequently, the 3/rev components of the blade
response and section loads increase rapidly, resulting in
larger 4/rev hub loads (Fig. 11).
Figure 12: Components of UH-60A rotor baseline (no
flap) HPP blade root loads for different blade torsional
stiffnesses (GJ); high speed forward flight (C8534). fz :
vertical shear, mx : torsion bending moment, my : flap-
wise bending moment
Note also that although the target loads were only Fz ,
Mx and My , there were reductions in the shears Fx and
Fy as well. These shears are comparatively less sensitive

10
to the flap inputs. and combined HPP (Half Peak-to-Peak) flap deflections
10
obtained from the optimization procedure, for blades of
100% different torsional stiffnesses. These are the optimal ac-
75% tuations used to obtain the vibration reduction shown in
8
60% Fig. 11. The 3/rev deflection component is the largest,
50% due to the frequency distribution of the blade loads.
HPP amplitude (deg)

6 Effect of not using 5/rev TEF inputs for vibration

4
2
0
3/rev 4/rev
Harmonic
Figure 13: Flap deflection amplitudes for UH-60A vi-
bration reduction for different blade torsional stiffnesses
(GJ); high speed forward flight (C8534). HPP: half peak-
to-peak amplitude of optimal actuation
Hence, any improvement in the effectiveness of the
flap at altering the twist response with torsionally softer
blades were offset by the increase in the baseline vibra-
tory loads themselves, resulting in larger flap deflection
requirements for vibration control. Milgram and Chopra
(Ref. 15) also reported a decrease in vibration reduction
effectiveness with a reduction in blade torsional stiffness.
Figure 13 compares the TEF amplitudes of the 3–5/rev
reduction: The 5/rev component of the actuation is
small compared to 3 and 4/rev for the baseline (100%
GJ) blade. It is desirable to avoid high frequency actua-
tions from a practical standpoint. Therefore, the poten-
tial vibration reduction with only 3 and 4/rev deflections
was determined using the multicyclic control methodol-
ogy. Figure 14 shows the baseline and reduced vibratory
loads and optimal control actuations for vibration control
5/rev HPP with 3–5/rev and only 3 and 4/rev inputs. The target
loads were Fz , Mx and My . From Fig. 12a, the reduc-
tions in the target loads were still appreciable (99% in
Fz , 85% in Mx and 91% in My ), although the hub mo-
ments were reduced to a slightly smaller extent. This is
expected, since the 3 and 5/rev components of the root
bending moments contribute to the 4/rev vibratory hub
moments, and the 5/rev TEF input is necessary to target
the 5/rev blade loads. Nevertheless, this demonstrates
that it is possible to achieve large reductions in vibration
without the high frequency 5/rev TEF inputs.
Power reduction with 1, 2/rev TEF inputs
TEFs deployed at 1 or 2/rev are capable of redistribut-
ing the aerodynamic loads across the rotor disk by al-

lb lb−ft
1000 2000 6
Baseline With 3,4,5/rev TEF
With 3,4,5/rev TEF
With 3,4/rev TEF
With 3,4/rev TEF

750 1500

4
HPP amplitude (deg)

500 1000

250 500

0 0 0
Fx Fy Fz Mx My 3/rev 4/rev 5/rev HPP
4/rev hub shears 4/rev hub moments Harmonic

(a) Baseline (no flap) and reduced 4/rev hub loads (b) Optimal TEF deflections for vibration reduction

Figure 14: Comparison of UH-60A vibration reduction obtained with 3–5/rev TEF deflections and only 3 and 4/rev
deflections; high speed forward flight (C8534)

11
 8 10

6
5
% power change from baseline

% L/D change from baseline

4
power increase °
δ =5
°
0 δ =1
0 0

2 °
δ =3° δ =3
0
0
°
δ0=1 −5 δ =5
°
0
0

power reduction −10

−2

−4 −15
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ

(a) Power (b) Rotor L/D

Figure 15: Effect of phasing of 1/rev TEF (10%R, 15%c, midspan location at 65%R) inputs δ = δ0 cos(ψ + φ) on
UH-60A rotor power and L/D; high speed forward flight (C8534)

tering the section angles of attack suitably, so that net T

performance gains can be realized. As an illustration, L/D =
P/V∞ − Dv
the flight condition C8534 was investigated for possible
power reductions using 1 and 2/rev TEF deflections. Ac- Dv being the vehicle drag. Figure 14a shows that the
tuation schedules of the form δ = δ0 cos(nψ+φ), n = 1, 2, power reductions with 1/rev inputs were very small, of
for amplitudes of 1◦ , 3◦ and 5◦ and various phases φ were the order of 0.5%. The performance benefits of using
prescribed to the flap. 2/rev inputs with this flap geometry are greater than
Figures 15 and 16 show the % change in power and with 1/rev inputs, as seen in Fig. 16a. The best per-
rotor L/D for the flapped rotor operating at C8534, from formance gains, of about 2.73% reduction in power, are
the baseline case (no flaps), wth 1 and 2/rev inputs re- seen with an amplitude of 5◦ and phase of about 15◦ .
spectively. Rotor L/D is defined as the ratio of rotor This actuation corresponds, roughly, to a positive deflec-
thrust to rotor drag tion of 5◦ on the front and rear parts of the disk, and
negative (upward) deflection of 5◦ on the advancing and
retreating side.

8 10

°
δ =5
0
6
5
% power change from baseline

% L/D change from baseline

°
δ0=3
4
power increase 0
δ =1°
0
2 °
δ =1
0
−5 °
δ0=3
0

−10 °
−2 δ =5
power 0

reduction

−4 −15
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ

(a) Power (b) Rotor L/D

Figure 16: Effect of phasing of 2/rev TEF (10%R, 15%c, midspan location at 65%R) inputs δ = δ0 cos(2ψ + φ) on
UH-60A rotor power and L/D; high speed forward flight (C8534)

12
 90 90 90
120 60 0.05 120 60 120 60 0.03
0.005

150 0.5 30 150 0.5 30 150 0.5 30

0.02
0
0
0.01
180 0 180 0 180 0
−0.05
−0.005 0
210 330 210 330 210 330
−0.1 −0.01
240 300 240 300 −0.01 240 300
270 270 270
(a) Lift (b) Drag (c) Pitching moment (positive nose up)

Figure 17: Change in UH-60A rotor disk loading from baseline, due to 2/rev TEF input δ = 5◦ cos(2ψ + 15◦ ); high
speed forward flight (C8534); Blue-decrease, Red-increase

Figure 17 shows the rotor disk loading with the flap
actuated at δ = 5◦ cos(2ψ + 15◦ ), in terms of the change
in the section aerodynamic loads from the baseline C8534
condition. The baseline condition has the advancing
blade operating at negative angles of attack. The TEF
causes nose-up pitching moments and twist on the ad-
vancing blade, increasing the angles of attack in the sec-
tions producing negative lift. Thus the advancing side
produces more lift without an associated drag penalty.
The other parts of the disk are offloaded slightly and
their drag contribution is reduced.
Note that the 1/rev inputs with power benefits do not
have a significant adverse effect on the vibratory loads
(4/rev hub in-plane and vertical shears, and in-plane mo-
ment), as seen in Fig. 18. The baseline vibration levels
are indicated by the horizontal lines. However, the 2/rev
deflections that result in performance gains affect the vi-
bration levels adversely, as seen in Fig. 19. Of the target
loads, Fz in particular increases by a large fraction of the
baseline value.
Therefore, 2/rev TEF deployment has power benefits
at the C8534 condition. However, it also has a negative
effect on the vibration levels. A performance improve-
ment that worsens vibration is less desirable, hence one
of the goals of this study is to ascertain if the TEF is ca-
pable of yielding a net performance improvement while
also reducing vibration. This shall be discussed in the
following section.
The mechanism for power reduction with 2/rev TEF
inputs at high forward speeds is to affect the loading on
the advancing disk producing negative lift. However, at
lower speeds, there is little or no negative loading, so
the mechanism of any power reductions effected by the
TEF is expected to be different. Figure 20 shows the
% change in power from the respective baselines, for the
rotor operating at a weight coefficient CW /σ of 0.0783
(termed Flight 85), and advance ratios of 0.1, 0.2 and
0.3. At lower forward speeds, the optimum phasing of
the TEF input moves towards increasing the loading on
the front and rear parts of the disk i.e. towards a phase

lb−ft
lb lb 4000

1500 1500
δ0=5° δ0=3°
Baseline
3000
δ0=3° δ0=5°
δ0=1°
1000 1000
2000

δ0=1°
δ0=1°
500 Baseline 500 Baseline δ0=3°
1000
δ0=5°

0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) 4/rev hub in-plane shear (b) 4/rev hub vertical shear (c) 4/rev hub in-plane moment

Figure 18: Effect of phasing of 1/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 cos(ψ + φ) on UH-60A vibratory loads; high speed forward
flight (C8534)

13
 lb−ft
lb lb 4000
° δ0=5°
δ0=5
1500 1500 δ0=3°
δ0=3°
3000 Baseline
δ0=1°
δ0=1°
Baseline

1000 1000
2000

Baseline δ0=5°
500 500
δ0=3° 1000
δ =1°
0

0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) 4/rev hub in-plane shear (b) 4/rev hub vertical shear (c) 4/rev hub in-plane moment

Figure 19: Effect of phasing of 2/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 cos(2ψ + φ) on UH-60A vibratory loads; high speed forward
flight (C8534)
6 6 6

δ0=5°
% power change from baseline

% power change from baseline

% power change from baseline

°
4 δ0=5° 4 δ0=5 4

δ =3° δ =3° δ0=3°

0 power increase 0
2 2 2
°
° δ =1
δ0=1 0 δ0=1°
0 0 0

−2 −2 power −2
reduction

0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360

φ φ φ
(a) µ = 0.1 (b) µ = 0.2 (c) µ = 0.3

Figure 20: Effect of phasing of 2/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 cos(2ψ + φ) on UH-60A rotor power (% change from
baseline); moderate thrust forward flight (Flight 85), CW /σ=0.0783

of φ = 180◦ . puts only was 1.9% at a phase of 15◦ . Superimposing

2/rev inputs on the optimal vibration actuation yielded
a maximum power reduction of 2.1% at a phase of 345◦ .
Simultaneous power and vibration reduction However, Fig. 22 shows that the resultant hub loads, the
It was observed that it is possible to reduce vibratory vibratory shear loads and inplane moments were dras-
loads with suitable 3–5/rev TEF deflections, while 2/rev tically changed due to the 2/rev inputs. The controller
deflections of the type δ = δ0 cos(2ψ) yield power re- predicted a revised actuation for vibration control at this
ductions. However, a reduction of power consumption is stage, with a final power reduction of 1.1%.
accompanied by an increase in vibration, while the flap Figure 23a shows the actuations required for vibration
actuations for vibration reduction increase the power re- and power reduction, with a 2/rev input amplitude of
quirements. Hence, revised actuations are necessary for 5◦ , at the optimum phase of 345◦ . The actuation re-
reducing the vibration that comes with the power bene- quirements for vibration reduction increase from 5.2◦ to
fits of 2/rev inputs. This is illustrated in Figs. 21–22, as 9.4◦ HPP upon use of 2/rev inputs. The net actuation
a function of the phase φ of the 2/rev input. Figure 21 HPP amplitude is 12.5◦ , yielding a 1.9% reduction in
shows the changes in power effected by (i) only 2/rev in- power from baseline C8534, in conjunction with signif-
puts of amplitude 3◦ , (ii) superimposition of 2/rev inputs icant reductions in all three 4/rev hub shears and the
on the baseline optimal actuation for vibration reduc- hub 4/rev roll and pitch moments (51% in Fx , 95% in
tion only and (iii) combination of 2/rev inputs and the Fy , 70% in Fz , 94% in Mx and 95% in My ). The ampli-
revised optimal actuation for vibration reduction. The tudes of each of the input harmonics: 2, 3, 4 and 5/rev,
power penalty of actuations for vibration reduction is are shown in Fig. 23b. HPP consists of two cases (i)
about 1.2%. The best power reduction using 2/rev in- vibration reduction only and (ii) vibration and power re-

14
 6
Vibration optimization
only
Only 2/rev
% change in power from baseline 4

Vibration optimization
2 including 2/rev

power increase
0

power reduction
−2

0 90 180 270 360

φ

Figure 21: Separate and combined effects of 2/rev TEF input δ = 3◦ cos(2ψ + φ) on UH-60A rotor power, for three
cases: (i) only 2/rev, (ii) only vibration optimization and (iii) vibration optimization including 2/rev; high speed
forward flight (C8534)
lb lb lb−ft
4000

1500 1500 Only 2/rev

3000

1000 1000 Baseline

2000

500 500 Vibration optimization only

1000

Vibration optimization including 2/rev

0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) In-plane shear (b) Vertical shear (c) In-plane moment

Figure 22: Separate and combined effects of 2/rev TEF input δ = 3◦ cos(2ψ +φ) on UH-60A vibratory hub shears and
moments, for three cases: (i) only 2/rev, (ii) only vibration optimization and (iii) vibration optimization including
2/rev; high speed forward flight (C8534)

duction. Note that the blade stall characteristics in the
presence of TEFs have not been validated in this study.
This demonstrates that the same flap is capable of vi-
bration control as well as performance improvement.
High thrust flight condition (C9017):
µ=0.237, CW /σ=0.1325
This is a high altitude, high thrust flight condition used
to study dynamic stall events. First, vibration reduction
at C9017 using TEFs is addressed. Then, the effect of 1

15
 15

Total
10 14

12

5 2/rev
TEF actuation (deg)

HPP TEF actuation (deg)

10

8
Vibration : components
0
6 Power

4
−5

Vibration optimization including 2/rev 2

−10 Vibration optimization only

0
2/rev 3/rev 4/rev 5/rev HPP HPP
vibration only vibration & power

(b) TEF amplitudes

−15
0 90 180 270 360
ψ

(a) TEF actuations

Figure 23: TEF actuation combining inputs for UH-60A power and vibration reduction; high speed forward flight
(C8534). The individual components for vibration reduction and power reduction are also shown.

and 2/rev TEF inputs on power is discussed, and inputs The target hub loads were, as before, the 4/rev hub
for dynamic stall alleviation are presented. Finally, the vertical shear, rolling moment and pitching moment (Fz ,
possibility of combining benefits in vibration, power and Mx and My ). Figure 24 shows the baseline and reduced
stall is explored. vibratory load levels. The optimal HPP TEF amplitude
was 3◦ .
Vibration reduction
Power reduction with 1, 2/rev harmonic TEF in-
lb lb−ft
puts
250 800
Baseline
With flaps C9017 was investigated for possible power reductions
using 1 and 2/rev TEF deflections. Actuation schedules
200
600 of the form δ = δ0 cos(nψ + φ), n = 1, 2, for varying
amplitudes and phases φ were prescribed to the flap de-
150 fined in Table 1. Figure 25 shows the percent change in
power for the flapped rotor operating at C9017, from the
400
baseline case (no flaps), with 1 and 2/rev inputs, respec-
100 tively. It is clear that the performance gains with flap
amplitudes upto 5◦ are less than half (maximum gains of
200 the order of 1% reduction in power) compared to the high
50
speed C8534 condition. This is because there are no sec-
tions of the disk producing negative lift, hence the power
0 0 reductions (with 2/rev TEF inputs) occur due to offload-
Fx Fy Fz Mx My
4/rev hub shears 4/rev hub moments ing of the advancing and retreating blades and there is
not a significant improvement in the section L/Ds on the
Figure 24: UH-60A rotor baseline (no flap) and re- advancing side, as was identified for high-speed flight.
duced vibratory loads; high thrust forward flight (C9017: The 1/rev inputs with power benefits do not have a
µ=0.237, CW /σ=0.1325). Fx : longitudinal shear, Fy : significant adverse effect on the vibratory loads (4/rev
lateral shear, Fz : vertical shear, Mx : rolling moment, hub in-plane and vertical shears, and in-plane moment),
My : pitching moment. The loads targeted for reduction as seen in Fig. 26. The baseline vibration levels are indi-
were Fz , Mx and My . cated by the horizontal lines. However, the 2/rev deflec-

16
 1.5 1.5
δ =5°
0

°
1 1 δ =5
0
% power change from baseline

% power change from baseline

°
δ =3 power increase
0 °
0.5 0.5 δ0=3
° °
δ =1 δ0=1
0

0 0

−0.5 −0.5
power reduction

−1 −1

−1.5 −1.5
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ

(a) 1/rev TEF inputs (n = 1): δ = δ0 cos(ψ + φ) (b) 2/rev TEF inputs: δ = δ0 cos(2ψ + φ)

Figure 25: Effect of phasing of 1 and 2/rev TEF inputs on UH-60A rotor power; high thrust forward flight (C9017)

lb lb lb−ft
2000

600 600

1500
Baseline δ =1° Baseline
0
x,y:4/rev

400 400
z:4/rev

δ0=1°
1000
Baseline
δ0=5 ° δ0=5°
δ0=3° δ0=3° δ0=3°
200 200
500
δ0=5°

δ0=1°
0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) 4/rev hub in-plane shear (b) 4/rev hub vertical shear (c) 4/rev hub in-plane moment

Figure 26: Effect of phasing of 1/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 cos(ψ + φ) on UH-60A vibratory loads; high thrust forward
flight (C9017)

lb lb lb−ft
2000
δ0=5° δ0=5°
600 600
δ0=3° 1500 δ0=3°
Baseline
Baseline δ0=1°
°
δ0=1
x,y:4/rev

400 400
z:4/rev

1000
δ0=3° Baseline
δ0=1°
δ0=5°
200 200
500

0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) 4/rev hub in-plane shear (b) 4/rev hub vertical shear (c) 4/rev hub in-plane moment

Figure 27: Effect of phasing of 2/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 cos(2ψ + φ) on UH-60A vibratory loads; high thrust forward
flight (C9017)

17
tions that result in performance gains affect the vibration
levels adversely, as seen in Fig. 27.
Stall alleviation with TEFs - ‘down-only’ 1/rev
TEF inputs
TEFs excited at a suitable phasing and amplitude
can reduce the magnitude of dynamic stall events oc-
curring in high thrust forward flight. Thus, it is possible
to push the rotor operational envelope to higher oper-
ational thrust levels using trailing-edge flaps. To this
end, 1/rev flap inputs (hereafter referred to as “down-
only” 1/rev inputs) were prescribed to the TEF, chosen
so that the flap deflection is maximum on the retreat-
ing side, ensuring reductions in section angles of attack
due to the increased nose-down pitching moment, and
as small as possible on the advancing side, for minimum
drag penalties. The general form of the actuation was
δ = δ0 + δ0 cos(ψ − φ). Note that an actuation of this
type attains its maximum positive (downward) TEF de-
flection at an azimuth equal to φ. It was found that with
such a deployment, it is possible to reduce the stall loads
and achieve power reductions simultaneously. Figure 28
shows the normal force and pitching moment at select
radial sections for the baseline C9017 case and with ac-
tuations of 3◦ +3◦ cos(ψ −270◦ ) and 5◦ +5◦ cos(ψ −270◦ ).
The pitching moment stall events outboard of 80%R
are reduced with the down-only TEF deployment (see
Fig. 28b).
The metric used to quantify the stall level, CT ors , is
defined as the HPP higher harmonic (≥4/rev) blade root
torsional moment (mx ), since dynamic stall is character-
ized by a sudden increase in airfoil nose-down pitching
moment, affecting the blade torsional loads. Figure 29
shows the reduction in the rotor power and stall loads,
with down-only 1/rev TEF inputs of amplitudes 1◦ , 3◦
and 5◦ , from the baseline C9017 value. The inputs are
shown in terms of the azimuth φ at which the maximum
downward flap deflection is attained. In general, the in-
puts phased to attain their peak downward deflections
on the retreating side yield the best reductins in the stall
metric, while power reductions of the order of 7-8% were
achievable with a HPP amplitude of 5◦ . For example, a
down-only TEF input of amplitude 5◦ and attaining a
maximum at 270◦ azimuth, reduces the stall metric by
about 45%, power by about 7.6% and allows the rotor to
operate at a 5% higher thrust, which would normally not
be achievable due to stall-related losses.
Fig. 30 shows the vibratory hub loads with down-only
1/rev TEF inputs of amplitudes 1◦ , 3◦ and 5◦ . These
inputs do not affect vibration adversely, even causing re-
ductions in the vibratory loads.
Simultaneous power, vibration and stall reduc-
tion
The objective here is to determine a combination of 3–
5/rev deflections for vibration reduction, and 1/rev de-
flections for stall alleviation and/or power reduction. The
systematic breakdown of the procedure is illustrated in
Figs. 31–32, as a function of the phase φ of the 1/rev
input. Figure 31a shows the changes in power effected

r=0.67R r=0.77R r=0.86R r=0.67R r=0.77R r=0.86R

0.2
−0.02

0.1
−0.04

0
r=0.92R r=0.96R r=0.99R r=0.92R r=0.96R r=0.99R

0.2

−0.02

0.1

−0.04

0
0 180 0 180 360 180 360 0 180 0 180 360 180 360
ψ ψ

(a) Section normal force (b) Section pitching moment

Figure 28: Effect of down-only TEF deployment on UH-60A rotor stall loads; high thrust forward flight (C9017);
Baseline C9017, δ = 3◦ + 3◦ cos(ψ − 270◦ ), δ = 5◦ + 5◦ cos(ψ − 270◦ )

18
 0 0
power reduction °
δ0=1

δ =1° −10
% power change from baseline

% CTors change from baseline

0
−2

−20
δ =3°
−4 0

°
δ0=3 −30

−6 δ =5°
0
−40
δ =5°
0

−8 −50
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ

(a) Power (b) CT ors /σ

Figure 29: Effect of phasing of down-only 1/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 + δ0 cos(ψ − φ) on UH-60A rotor power and
stall metric CT ors ; high thrust forward flight (C9017). φ is thus the azimuth for maximum positive (downward) TEF
deflection.

lb lb lb−ft
2000

600 600

1500
Baseline
Baseline
δ0=1°
x,y:4/rev

400 400
z:4/rev

° 1000
δ0=3
δ0=3°
δ0=1° Baseline

δ0=3° δ0=5° δ0=5°

200 200
500
δ0=5°
δ0=1°

0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) 4/rev hub in-plane shear (b) 4/rev hub vertical shear (c) 4/rev hub in-plane moment

Figure 30: Effect of phasing of down-only 1/rev TEF inputs δ = δ0 + δ0 cos(ψ − φ) on UH-60A vibratory loads; high
thrust forward flight (C9017). φ is thus the azimuth for maximum positive (downward) TEF deflection.

by (i) down-only 1/rev inputs of amplitude 5◦ , (ii) su- change significantly upon applying 1/rev inputs in con-
perimposition of down-only 1/rev inputs on the baseline junction with 3–5/rev inputs.
optimal actuation for vibration reduction and (iii) combi- The best reductions using down-only 1/rev inputs (of
nation of down-only 1/rev inputs and the revised optimal amplitude 5◦ ) only were 7.6% in power and 45% in
actuation for vibration reduction. Figure 31b shows the CT ors /σ at a phase of 270◦ , which corresponds to max-
trends for CT ors /σ for the above 3 cases. Contrary to imum downward TEF deflection at an azimuth of 270◦ .
the high-speed condition, the actuation for vibration re- Superimposing 1/rev inputs on the optimal actuation for
duction does not impose a significant penalty on either vibration yielded reductions of 6.9% in power and 40% in
power or the stall metric. Consequently, combining the CT ors /σ at the same phase. Since the resultant hub loads
actuations for vibration and the down-only 1/rev deflec- with the 1/rev combined with the baseline optimum vi-
tions still yields an appreciable reduction in power. bration actuation were not affected greatly, the revised
Also, Fig. 32 shows that the down-only 1/rev deflec- actuation predicted by the controller for vibration con-
tions do not affect vibration adversely. Therefore, the trol was similar to the baseline optimal actuation. The
deflection requirements for vibration reduction do not final reduction were 7.5% in power and 42% in CT ors /σ.

19
 0 0

power reduction

−10

% change in CTors/σ from baseline

% change in power from baseline

−2
Vibration optimization
including 1/rev
Vibration optimization only
−20

−4

Only 1/rev −30

Only 1/rev
−6
Vibration optimization only −40

Vibration optimization
including 1/rev
−8 −50
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ

(a) Rotor power (b) CT ors /σ

Figure 31: Separate and combined effects of down-only 1/rev TEF input δ = 5◦ + 5◦ cos(ψ − φ)on UH-60A rotor
power and stall metric CT ors /σ, for three cases: (i) only 1/rev, (ii) only vibration optimization and (iii) vibration
optimization including 1/rev; high thrust forward flight (C9017)

lb lb lb−ft
2000

600 600

1500

400 400
Baseline
1000

200 200 Only 1/rev

500 Vibration optimization only

Vibration optimization
including 1/rev
0 0 0
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
φ φ φ

(a) In-plane shear (b) Vertical shear (c) In-plane moment

Figure 32: Separate and combined effects of down-only 1/rev TEF input δ = 5◦ + 5◦ cos(ψ − φ) on UH-60A vibratory
hub shear and moments, for three cases: (i) only 1/rev, (ii) only vibration optimization and (iii) vibration optimization
including 1/rev; high thrust forward flight (C9017)

Figure 33a shows the actuations required for vibration control as well as performance improvement, combining
and power reduction, with a down-only 1/rev input am- stall mitigation and power reduction at high thrust con-
plitude of 5◦ , at the optimum phase of 270◦ . The HPP ditions.
actuation requirement for vibration reduction is 3.0◦ for
the baseline case and 2.5◦ with the 1/rev input. The
net actuation HPP amplitude is 6.6◦ , yielding a 7.5% SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
reduction in power and 42% in CT ors /σ from baseline
C9017, in conjunction with reductions in all three 4/rev A 10%R, 15%c trailing-edge flap with its midspan lo-
hub shears and the hub 4/rev roll and pitch moments cated at 65%R was evaluated for performance improve-
(31% in Fx , 82% in Fy , 83% in Fz , 87% in Mx and 83% ment in hover, reduction of 4/rev hub vibratory loads and
in My ). The amplitudes of each of the input harmonics: power at the high speed forward flight condition C8534
1, 3, 4 and 5/rev, are shown in Fig. 33b. and reduction of dynamic stall loads, 4/rev hub vibra-
This demonstrates that the TEF is capable of vibration tory loads and power at the high thrust forward flight
condition C9017. The TEF was shown to be capable

20
 12
10 Total
8 Power
TEF actuation (deg)
6
4 4
2
−2
Vibration optimization including 1/rev
Vibration optimization only
−4
0 90 180
ψ
(a) TEF actuations
Figure 33: TEF actuation combining inputs for UH-60A power, vibration and stall reduction; high thrust forward
flight (C9017). The individual components for vibration reduction and power/stall reduction are also shown.
of multiple functions, namely, vibration reduction, stall
alleviation and power reduction, using HPP actuation
amplitudes of 5-10◦ .
(1) The rotor performance in hover was improved with
a combination of torsionally softer blades and posi-
tive flap deflections, which contribute to a favorable
elastic twist response and reduced induced losses.
(2) The flap was shown to be capable of suppressing the
target hub loads at a range of forward speeds, using
half peak-to-peak deflections of about 5◦ . Softening
the blades in torsion in order to improve the effec-
tiveness of the TEF was found to increase the vibra-
tory loads at high speed (C8534), resulting in larger
flap actuation requirements for vibration reduction.
It was found that significant vibration reduction was
possible even without 5/rev inputs.
(3) 2/rev TEF inputs were shown to alter the disk
loading to reduce power consumption at high speed
(C8534) without significantly altering the trim con-
trol settings. A 2.73% power reduction was obtained
with a TEF actuation δ = 5◦ cos(2ψ + 15◦ ), which
reduces the negative loading on the advancing blade.
(4) Targeting both vibration and power reduction was
made possible by a combination of 2, 3, 4 and 5/rev
TEF inputs, resulting in a reduction of power of
1.9% and vibratory loads of more than 70% at high
speed (C8534). The deflection requirements were
1/rev
8
6
HPP TEF actuation (deg)
Vibration : components
2
0
1/rev 3/rev 4/rev 5/rev 3:5/rev HPP
vibration only vibration & power
(b) TEF amplitudes
270 360
higher than for separate reductions in power or vi-
bration.
(5) The same flap, actuated in a 1/rev fashion with a
constant downward deflection, was shown to be ef-
fective at altering the section angles of attack so as to
reduce the severity of retreating blade stall at high
thrust (C9017) and in the process reduced power
consumption. The optimal phasing was the one that
resulted in a maximum downward deflection on the
retreating blade and zero deflection on the advanc-
ing blade. A combination of 1, 3, 4 and 5/rev inputs
resulted in a power reduction of 7.5%, while also
reducing the vibratory hub loads by 80% and the
severity of the dynamic stall. The 1/rev deflections
did not affect vibration adversely.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially funded by the Aviation
Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) under Agree-
ment No. W911W6-08-2-0004, entitled the Active Rotor
Program. The authors gratefully acknowledge the many
useful discussions with Peter F. Lorber (Sikorsky Air-
craft) and Brian E. Wake (UTRC). The authors also ac-
knowledge Jaye Falls (Graduate Student, Department of
Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland) and Dr.
Anubhav Datta (Rotorcraft Dynamicist, Eloret Corp.,
NASA Ames Research Center) for sharing their exper-
21
tise with UMARC. Control,” Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Forum of the
American Helicopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, May
2007.
References 12
Bagai, A., and Leishman, J.G., “Rotor Free-Wake
1
Millott, T. A. and Friedmann, P. P., “Vibration Re- Modeling using a Relaxation Technique - Including Com-
duction in Helicopter Rotors Using an Actively Con- parisons with Experimental Data,” Journal of the Amer-
trolled Partial Span Trailing Edge Flap Located on the ican Helicopter Society, Vol. 40, (2), April 1995.
Blade”, NASA Technical Report CR 4611, NASA, June 13
1994. Chopra, I., and McCloud III, J.L., “A Numerical Sim-
ulation Study of Open-Loop, Closed-Loop and Adaptive
2
Milgram, J. and Chopra, I., “A Parametric Design Multicyclic Control Systems,” Journal of the American
Study for Actively Controlled Trailing Edge Flaps,” Helicopter Society, Vol. 28, (1), January 1983, pp. 63-77.
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 43, (2), 14
April 1998, pp. 110-119. Bousman, W. G., and Kufeld, R. M., “UH-60A Air-
loads Catalog,” NASA TM 2005-212827, August 2005.
3
Straub, F., Arbabd, V., Birchette, T. and Lau, B., 15
“Wind Tunnel Test of the SMART Active Flap Rotor,” Milgram, J. and Chopra, I., “Helicopter Vibration Re-
Proceedings of the 65th Annual Forum of the American duction with Trailing Edge Flaps,” Proceedings of the
Helicopter Society, Grapevine, Texas, 2009. 36th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Struc-
tural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, April 10-12,
4 1995, New Orleans, LA.
Roget, B. and Chopra, I., “Wind-Tunnel Testing of
Rotor with Individually Controlled Trailing-Edge Flaps 16
for Vibration Reduction,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45, “Aeronautical Design Standard - Requirements for
(3), pp. 868-879, May-June 2008. Rotorcraft Vibration Specifications Modeling and Test-
ing”, ADS-27A-SP, United States Army Aviation and
5
Davis, G., Feszty, D., and Nitzsche, F., “Trailing Edge Missile Command, May 2006.
Flow Control for the Mitigation of Dynamic Stall Ef-
fects,” Proceedings of the 31st European Rotorcraft Fo-
rum, Florence, Italy, September 12-16 2005.
6
Jain, R., Szema, K., Munipalli, R., Yeo, H. and
Chopra, I., “CFD-CSD Analysis of Active Control of He-
licopter Rotor for Performance Improvement,” Proceed-
ings of the 65th Annual Forum of the American Heli-
copter Society, Grapevine, Texas, May 2009.
7
Loewy, R. G., “Helicopter Vibrations: a Technological
Perspective,” Journal of the American Helicopter Soci-
ety, Vol. 29, Oct 1984, pp. 4-30.
8
Wilson, M. and Jolly, M., “Ground Test of a Hub
Mounted Active Vibration Suppressor,” Proceedings of
the 63rd Annual Forum of the American Helicopter So-
ciety, Virginia Beach, VA, May 2007.
9
Theodore, C. R., Cheng, R. P. and Celi, R., “Effects of
Higher Harmonic Control on Rotor Performance,” Pro-
ceedings of the 56th Annual Forum of the American He-
licopter Society, Virginia Beach, VA, May 2000.
10
Chopra, I. and Bir, G., “University of Maryland Ad-
vanced Code: UMARC,” American Helicopter Society
Aeromechanics Specialists Conference, San Franscisco,
CA, January 1994.
11
Falls, J., Datta, A., and Chopra, I., “Design and Anal-
ysis of Trailing-Edge Flaps and Servotabs for Primary

22