Dynamic Response analysis code, ADAMS, to analyze one of these new
of a Variable-Speed Rotor
During Rapid Sbaft Tilt
Andrew S. EBiott
Senior Development Engineer
Mechanical Dynamics, Inc.
2301 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Abstract
The dynamic responses of five-bladed, articulated
rotor undergoing translational accelerations, rapid
changes in rotor speed snd large pylon tilts sre
examined snalyticsfiy using sn extended general-
purpcee mechanical system simulation code. AB
nonlinear geometric snd hinemstic coupling efiects
are retained in the analysis. Aerodynamic forces
on the rigid rotor blsdee sre generated using two-
dimeneionsl, quasi-eteady strip theory snd enhanced
table loohup. An autopilot-lite automatic controfier
is used to obtain commanded thrust snd hub mo-
ments, and to maintain desired mtor speeds. The
necessary controfier equations sre appended directly
to the structural equations and integrated simulta-
neously. The combined effects of forward velocity
snd acceleration, rotor epeed snd deceleration, tilt
and tilting rate on the oversB system response have
been computed over a range of Sight conditions for s
lightly loaded rotor. Selected results are presented,
demonstrating the advantages snd problems of this
computational approach to rotor system analysis.
Introduction
Many of the advanced, high-speed VTOL and
STOVL concepts under consideration for future ad-
vanced miTitsry snd civiTisn needs include various
combinations of stopped rotors, tilting rotors, tilt-
ing wings, jets snd propefiers. A deeiga goal for
some of t, here concepts is s giy% speed increase over
current V-22 capabilities while maintaining compa-
rable payload fractions. These new configurations
present very difficult analytical challenges in both
structural dynamics snd aerodynamics. This pa-
per presents the results of a successful attempt to
uee sn extended general-purpose multibody systems
Presented at ihe 4T'" Anneal Forum of the American
Behcepier Soaety, Phoenix, Ariiosa, May, last.
designs undergoing conversion from rotor-borne to
wing-borne Sight.
Typically, helicopter rotor dynamics analysis
codes sre based on equations of motion which in-
corporate many implicit assumptions, mast notably
constant rotor speed, emsfi to moderate hub snd
blade dieplscements, restricted binge sequencing snd
periodic response. Many of the advanced concept
rotors violate some or sB of these sesumptione, ee-
pecisfiy during conversion Born their VTOL Sight
mode to the high speed Sight mode. Because of this,
s new analytical tool for rotor dynamics, based on
the general-purpose, large displacement, multibody
systems analysis (MSA) code ADAMS, wae devel-
oped se s joint project between the McDonnell Dou-
glas Helicopter Co. snd Mechanical Dynamics, Inc.
Verification of this code'e sbihty to handle mtor-
Bhe problems hse been presented by EBiott and
McConvine[1]. Due to its basis in ADAMS, this new
code requires no dynamic or hinemstic assumptions
and is restricted, st least in structural terms, mainly
by the limits of computational fiosting-point mathe-
matics. Derivation of appmpriste sirloade for these
unusual configurations is s separate issue which re-
mains s subject for extensive future research.
The particular rotor design considered in this
study is derived firom s configuration called the Trail
Rotor Convertiplane (TRC) which hss been under
review st McDonnell Douglas. Similar to the tiltro-
tor, the TRC is s conventional airplane configuratio
with tilting, pylon-mounted rotors st the wing tips.
However, the TRC concept includes separate for-
ward propulsion units eo that, at conversion speed,
with the wings supporting the aircraft weight, the
pylone csn tilt efl while the rotors spin dowa and
finsfiy fold to s streamlined position for high-speed
forward Sight. Full conversion could occur in se little
ss fifteen seconds, during which time rotor response
snd loads sre criticaL
An almost overwhelmingly large amount of out-
put data is generated when the ADAMS model is
run through s convennon scenario, especisfiy when
compared to more typical rotor analyses where re-
sponeee sre given in terms of s few lower harmonics
of the rotor speed. In fact, analysis of these data
seems more similar to that of Sight test data, but
where every parameter the analyst could desire hss
been instrumented snd sampled at a very high rate
(the integration output step cise). This type of anrd-
ysis might best be thought of as a "numerical experi-
1029

Figure Ii ADAMS Model of Tilting Rotor
ment. " In order to concentrate on the most interest-
ing (to the author) transient efl'sets discovered, only
s very smaB portion of the total available data will
be presented snd discussed. Additional analyses of
these data sre invited.
Structural Modelling
Rn4or - The 5-bladed rotor structural model used
in this study is very similar to the 1-bladed model
presented by EBiott snd McConvifie[1]. It consists of
a 30-foot diameter, fully articulated rotor, mounted
at the end of s 9.5 foot long pylon which can tilt
fmm s vertical to fufly sft horisontsl position (see
figure I). The general physical parameters of this ro-
tor were chosen for sn approximately 30,000 pound
maximum hover Bft capacity.
The mtor blade assemblies consist of three rigid
parts, connected to each other snd to the hub us-
iag revolute joints to give the unusual flap-torsion-
lsg hinge sequence, designed to permit blade fold-
ing about the fisp hinge (see figure '2). Construc-
tion of this model within the ADAMS framework
is quite easy, since the pmgrsm will automaticsfly
take care of the nonlinear geometric and kinematic
effects. The analyst uses the real, physical pmp-
erties of the blades snd places the hinges st their
actual design locations. Adding blade ilexibiTity to
this model is not diflicult, but computer run times
become extremely long.
Each 16-foot long blade assembly weighs 164
pounds. The blade chord is 1.542 feet. Flap, tor-
sion snd lag hinge offsets sre 1.25, 2.375 snd 3.5 feet
1030
Qo
Aero Control Points
~
Figure 2i Rotor Blade Assembly
respectively. The blades have a '23.33% root cutout,
and sre serodynsmicsfly twisted st — 204. Nominal
hover tip speed is 760 ft/sec.
The rigid rotor shaft transmits power to the rotor
itself, snd is hinged at the bottom to afiow for rotor
tilting using a prescribed motion. Since the purpose
of this study wss epecificafiy to examine transient
rotor response, no eifort wss made to model shaft or
pylon/wing dyuamics, although adding these to the
model would be straightforward. To achieve forward
velocity, the base of the pylon is translated through
the "inertial" sir, also using a prescribed motion. As
will be seen below, this approach is especisfiy con-
venient for the ADAMS-based rotor model, because
net incident velocities st aerodynamic cont, rol points
sre the same as the inertial velocities which the code
uses to define system motions.
Power Tkafn - The very simple "engine" model
incorporated in the analysis consists of s single-
stste rprn smoother, equation (I), snd s single-
state integistor, equation (2), combined into s sim-
ple proportioasl-integral controfler for rotor torque.
The time constants snd gains are chosen to give res
sonsbly realistic response chsracteristica
ii = 10(II —xi) (I)
ii = 100/x(IIc —xt) (2)
q = 25000(II, —xi) + 375xr (3)
where Ac is the command rotor speed in radi-
ans/second snd Q is the shaft torque in foot-pounds.
 It is important to note that the drive system
described in equation (3) csn snd does provide
both positive (motor) and negative (braking) torque
equsfly well. While this type of drive technology is
not currently available, such convertible engines snd
bidirectional power transmission systems are under
development and will be essential to making conver-
tiplsnes like the TRC feasible.
Contrctls - An elflcient, autopilot-like automatic
controller is used to trim the rotor to the desired
thrust levels snd hub moments in real time. This
simple, six-state controfler is based on s pmto-
type trim controller developed by Peters, IGm snd
Chen['2] snd later enhanced by Chouchane[3]. Minor
modifications were made to limit tbe advance ratio
dependency and to reduce the gains as the shaft tilts
sft and total rotor inflow increases to very large val-
ues. The fully coupled controfler attempts to adjust
the collective pitch to achieve commanded thrust
level (10% of nominal rotor thrust for sfl cases in
this paper) snd to adjust the cyclic pitch to give
sero hub moments in afl flight conditions. Details of
the controfler formulation can be found in the abave
refemnce.
The controflet outputs, fib, etc snd 8rs, ste
used to create tesctionless pitching moments which
are s function of the diiference between the actual
snd the commanded blade pitches. In the current
model, these moments sre linearly dependent on the
blade pitch enure, with an equivalent control sys-
tem stilfness st the pitch bearing of about 50,000
ft-lbs/radian. The functional dependencies sre eas-
ily defined in ADAMS and could be used to simulate
mechanical or hydraulic connections if the actual ro-
tor control system was defined. Similarly, the actual
autopilot controller equations could be used if they
were available.
Aerodynamic Modelling
Adding reasonably accurate aerodynamic forces to
the rotor structure and controls wae probably the
mmt chaflenging part of the overall model coastruc-
tion. Even more than for etsadard rotorcraft config-
urations, wake elfects, rotor/body interactioas, vis-
cous snd compressibility effects, and spanwiee snd
tip flow effects are undoubtedly very important. Un-
fortunately, very little work hss been done on rotor
wake modelling for atypical flight conditions such ss
these of interest here. Also, computational limita-
1031
tions made it unrealistic to include true 3-D calcu-
lations. For these reasons, a simple, fixed induced
inflow distribution was used snd only one (coflec-
tive) dynamic inflow state wae considered. Blade
aerodynamics were restricted to 2-D strip theory for
the same reasons.
General-purpcse MSA codes do not notmafly in-
clude aerodynamic forces as part of their catalog of
standard parts snd connections, but the facilities
needed to add them do exist. Steady, inviecid 2-
D aemdynsmic forces csn be written directly into
the ADAMS dstaset, while more complicated un-
steady and/or nonlinear models can be added via
user-written subroutines which are linked directly
into the executable code. Because the inertial veloc-
ities (i.e. with respect to the air mass) of sny point
on the structure csn be requested and resolved into
sny convenient reference frame, the needed inputs
to any aerodynamic forcing model are easy to gen-
erate. Two aerodynamic control points were placed
at Gaussian integration points in each of the four
semdynamic "strips" on each blade as shown ia fi-
gur 2.
At MDHC, s fully nonlinear, unsteady two-
dimensionsl aerodynamics model, including viscous
snd compressibility eifects, was implemented with
force snd differential equation submutines linked
directly into the main ADAMS executable. This
model, based on the approach suggested by Leish-
msn and Beddoes[4], has been extensively validated
for a few airfoil sections snd used in various other
rotor snalysee[5]. For the results presented in this
paper, however, a NACA0012 section wss used and
blade airlosds were computed using s simpler, qussi-
steady strip theory approach, with viscous snd com-
pressibility elfecte induded via table lookup. One
advantage to the quasi-steady technique is that data
for advanced sections can be easily incorporated.
However, because of the extreme angles of attack
and very rapid changes in local flow conditions as-
sociated with the high advance ratios snd negative
shaft angles, evea this formulation caused some com-
putational difficulties (see Computational Consider-
ations section below).
Section Loads - The strip theory model is a
slightly modified version of the classical approach to
2-D unsteady aerodynamics found in Bisplinghoif,
Ashley snd Hoffman[6]. As is customary for qussi-
steady formulations, the reduced frequency is as-
sumed to be 0 and the lift deficiency factor, C(k), is
set identically to 1. When rewritten in terms of sec-
tion velocities, the inviscid, incompressible lift snd
moment expressions sre:
L = rrplP nit + 2ripU brut
I
= -xpfPui—
Mtf,
xpfP (Ua/2+ ba/8)
where w is the upwssh velocity at the indicated
chordwiee station, a is the pitching velocity snd b
is the blade semichord.
It csn be seen that the unsteady lift, equation 4,
is composed of noncirculatory snd circulatory por-
tions, snd that the unsteady moment, equation 5, is
composed of one term due to the offset of the noncir-
culatory lifl fmm the I/4-chord snd one due purely
to pitching motions.
This formulation is inadequate for rotor problems,
which often exceed the limits of linear theory, snd
is improved by incorporating wind tunnel data for
the 0012 section in place of the circulatory portion
of the lift. Tabular data is also added to the mo-
ment expression and used entirely for drag. To ac-
count for the diminishing influence of noncirculatory
efl'ects with increasing Mach, those portions of the
model sre reduced by the empirical factor (I —M ),
yielding these final expressions for section lift, drag
and moment:
(I —M )xpb rot + Liame
I
(I —M )[-ripPrbt—
2
xpfp(Ua/2+ ba/8)] + Mrus,
Dura
Inflaw - Incorporating the effect of the induced
inflow is less intuitive in the ADAMS model, since
it is not available sss part velocity. The approach
used wss to first compute the total thrust by sum-
ming the net force along the shaft sxie over sll the
control points. This thrust is used in s standard
iterative solution for the induced inflow, which is
then delayed by passing it through the differentia
equation representing s simple dynamic inflow filter.
The resultant inflow is resolved into components at
each control point and added to the inertial veloci-
ties before computing the incident velocity snd angle
of attack for the table lookup. It should be noted,
however, that soon after the rotor begins to tilt ait
during conversion, the non-induced inflow becomes
so large that the wake effects are barely noticeable
at the disk plane.
(4) Computational Considerations
The main reason that most dedicated hehcopter ro-
(5)
tor dynamics codes, for example CAMRAD]y] and
COPTER[8], do make the assumptions mentioned
above, i.e. nearly constant rotor speed, moderate
displacements, restricted geometries and periodic re-
sponse, is to reduce the number, complexity snd cou-
pling of the equations of motion that must be solved.
These swmmptions sre entirely appropriate for the
major portion of rotor analyses snd they usually al-
low solutions to be found in relatively short order
(a few hours), even on older generation computer
hardware.
Since the MSA-based approach to rotor analysis
makes none of these assumptions, it is to be expected
that computational requirements will be higher. Al-
though the more intuitive modefling process snd the
automatic generation of the equations of motion by
the code tate some load oif the analyst, they trans-
fer it directly to the computer. In fact, the pro-
cess somewhat parallels the development of compu-
tational Suid dynamics, where now almost sll eifort
goes into solution methodology snd grid generation
snd very little is spent on formulation. Fortunately,
hardware speed, capability, availability snd slford-
abiTity have risen dramatically in the psst few years
(8)
snd it is now passible to run what used to be consid-
(7) ered very large problems on workstations and even
on PC's.
Even so, the computational structural dynamics
(8) problem posed here is quite complex. As the system
was assembled by ADAMS, there were 850 highly
coupled, nonlinear equations to be solved. Further-
more, ss stated above, the high advance ratios snd
negative shaft angles considered produced extreme
angles of attack snd very rapid changes in local Sow
conditions. Finally, because the entire rotor tilts
through 90', it wss not possible to define the model
so as to completely avoid Euler angle singularities,
which force ADAMS to rotate part axes internally
snd often lead to s complete regeneration of the sys-
tem equations by the code. The net result of these
difflculties is that the integrator is forced to take
smaller steps snd runs slower. The esses selected for
this study were run on a Sun SPARCstation I+, snd
averaged about I CPU hour per second of simulation
time, depending, of course, on the flight conditions
1032
 Figure 3: Original Data from C81 Tables
involved.
Various changes were made to the force subrou-
tines snd to the integrstor parameters snd step sixes
to improve code performance. As experience with
the model grew, it wss found that the convergence
of the aerodynamic forces wss taking sn unexpect-
edly large amount of CPU time when the control sec-
tions were experiencing significant amounts of stall
or reversed Sow. This problem was traced to two
sources, the table lookup methodology in ADAMS
and the tabular data itself. It wss found that the
code uses diferent orders of interpolation (linear snd
cubic) along the two axes of the table, eo that the
user must, be sure to orient his data appropriately
to avoid spline buckling. Also, it wae found that the
CSI tables being used for the NACA 0012 section
were extremely sparse outside of the "normal" angle
of attack range, snd that outside this same range, no
compressibility corrections st sll were being made.
MDHC wss able to pmvide new tsbhw with Mach
effects included and with many more grid points in
the angle of attack range 3IF & rr & 3W', which
greatly improved integrator performance. An exam-
ple of the table improvement is shown in figures 3
and 4, which are surface plots of 0012 pitching mo-
ment vs. angle of attack vs. Mach number, covering
the ranges -1804 & cr & 18iP and 0 & Af & 1.
A complete summary of the test cases csn be found
in table 2. In order to begin the acceleration cases,
the simulation was first allowed to reach a fairly
steady hover condition. About two seconds of sim-
ulation time were added to each end of each of the
other runs to sfiow the model to settle into a periodic
1033
Figure 4: "Improved" Mach-Dependent Data
solution. Total run time for the full eet, not includ-
ing pmt procesain, wse over 350 CPU hours on the
SPARCststion I+. As might be expected, the tilt-
ing cases st higher airspeed were the most difficult
to complete. For all cases, the pitch controfler was
active snd attempted to maintain 3000 pounds rotor
thrust snd sero hub pitching and rofling moments.
As wss mentioned previously, even though only s
very small subset of the information available from
ADAMS wss requested, s very large amount of data
was generated for each of these runs. The datsset
included 46 computed or derived output requests.
Typically, in order to improve integrator perfor-
mance, the integration output step vise wss between
one snd Sve mifliseconds. The output data were
later resampled during poetproceesing at a more res
sonable 100 Hs rate to reduce the file sixes. A com-
plete listing of the output requests appears in ts
ble 1.
The hub reactions were found by measuring the
forces across the stifl' bushing which separates the
hub hearing from the static mast. Rotor thrust is
the shaft axis component of the summed aerody-
namic forces for all five blades. Tip deilections are
measured from the original, undefiected tip position
and are resolved in s plane perpendicular to the
undeflected blade axis. Aerodynamic normal snd
chordwtse forces for blade 182 sre resolved into the
local section reference frames; pitching moments are
about the I/4-chord.
It is clearly not possible to present sll of these re-
sults in this paper. In fact, due to the large quantity
of data, it wss diflicult to find s method to present it
here in any coherent fashion. The author has chosen
to borrow from the experimental world snd use the
strip chart foriuat to present "traces" of the most in-
 S' al Units Si al Units 3150
z OHub lbf Ftv OSta. I lbf
lbf
Fy
Fz OHub
OHub Ibf
lbf
" CISta.
Sta.
2
3 lbf 3100
" rn
Mz OHub ft-Ibf Sta. 4 lbf
My OHub ft-Ibf
" OSta. 5 lbf
ft-Ibf
" OSta. 6 Ibf
Mz OHub " OSta. 7 w 3050
Flap (blade 2) deg lbf
Lsg (blade 2) deg
" OSta. 8 lbf
Pitch (blade 2) deg Fc
" OSta. I lbf 3000
deg Ogta. 2 lbf
ffts deg
" OSts. 3 Ibf
Stc
" OSta. 4 Ibf
deg
" Sta. 5 2950
Ingow ft/sec Ibf
Pawer hp
" OSta. 6 Ibf 7 7.1 7.2 7.3
" OSta.
Thrust ibf
" OSta. 7 lbf Time (secs)
Yiisfti ft 8 lbf
Hiirdtl ft Me OSts. I ft lbf
Airspeed ft/sec
" OSts. 2 ft-lbf
Rotation Hs
" @Sta. 3 ft-lbf Figure 5: Vertical Hub Load
Advance Ratio
" OSta. 4 ft-lbf
deg OSfa. 5 ft Ibf bilities of the ADAMS-based analysis methodology
Shaft Tilt deg
" OSts. 6 R-lbf
" OSts. and, because the Sight profile is more usual, to con-
7 ft-lbf firm the basic response of the modeL From the
OSta. 8 ft-Ibf thmst snd power curves in figure 7, you can see that
the rotor system was not quite stsbilised m hover
Table I: Complete Signal List
st the beginning af the acceleration. In spite of the
steep acceleration, the pitch controBer is able to keep
teresting signals for three particular test cases, f55, the thrust deviation belaw 10% snd the mean hub
pitching moment below 70 R-lbs. With slower accel-
tgll snd 4117. These sre sn acceleration to 200 fps,
snd a spin-down and shaft tilt at 200fps. These cases erations, these deviations are reduced accordingly.
csn be though of ss joining to form a partial hypo- As expected, the power requited drops slightly at
thetical conversion. Differences between these cases moderate speeds snd then climbs again; whBe the
snd similar cases, but with differing rates or st dif- rotation rate is nearly constant at the commanded
fering sitspeeds, will be discussed. 50 radians/sec (=7.96 Hs). As the advance ratio
.
increases (st 200 fps, ft = 31), the level of hub vi-
bration also increases. Figures 5 snd 6, which show
Level Aoaderation - Figures 7 and 8 show re- the hnb response on an expanded time scale, clearly
sults from test case f55, a level acceleration from reveal that the major component is at 5/mv, ss ex-
hover to 200 fps (118.5 kts) over s six-second interval pected for this 5-bladed rotor. Higher harmonics
from 1.5 to 8.0 seconds Himulation time. Prior to the have been removed by the 100 Hs sample rate.
beginning of this interval, the rotor has rapidly gone Figure 8 concentrates on blade response. The Sap
from gat pitch to a 3000 pound thrust condition. response shows the expected steady increase with
Afterwards, the system was allowed about 5 seconds airspeed. The lsg motion, however, exhibits a "bal-
to reach s steadily periodic response, for which the looning" during the acceleration. This occurred dur-
controls snd blade response were compared to re- ing all acceleration prafile, with the effect becoming
sults for that Sight condition computed at MDHC more pronounced with acceleration rate. The thtee
using both DART snd CAMRAD JA. With small al- .
plots of section aerodynamic loads at 94II plainly
lawances fot differences in aerodynamic models, the show the effect of the thick 0012 section close to the
three codes compared very well. tip, with sevete shock st, all on the advancing side,
These results serve to highlight the overall caps leading to large increases in pitching moment snd

1034

50
-50
-100
7 7.1 7.2 7.3
Time (secs)
Figure 8: Hub Pitching Moment
swings in chordwise force. The normal force shows a
much smaller reaction. As might be expected with
this section snd the — 20v twist, there is no notice-
able retreating blade stall at this radial station.
Rotor ~tion - Figures 9 snd 10 show re-
sults from test csee Sill, a smooth deceleration of
the rotor from 50 to 25 radians/sec (=3.98 Hs) over a
ten-second interval from 23 to 33 seconds simulation
time. The rotor stays in level Sight at 200 fps air-
speed, with 3000 pounds command thrust and sero
command hub moments.
The hub thrust snd pitch moment curves, and to
s lesser extent the power curve, in figure 9 demon-
strate one of the numerical pitCalls of trying to in-
tegrate a large set of numerically stifF, differential-
algebrsic equation like those generated by ADAMS
(see reference [9]). Typically, when exiting the code
after a partial simulation, the integrator only saves
the state vector snd its fimt derivative, even if s
higher order of integration is being used at the time.
When attempting to restart the simulation in s sub-
sequent run, the integrator often needs to complete
enough steps to reach the same integration order be-
Core continuing, which is done by taking very small
steps. This csn lead, temporarily, to a poorly condi-
tioned system Jacobian snd give results with accel-
erations and forces slightly inconsistent with the last
step of the previous run. The net effect is to "ping"
1035
the system numerically, which leads, in this case,
to subhsrmonic hub vibration immediately on inte-
gration stsrtup. The same numerically inducedm-
verberation csn occur afier s too-large commanded
change in step siss, ss happens st 14 seconds simu-
lation time and which is damped out fairly quickly
by the aerodynamics.
The thrust snd moment curves also demonstrate
a cmious bsflooning in hub vibration levels between
about 15 snd 18 seconds, foflowed by s period of
very low levels before retreating blade stall begins
to dominate the response. This sho occurs in the
in-plane hub forces snd in the rolling moment (not
shown). The sim of this blimp in the curves increase
with airspeed, but does not appear to be related to
deceleration rate. The author has no clear expla-
nation for this effect st this time, but notes that it
seems to parallel increases in chordwise force am-
plitudes st aerodynamic stations closer to the hub
(also not shown). Note that overall performance of
the pitch controller is very good; the deviations oC
mean thmst and moments sre very small during the
deceleration.
.
Figure 10 shows the transition st 94R from the
compressibility-dominated flows associated with the
thick section to the viscosity-dominated iowa asso-
ciated with an advance ratio above 0.6. Also note
that, despite the very high control system stiifness,
the extreme moment excursions due to the shocks
are refiected in the total blade pitch seen in figure 9.
Shnik Tilt - Figures 11 snd 12 show the computed
results from test csee 4117, s smooth, aft tilting of
the mtor shaft from vertical (0') to horisontsl (90v)
over s ten-second interval from 23 to 33 seconds
simulation time. As before, the Sight path remains
level st 200 fps airspeed. Rotor speed is 25 rsd/sec,
with 3000 pounds command thrust and sero com-
mand hub moments. To appreciate the challenge
of this maneuver, note that the advance ratio drops
fmm 0.6 to sero snd that the total inflow ratio sim-
ilarly rises to -0.6, with s collective pitch reduction
of about 40'.
This study wss originally conceived at McDonnell
Douglas to determine if such s Sight maneuver would
be feasible in terms of overall system response, given
some assumed future structural and aerodynamic
technology level. It is important, when consider-
ing the curves in figures 11 snd 12, to keep in mind
that a single, particular system hss been modelled,
including the choices of rotor, engine, controls and
aerodynamic representations. The data presented
include the coupled etfecto of afl these choices, mak-
ing it somewhat rkdty to generalize to a larger class
of problems.
First, note that what appear to be "dmpoutz" in
the hub thrust and pitching moment tracer are, in
fact, numerical artifacts caused by integrstor step
size snd order changes. Series of such changes oc-
cur twice during the simulated tilt, between approx-
imately 45' snd 55' shaft angle and again between
754 snd 854, as particular parte of each blade assem-
bly come close to Euler angle singularities. When
this happens, ADAMS internsfly mtstes part axes
to avoid the singularity. Often this change in the in-
ternal representation of the model causes the choice
of pivots being used by ADAMS'e solver to become
unsuitable snd leads to a complete regeneration snd
refactorizstion of the system equations. As men-
tioned in the description of the rotor deceleration
csee, the lms of higher-order derivatives snd accu-
mulation of numerical error can produce slightly in-
consistent accelerationz snd the pinging effects seen
here in force responses. Because the displacemente
and velocities are etfected only indirectly, as seen in
figure 12, the averaged response should still be valid.
The hub reactions shown in figure 11 show that
the simple autopilot is, not surprisingly, incapable of
maintaining the commanded forces throughout the
tilt sequence. A 2000 pound excursion in shaft axis
force and 8000 ft-lb excursion in pitch moment would
cause significant Sight path deviations in a real air-
craft. Because of their very low frequency nature,
however, s human pilot, or an autopilot with more
sophisticated contml laws, should have no trouble
eliminating these snomaliez. As shown in the to-
tal blade pitch trace, a larger than normal cyclic
pitch control authority is needed in addition to the
extreme coflective range, probably implying a non-
standard (i.e. not via ewszhplate) actuation mecha-
The flap and lsg hinge rotations presented in fig-
ure I'2 sre fairly benign, although their character
changes continuously throughout the tilt. The re.
maining periodic fag snd lag motions with shaft hor-
izontal sre due to the sizable gravity moment com-
bined with the large pitch angle and unusual hinge
sequencing.
The sections loads st .94R are also rather benign
throughout the tilt, but change character continu-
ously. Due to the lack of detail in the induced inflow
model, however, the loads should be considered more
1036
qualitative than quantitative. Also, it is important
to note that with the shaft tilted aft snd the net in-
Sow up thmugh the rotor, the blade twist is sctuafly
reversed from that needed to equalize the radial load
distribution along the blade, further invalidating the
inflow model. In fact, the computed vibratory loads
st inboard blade stations sre much more severe than
st the outboard station shown here. This drastic ra-
dial loading distribution would probably cause high
steady snd vibratory streszez in real, Sexible blsdez
snd would be an important design consideration.
Conclusions
1. It is possible to uze sn analysis based on a
general-purpose multibody systems analysis (MSA)
code to predict the response of standard and non-
staad srd rotor eyetenw in transient Sight conditions
which csn not be simulated with more conventional
rotor analysis codes. This modelling approach is ex-
ceptionsfly flexible.
2. This type of time domain analysis produces
great quantities of output which are very similar to
test data, eo that validation against real, physical
tests should be straightforward. Impmved methods
sre needed for digesting this voluminous data to gen-
erate meaningful insights for design decisions.
8. It appears possible, given advanced technology
power transmission systems snd high authority Sight
controls, to maintain positive rotor control with very
light mtor loadingz snd kiw rotation speeds, even
st high airepeede during demanding maneuvering.
More accurate prediction of blade snd hub loads for
Sight profiles like those presented here will require
sn improved (snd validated) inflow model.
References
fl] Efliott, A.S. and McConvifle, J.B., "Applica-
tios of a General-Purpose Mechanical Systems
Analysis Code to Rotorcrsft Dynamics Prob-
"
lems, Pivcecdisyo of thc 7989 ASS Nettosel
Specialists' Meotisy on Rotorcruft Dyassitc,
Ft. Worth, Texas, October, 1989.
[2] Peters, D.A. , Kim, B.S. snd Chen, H.S., "Cal-
culations of Trim Settings for s Helicopter Ro-
tor by sn Optimized Automatic Controfler,
"
 Josrnsl of Gsidsnce, Control ssd Dynamics,
Vol. 7, No. I, Jan. -Feb. 1984.
[3] Chouchsne, M. , sabaosm litic, Doctoral Disser-
tation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1989.
[4] Leishman, J.G. snd Beddoes, T.S., "A Gener-
slised Model (or Airfoil Unsteady Aerodynamic
Behaviour and Dynamic Stall Using the lndicsl
Method, " Proccedinya of ttic 42nd Anssel Fo-
ram of tbe America Ifcticoptcr Society, Wash-
ington, D.C., June, 1986.
[5] Torok, M. S. snd Choprs, I., "Rotor Loads
Pre-
diction Utilising s Coupled Aeroelsstic Analysis
with Refined Aerodynamic Modeling,
" Journal
of the Amcrices Bclieopter Society, Vol. 36, No.
I, January 1991.
[6] Bisplinghotf, R.L., Aahley, H. and Halfman,
R.L., Acroctsaticity, Addison-Wesley, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, 1955.
[I] Johnson, W. , "A Comprehensive Analytical
Model of Rotorcrsft Aerodynamics and Dynam-
"
ics, Part I: Analysis Development, NASA TM
81182, June 1980.
[8] Comigsn, J.J., Schillings, J.J., Yin, S.K.
snd Hsieh, P.Y., "Developments in Dynamics
"
Methodology st Bell Helicopter Textro, Pro-
ccedinya af the 44th Aasse/ Foram of the Amer-
icas Bclicoptcr Society, June 1988.
[9] Brensn, K.E., Campbell, S.L. snd Pet
sold, L.R., Numerica Solstice of Initial-Valse
Problems in Differentia-Atycbmic Efsstiosa,
Elevier Science Publishing Co. , New York, New
York, 1989.

Run Type of Run Airspeed Shaft Angle Rotor Speed Duration

Number fps de rad sec aces
I Level Accel. 0 «150 0 50 10
'2 Level Accel. 0 «200 0 60 10
3 Level Accel. 0 «250 0 50 10
Level Accel. 0 «150 0 50 6
5 Level Accel. 0 «200 0 50 6
6 LevelAcceL 0 «250 0 50 6
7 Rotor Decel. 150 0 50 «25 6
8 Rotor DeceL 200 0 50 «25 6
9 Rotor Decel. 250 0 50 «25 6
10 Rotor Decel. 150 0 50 «25 10
11 Rotor Decel. 200 0 50 «25 10
12 Rotor Decel. 250 0 50 «25 10
13 Rotor Decal. 150 0 50 «'25 15
14 Rotor Decel. 200 0 50 «25 15
15 Rotor Decel. 250 0 50 «25 15
16 Shalt Tih 150 0 «90 25 10
17 Shaft Tilt '200 0 «90 25 10
18 Shalt Tilt 250 0«90 '25 10
19 Shaft Tilt 150 0«90 25 15
20 Shaft Tilt 200 0 «90 25 15
21 ShaR Tilt 250 0 «90 25 15

Table 2: Summary of Test Cases

1037
 7.98
7.96
7.%
7.92
7.9
6
N
0
—
— e,
8rs
C
0
-- e1C
O 0
-2
100

-100
500

r 450

0 400
CL
350

3200
N 3'l00
r
3000
I—
2900
2800
200
0
4)
I)
aN
i

0
4 5 7 8
Tlffl6

Figure 7: Results from Level A eleratim, Case 196

1038
 -100
-200
-300
z -400
-500
20
CL 10
O)
8
-10
-20
90
70
or& 50
50
10
-10
1

0.5

-0.5

0.5
0
W.5

150
rt)
n. 100
r
50
0
1 4 5 7 8
Time
Figure 8: Results from Level Accrderation, Csee gg
1039
 12

8
4
0
10
— e0

0 =- e1c

-10
500
300
100
-100
-300
-500
125
75
25
-25
-75
-125
3100

3050
3000
2950
2900
8.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
13 15 19 21 23
Time

Fignre 9: Reenlts from Rotor Deceleration, Case 4 1I

1040
 -100

-300

-500
15

CL

8
O

-15
90
70

10
-10
1

0.7
0.4
0.1

-0.5
3

-1
8.5
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
15 17 2'1 23
Time
Figure 10: Results from Rotor Deceieratiou, Case
gill
1041
 20

-20

-40
15

V)
5
0
C
-5
-15
—
—e,
0 e
C3 -25 -- eiC

V 2000
'6.
'1000

0
i
-200
0 -400
CL
-600

N
4500

I- 3500

0
23 25 27
Time

Fiyue ll: Reeelle Sem Shalt Tilt, Ceee 1617

1042
 0

-100

-200
15

10

-5
5

-1

-5
4

-1
5
4
3
2
I
0
-1
-2
90

0
23 25 27
TII718

FISme 12: Results &am Shalt Tilt, Case IS17

1043