Application of CFD/CSD to Rotor Aeroelastic Stability in Forward Flight

Hyeonsoo Yeo Mark Potsdam Robert A. Ormiston

Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (AMRDEC)
U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Abstract

CFD/CSD coupling was successfully applied to the rotor aeroelastic stability problem to calculate lead-lag
regressing mode damping of a hingeless rotor in forward flight. A direct time domain numerical integration of
the equations in response to suitable excitation was solved using a tight CFD/CSD coupling. Three different
excitation methods − lateral cyclic, rotating pitch, and blade tip lead-lag force excitations − were investigated
to provide suitable blade transient responses. The free decay transient response time histories are post-
processed using the moving-block method to determine the damping as a function of the rotor operating
conditions. A number of CFD/CSD implementation issues were addressed to achieve practical aeroelastic
stability results with limited computational run-time. Coupled CFD/CSD analysis results are compared
with the experimentally measured stability data obtained for a 7.5-ft dia Mach-scale hingeless rotor model
as well as stability predictions using traditional rotor aerodynamic modeling representations available in
comprehensive analysis (RCAS). The coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW predictions agreed more closely with the
experimental lead-lag damping measurements than RCAS predictions based on conventional aerodynamic
methods.

Introduction configuration topology. For rotorcraft aerodynamics, the

This paper will address the development and application of
a new rotorcraft CFD/CSD method for the prediction of
aeroelastic stability of rotor blades in forward flight.
Accurate prediction of rotorcraft aeroelastic and
aeromechanical stability is essential for the rational and
successful design of all types of rotorcraft. Rotorcraft
history includes a number of development programs where
serious schedule and cost over-runs, or even program
cancellation, resulted from the inability to anticipate and
accurately predict key rotorcraft instabilities. Cost effective
and timely development of future rotorcraft will require the
most accurate and reliable prediction of aeroelastic stability
to insure optimum mission performance unconstrained by
design compromises imposed by an inability to address
the challenges of complex rotary wing aeroelastic and
aeromechanical stability phenomena.
Rotorcraft aeromechanics prediction methodology has
advanced significantly in recent years. The complex
structural dynamics of a fully coupled rotorcraft with
nonlinear elastic rotating blades are now amenable to
sophisticated structural analysis capabilities based on multi-
body finite-element modeling for rotorcraft of arbitrary
Presented at the American Helicopter Society 66th Annual Forum, Phoenix,
Arizona, May 11 - 13, 2010. This material is declared a work of the U.S.
Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the U.S.
equally complex airloads and wake flowfield phenomena
have seen enormous advances in recent years. Keyed by
decades-long development of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD), the relatively recent development of rotorcraft
aeroelastic coupling of computational structural dynamics
(CSD) and CFD has opened the door to consistent treatment
of the full complexity of rotorcraft aeromechanics. These
recent developments have included the steady-state trim
problem using CFD/CSD loose coupling (LC) [1] and
the transient maneuver problem using the CFD/CSD tight
coupling (TC) [2]. These two fundamental problems, trim
and maneuver, treat the steady-state and transient response
problems to yield airloads and structural loads in steady-state
and maneuvering flight conditions respectively.
The third fundamental rotorcraft aeromechanics problem,
aeroelastic stability, has yet to be addressed with CFD/CSD
methods. This broad subject encompasses rotor blade
aeroelastic stability and coupled rotor-body aeromechanical
stability including articulated rotor bending-torsion flutter,
hingeless/bearingless rotor flap-lag-torsion stability,
ground/air-resonance, and tiltrotor stability.
The unique nature of rotorcraft introduces aerodynamic
characteristics that are significantly different from fixed-
wing aircraft. The key difference is the radial and
azimuthal variation of velocity in hover and forward
flight. This fundamentally complicates the 3-D unsteady

1
aerodynamics of rotorcraft and necessitates the use of
approximate aerodynamics methods not required in fixed-
wing aeroelasticity. Beyond this fundamental difference,
rotorcraft also experience separated flow (stall), reverse flow,
and the rotor wake flowfield.
Rotorcraft aeroelastic stability prediction is further
complicated by the nature of the problem itself. Unlike
the trim and maneuver problems, where the nonlinear
equations are necessarily solved by direct time domain
integration, the most useful stability predictions are obtained
from eigensolutions of linear(ized) equations, either constant
coefficient equations for hover conditions or periodic
equations in forward flight, the latter solved by Floquet
methods. The eigensolutions directly provide stability
characteristics, frequency and damping, however, the linear
approximations compromise accuracy. These approximations
may be avoided by direct time domain numerical integration
of the equations in response to suitable excitation, although
this requires post-processing of the transient response to
provide frequency and damping.
Incorporating CFD aerodynamics modeling with a time
domain stability approach should provide the most accurate
method for predicting rotorcraft aeroelastic stability. While
CFD has been used for fixed-wing aeroelastic stability
prediction, it has not been applied to the rotorcraft stability
problem, and there are a number of associated challenges
that influence the accuracy and practicality of the method.
This paper will address these challenges and develop and
apply the CFD/CSD coupled methodology to a typical
rotorcraft aeroelastic stability problem. Predicted stability
characteristics will be compared with experimental data
obtained for a 7.5-ft dia Mach-scale hingeless rotor model, the
Advanced Dynamic Model (ADM) extensively tested in hover
and in forward flight in the U.S. Army Aeroflightdynamics
Directorate (AFDD) 7- by 10-Foot wind tunnel [3, 4].
Overview of Aeroelastic Methodology Approach
A general outline of the present CFD/CSD approach will
provide an indication of the scope and content of the paper.
The development will focus on the aeroelastic stability of the
ADM, an isolated (no rotor-fuselage coupling) rotor having
four hingeless (cantilevered) rotor blades flexible in bending
and torsion. Two blade configurations, straight and swept-
tip, with and without precone, are studied. The structural
and aerodynamic characteristics are modeled in detail in the
Army Rotorcraft Comprehensive Analysis System (RCAS)
and the blade geometry is modeled in the OVERFLOW 2 CFD
code. The two codes are coupled through a fluid structure
interface for both loose and tight CFD/CSD coupling. The
rotor is trimmed in forward flight using loose coupling,
and suitable maneuver excitations are applied using tight
coupling to initiate transient responses (maneuver analysis).
2
Several transient excitation schemes are investigated for
effectiveness and efficiency. The free decay transient response
time histories are post-processed using the moving-block
method to determine the damping as a function of the
rotor operating conditions. Results are compared with the
experimentally measured stability data as well as stability
predictions using traditional rotor aerodynamic modeling
representations available in RCAS.
ADM Aeroelastic Stability
ADM Stability Test
The ADM experiments were conducted at AFDD in the 1990s
to provide a high quality aeroelastic stability database for
validation of aeromechanics prediction methodology for a
typical hingeless rotor, with straight and swept-tip blades,
operating at representative tip Mach numbers. Figure 1 shows
the two rotors installed in the wind tunnel on the Rotor Test
Rig (RTR), and Fig. 2 shows the straight and swept-tip rotor
blades.
The experimental model was designed to represent a typical
soft-inplane hingeless rotor with low torsional stiffness
to emphasize the fundamental aeroelastic and structural
couplings resulting from nonlinear bending-torsion coupling
of hingeless rotor blades. Uniform, untwisted blades, without
chordwise mass or elastic center offsets, and the use of the
common NACA 0012 airfoil were intended to limit the focus
to basic hingeless rotor aeroelastic stability characteristics.
The natural frequencies of the straight and swept-tip blade
were calculated with RCAS and are shown in Fig. 3. The
fundamental flap, lag and torsion frequencies calculated at the
operating speed of 1700 RPM were 1.13, 0.72 and 2.59/rev for
the straight blade and 1.12, 0.66 and 2.75/rev for the swept-tip
blade.
During the test, regressing lag mode damping was measured
in hover and forward flight conditions, with a variety of shaft
angles, collective pitch angles, precones and advance ratios.
The excitation of the regressing lag mode and its damping
measurement were achieved by using capability built into
the test stand. The rotor stand had high-speed hydraulic
actuators placed in series with each of the three high authority
rotor trim control electric actuators. For these tests, only
one of the three hydraulic actuators was used to provide
excitation at the regressing lag mode frequency through the
fixed system swashplate. Initially, low amplitude cyclic
excitation was applied and the frequency was adjusted until
the lead-lag response reached a maximum. The amplitude
of excitation was then adjusted to give lead-lag response just
below the structural limit. The excitation was shut off and
2 seconds of data were acquired in decay. The measured
four individual blade chordwise bending moments at 12%R
were transformed into the fixed frame using the multiblade
coordinate transformation. Individual rotating blade and
non-rotating multiblade coordinate time history data were
analyzed for modal damping and frequency using the moving-
block method.
ADM Literature
The AFDD experimental investigations of the ADM rotor
provided an extensive hingeless rotor aeroelastic stability
database. This data set was widely used by numerous
researchers for comparison and validation of a variety
of specialized research and comprehensive aeromechanics
codes [3–7]. A brief overview of this research is presented
here in order to place this data in context for the present
work. This paper primarily addresses the development
of aeroelastic stability prediction methodology, specifically
exploiting the opportunities available from accurate coupled
CFD/CSD modeling. The methodology will be illustrated
with stability predictions of the ADM that will also be
compared with experimental measurements. That said, the
published literature on the ADM showed that the principal
stability characteristics were generally well predicted by the
more sophisticated prediction methods, however, several key
experimental characteristics were not well predicted. These
are discussed in detail in the literature and summarized in
Fig. 4 to show the lead-lag regressing mode damping as a
function of advance ratio for the swept-tip blade (no precone,
0◦ angle of attack) and the straight blade (2◦ precone, −6◦
angle of attack).
The swept-tip and straight blade configurations differ
primarily in that the lead-lag damping of the former is
generally less sensitive to operating conditions than the latter.
The swept-tip blade damping exhibits a pronounced “up-
down-up” variation in damping with advance ratio, especially
for the higher collective pitch angles. This feature was not
well predicted in previous investigations using current codes
based on conventional rotorcraft lifting-line aerodynamics.
These codes typically used approximate constant coefficient
or periodic Floquet analysis eigensolutions of the linearized
equations of motion. A dominant feature of the straight
blade data is a reduction of lead-lag damping with increasing
advance ratio and decreasing collective pitch angle, implying
lead-lag instability at advance ratios slightly above the
experimental test conditions. Again, the large reduction in
damping was not well predicted with current comprehensive
analyses. Despite numerous attempts to explore a variety
of structural, aerodynamic modeling, and analysis/solution
methods, the principal prediction deficiencies summarized
above have not been satisfactorily resolved to date.
Aeroelastic Stability Identification
Background
As noted in the introduction, the preferred methodology
3
for determining rotorcraft aeroelastic and aeromechanical
stability is to obtain eigenvalues of linearized equations to
directly obtain frequency and damping. By introducing
coupled CFD/CSD methodology, a time-domain approach is
necessary. Since stability characteristics must be obtained
by post-processing transient response (maneuver) time history
data, numerous rotor revolutions will typically be needed for
accurate post-processing, and significant computational effort
may easily result. Extensive CFD/CSD aeroelastic stability
investigations will, therefore, not be practical unless efficient
excitation and post-processing methodologies are employed.
There are a number of system identification methods and
techniques that have been developed and employed for
parameter identification of flight dynamics, flutter, and
aeroelastic stability characteristics of fixed- and rotary-wing
aircraft, e.g., Ref. 8. Traditionally they were developed to
post-process flight-test and wind-tunnel experimental data
but they are becoming increasingly applied to computational
aeroelasticity (CAE) data. Within the rotorcraft community,
the moving-block method [9, 10], has been widely used
for many decades since it has characteristics that are
advantageous for rotorcraft applications. In view of this
quite successful experience, the moving-block method has
been adopted for the present investigation. In applications
with experimental data, measurement noise may significantly
compromise the accuracy of damping estimates; one of the
benefits of the present computational application is that the
noise in the numerical data (from several sources) is typically
far less than that encountered in even the most carefully
designed experiments. And some effort has been devoted
to tailoring excitation inputs to achieve transient responses
suitable for accurate stability post-processing with minimum
CFD/CSD computational cost.
It should be noted here that there are many other system
identification techniques that may be well suited to the
CFD/CSD aeroelastic stability post-processing problem.
Bauchau and Wang [11] surveyed a variety of techniques
applicable to numerically derived data and proposed refined
techniques for two related approaches. These were for
two closely related algorithms based on a partial Floquet
approach and an autoregressive approach. The methods
were applied to two typical rotorcraft problems, aeroelastic
stability of a four-bladed articulated rotor and aeromechanical
stability of a three-bladed wind turbine on a flexible tower.
Transient data were generated with conventional aerodynamic
methods and used to identify frequency and damping of
a number of system modes. In a typical application of
CFD/CSD modeling to CAE for two fixed-wing aircraft
problems, McNamara and Friedmann [12] compared the
moving-block method, a least-squares curve fitting method,
and an autoregressive system identification method. The three
methods gave similar frequency and damping results but the
system identification autoregressive method produced a 75%
reduction in computational cost by reducing the CFD time
history record length.
While the present investigation demonstrated the feasibility
of the moving-block method for applications of CFD/CSD
methods to rotorcraft aeroelastic stability, further study will
be needed to identify the optimum methodology for specific
types of problems. It is anticipated that the suitability of any
method will be strongly application dependent.
Moving-Block Method
The moving-block analysis is a method of analyzing
a transient time history to obtain modal damping and
frequency [9, 10]. A single mode’s transient response is
expressed as
f(t) = A eσt sin(ωt + φ)
where σ is damping exponent, ω is frequency, and φ is phase
angle. The Fourier transformation of this function from τ to
τ + T is
Z τ+T
F(ω, τ) = A eσt sin(ωt + φ)e−iωt dt
τ length of the transient record so there is a tradeoff between
The amplitude of the function F(ω, τ) is referred to as the
moving-block function. For small damping, the natural
logarithm of the moving-block function is
Ln F(ω, τ) = −ζωτ + 1/2sin 2(ωτ + φ) + constant
where σ = -ζω. Thus a plot of Ln F(ω, τ) as a function of τ
will give a straight line with a slope of -ζω and an additional
oscillating component at twice the analysis frequency.
The procedure to obtain damping from moving-block analysis
is as follows. The first step is to determine the frequency
of interest using a fast Fourier transformation on the entire
data. Then a block size is selected and the natural logarithm
of the moving-block function is calculated for τ = 0. The
block is then shifted one sample point at a time and Ln F(ω, τ)
recomputed. A straight line is fitted to the resulting log plot
with a least squares fit and the damping values is estimated
from the slope of the line.
A sample moving-block analysis procedure is illustrated for
hover with a 12◦ collective pitch angle case. Figure 5(a)
shows rotor blade pitch change at the pitch bearing. The
transient analysis begins from the trimmed solution and
continues unperturbed for five rotor revolutions. A small 0.3◦
cyclic excitation is then provided for 20 revolutions. The
excitation is terminated and the analysis continues for 35
more revolutions. Figure 5(b) shows the corresponding blade
chordwise bending moments at 12%R. The chord bending
moments slowly respond to the airload changes due to the
4
pitch excitation. The transient time history data are analyzed
for damping estimation using the moving-block analysis
technique. Figure 6 shows a screenshot of the moving-block
analysis software used in the current study. The bottom figure
is the decay response of the chord bending moments and
the top figure is the natural logarithm of the moving-block
function. A slope of the top curve is calculated using a least-
squares fit, and damping is estimated.
Transient Excitation and Related Dynamics
One aspect of the computational methodologies employed
in the paper is the choice of rotor excitation used to
generate rotor blade transient responses. There are
several considerations to be addressed including: CFD
run time, signal to noise ratio, selectivity/purity of modes
excited (avoiding unwanted modes), consistency with the
experimental procedures, and compatibility with stability
post-processing.
For practical aeroelastic stability prediction with CFD/CSD,
it is clearly desirable to generate transient responses with a
minimum of CFD/CSD computation time. For the moving-
block post-processing method, accuracy increases with the
record length and the quality of the transient response.
Experimental transient data includes noise, and the moving-
block accuracy typically improves when the signal-to-noise
ratio is improved. In the case of computational data,
small amounts of “CFD noise” may be present, but more
importantly it is desirable that the data have a high degree
of modal purity; ideally the excitation input will generate
only the rotor mode(s) of interest. For the experimental
comparisons addressed herein, the mode of interest is known.
In a general application where the critical mode is unknown,
or multiple modes are of interest, the choice of transient
excitation may be less obvious.
As described earlier, the ADM experiment excitations were
fixed system swashplate oscillations and a 2-sec transient
decay was recorded for post-processing. This corresponds
to about 56 rotor revolutions which would be impractical to
duplicate with an analogous computational approach. Several
alternative excitations were investigated to provide suitable
blade transient responses. These included rotor blade pitch
inputs and an external force input. The blade pitch inputs
included a lateral cyclic pitch (swashplate) as employed in
the ADM experiment as well as pitch excitation individually
applied to each blade in the rotating system. The lateral
cyclic excitation was input for one oscillation cycle at the
rotor lag regressing frequency − approximately three rotor
revolutions in duration. The rotating pitch input consisted of
a linearly increasing oscillation at the lag frequency phased
to represent a combination of lateral and longitudinal cyclic
pitch at the lead-lag regressing mode frequency, simulating a
linearly increasing regressing whirl excitation.
Given that the blade pitch excitations produce blade lead-
lag response indirectly as a result of the large direct blade
flap response, it was of interest to include an excitation that
would excite blade lead-lag responses directly, with a smaller
blade flap response. With a goal of shortening the overall
duration of the transient excitation, the objective was to
quickly produce large lead-lag excitations without excessive
flap motions. This was expected to produce a forced response
more closely approximating the natural regressing lead-lag
mode, thereby improving modal purity and signal-to-noise
ratio of the transient decay for moving-block post-processing.
This direct excitation was accomplished by introducing an
artificial external force applied to the tip of each rotor blade
in the plane of the rotor disk. These lead-lag tip forces
applied to the four blades were phased azimuthally analogous
to swashplate blade pitch, that is, as three separate inputs
for collective, lateral cyclic, and longitudinal cyclic lead-lag
force. The “lateral cyclic” lead-lag force was then input at
the regressing mode lead-lag frequency for one full cycle
of oscillation. All of these blade excitation inputs were
implemented using standard modeling procedures in RCAS.
To more clearly illustrate the three different lead-lag
excitations employed for the computational investigations,
Figs. 7 through 9 present the blade pitch and external force
time histories. For the lateral cyclic pitch excitation (Fig. 7),
the first part, Fig. 7(a), shows the pitch input of all four blades
as a function of time (in units of revs). The second part,
Fig. 7(b), shows the rotor cyclic pitch input versus time. In
this case, a one-cycle oscillation of the lateral cyclic pitch at
the regressing lead-lag mode frequency.
Figure 8 for the rotating pitch excitation clearly illustrates the
linearly increasing blade pitch oscillations for the individual
blades, input at the lead-lag frequency in the rotating system
(Fig. 8(a)). The equivalent lateral and longitudinal cyclic pitch
angles are shown in Fig. 8(b). This combination of inputs
leads to a lateral-longitudinal whirl excitation in the polar plot
of Fig. 8(c). The analogous plot for Fig. 7 (not included)
would be a one-dimensional input (lateral axis alone), rather
than a whirling excitation.
For the cyclic lead-lag blade tip force excitation, Figs. 9(a)
and 9(b) are directly analogous to the lateral cyclic pitch
excitation in Fig. 7 with the blade pitch angle replaced by the
blade lead-lag force.
The blade lead-lag and flap moment excitation and
transient decay responses corresponding to the three different
excitation inputs are presented in Figs. 10 through 12.
These transient responses are intended to show the relative
effectiveness of the three excitation inputs in producing
transients suitable for moving-block post-processing. There
are three parts to each figure. For example, Fig. 10(a) shows
the blade lead-lag bending moment response of primary
interest for all four blades, Fig. 10(b) shows the associated
5
blade flap bending moments, and Fig. 10(c) shows the rotor
lead-lag bending moment response expressed in the multi-
blade coordinates. These data were obtained from the
RCAS/OVERFLOW computations performed with the swept-
tip blade in forward flight at µ = 0.3. All of the responses are
the perturbation responses obtained by removing the trimmed
steady-state periodic response (LC analysis) from the total
transient response to the excitation input (TC analysis). Since
the system under study is nearly linear, this may be considered
a nearly linear perturbation.
The principal difference between the three excitation inputs is
that the two blade pitch excitation inputs − the lateral cyclic
swashplate input and the rotating frame pitch input − produce
less than half the lead-lag bending moment response of the
blade tip force excitation (it is important to note that different
scales are used in Figs. 10 through 12). This is because the
tip force produces a direct lead-lag bending moment at the
blade root while the pitch inputs produce blade lift and flap
bending moments that only indirectly induce lead-lag bending
moments from structural and inertial coupling of flap and
lead-lag motion.
One advantage of the tip force excitation is that the transient
decay waveforms of the four different blades appear to be
considerably more regular and consistent than in the cases
of blade pitch excitation inputs even though the periodic
signal has already been removed. This is assumed to
benefit the consistency and accuracy of the moving-block
post-processing method. Another difference between the
blade pitch and tip force excitation responses is the relative
amplitude of the flap and lead-lag bending response. At
the point of excitation cut-off, the relatively large flap
bending response from the pitch inputs requires about two
revolutions to subside (reflecting the well damped flap
bending mode) before the presumably pure regressing lead-
lag mode emerges. In the case of the tip force excitation, the
flap bending response is already very small during excitation,
and it might be surmised that this provides a longer period for
post-processing a purer lead-lag regressing mode response.
However, it might be argued that the pitch input excitation
and transient decay better reflect the experimental setup.
The rotor MBC lead-lag bending moments (measured
in the nonrotating, or fixed frame system) shown in
Figs. 10(c), 11(c), and 12(c) serve to indicate the relative
regressing mode and progressing mode response as well as
the collective and differential collective moment response
arising from periodic coupling of the MBC modes in
forward flight as well as the effects of nonlinear blade
response. The blade tip force excitation illustrates the
“cleanest” regressing mode response of the MBC sine
and cosine modes as evidenced by transient decay at the
regressing led-lag frequency (0.33/rev), without evidence of
response at the progressing mode frequency (1.67/rev). The
MBC collective and differential collective mode response is
virtually negligible. The situation for the two blade pitch
excitations is different. Although the MBC sine and cosine
modes appear to reflect nearly exclusively regressing mode
without evidence of the progressing mode, there is significant
collective and differential mode response at the lead-lag mode
frequency (0.67/rev). The collective lead-lag mode response
may be explained as follows: rotor flapping response to
lateral cyclic produces rotor disk angle of attack oscillations,
causing rotor thrust and torque responses, which in turn excite
collective lead-lag mode response. When the cyclic pitch
input ends, the collective lead-lag mode transient decays at the
collective lead-lag mode frequency. In fact, it is the collective
mode that is primarily responsible for the variation among the
individual blade responses in Figs. 10(a) and 11(a).
In order to arrive at the excitations illustrated in Figs. 7
through 12, considerable experimentation was carried out to
tailor the blade pitch and tip force excitations and optimize
the quality of the transient decay responses, including the
following. It was found desirable to avoid any pitch
excitation inputs that began or ended discontinuously. For
either regressing or progressing mode excitations, it was
desirable to tune the excitation frequency to most closely
match the blade lead-lag frequency in the rotating system.
Even numbers of excitation cycles were desirable; otherwise
mixed combinations of progressing and regressing mode
response were produced. Finally, whirling excitations using
a combination of lateral and longitudinal cyclic pitch or
tip force excitations produced significantly larger lead-lag
bending moment response for a given number of cycles,
suggesting a means of reducing CFD computation time for
future applications of the present methodology.
RCAS and CFD Modeling
RCAS and OVERFLOW 2 Codes
The Rotorcraft Comprehensive Analysis System (RCAS) is a
comprehensive multi-disciplinary, computer software system
for predicting rotorcraft aerodynamics, performance, stability
and control, aeroelastic stability, loads, and vibration [13].
RCAS was developed by the Aerofightdynamics Directorate,
US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and
Engineering Center (RDECOM), to provide state-of-the-art
rotorcraft modeling and analysis technology for government,
industry, and academia. The RCAS is capable of modeling
a wide range of complex rotorcraft configurations operating
in hover, forward flight, and maneuvering conditions. The
RCAS structural model employs a hierarchical, finite element,
multibody dynamics formulation for coupled rotor-body
systems. It includes a library of primitive elements including
nonlinear beams, rigid body mass, rigid bar, spring, damper,
and mechanical applied load as well as hinges and slides
to build arbitrarily complex models. Rotor and fuselage
modeling is fully integrated with engines, drivetrain, control
6
systems, and aerodynamics. RCAS includes multiple
aerodynamic options for airloads, wake induced flowfields,
and component aerodynamic interference. Airloads models
include 2-D airfoil and lifting-line models for rotor blade,
wings, or empennages and 3-D airloads for bodies.
CFD calculations use the complex geometry Navier-Stokes
CFD solver OVERFLOW 2.1ad. Capabilities for loose (delta)
coupling (periodic) and tight coupling (maneuver) have
been added to the NASA release version based on original
developments under the DoD CHSSI Portfolio, Collaborative
Simulation and Testing (CST-05) [14, 15]. OVERFLOW
computes solutions on structured, overset grids using a near-
and off-body discretization paradigm. The near-body grids
surround the solid surfaces and capture the viscous effects
with highly stretched curvilinear meshes. They extend out
a suitable distance (approximately one chord) from the rotor
blade. Automatically-generated Cartesian off-body grids
surround the near-body grids and capture the wake. They
extend out to the far field boundary, with geometrically
increasing spacing. Time-accurate simulations of complex
aircraft configurations with aeroelastic bodies in relative
motion can be efficiently computed on parallel processors
using the overset methodology.
RCAS ADM Model
The ADM structural and aerodynamic characteristics were
modeled with RCAS for the baseline aeroelastic stability
predictions. The RCAS structural model was used in
conjunction with OVERFLOW 2 for the coupled CFD/CSD
predictions. Two distinct structural models for the straight
and swept-tip rotor blades both consisted of nine nonlinear
beam elements for the flexible portions of the four identical
cantilever blades, three rigid bars for the hub, a rigid body
mass for the swept-tip mass balance, and rotational hinges
to represent the blade pitch bearing. The models were
idealized as an isolated rotor and no rotor support flexibility
was provided. Given the measured properties of the rotor
test apparatus as discussed in Ref. 3, this is appropriate for
the regressing lead-lag mode addressed in this study. The
blades were nominally untwisted but small twist angles were
included for the straight blades. The measured structural,
geometric, and mass properties [3], were tabulated as a
function of blade length for use in RCAS. The main portion of
the blades were essentially uniform in mass and stiffness with
the elastic, tension, and mass center aligned with the quarter
chord line and the blade pitch axis.
The RCAS aerodynamic model is based on the conventional
lifting-line approach for rotorcraft. The blades were
discretized into 14 spanwise aerosegments. Airload
calculations were based on airfoil tables for the NACA 0012
airfoil section, providing wind-tunnel measured lift, drag,
and pitching moment coefficients as a function of angle of
attack and Mach number. Airfoil unsteady aerodynamics was
modeled with simple linear quasi-steady Theodorsen theory,
C(k)=1.0, and the rotor wake was modeled with both uniform
inflow and a dynamic inflow model. Nonlinear dynamic stall,
yawed flow effects, and radial drag were not included.
Standard RCAS solution options were used to calculate
baseline trim and stability characteristics. The modal analysis
option (20 modes) was used in place of the full finite
element structural model, and modal damping was used
to represent structural damping of the experimental model.
Conventional constant coefficient equation eigenanalysis was
used to determine baseline stability characteristics in hover
and as an approximation for periodic coefficient Floquet
solutions in forward flight. Since the moving-block method
for post-processing transient responses was adopted as the
principal method for stability analysis in the paper, the use of
Floquet analysis was not included; such results for the ADM
stability predictions may be found in the literature [4, 5].
OVERFLOW 2 ADM CFD Model
Conventional structured overset grids were developed for
the ADM configurations. The surface and volume grid
configuration is shown in Figs. 13 and 14. The rotor is
faithfully duplicated up to the hub attachment, including
the rectangular cross-section spar and transition region. An
approximation to the hub was developed from drawings, and
is shown in the figure. The swept-tip and straight blade grid
systems are identical. Each blade is made up of 3 grids (root
cap, main blade, and tip cap). The main blade is an O-grid
topology. The dimensions of the blade grid in the chordwise,
spanwise, and normal directions are 265 x 215 x 63. There
are 25 points on the blunt trailing edge of the NACA 0012.
The first normal spacing is chosen to obtain y+ less than 1.
Chordwise leading and trailing edge spacings are .001c and
.0001c, respectively. The grid contains 29.7 million points
(46% off-body) with 8.8% mean chord wake spacing (0.3
inches) in the level 1 off-body grid that surrounds the rotor
and captures the wake. The level 1 wake grid extends 3 chords
above and below the rotor. There are 4.0 million points per
blade. A coarse mesh has been extracted from this fine mesh
and is generally an every-other-point subset. Each coarse grid
blade contains 517,000 points. For the coarse mesh, the level
1 off-body grid spacing is 17.6% chord. The total number of
points is 3.9 million (47% off-body). Numerous checks on
both swept-tip and straight blade configurations indicated that
the airloads, structural response, and stability obtained from
the coarse grid was in excellent agreement with the fine grid
at a fraction of the cost. Almost all CFD calculations in this
work use the coarse grid with fine grid analyses as noted as a
check.
RCAS/OVERFLOW 2 CFD/CSD Coupling
CFD/CSD coupling for the steady-state trim portion of the
analysis is performed using a conventional (for rotorcraft)
loose coupling (LC) incremental “delta” formulation [1].
7
Coupling is on a per revolution basis due to the assumption
of periodicity. Motions (3 rotations and 3 translations of the
airfoil sections) and airloads (3 component − section normal
force, chord force, and pitching moment) are exchanged.
Fully-automated coupling between OVERFLOW and RCAS
is accomplished via simultaneous execution of the two codes.
The codes “communicate” via flag files written to disk,
waiting for each other to finish their tasks. In loose coupling
this task is the analysis of a complete (trimmed) rotor
revolution. Consistent inputs to each solver synchronize
the coupling. Computations for the two disciplines are not
overlapped. Tight coupling (TC) for the maneuver transient
response portion of the analysis is similarly performed with
the codes executing simultaneously and waiting for each
other to finish, signaled by a flag file [16]. For TC the
communication takes place every time step. The TC algorithm
implemented in OVERFLOW/RCAS uses a lagged scheme,
with no subiterating between modules. This coupling is only
formally first-order accurate [17]. As is always the case in
CFD/CSD coupling, it is necessary to ensure that the CFD and
CSD models are consistent with each other, particularly with
respect to reference coordinate systems. This was particularly
true for the preconed rotor.
For especially tight loose coupling trim convergence, 18
coupling iterations are used, with 1/4 rev (4-bladed rotor)
between each coupling. Therefore, a coupled solution
requires 5 complete rotor revolutions, including an initial
starting revolution. For the TC transient maneuver, a
small number of rotor revolutions (< 3.5), as determined
by excitation method, are applied, followed by ∼10 rotor
revolutions of transient decay without excitation. Longer
decay transients did not modify the damping results.
The time-accurate calculations use a 4th-order central
difference spatial discretization with added 4th-difference
scalar (near-body and coarse off-body) and matrix (fine off-
body) artificial dissipation, resulting in a 3rd-order scheme. A
2nd-order temporal backward difference scheme with iterative
dual time stepping is used for time advancement along with a
penta-diagonal left-hand side scheme. Twelve subiterations
are used on the fine grid and 6 subiterations on the coarse
grid, typically resulting in 1.5 − 2.0 orders of magnitude
reduction in the main blade grid residuals. Quarter degree
(0.25◦) time steps are used (1440 steps per rotor revolution).
The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is employed in the
near-body grids. The off-body wake grids are inviscid.
For the coarse mesh, periodic loose coupling solutions
are obtained on 64 processors and require 1.4 hours per
rotor revolution on a Cray XT5. A trim solution can be
obtained in 7 hours. For transient maneuver analysis 128
processors are used and require 1.1 hours per rotor revoluti on.
Transient analyses with excitation inputs were run for 13
rotor revolutions and required 14.3 hours, resulting in stability
calculations being obtained overnight. For the fine mesh,
solutions require 3.8 hours per rotor revolution. Because
of the overhead associated with the tight coupling exchange
and the extra CSD execution time, equal loose and tight
coupling cost per revolution on this mesh requires 256 and
320 processors, respectively.
CFD Convergence and Numerical Issues
Since the development and widespread application of
CFD/CSD methods to rotorcraft airloads and blade loads
in recent years, many investigators have found that the
success of such applications is dependent on many variables
involving the coupling of CFD and CSD codes. Achieving
accurate and robust solutions has not always been simple
or straightforward. The present investigation for the novel
application of CFD/CSD stability analysis experienced a
number of issues before satisfactory results were achieved.
Some details of these issues will be presented in this section.
CFD/CSD Trim Convergence
An example LC trim convergence plot of CFD/CSD cyclic
pitch control angles for the straight blade across a range of
advance ratios is shown in Fig. 15. Convergence is quite tight
except for the 0.15 advance ratio. It should be noted that in the
experiment, the higher advance ratios (µ > 0.35) approached
regressing lead-lag mode instability. If RCAS accurately
reproduced these trends, it might not be possible to trim to
these high advance ratio conditions using a time marching
solution algorithm. CFD thrust and torque convergence for
the straight blade at 0.30 advance ratio are shown in Fig. 16.
Transient Response Numerical Sensitivities and Issues
Due to the sensitivity of the aeroelastic stability analysis
results, numerous numerical parameters were investigated
to ensure that accurate and converged solutions were being
obtained during the LC trim and TC maneuver transient
portions of the CFD/CSD analysis. A grid convergence study
was performed on both the straight and swept-tip blades. The
major difference between the coarse and fine grids appeared
to be a shift in chordwise root bending moment for the
LC trim periodic solution (Fig. 17(a)). However, when this
periodic signal is subtracted from the TC transient response,
the resulting perturbation signal is in excellent agreement
between grids (Fig. 17(b)). These two signals produce a
difference of 0.01 in damping value. Based on these and
similar results for the straight blade, the coarse grid is used
throughout this work. A fast Fourier transformation analysis
of the transient response in Fig. 17(b), determined that the
higher frequency oscillations are the second lead-lag mode, at
a frequency of 5.4/rev. Increased number of subiterations (15)
and smaller time step (0.125◦) were also investigated against
baseline values (6◦ and 0.25◦) for a non-smooth rotating
pitch excitation input. Again the results show no noticeable
difference (Fig. 18) in the perturbation signal. Damping of the
three cases varies by only 0.015 and indicates that the coarse
grid results are accurate as well as efficient.
8
When restarting the tight coupling maneuver inputs from the
periodic solution using RCAS and OVERFLOW restart files,
it was necessary to ensure that a well converged trim condition
was obtained. Some minor differences were noted in the
LC periodic signals compared with a TC transient analysis
without control inputs (null maneuver). This was potentially
due to different time steps used in RCAS between LC and TC
(5◦ versus 0.25◦), as well as other algorithmic and minor trim
differences.
During transient excitation of the rotor, it is important that
the resulting rotor blade motions are appropriate for the
CFD simulation. It was found that for the straight blade,
large pitch inputs produced unnecessarily large blade flapping
motions as shown in Fig. 19. While not necessarily physically
erroneous, this occasionally occurred inadvertently, resulting
in a solution with poor domain connectivity (i.e. orphan
points) when the near-body (NB) rotor blade grids moved
beyond the enclosing level 1 (L1) off-body grids. In
OVERFLOW, near-body grids are not able to communicate
with level 2 (L2) and higher Cartesian grids. The remedy in
such cases was to reduce the blade pitch excitation amplitude.
In general, no other robustness issues were encountered
with the CFD solutions, even at the high advance ratios.
No problems were encountered with the blade tip force
excitation inputs, despite the relatively large lead-lag motions.
One indication of the validity of the dynamic responses for
determination of aeroelastic stability characteristics is the
degree of linearity of transient response data. The linearity
of the CFD solution was checked using different cyclic
excitation input amplitudes. Figure 20 illustrates the degree of
linearity for two cases with 2◦ and 3◦ lateral cyclic excitation
inputs. By scaling the chordwise bending moment responses
by a constant factor (1.49 in this case), the results are seen to
be linear with excitation amplitude.
Transient Response Noise
Even though noise sources are typically associated with
experimental data, numerical methods can also generate
“noise” and undesired oscillations in the solution [11].
Such computational noise may cause difficulty in the post-
processing stability analysis. Noise sources from the
CFD calculations may include wake oscillations and non-
periodicity, rotor hub turbulence, non-smooth excitation
inputs, inexact numerical convergence, and rotor blade
aerodynamic non-linearities. The wake shed from the hub
and rectangular cross-section spar were found to produce non-
periodic stochastic turbulence. Figure 21 compares wake
visualizations (Q criteria) with and without the hub for the
two blade configurations. The turbulence resulted in degraded
trim convergence and some variation in the structural loads.
The rotor thrust and torque were also affected (Fig. 22),
particularly with respect to irregular variations in the cycle
peak amplitudes. The hub was subsequently removed from
the ADM physical model for all CFD calculations.
During development and refinement of transient excitations,
blade pitch inputs that contained step changes produced very
noisy transient responses. These oscillations, typically due to
high frequency structural response, usually dissipated quickly
following cessation of the excitation. An example of the
non-smooth excitation inputs is shown in Fig 18. In the
final results, depending on the excitation methodologies, the
excitation inputs were timed to apply continuous control
inputs on both entry and exit from the maneuver. For the
rotating pitch input, this went even farther by ramping up the
input amplitude from zero to the final value (Fig 17). For
the blade inplane tip force and lateral cyclic excitation inputs,
an extra revolution of periodic, unexcited response was run
at the beginning of the maneuver (Fig. 20 − lateral cyclic
excitation).
Blade-to-Blade Differences and Moving-Block Sensitivity
In the CFD and CSD models all four blades are identical,
unlike the experimental blades. As noted above, apparent
differences in responses between blades were found to
arise due to numerical issues, the CFD/CSD coupling
algorithm, CFD turbulent flow physics, etc. Another apparent
manifestation of blade-to-blade differences arises from the
dynamics of the excitation itself. Figure 23(a) shows the
perturbation lead-lag bending moment response of the straight
blade configuration to lateral cyclic pitch excitation. Here
the amplitude of the four blades differs significantly. These
differences are similar but much more pronounced than the
example shown in Fig. 10(a) for the responses of the four
swept-tip blades to similar excitation. Figure 23(b) shows
the rotor lead-lag bending moments transformed into multi-
blade coordinates, and it is evident that there is significant
collective mode response present that is responsible for the
apparent differences in response of the four blades. The cause
was described earlier and is due to the rotor thrust and torque
response of the rotor to the lateral cyclic pitch excitation. The
effect is more pronounced for the straight blade rotor since
the torsional response of the swept-tip blades opposes thrust
changes due to blade pitch and rotor disk angle of attack and
minimizes the effect.
It was found that the CFD noise in the tight coupling transient
responses could be mitigated if the periodic responses from
the loose coupling trim analysis were subtracted from the
transients to yield the perturbation transients as discussed
earlier. The moving-block post-processing of the total
response was often unsatisfactory, while post-processing of
the perturbation transient usually produced a more acceptable
result. Noise in the coupled CFD/CSD solutions nonetheless
did produce some blade-to-blade differences in transient
responses and the post-processed damping results.
Figures 24 and 25 show screenshots of the moving-block
analysis for the swept-tip blade at µ = 0.3 with blade tip force
excitation and lateral cyclic excitation, respectively. Both
9
total response and perturbed response are compared for each
excitation method. For the blade tip force excitation, there
is virtually no difference between the total and perturbed
responses because the blade tip force excitation provides
a purer high amplitude lead-lag regressing mode response,
as was discussed earlier. For the lateral cyclic excitation,
significant oscillation in the natural logarithm of the moving-
block function was observed with the total response. The
least-squares fit of this signal hampers the accurate estimation
of blade damping. The perturbed response, however, provides
an almost linear signal.
Results and Discussion
This section of the paper will present results of the
stability analyses performed with the CFD/CSD methodology
developed in this paper. Baseline results from conventional
methods and ADM experimental results will be included for
comparison. A few additional airloads and trim results will
also be included for completeness.
Hover Stability RCAS Results
Figures 26 and 27 compare the calculated regressing lag
mode damping for the swept-tip rotor blades with the
measured values in hover with precone angle of 0 ◦ and 2◦ ,
respectively. Both constant coefficient eigenanalysis and
moving-block results are presented as a function of collective
pitch. Uniform inflow was used for the constant coefficient
eigenanalysis, and both uniform inflow and dynamic inflow
were used for the transient response analysis with moving-
block method. The dynamic inflow used is a three-state
Peters-He model [18] whose highest power of the radial terms
is one and whose maximum number of harmonics is one,
denoted as 1×1, which is essentially the Pitt-Peters dynamic
inflow model [19].
Dynamic inflow reduces damping compared to uniform inflow
for both 0◦ and 2◦ precone angles, especially at high collective
pitch angles. The tip loss has a significant influence on the
damping prediction. Including the tip loss resulted in much
higher damping values, especially at high collective pitch
angles. The analysis without the tip loss agrees well with
the measured values. There is no difference between the
constant coefficient eigenanalysis and the transient response
analysis with moving-block method. This shows that the
transient response analysis with moving-block technique
works properly.
Forward Flight CFD/CSD and RCAS Trim Results
Numerous studies have shown that CFD/CSD airloads
predictions are more accurate in most cases than lifting-
line aerodynamics results from comprehensive codes, even
with the use of free wake models [1]. An example airloads
comparison between coupled OVERFLOW/RCAS and RCAS
lifting-line table-lookup with dynamic inflow is shown in
Fig. 28 for the swept-tip blade at 0.30 advance ratio (αs
= 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ ). The comprehensive analysis is unable
to accurately capture the wake induced oscillations in the
airloads, particularly at 90 ◦ and 270◦ azimuth. Overall the
results are of the same magnitude but much smoother with
dynamic inflow. Similar discrepancies might be expected at
high advance ratios, especially on the straight blade. This
undoubtedly has some affect on aeroelastic stability.
Because the initial trim solution is critical to the lead-lag
stability, Fig. 29 compares the control angles calculated with
RCAS and RCAS/OVERFLOW against the measured values
for the straight blade, 6◦ collective, −6◦ shaft angle for a
range of advance ratios. The trends are in good agreement but
the longitudinal cyclic angles are offset by as much as 1.5◦ for
RCAS. The measured collective pitch at µ = 0.1 appears to be
an outlier. The coupled CFD/CSD analysis shows consistently
better correlation than RCAS alone analysis.
To help provide a basis for the aeroelastic stability results
to follow, Fig. 30 is included to illustrate how the rotor
thrust varies as a function of advance ratio for the different
operating conditions of the straight and swept-tip blades.
These conditions represent a subset of the test conditions
of the two configurations summarized at the beginning of
the paper in Fig. 4. It is noted that the rotor thrust was
not measured during the wind tunnel testing and, therefore,
cannot be compared with these results. However, the primary
purpose is not for correlation but to relate rotor thrust to
stability characteristics and, thereby, help interpret the results.
Basic flap-lag stability of hingeless rotor blades may be
related to the trimmed flapping deflection of the rotor
blade and the effective pitch-lag aeroelastic couplings
arising from perturbation lead-lag deflections of torsionally
flexible blades [20, 21]. Essentially, the equilibrium blade
flap deflection accompanying increased thrust will produce
stabilizing pitch-lag coupling that will increase lead-lag
damping in soft-inplane hingeless rotor blades like the ADM.
This is observed in the hover results in Figs. 26 and 27 at both
positive and negative thrust (positive and negative collective
pitch). The destabilizing effect of precone arises from its
effect on equilibrium flap deflection.
Figure 30 shows that, in forward flight, the thrust of the
swept-tip blade at zero rotor angle of attack varies only
moderately with advance ratio, while the thrust of the straight
blade, at 6◦ negative angle of attack, diminishes significantly
with advance ratio due to the increasing free stream velocity
component normal to the rotor disk. The thrust becomes
negative at µ < 0.3 for the 3◦ collective pitch. Analogous
to the hover result at zero collective pitch, the damping in
forward flight would be expected to be a minimum under
these conditions. Whether the regressing lag mode would
become unstable (as the trend in Fig. 4(b) suggests) or not
would depend on the effects of forward flight and precone.
10
Forward Flight CFD/CSD and RCAS Transient Response
Time Histories
Before presenting the post-processed lead-lag regressing
mode damping results, it is of interest to compare the transient
excitation response and decay of the baseline RCAS analysis
with the coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW analysis. The straight
blade with the tip force excitation is used for this example,
and the response is first shown pictorially in Fig. 31 as a
stop-motion sequence of images depicting the blade motion
amplitude. Figure 32 shows the time history lead-lag bending
moment response at µ = 0.3 in the rotating system including 1)
the trim periodic response for the first revolution, 2) followed
by one cycle of regressing frequency tip force (about 3.5
revolutions), and 3) another 8.5 revolutions of transient decay.
Note that the time history is the total transient response
rather than the perturbation component. The trim periodic
response and initial excitation are in close agreement for both
the baseline RCAS and the RCAS/OVERFLOW calculations,
however, as the transient decay progresses, the lower damping
of the CFD/CSD transient is apparent. It is interesting to note
that the lead-lag damping is a very sensitive indicator of the
aeroelastic response, given that the two time history responses
look about the same. As will be seen in the comparisons with
the experimental damping measurements presented below,
CFD/CSD represents the more accurate result.
Forward Flight Stability Blade-to-Blade Sensitivity
One of the key points of interest about the methodology
presented in this paper is the accuracy and robustness of the
CFD/CSD transient response calculations and the moving-
block post-processing method. A number of results were
presented to illustrate some of the issues encountered for the
CFD/CSD calculations, and several transient excitations were
examined for suitability in generating well behaved transient
responses for stability post-processing. Results using the
baseline RCAS calculations in the hover condition validated
the moving-block results by comparing the regressing lead-
lag damping to the eigensolution results.
For the CFD/CSD results in forward flight, the moving-block
results were further assessed by comparing the damping of
all four blades for the swept and straight blades and the three
different excitation methods as a function of advance ratio.
The results are presented in Figs. 33 and 34 for the swept-
tip and straight blades, respectively. The agreement with the
experimental data is shown to be generally very good and will
be discussed in more detail in the next section. Of interest
here is the sensitivity of the results for the different blades.
As noted earlier, the blades were modeled with identical
properties for the calculated results, so the differences in
the results are due to variations in the calculated and post-
processing results for the four blades. In general, the swept-
tip blades show more consistency than the straight blades,
and this may be related to the overall lower sensitivity of the
swept-tip blades to changes in operating condition. The blade
tip force excitation method appears to give more consistent
results than the two blade pitch excitation methods, and this is
likely due to the larger lead-lag motions relative to blade pitch
and flap motions as discussed earlier.
Isolated anomalies in the blade sensitivity results, such as
the higher damping of Blades 2 and 4 in Fig. 33(a) or the
slight differences between the three excitation methods, are
unexplained. Overall, however, the predicted damping results
appear to be reasonably consistent and generally agree well
with the measured results.
Forward Flight Stability Results
This section compares results of the forward flight stability
analyses with experimental results. Blade regressing lag mode
stability was calculated using three different methods: 1)
RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis, 2) RCAS transient
response analysis using the moving-block method, and
3) coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW transient response analysis
using the moving-block method. For the RCAS alone
analysis, a fifteen-state Peters-He dynamic inflow model [18],
whose highest power of the radial terms is four and whose
maximum number of harmonics is four, was used. It should
mentioned that the moving-block results for the coupled
CFD/CSD analysis in the following figures were averaged
from all four blades.
Figure 35 compares the calculated regressing lag mode
damping for the swept-tip rotor blades with 3 ◦ collective.
RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis shows good
agreement with the test data up to µ = 0.35, but overpredicts
at higher advance ratios. RCAS moving-block transient
analysis shows that the three different excitation methods
show almost identical damping values, and the predicted
damping values are slightly reduced at high advance ratios
compared to the constant coefficient eigenanalysis results.
For the coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW analysis, only inplane
tip force excitation was used. The coupled transient response
analysis with moving-block method increased damping at all
advance ratios except µ = 0.45 compared to the RCAS alone
analysis. The increased damping trend with advance ratio is
noticeably reduced.
Figure 36 compares the calculated regressing lag mode
damping for the swept-tip rotor blades with 6 ◦ collective.
RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis shows that the
damping increases almost linearly, thus underpredicts the
regressing lag mode damping at low advance ratios, but
overpredicts at high advance ratios. RCAS moving-block
transient analysis shows that the predicted damping values
agree well between the inplane tip force excitation and
rotating pitch excitation methods, however, cyclic pitch
excitation results show larger damping. The predicted
damping values are almost constant up to around µ = 0.3 and
then slowly increase. In general, correlation is better than
11
the constant coefficient eigenanalysis at higher advance ratios.
The coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW moving-block transient
analysis shows that the three different excitation methods
produce almost identical damping values. It should be noted
that damping was calculated at µ = 0.45 with the lateral cyclic
excitation and at µ = 0.4 and 0.5 with inplane force and
rotating pitch excitations. As with the 3◦ collective case, the
coupled CFD/CSD analysis shows increased overall damping
compared to the RCAS alone analysis. The “up-down-up”
variations with advance ratio are well captured only with the
coupled CFD/CSD analysis.
Figure 37 shows the calculated regressing lag mode damping
for the straight blades with 3◦ collective. RCAS constant
coefficient eigenanalysis shows reasonably good correlation
up to µ = 0.2, but significantly overpredicts after that. RCAS
moving-block transient analysis shows that all three methods
show somewhat similar damping values, and the predicted
damping values are almost same as those with constant
coefficient eigenanalysis. The coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW
moving-block transient analysis with inplane force excitation
better captures the damping reductions at high speed.
The damping values predicted with the coupled CFD/CSD
analysis decrease at µ = 0.30 and 0.35 compared to those with
RCAS analysis, and thus the correlation is improved.
Figure 38 shows the calculated regressing lag mode damping
for the straight blades with 6◦ collective. RCAS constant
coefficient eigenanalysis overpredicts the damping. RCAS
moving-block transient analysis reduces damping values at
high advance ratios compared to the constant coefficient
eigenanalysis results. Differences among the three excitations
are larger at this collective angle compared to the 3 ◦
collective results. The coupled CFD/CSD analysis captures
the decreased damping with advance ratio and significantly
improves the correlation with the test data, but also shows
differences among the three excitations.
Taken together, the forward flight regressing lead-lag damping
results for the swept-tip and straight blades presented in
Figs. 35 through 38 show that the coupled CFD/CSD
predictions produce a significant improvement compared with
the RCAS predictions based on conventional aerodynamics
methods. In particular, the key features in the damping
trends that have eluded numerous ADM correlation studies,
namely the “up-down-up” trend of the swept-tip blade and
the “decreasing damping” trend of the straight blade, now
appear to have been reasonably well captured. Furthermore,
the moving-block transient response results based on
conventional RCAS showed a small improvement compared
to the constant coefficient eigensolution approximation,
consistent with previously published results based on periodic
coefficient Floquet eigensolutions. This implies that the
principal source of the improved damping is a result of
introducing more accurate aerodynamics from the CFD
modeling.
It is of interest to understand the specific reasons for the
improvements in aeroelastic stability and lead-lag damping
due to CFD aerodynamics. The RCAS and OVERFLOW
airloads comparisons in Fig. 28 implied some of the
limitations of conventional aerodynamics. The improved trim
solutions in Fig. 29 were largely due to the more accurate
CFD rotor wake inflow distributions, and since the trim
solution directly influences the blade equilibrium solution
through the effective aeroelastic couplings, this would account
for some of the damping improvement. More accurate
unsteady aerodynamics are also likely to be a significant
part of the improvement since time-dependent perturbation
airloads ultimately govern the damping of the transient blade
motions. Exactly which aspects of CFD fluid mechanics are
most important − compressibility, unsteady aerodynamics,
or three-dimensional effects − will take more detailed
investigation. To consider only one of these possibilities, it
is well known [20] that the airfoil profile drag coefficient is
a basic determinant of simple flap-lag stability in hover; how
airfoil drag varies for complex unsteady motion and reversed
flow in forward flight is presently poorly understood, but CFD
analysis may reveal its importance in determining lead-lag
damping trends at high advance ratios.
Summary and Conclusions
The CFD/CSD coupling method for the rotor aeroelastic
stability problem was successfully developed. The method
was applied to calculate lead-lag regressing mode damping
of both straight and swept-tip hingeless rotor blades and
compared with experimental data in forward flight. The
principal findings of this work are summarized here.
1) For isolated rotor lead-lag mode aeroelastic stability,
the CFD/CSD method based on loose coupling trim,
tight coupling transient response, and moving-block post-
processing was shown to be reasonably practical and robust
when transient excitations were tailored to minimize the
number of rotor revolutions needed.
2) The RCAS/OVERFLOW coupled CFD/CSD lead-lag
damping predictions in forward flight agreed more closely
with the experimental measurements than conventional RCAS
predictions. In particular, previously elusive ADM stability
characteristics − the swept-tip blade “up-down-up” variation
in damping with advance ratio and the straight blade
“decreasing damping” trend were reasonably well captured in
the present CFD/CSD results.
3) Conventional RCAS damping results using the moving-
block transient analysis showed a modest improvement
(increasing with collective pitch and advance ratio) over the
approximate constant coefficient eigensolutions, as might be
expected. However, the relatively small differences indicate
the periodic coefficient effects are not large and that the
12
principal reason for the improved damping predictions of
the coupled CFD/CSD method is a consequence of the more
accurate CFD unsteady aerodynamics.
4) The moving-block transient response method was validated
by showing conventional RCAS lead-lag damping results for
hover in agreement with RCAS constant coefficient equation
eigensolutions, as should be the case.
5) A number of CFD/CSD implementation issues were
addressed to achieve practical aeroelastic stability results with
limited computational run-time. It was found that relatively
short excitation inputs would yield transient responses
suitable for moving-block stability post-processing if the
inputs were tuned to the blade lead-lag frequency, and were
not initiated or terminated discontinuously.
6) Of the several transient excitation methods investigated
in this work, the blade tip force excitation was considerably
more effective than the cyclic pitch and rotating blade pitch
inputs in generating blade lead-lag responses for stability
post-processing.
7) The three different excitation methods gave generally
consistent lead-lag damping results but some unexplained
differences and variations between blades were observed.
Typically these differences were more apparent in the
CFD/CSD results than for the RCAS alone results.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thomas Maier at U.S.
Army AFDD for sharing his experience of the experiments,
Dr. Hossein Saberi at Advanced Rotorcraft Technology
Inc. for his assistance in the RCAS analysis, and Dr.
Mahendra Bhagwat at U.S. Army AFDD for his assistance
with CFD/CSD tight coupling analyses. Dr. Pieter Buning
at NASA performed the integration of rotorcraft capabilities
into OVERFLOW 2.1. Computing resources under a DoD
HPCMP Challenge Project at the Navy DSRC are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Potsdam, M., Yeo, H., and Johnson, W., “Rotor Airloads
Prediction Using Loose Aerodynamic/Structural
Coupling,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 3, May-
June 2006.
[2] Bhagwat, M. J., Ormiston, R. A., Saberi, H. A.,
and Xin, H., “Application of CFD/CSD Coupling for
Analysis of Rotorcraft Airloads and Blade Loads in
Maneuvering Flight,” American Helicopter Society 62rd
Annual Forum Proceedings, Virginia Beach, VA, May 1-
3, 2007.
 [3] Maier, T. A., Sharp, D. L., and Lim, J. W., “Fundamental
Investigation of Hingeless Rotor Aeroelastic Stability,
Test Data and Correlation,” American Helicopter
Society 51st Annual Forum Proceedings, Forth Worth,
TX, May 9-11, 1995.
[4] Maier, T. A., Sharp, D. L., and Abrego, A. I.,
“Aeroelastic Stability for Straight and Swept-Tip Rotor
Blades in Hover and Forward Flight,” American
Helicopter Society 55th Annual Forum Proceedings,
Montreal, Canada, May 25-27, 1999.
[5] Maier, T. A., and Abrego, A. I., “Analytical Model
Sensitivity Study for Aeroelastic Stability of Straight
and Swept-Tip Rotor Blades,” The 26th European
Rotorcraft Forum Proceedings, The Hague, Netherlands,
September 26-29, 2000.
[6] Subramanian, S., Ma, G., Gaonkar, G. H., and Maier,
T. A., “Correlation of Several Aerodynamic Models and
Measurements of Hingeless-Rotor Trim and Stability,”
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 45, No.
2, April 2000, pp. 106-117.
[7] Cafarelli, I., Hopkins, A. S., Truong, K, V., and Maier,
T. A., “Aeroelastic Stability Analysis of Two Hingeless
Rotors,” 33rd European Rotorcraft Forum Proceedings,
Kazan, Russia, September 11-13, 2000.
[8] Anon, “Flutter Testing Techniques,” Conference at
Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, October
9-10, 1975, NASA SP-415, 1976.
[9] Hammond, C. E., and Doggett, R. V., Jr., “Determination
of Subcritical Damping by Moving-Block/Randomdec
Application,” NASA SP-415, October 1975.
[10] Bousman, W. G., and Winkler, D. J., “Application of the
Moving-Block Analysis,” AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS
22nd Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, April 6-8, 1981
[11] Bauchau, O. A., and Wang, J., “Efficient and
Robust Approaches for Rotorcraft Stability Analysis,”
American Helicopter Society 63rd Annual Forum and
Technology Display, Virginia Beach, VA, May 1-3,
2007.
[12] McNamara, J. J., and Friedmann, P. P., “Flutter-
Boundary Identification for Time-Domain
Computational Aeroelasticity,” AIAA Journal, Vol.
45, No. 7, July 2007.
[13] Saberi, H. A., Khoshlahjeh, M., Ormiston, R. A., and
Rutkowski, M. J., “RCAS Overview and Application
to Advanced Rotorcraft Problems,” AHS Fourth
Decennial Specialists’ Conference on Aeromechanics,
San Francisco, CA, January 21-23, 2004.
13
[14] Strawn, R., Nygaard, T., Bhagwat, M., Dimanlig, A.,
Saberi, H., Ormiston, R., and Potsdam, M., “Integrated
Computational Fluid and Structural Dynamics Analyses
for Comprehensive Rotorcraft Analysis,” AIAA Paper
2007-6575, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, Hilton Head, SC, August 20-23, 2007.
[15] Nygaard, T., Ormiston, R. O., Potsdam, M., Saberi,
H., and Strawn, R., “CFD and CSD Coupling
Algorithms and Fluid Structure Interface for Rotorcraft
Aeromechanics in Steady and Transient Flight
Conditions,” American Helicopter Society 62nd
Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 9-11, 2006.
[16] Bhagwat, M., and Ormiston, R. O., “Examination
of Rotor Aerodynamics in Steady and Maneuvering
Flight Using CFD and Conventional Methods,” AHS
Specialists’ Conference on Aeromechanics, San
Francisco, CA, January 23-25, 2008.
[17] Silbaugh, B., and Baeder, J., “Coupled CFD/CSD
Analysis of a Maneuvering Rotor Using Staggered and
Time-Accurate Coupling Schemes,” AHS Specialists’
Conference on Aeromechanics, San Francisco, CA,
January 23-25, 2008.
[18] Peters, D. A, and He, C. J., “Correlation of Measured
Induced Velocities with a Finite-State Wake Model,”
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 36, No.
3, July 1991.
[19] Pitt, D. M., and Peters, D. A, “Theoretical Prediction
of Dynamic-Inflow Derivatives,” Sixth European
Rotorcraft and Powered Lift Aircraft Forum
Proceedings, Bristol, England, September 16-19,
1980.
[20] Ormiston, R. A., and Hodges, D. H., “Linear Flap-
Lag Dynamics of Hingeless Helicopter Rotor Blades
in Hover,” Journal of the American Helicopter Society,
Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1972, pp. 2-14.
[21] Hodges, D. H., and Ormiston, R. A., “Stability of Elastic
Bending and Torsion of Uniform Cantilever Rotor
Blades in Hover with Variable Structural Coupling,”
NASA TN D-8192, April 1976.
Fig. 1: Advanced Dynamic Model (ADM) straight and swept-tip rotor models installed on the Rotor Test Rig (RTR) in the
AFDD 7-by 10-Foot wind tunnel.

Fig. 2: Planform of straight and swept-tip rotor models

14
 8.0 8.0
T2
T2

F3
6.0 F3 6.0
Frequency, per rev

Frequency, per rev

F4
L2
L2

4.0 4.0
F2
F2

T1 T1
2.0 2.0
F1 F1

L1 L1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Rotor speed (Ω/Ω ) Rotor speed (Ω/Ω )
o o
(a) Straight blade. (b) Swept-tip blade.

Fig. 3: Fan plots for straight and swept-tip rotor blades with 0◦ collective.

2.0 3 deg collective 3.0

3 deg collective
4 deg collective
5 deg collective 4 deg collective
6 deg collective 5 deg collective
7 deg collective
6 deg collective
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec

1.5 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(a) Swept-tip blade, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ (b) Straight blade, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦

Fig. 4: ADM measured damping showing key trends for the swept-tip and straight blades.

15
 12.6

Pitch angle, deg

12.3

12.0

11.7

11.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Time, sec
(a) Pitch angle.

8.0
CBM @12%R, ft-lb

4.0

0.0

-4.0

-8.0

-12.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Time, sec
(b) Chord bending moment @12%R.

Fig. 5: Representative pitch excitation and blade lad-lag structural response in hover.

Fig. 6: Moving-block transient response analysis for typical transient decay in hover.

16
 4 4
Blade 1 MBC_Coll
Blade 2 MBC_Diff

Perturbatation pitch angle, deg

Perturbatation pitch angle, deg

Blade 3 MBC_Cos
Blade 4 MBC_Sin
2 2

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rotor revolution Rotor revolution
(a) Rotating frame (b) Fixed frame

Fig. 7: Lateral cyclic pitch excitation with regressing lag frequency.

3 3 1.0
Blade 1 MBC_Coll
Blade 2 MBC_Diff
Perturbatation pitch angle, deg

Perturbatation pitch angle, deg

2 Blade 3 2 MBC_Cos 0.5

Blade 4 MBC_Sin

Sine cyclic pitch

1 1 0.0

0 0 -0.5

-1 -1 -1.0

-2 -2 -1.5

-3 -3 -2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Rotor revolution Rotor revolution Cosine cyclic pitch
(a) Rotating frame (b) Fixed frame (c) Polar plot of fixed frame

Fig. 8: Rotating system blade pitch excitation with lead-lag frequency in the rotating system.

12 12
Blade 1 MBC_Coll
Blade 2 MBC_Diff
Blade 3 MBC_Cos
Lateral cyclic tip force, lbs

Lateral cyclic tip force, lbs

Blade 4 MBC_Sin
6 6

0 0

-6 -6

-12 -12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rotor revolution Rotor revolution
(a) Rotating frame (b) Fixed frame

Fig. 9: Blade tip lead-lag force excitation with regressing lag frequency.

17
 16 16 16
Chord bending moment @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 1 Blade 1 MBC_Coll

Flap bending moment @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 2 Blade 2 MBC_Diff

Fixed frame CBM @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 3 Blade 3 MBC_Cos
Blade 4 Blade 4 MBC_Sin
8 8 8

0 0 0

-8 -8 -8

-16 -16 -16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rotor revolution Rotor revolution Rotor revolution
(a) Blade chord bending moment @12%R (b) Blade flap bending moment@12%R (c) Blade chord bending moment @12%R in
fixed frame

Fig. 10: Blade perturbation chord and flap moment response to lateral cyclic pitch excitation, RCAS/OVERFLOW, swept-tip
blade, µ = 0.3, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

30 30 30
Chord bending moment @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 1 Blade 1 MBC_Coll

Flap bending moment @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 2 Blade 2 MBC_Diff

Fixed frame CBM @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 3 Blade 3 MBC_Cos
Blade 4 Blade 4 MBC_Sin
15 15 15

0 0 0

-15 -15 -15

-30 -30 -30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rotor revolution Rotor revolution Rotor revolution
(a) Blade chord bending moment @12%R (b) Blade flap bending moment@12%R (c) Blade chord bending moment @12%R in
fixed frame

Fig. 11: Blade perturbation chord and flap moment response to rotating system blade pitch excitation, RCAS/OVERFLOW,
swept-tip blade, µ = 0.3, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

80 10 80
Chord bending moment @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 1 Blade 1 MBC_Coll

Flap bending moment @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 2 Blade 2 MBC_Diff

Fixed frame CBM @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 3 Blade 3 MBC_Cos

Blade 4 Blade 4 MBC_Sin
40 5 40

0 0 0

-40 -5 -40

-80 -10 -80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rotor revolution Rotor revolution Rotor revolution
(a) Blade chord bending moment @12%R (b) Blade flap bending moment@12%R (c) Blade chord bending moment @12%R in
fixed frame

Fig. 12: Blade perturbation chord and flap moment response to blade tip force excitation, RCAS/OVERFLOW, swept-tip blade,
µ = 0.3, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

18
 µ = 0.10
µ = 0.15
µ = 0.20
2 µ = 0.25
µ = 0.30
µ = 0.35
µ = 0.40
µ = 0.45
1

cyclic angles, deg

0

-1

-2

-3

-4
5 10 15
coupling iteration

Fig. 15: Loose coupling trim convergence, straight blade,

Fig. 13: ADM swept-tip blade surface grids with hub. range of advance ratios, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

thrust
convergence / final value

torque
0.95

0.9

0.85

5 10 15
coupling convergence

Fig. 14: ADM swept-tip blade volume grids with hub. Fig. 16: Loose coupling thrust and torque convergence,
straight blade, µ = 0.30, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

19
 5 coarse grid
fine grid

CBM @12%R, ft-lb

0

-5

-10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rotor revolutions
(a) Steady state trim periodic response

15 coarse grid
fine grid
10
CBM @12%R, ft-lb

-5

-10

-15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rotor revolutions
(b) Perturbation transient response

Fig. 17: CFD grid convergence with rotating pitch excitation, swept-tip blade, µ = 0.30, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

20 ∆ψ = 0.25°, subiterations = 6
∆ψ = 0.125°
subiterations = 15
CBM @ 12%R, ft-lb

10

-10

-20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
rotor revolutions

Fig. 18: Numerical parameter investigation: effect of timestep and number of CFD subiterations, swept-tip blade, µ = 0.30,
αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ , non-smooth rotating pitch excitation.

20
Fig. 19: Excessive flapping from rotating pitch excitation with 4◦ pitch amplitude, straight blade, µ = 0.40, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ ,
θ0 = 6◦ .

θ1 = 2°
20 θ1 = 3°
θ1 = 2°, scaled
CBM @ 12%R, ft-lb

10

-10

-20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
rotor revolutions

Fig. 20: Effect of lateral cyclic pitch input excitation amplitude on perturbation response, straight blade, µ = 0.30, αs = −6◦ ,
βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

(a) swept-tip blade (αs = 0◦ ) (b) straight blade (αs = −6◦ )

Fig. 21: CFD visualization of wake, comparing hub effects, fine grid, µ = 0.30.

21
 0.0058 hub
no hub
0.0056

0.0054

T
0.0052

C
0.0050

0.0048

0.0046

0 1 2 3 4 5

Rotor revolutions
(a) Rotor thrust

0.00028 hub
no hub

0.00027
Q
C

0.00026

0.00025

0.00024

0 1 2 3 4 5

Rotor revolutions
(b) Rotor torque

Fig. 22: Effect of hub on thrust and torque, swept-tip blade, CFD periodic solutions with no excitation, µ = 0.30, αs = 0◦ ,
βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .
Blade 1
15 Blade 2
Blade 3
10
CBM @12%R, ft-lb

Blade 4
5

-5

-10

-15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rotor revolutions
(a) Perturbation transient responses for all four blades

15
MBC_Coll
MBC_Diff
10
CBM @12%R, ft-lb

MBC_Cos
5 MBC_Sin

-5

-10

-15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rotor revolutions
(b) Perturbation MBC transient response in the fixed frame

Fig. 23: RCAS/OVERFLOW transient response, µ = 0.30, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ .

22
 (a) Total response

(b) Perturbed response

Fig. 24: Moving-block analysis of swept-tip blade with blade tip force excitation, µ = 0.30, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

23
 (a) Total response

(b) Perturbed response

Fig. 25: Moving-block analysis of swept-tip blade with lateral cyclic excitation, µ = 0.30, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

24
 4.0 4.0 Test
Test
Uniform inflow - Tip loss 0.98
Uniform inflow - Tip loss 0.98
Dynamic inflow, 1x1 - Tip loss 0.98
Uniform inflow - No tip loss Uniform inflow - No tip loss
Dynamic inflow, 1x1 - No tip loss
3.0 3.0
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec
Damping -σ

Damping -σ
2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Collective pitch, deg Collective pitch, deg
(a) Constant coefficient eigenanalysis. (b) Transient response analysis with moving-block technique.

Fig. 26: Effect of dynamic inflow and tip loss on damping in hover of swept-tip blades with 0◦ precone

4.0 Test 4.0 Test

Uniform inflow - Tip loss 0.98
Uniform inflow - Tip loss 0.98 Dynamic inflow, 1x1 - Tip loss 0.98
Uniform inflow - No tip loss Uniform inflow - No tip loss
Dynamic inflow, 1x1 - No tip loss
3.0 3.0
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec
Damping -σ

Damping -σ

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Collective pitch, deg Collective pitch, deg
(a) Constant coefficient eigenanalysis. (b) Transient response analysis with moving-block technique.

Fig. 27: Effect of dynamic inflow and tip loss on damping in hover of swept-tip blades with 2◦ precone

25
 0.12
OVERFLOW/RCAS
RCAS 0.003 r/R = 0.93 0.01

0.002
0.1 0.005
M 2cn

0.001

M 2cc
0.08 0

M 2cm
0

0.06 -0.005
-0.001

0.04 -0.002 -0.01

0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
azimuth angle, deg azimuth angle, deg azimuth angle, deg
(a) Normal force (b) Pitching moment (c) Chord force (+ve leading edge)

Fig. 28: steady state periodic airload comparisons at 93% R, swept-tip blade, µ = 0.30, αs = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

8.0 4.0 Test

Test RCAS
RCAS RCAS/OVERFLOW 2
Test
RCAS/OVERFLOW 2 2.0 RCAS
7.0 RCAS/OVERFLOW 2
lateral
Cyclic angles, deg
Collective, deg

0.0

6.0

-2.0 longitudinal

5.0
-4.0

4.0 -6.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(a) Collective angle (b) Cyclic angles

Fig. 29: Trim control angles, straight blade, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ .

0.006

θ=6
o
0.004

swept
(α =0 , β =0 )
o o
T
C

s p

0.002
θ=3
o

0.000
straight
(α =-6 , β =2 )
o o
s p

-0.002
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio

Fig. 30: Variation of trim rotor thrust coefficient with collective pitch and rotor angle of attack as a function of advance ratio
based on RCAS/OVERFLOW 2 calculations.

26
Fig. 31: Lead-lag motions from blade tip lead-lag force excitation at different revolutions (red, blue, green) compared with
undeflected (gray), straight blade, µ = 0.30, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ , blades at 90◦ and 270◦.

80 RCAS
RCAS/OVERFLOW 2
53
CBM @12%R, ft-lb

27

-27

-53

-80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rotor revolutions

Fig. 32: Comparison of transient response with blade tip lead-lag force excitation between RCAS and RCAS/OVERFLOW 2,
straight blade, µ = 0.30, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

27
 3.0 3.0
Test Test
Blade 1 Blade 1
Blade 2 Blade 2
Blade 3 Blade 3
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec
Blade 4 Blade 4
2.0 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(a) Lateral cyclic excitation (a) Lateral cyclic excitation
3.0 3.0
Test Test
Blade 1 Blade 2
Blade 2
Blade 3 Blade 3
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec
Blade 4 Blade 4
2.0 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(b) Rotating pitch excitation (b) Rotating pitch excitation
3.0 3.0
Test Test
Blade 1 Blade 1
Blade 2 Blade 2
Blade 3 Blade 3
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec

Blade 4 Blade 4
2.0 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(c) Blade tip force excitation (c) Blade tip force excitation

Fig. 33: RCAS/OVERFLOW 2 stability analysis of swept-tip Fig. 34: RCAS/OVERFLOW 2 stability analysis of straight
blade showing damping from moving-block transient analysis blade showing damping from moving-block transient analysis
of different blades, αs = 0◦ , βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ . of different blades, αs = −6◦ , βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

28
 3.0
3.0 Test
Test
Constant coefficient
Constant coefficient

σ, rad/sec
σ, rad/sec

2.0
2.0

Damping -σ
Damping -σ

1.0
1.0

0.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(a) RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis
(a) RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis
3.0
3.0 Test
Test Lateral cyclic
Lateral cyclic pitch Rotating pitch
Rotating pitch Blade tip force
Blade tip force

σ, rad/sec
σ, rad/sec

2.0
2.0 Damping -σ
Damping -σ

1.0
1.0

0.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(b) RCAS moving-block transient response analysis
(b) RCAS moving-block transient response analysis
3.0
3.0 Test
Test Lateral cyclic
Blade tip force Rotating pitch
Blade tip force
σ, rad/sec
σ, rad/sec

2.0
2.0
Damping -σ
Damping -σ

1.0
1.0

0.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(c) Coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW moving-block transient
(c) Coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW transient response analysis
analysis

Fig. 35: Stability analysis of swept-tip blade, αs = 0◦ , Fig. 36: Stability analysis of swept-tip blade, αs = 0◦ ,
βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 3◦ . βp = 0◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

29
 3.0 3.0 Test
Test
Constant coefficient Constant Coefficient
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec
2.0 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ
1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(a) RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis (a) RCAS constant coefficient eigenanalysis
3.0 3.0
Test Test
Lateral cyclic pitch Lateral cyclic pitch
Rotating pitch Rotating pitch
Blade tip force Blade tip force
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec
2.0 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(b) RCAS moving-block transient analysis (b) RCAS moving-block transient analysis
3.0 3.0
Test Test
Lateral cyclic pitch
Blade tip force
Rotating pitch
Blade tip force
σ, rad/sec

σ, rad/sec

2.0 2.0
Damping -σ

Damping -σ

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Advance ratio Advance ratio
(c) Coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW moving-block transient (c) Coupled RCAS/OVERFLOW moving-block transient
analysis analysis

Fig. 37: Stability analysis of straight blade, αs = −6◦ , Fig. 38: Stability analysis of straight blade, αs = −6◦ ,
βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 3◦ . βp = 2◦ , θ0 = 6◦ .

30