Dissertations and Theses

12-2017

Aerodynamic and Performance Analysis of a Morphing Helicopter

Rotor System
Vinay Gopal Krishnan

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/edt

Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons

Scholarly Commons Citation

Krishnan, Vinay Gopal, "Aerodynamic and Performance Analysis of a Morphing Helicopter Rotor System"
(2017). Dissertations and Theses. 369.
https://commons.erau.edu/edt/369

This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
AERODYNAMIC AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A MORPHING

HELICOPTER ROTOR SYSTEM

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

by

Vinay Gopal Krishnan

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering

December 2017

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Daytona Beach, Florida

 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To begin with, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. J Gordon Leishman for all the help
and support that he provided. More than all, he has shown extreme patience and provided
valuable guidance during moments of confusion. I am also grateful to Dr. Lyrintzis and Dr.
Ekaterinaris for the help they have provided me. I’d like to thank my parents for always
being supportive of my passion and encouraging me. Lastly, I’d like to thank Stanrich,
Yogesh, Paolo and every other friend who has helped me in the completion of this thesis.
 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Objectives of this Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Summary of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Basic Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.1 Inflow Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.2 Rotor Thrust, Power and Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.3 Blade Flapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.4 Airfoil Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2 Rotor Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 Blade Morphing: Varying Single Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.1 Blade Twist Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.2 Rotor Radius Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.3 Rotor Speed (rpm) Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2.4 Blade Chord Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Morphing Variations with Airspeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.1 Individual Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.2 Morphing Two Effects Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3.3 Morphing Three Effects Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4 Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2 Recommendations for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A Appendix: Main MATLAB Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 v

B Flapping Function Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
3.1 Parameters used for the validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1.1 Igor Sikorsky’s VS-300 in 1940 [Ref. 1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Sikorsky’s UH-60 Black Hawk in 2004 [Ref. 2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Complications related to helicopter aerodynamics including stall, compress-
ibility etc. [Ref. 3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Futuristic vision of a helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Airfoil tab controlled by SMA’s [Ref. 10] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Discretization into blade elements along the blade span and showing the rela-
tive flow velocities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Drag vs angle of attack curve for the SC1095 showing the polynomial second-
order curve fit and equation used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 Longitudinal and lateral forms of the linear inflow model. . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Compressibility and reverse flow regions on the rotor disk. . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Forces on a helicopter in forward flight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6 Forces acting on a helicopter in forward flight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.1 Lift distribution for different linear twists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2 Thrust distribution for different linear twists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3 Inflow distribution for different linear twists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.4 Collective pitch variations with thrust at hover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.5 Flapping response for different initial values of β0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.6 Flapping response at airspeed of 60 knots before trimming. . . . . . . . . . 39
3.7 Flapping response at 60 knots after being trimmed to meet propulsive require-
ment with αTPP = 4.5◦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.8 Comparison of control input angles between flight test and current method. . 41
3.9 Power comparison between current method and test flight for the UH-60 (Weight
= 16,000 lb and altitude = 5,200 ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 viii

Figure Page
3.10 Lift-to-drag ratio comparison between current method and test flight for the
UH-60. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.11 Power comparison for variable radius between the present method and [Ref.
32] (W = 18,000 lb). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.12 Power comparison for variable RPM between the present method and [Ref. 32]
(W = 18,400 lb). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.13 Blade twist effect on power and variation from the baseline case. . . . . . . 51
3.14 Twist effect on rotor drag and variation from the baseline case. . . . . . . . 52
3.15 Twist effect on L/D and variation from the baseline case. . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.16 Total thrust (CT MR ) variation with twist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.17 Power variation with rotor radius and airspeed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.18 L/D variation with rotor radius and airspeed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.19 Rotor drag variation with rotor radius and airspeed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.20 Total Thrust (CT MR ) variation with rotor radius and airspeed. . . . . . . . . 58
3.21 Power variation with rotor rpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.22 L/D variation with rotor rpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.23 Rotor drag variation with rotor rpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.24 Total Thrust (CT MR ) variation with rotor rpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.25 Power variation with chord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.26 Rotor drag variation with chord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.27 L/D variation with chord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.28 Total Thrust (CT MR ) variation with chord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.29 Power comparison for a single morphing effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.30 L/D comparison for a single morphing effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.31 Rotor Drag comparison for a single morphing effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.32 Total thrust (CT MR ) comparison for a single morphing effect. . . . . . . . . 66
3.33 Power comparison for two morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.34 L/D comparison for two morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.35 Rotor drag comparison for two morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 ix

Figure Page
3.36 Total thrust (CT MR ) comparison for two morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.37 Power comparison for all three morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.38 L/D comparison for all three morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.39 Rotor Drag comparison for all three morphing effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.40 Total Thrust (CT MR ) comparison for all three morphing effects. . . . . . . . 70
 x

ABBREVIATIONS

AHS American Helicopter Society

AoA Angle of Attack
BET Blade Element Theory
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CVF Curvilinear Fiber Composites
DEAP Dielectric Polymer
DL Disk Loading
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Association
PZT Piezo-electric Actuators
SMA Shape Memory Alloy
TPP Tip Path Plane
UMARC University of Maryland Advanced Rotor Code
 xi

NOMENCLATURE

c Blade chord
CH Main rotor drag
Cl Coefficient of lift
Clα Lift curve slope
Cd Coefficient of drag
CP Coefficient of power
CPMR Coefficient of power of main rotor
C pi Induced power coefficient
C p0 Profile power coefficient
Cp p Parasitic power coefficient
e Hinge offset
f Equivalent drag area of the airframe
Ib Mass moment of inertia about flapping hinge
L/D Lift to drag ratio
M̄β Aerodynamic moment about the flapping hinge
Nb Number of blades
R Blade radius
UP Inflow perpendicular to rotor disk
UT In-plane velocity to rotor disk
VT IP Blade tip speed
W Gross weight of helicopter

GREEK ALPHABETS
α Angle of attack
αT PP Angle of attack of Tip Path Plane
β˙ Blade flapping velocity
β1c Longitudinal flapping angle
β1s Lateral flapping angle
γ Lock number
θ Blade pitch
θTW Blade linear twist rate
θ1c Lateral cyclic
θ1s Longitudinal cyclic
λ Nondimensional inflow
λ0 Average nondimensional Inflow
µ Advance ratio
 xii

νβ Flap frequency
ρ Density of air
σ Rotor solidity
χ Wake skew angle
φ Inflow angle
ψ Blade azimuth angle
 xiii

ABSTRACT

Gopal Krishnan, Vinay MSAE, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, December 2017.

Aerodynamic and Performance Analysis of a Morphing Helicopter Rotor System .

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of rotor morphing, specifically
variable rotor speed and variable blade twist, on various parameters such as the distribution
of angle of attack, lift, power, thrust and/or other metrics describing the performance of
a helicopter rotor. A MATLAB based blade element theory model was developed and
executed for different flight conditions. The model was validated against the flight test
data of a UH-60. Effects on power, lift to drag ratio and rotor drag from variations in blade
twist, rotor speed, rotor radius and blade chord was analyzed. Morphing cases were applied
as linear functions of airspeed. Linearly varying rotor speed provides the most benefits at
higher airspeeds for individual morphing cases, while linearly varying twist with airspeed
provided the most rotor drag reduction. For cases where two elements of morphing were
used, varying blade twist and radius provided the most benefits at higher airspeeds, while
also providing the most drag reductions in all cases. When morphing twist, radius and
rotor speed simultaneously, the power reductions obtained were the most significant, while
also having substantial decreases in rotor drag. A maximum power reduction of about 20%
was obtained at higher airspeeds with the judicious application of all elements of blade and
rotor morphing.
 1

1. Introduction

The quest for vertical flight goes back over a century, but the vision of a helicopter that was

a practical an useful form of aircraft took many years to realize even after airplanes were

flying successfully. Juan de la Cierva and Igor Sikorsky were among many of the early

pioneers who tried their hand at developing rotating wing aircraft. But because of limita-

tions with engine power, airframe weight, rotor vibrations, etc., amongst other problems,

their efforts did not at first lead to practical concepts. Most early helicopters hopped off the

ground for a few seconds more than flew, leading to the nickname of “hoppers.”

Figure 1.1: Igor Sikorsky’s VS-300 in 1940 [Ref. 1]

 2

Comparing those early attempts at vertical flight to the capabilities of modern heli-

copter, it can be seen that there have been many technological developments. These de-

velopments easily become apparent when comparing the VS-300 (Fig. 1.1) to the UH-60

Black Hawk (Fig. 1.2). The modern helicopter is indeed a triumph of aeronautical engi-

neering, the aircraft being able to hover, fly forward, sidewards or backwards, all at the

whim of the pilot. However, while there have been many advancements, helicopters still

continue to experience several aeromechanical problems that limit their flight capabilities.

The main limitations of helicopters are relatively low maximum forward flight speeds (typ-

ically less than 150 knots), high vibration levels, and obtrusive noise levels under many

flight conditions. These issues are summarized in Fig. 1.3.

Figure 1.2: Sikorsky’s UH-60 Black Hawk in 2004 [Ref. 2]

Specific aerodynamic concerns related to a helicopter in forward flight include blade

stall on the retreating side and compressibility issues near the advancing blade tips. While
 3

Figure 1.3: Complications related to helicopter aerodynamics including stall,

compressibility etc. [Ref. 3]

forward speed can be increased by adding more power, the associated increase in empty

weight can decrease useful load, i.e., a reduction of payload and/or fuel. Therefore, other

means become necessary to further push the boundaries of helicopters, namely airfoil opti-

mization, swept tips and streamlining the fuselage.

Figure 1.4 shows a summary of just some the ideas that have been put forth to extend

the capabilities of a conventional helicopter. The ideas include advanced blade shapes and

blade tips, morphing blades, lift compounding, propulsive compounding, elimination of the

tail rotor in leu of some other type of system, etc. However, implementation of all these

technologies, especially at the same time, would be extremely difficult if not impractical.
 4

Each system shown in Fig. 1.4 requires its own supporting systems, which would not only

increase the total empty weight but also drive up significantly the cost of the helicopter.

Figure 1.4: Futuristic vision of a helicopter

That being said, some of the technologies shown in Fig. 1.4 continue to be researched,

and indeed some may be eventually implemented in modern helicopters. For example,

nearly all modern helicopters use swept tips to delay the onset of compressibility. Im-

provements in airfoils have been tremendous, modern day helicopters using special cam-

bered airfoils that are optimized to the blade stations. Other research has been conducted

to optimize airfoils without geometric constraints [Ref. 4].

Most recently novel means at overcoming these barrier problems have been considered,

including “morphing,” for example, active blade twist, rotor radius variations, etc. Such

concepts may even be practical with the used of smart materials, which can change their
 5

shape in response to an external stimuli, e.g., electric current, heat, etc. There are many

types of shape changing materials with the elements that influence them being different.

For example, piezoelectric actuators (PZT) and dielectric polymers (DEAP) are responsive

to electricity, while shape memory alloys (SMA) react to heat. Some common materials

used to alter the shapes of airfoils and wings are PZT’s and SMA’s. PZT’s have many

applications ranging from biomedical [Ref. 5] to aerospace [Ref. 6]. Similarly SMA’s have

a wide range of applications varying from dental wires [Ref. 7], blood pumps [Ref. 8]

to airfoils [Ref. 9]. PZT’s and SMA’s are the most commonly used smart materials in the

aerospace industry. Figure 1.5 shows an example of a tab on a blade section that is proposed

to be controlled by SMA’s.

Figure 1.5: Airfoil tab controlled by SMA’s [Ref. 10]

Changing the shape of rotor parameters during flight (e.g., rotor radius, blade chord,

blade twist, etc.) might also help extend the boundaries of helicopter flight, however it

is recognized that this is a more ambitious approach. Therefore, this thesis examines the

impact of morphing on a helicopter rotor system, but from a purely aerodynamic and per-

formance point of view. Structural deformations and aeroelastic effects etc. are ignored,
 6

the reason being that unless a “morphing” rotor can be well justified from an aerodynamic

and performance perspective then it is unlikely to be justified from any other perspective.

Only the main rotor, which is the primary mover, is taken in consideration, and both hover

and forward flight regimes are examined.

1.1 Literature Review

There has been considerable work done in three fields related to the potential of making

a morphing rotor system practical, namely structures, controls, as well as aerodynamics

and performance. This thesis examines the aerodynamic and performance aspects of a

morphing rotor, so a thorough literature review of prior work was conducted mainly in this

area.

From a flight controls perspective, a variable sweep and span morphing Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle (UAV) was analyzed by using Surfaces (a vortex lattice method software)

and Simulink by Prabhakar [Ref. 11]. Haibo et al. [Ref. 12] conducted research related

to a variable rotor speed control for a helicopter/engine system. Similarly, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [Ref. 13] conducted research on a control

shifting algorithm for a variable rotor speed system. Belmonte et al. [Ref. 14] performed an

analysis on disturbance rejection controls for a small–scale helicopter rotor with variable

speed rotor.

There has been several advancements related to morphing wings and airfoils from a

structural point of view. After the development of smart materials such as SMA’s, stack

PZT, etc., research has been done into altering the camber, twist and even the span of
 7

a wing. Woods et al. [Ref. 15] used curvilinear fiber composites (CVF) on the skin to

produce an airfoil for a rotor system that can change its camber. Han and Smith [Ref.

16] conducted research related to aeroelastic effects of a variable speed rotor in forward

flight. The 2/revolution lagwise root bending moment was found to increase significantly

while flapping motion contributed significantly to the lagwise loads. It was concluded

that increasing blade lag damping could significantly reduce the maximum transient rotor

torque.

Chen and Chopra [Ref. 17] conducted wind tunnel testing of a smart rotor with blade

twist control. 1/8 th scaled bearingless rotor model was tested in the University of Mary-

land’s Glenn L. Martin Wind Tunnel. The blade twist was induced using PZT actuators.

The model was tested at three different rotor speeds and the rotor was trimmed to a spec-

ified flight condition before being tested with active twist control. The authors observed

reductions in vibratory rotor torque and moment,s while an increase in hub loads was also

noticed. The authors state that further work is needed to be done to compare the data ob-

tained with UMARC (University of Maryland Advanced Rotor Code) to refine the rotor

design for improved performance.

There has been similar work done in controlling vibrations in wind turbines using vari-

able rotor speed by Staino and Basu [Ref. 18]. Han et al. [Ref. 19] studied transient loads

that occur in a variable speed rotor. Prahlad and Chopra [Ref. 20] designed a variable twist

rotor blade for a tilt rotor using SMA actuators. Ajaj et al. [Ref. 21] performed a feasi-

bility study on twist morphing using variable cross section spar. Gandhi et al. [Ref. 22]

conducted research into a “conformable” rotor airfoil using PZT’s [Ref. 23].
 8

From an aerodynamic point of view, there have been various research activities con-

ducted using morphing wings and optimizing airfoils undergoing morphing. A variable

span wing was analyzed for drag reduction by Mestrinho et al. [Ref. 24]. The wing was

experimentally tested, while the aerodynamic coefficients were computed using a mathe-

matical model. A traditional aileron system could not be used, so roll was achieved by

using differences in wing semi-span. The results showed significant decrease in drag at

higher flight speeds and roll rate performance was similar to that with a traditional aileron.

Several factors that would be crucial to flight are flutter, gust response etc., however, none

of these concepts were actually analyzed. These phenomena would have significant effect

on flight performance because the impact of ailerons were obtained by adjusting wing span

and not with ailerons.

Similar research related to morphing wings for small UAV’s have been conducted by

Secanell et al. [Ref. 25]. The purpose of this study was to alter the airfoil during take-off,

landing, cruise, loiter and even at the onset of wing stall. The analysis was conducted using

CFD with Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model and a sequential quadratic programming al-

gorithm. From the results, it was concluded that the airfoils for all flight conditions except

stall shared one common feature, namely their thickness distribution. The airfoil needed

at stall had a higher leading edge thickness, while the camber was different for all other

cases. The power required for flight decreased but the decrement was small for the given

flight conditions. Each case was tested at a different flight condition. Hence, it was con-

cluded that the power savings could be more significant for other flight regimes and even

in sustained low-speed maneuvers. Two factors ignored in this paper were the additional
 9

weight because of the mechanisms required for morphing, and only the aerodynamics of

the airfoil were considered not the entire aircraft, as compared to that done by Mestrinho

et al. although they only considered variable span. Miste and Benini [Ref. 26] conducted a

performance comparison between continuously variable and fixed ratio gearbox.

When it comes to helicopters, work related to optimizing airfoils for helicopter blades

had been undertaken by Fusi and Congedo [Ref. 4]. The two objectives were to maximize
3
the lift to drag ratio, Cl /Cd , on the advancing side of the rotor and the ratio Cl2 /Cd on the

retreating side, while also designing an airfoil that was insensitive to gusts, etc. The eval-

uation was conducted using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) using a MSES solver

coupled with a Euler/integral boundary layer code. MSES is a suite of programs used to de-

sign and analyze airfoils [Ref. 27]. Both angle of attack and Mach number were considered

as variables on the advancing side, while only angle of attack was considered as a variable

on the retreating side. Two different airfoils were obtained based on the defined conditions,

an assumption being that there are no geometrical constraints for the morphing shape. The

airfoil that was optimized for the advancing side had its maximum camber located farther

from the leading edge than the airfoil optimized for the retreating side. Hence, the opti-

mization results were two decoupled optimizations at two different operating conditions.

From the results, it could be inferred that morphing an airfoil does give some benefit from

an aerodynamic point of view as long as there are no constraints on the geometric shape

of the airfoil. However, this study ignored the requirements for rotor trim as well as lift

constraints on the airfoil, which are essential to analyze a rotor system in forward flight.
 10

NASA and Sikorsky have conducted wind tunnel test on a variable diameter tilt rotor

[Ref. 28]. Although a wind tunnel test was conducted, the variable diameter rotor was never

put into production. The benefits of a VDTR concept include better hovering efficiency

(with the blades extended like helicopter) and better propulsive efficiency in forward flight

(with the blades retracted like a propeller). Khoshlajeh and Gandhi [Ref. 29] conducted

research into using extendable chord rotors for performance improvement. Mistry and

Gandhi [Ref. 30] performed analysis on variable rotor radius and rotor speed. With rotor

speed variation only, power reductions of up to 14% was obtained. On combining radius

and rotor speed variations, the power reductions were found to be significantly higher than

with radius or speed variation alone. It was also concluded that weight and altitude play a

significant effect on the performance gains that could be obtained. Porter et al. [Ref. 31]

have conducted an experimental analysis on variable collective pitch rotor, the outcomes

showing that variable collective pitch rotors have better performance over fixed pitch rotors.

Although there are several papers related to morphing rotor systems, only two papers

focus on representing the aerodynamic and performance effects on a morphing rotor sys-

tem. Chopra [Ref. 32] examined the aeromechanics of an actively morphing rotor system,

which includes the interactions between the aerodynamic and structural components. Two

parameters considered were variable rotor speed and variable blade radius. The baseline

helicopter used was the UH-60 Black Hawk. The program used for this analysis was Uni-

versity of Maryland Advanced Rotor Code (UMARC). For the analysis of variable rotor

speed, the paper states that “at a mission weight of 18,400 lb, a maximum power reduction

of 10% can be achieved at moderate cruise speeds. At 14,000 lb, which corresponds to
 11

the empty weight of the UH-60, up to 20% power reduction is achievable.” The authors

concluded that the effects of variable rotor speed were dependent on the operating weight

and flight conditions. In regard to variable rotor radius, it was shown to reduce power at

higher airspeeds. The authors state “for a 16,000 lb helicopter, up to 180 hp reduction can

be achieved at 170 knots with just a 5% reduction in radius. This would approximately

be equal to a 5% reduction in total power.” It was also found that the benefits reduce as

thrust increases but at more conservative mission profiles there are potential fuel savings of

between 20 and 60 lb/hr, which are modest but significant.

Barakos et al. [Ref. 33] have conducted an aerodynamic as well as structural analysis

for a rotor with variable rotor speed and blade twist. Two models were used, a semi-

empirical aerodynamic model and CFD. The blade used was selected to mimic the UH-

60A. The model used for the induced velocity over the rotor was the Pitt-Peters dynamic

inflow model. The CFD model used was the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

method with the k − ω turbulence closure model. Four different aircraft weight coefficients

were considered and the corresponding power curves for flight were obtained. Rotor power

reductions of 7–17% were noticed while decreasing speed between 5–15%. Reducing the

rotor speed too much at higher airspeeds led to a larger stall area. As twist changed from

−16◦ to 0◦ , power increased from 0.5–10% of the initial required power, although for

advance ratios near 0.3 the power decreased. Combining blade twist variations with rotor

speed variation resulted in a more significant decrease in power required. The authors

also stated that variable twist could also possibly reduce the blade loads introduced by

varying rotor speed. A conclusion was drawn that large decrease in rotor speed is to be
 12

avoided because it then has a negative effect on performance, namely increase in power

requirements. The paper does not mention the procedure used for rotor trim, a fundamental

and glaring omission.

Recently, Bell came out with a concept named the “FCX-001” that has morphing blade

tips [Ref. 34]. Depending on flight condition, the tips adjust their sweep to optimize flight

performance. Sweeping back the rotor blades at higher speeds helps alleviate compress-

ibility effects while having no sweep in hover enables a larger disk area and a lower disk

loading and hence a lower power requirement. However, the mechanical methods used to

accomplish this type of blade morphing are not yet clear.

From the foregoing discussion, two primary observations can be made. Firstly, morph-

ing wings and helicopters rotors may be possible and may have some performance advan-

tages. Research has been made using smart materials or other mechanisms to alter camber,

blade twist and even rotor radii. Although from a structural as well as singular focus (blade

twisting alone and variable radius alone), some wind tunnel testing has also been conducted

to explore the potential benefits. Advancements in flight controls means that it is possible

to design and control morphing wings or blades. Secondly, most of the research related

to morphing rotors has been done in the field of structures or controls. There seems to be

a lack of basic research related to the aerodynamics or performance of morphing rotors.

Even though there are two papers associated with the aerodynamic and performance aspect

i.e., Chopra [Ref. 32] and Barakos et al. [Ref. 33], they are not particularly comprehensive

and seem to cover just a few concepts, e.g., just variable speed or rotor radius, etc.
 13

1.2 Objectives of this Thesis

This thesis titled “Aerodynamic and Performance Analysis of a Morphing Helicopter

Rotor System” has the following primary objectives:

1. Use a blade element based rotor model to examine the possible performance benefits

that could be obtained by the use blade “morphing,” either as individual effects or

using combinations of effects.

2. Conduct parametric study of “morphing” effects such as by varying blade twist, rotor

speed, rotor radius and blade chord to determine their effects on power requirements

for flight, the effects on rotor and vehicle lift to drag ratio, and other factors that may

enhance or limit the operational capabilities of the rotor system.

1.3 Summary of Thesis

Chapter 1 of this thesis contains a discussion of the motivation for this work as well

as the previous work related to the field of blade and/or rotor morphing. Discussed in

Chapter 2 is the methodology used for this thesis. The methodology chapter discusses the

implementation of the blade element theory in MATLAB and its validation using flight

test data of the UH-60. Chapter 3 discusses the results that were obtained. The effects of

varying blade twist, rotor rpm, rotor radius and blade chord on power, lift to drag ratio,

rotor drag and thrust are examined. First, individual morphing methods (e.g., blade twist

only, rotor speed only etc.) are considered, then combinations of methods are examined.
 14

Chapter 4 gives summary of conclusions obtained, as well as the recommendations made

for future research.

 15

2. Methodology

The blade element theory (BET) was used as a means of analyzing the aerodynamics of a

morphing helicopter rotor. The BET, with certain assumptions and simplifications, provides

an estimate of the blade loads in space along the span of the blade, as well as in time around

the rotor azimuth. After the elemental values at each blade element have been determined,

the overall rotor performance such as thrust and power, and also rotor drag etc., can be

obtained by integrating sectional airloads over the blade span and around the azimuth. The

outcome is a revolution-by-revolution time-history of the rotor performance, which can

also be modulated using blade pitch inputs to trim the rotor to a particular operating state,

i.e., thrust and disk orientation.

The BET is a relatively powerful yet simplified theory, which assumes as a basis that

each section at the blade behaves as a 2-dimensional airfoil section. This theory does

not explicitly account for effects such as highly non-uniform inflow velocities induced by

the tip vortices, yet a method known as Prandtl’s tip loss function can be used within the

theory to represent the 3-dimensional effects that we associated with the rollup of a vortex

from the blade tip. The BET generally slightly over-predicts rotor thrust and somewhat

under-predicts torque, but the method does provide a good computative tool for relative

comparison purposes. Hence, the BET was used as the basis for the results in this thesis,

and the coding of the theory was implemented in MATLAB.

 16

2.1 Basic Method

The BET calculates the local coefficients at each blade element such as section lift,

thrust, drag, torque, etc. and then integrates these values over the span of the blade and

around the azimuth, thereby obtaining the total performance metrics for the rotor. For

the spanwise integration, the blade was divided into N discrete blade elements and the

aerodynamic effects occurring at each blade element, which is at a distance of y from

the hub, are considered. This discretization into blade elements along the blade span and

relative flow velocities are shown in Fig. 2.1.

The airloads depend on the angle of attack and the velocity relative to each blade sec-

tion, the blade element diagram also being shown in Fig. 2.1. The blade pitch is defined in

terms of the collective pitch θ0 , lateral cyclic θ1c and longitudinal cyclic θ1s by

θ(y, ψ) = θ0 + θTW y + θ1c cos ψ + θ1s sin ψ (2.1)

where θTW is the linear twist rate along the blade and is measured in units of twist angle

per rotor radius. The inflow perpendicular to the rotor disk, UP , is calculated by using

˙
UP = λ(y, ψ) Vtip + βy (2.2)

where the blade flapping velocity is given by β˙ = dβ(ψ)/dt (flapping is considered later)

and λ(y, ψ) is the non-dimensional inflow distribution, which is also defined later. The

in-plane component of velocity, UT , is given by

UT = Ω(y + µ R sin ψ) (2.3)

 17

Figure 2.1: Discretization into blade elements along the blade span and showing the

relative flow velocities.

which is the sum of the rotational and translational parts. The rotor advance ratio is defined

as
V∞ cos(αTPP )
µ= (2.4)
Vtip
 18

where Vtip = ΩR is the hover tip speed and αTPP is the tip path plane angle of attack.

The inflow angle at each blade element is then given by

 
−1 UP
φ(y, ψ) = tan (2.5)
UT

and so the aerodynamic angle of attack at the blade section is given by

 
−1 UP
α(y, ψ) = θ(y, ψ) − φ(y, ψ) = θ − tan (2.6)
UT

The local coefficients of lift and drag are then calculated using

Cl (y, ψ) = Clα (α − α0 ) (2.7)

where Clα is the lift curve slope of the airfoil. The SC1095 was chosen as it is the airfoil

used in the UH-60. . The airfoil characteristics of the SC1095 are obtained from [Ref.

35]. Zero-lift angle (α◦ ), is −0.7◦ . The coefficient of drag below stall is given in terms of

constants d1 and d2 ,

Cd = Cd0 + d1 α + d2 α2 (2.8)

where d1 = -0.0002, d2 = 0.0002 and Cd0 = 0.007 for the SC1095. From [Ref. 36], the Cd

vs α curve is obtained and plotted in EXCEL as shown in Fig. 2.2 and a polynomial fit of

the second order to the curve is added. Comparing Eq. 2.8 with the equation in Fig. 2.2,

enables finding the constants, d1 , d2 and Cd0 . Data used from [Ref. 36] to plot Fig. 2.2 is

shown in Appendix 2.

The elemental lift and drag forces per element over the span are then obtained from the

respective coefficients, i.e.,

1
dL = ρ U 2 c Cl dy (2.9)
2
 19

Figure 2.2: Drag vs angle of attack curve for the SC1095 showing the polynomial

second-order curve fit and equation used.

and
1
dD = ρ U 2 c Cd dy (2.10)
2
q
where the resultant velocity is given by U = UT2 +UP2 .

2.1.1 Inflow Distribution

The inflow varies over the span and azimuth and in the present work is described by the

linear model Coleman et al. as discussed in [Ref. 3]. The longitudinal and lateral weighting
 20

of the inflow is performed using the coefficients kx and ky , and the inflow is calculated by

using,
 
λ(y, ψ) = λ0 1 + kx y cos(ψ) + ky y sin(ψ) (2.11)

where λ0 is the average inflow given according to the simple momentum theory, i.e.,

CT
λ◦ = µ αTPP + p (2.12)
2 µ2 + λ2◦

which is solved iteratively as part of the overall solution process for trim. The local inflow

is corrected by the Prandtl tip loss factor to account for the effect of tip loss on inflow.

Prandtl’s tip loss factor is accounted for using the correction factor F, which was calculated

iteratively in a sub-iteration using Eqs. 2.13 and 2.14.

 
2
F= cos−1 (exp(−f)) (2.13)
π

where f is given by
 
Nb R−y
f= (2.14)
2 yφ

An initial value of 1 was taken and F converged to a value between 0.95–0.98. The inflow

weighting factors in the Coleman model are given by

ky = 0 (2.15)

and

kx = tan(χ/2) (2.16)

where χ is the wake skew angle which was obtained using

χ = tan−1 (µ/λ0 ) (2.17)

 21

Figure 2.3: Longitudinal and lateral forms of the linear inflow model.

2.1.2 Rotor Thrust, Power and Drag

The rotor thrust increment at each blade element is

dT = dL cos φ − dD sin φ (2.18)

and the integration of rotor thrust over the blade span gives the blade lift, and integration

around the azimuth gives the rotor thrust, which in non-dimensional terms is

Z 2π Z R
Nb
TMR = dT dψ (2.19)
2π 0 0

The numerically equivalent incremental thrust at each blade element is

∆T = ∆L cos φ − ∆D sin φ (2.20)

 22

and in numerical form the thrust is

M N 
∆Ti, j + ∆T(i−1), j

Nb
TMR = ∑∑ ∆ψ (2.21)
4π j=2 i=2 2

using the trapezoidal method, where i is the counter in the spanwise direction and the

azimuth discretization is
2π
∆ψ = (2.22)
M

where M is the number of time stepping sections over the azimuth and j is the counter in

the azimuth (time) direction.

The corresponding coefficient of thrust of the main rotor is

TMR
CT MR = (2.23)
ρ A (ΩR)2

The increment in induced power along the span is calculated by

dPi = dL sinφ Ωy (2.24)

and the corresponding increment in profile power is calculated along the span by

dP0 = dD cosφ Ωy (2.25)

Numerically, increments in induced and profile power can be expressed as,

∆Pi = ∆L sinφ Ωy (2.26)

∆P◦ = ∆D cosφ Ωy (2.27)

Let Ps be the sum of the induced power and the profile power, i.e.,

dPs = dPi + dP◦ (2.28)

 23

Numerically, it can be written as,

∆Ps = ∆Pi + ∆P◦ (2.29)

The total power for the main rotor is

Z 2π Z R
Nb
PMR = dPs dψ (2.30)
2π 0 0

Numerically, the power is obtained from a sum along the span and around the azimuth

using
M N 
∆Psi, j + ∆Ps(i−1), j

Nb
PMR = ∑∑ ∆ψ (2.31)
4π j=2 i=2 2

Then the power coefficient is calculated using

PMR
CPMR = (2.32)
ρA(ΩR)3

Parasitic power is the power loss from the airframe, rotor hub, etc. is already a pre-

integrated value and is given by

 
1 f
CPP = µ3 (2.33)
2 A

where f is the equivalent drag area of the airframe. Therefore, the total power for the

helicopter is the sum of main rotor power and parasitic power and is given by

CP = CPMR +CPP (2.34)

The rotor drag can be also calculated by integrating the spanwise drag components over

the azimuth, i.e.,

Z 2π Z R
Nb
HMR = dD sin(ψ) dψ (2.35)
2π 0 0
 24

The coefficient form of the rotor drag is,

HMR
CH = (2.36)
ρA(ΩR)2

The rotor drag in coefficient form can hence be expressed as,

Z 2π Z R
Nb
CH = dCD sin(ψ) dψ (2.37)
2πρA(ΩR)2 0 0

Numerically, the rotor drag coefficient is calculated using

M N  ∆CD + ∆CD 
Nb i, j (i−1), j
CH = ∑∑ ∆ψ (2.38)
4πρA(ΩR)2 j=2 i=2 2

where ∆CD can be obtained from Eqs. 2.8 and 2.48.

Rotor drag can then be calculated using,

HMR = ρA(ΩR)2CH (2.39)

2.1.3 Blade Flapping

Blade flapping about the hinge affects the value of UP and hence the angles of attack

over the rotor blade, i.e.,

˙ − eR)
UP = λ(y, ψ) + β(y (2.40)

where the blade flapping velocity is given by β˙ = dβ(ψ)/dt and the hinge is located at a

distance eR from the rotational axis. The governing equation for blade flapping is

β¨ + ν2β β = γM̄β (2.41)

where γ is the Lock number, νβ is flapping frequency and M̄β is the aerodynamic moment

about the flapping hinge as given by

Z R
1
M̄β = L y dy (2.42)
ρ Clα c R4 Ω2 0
 25

where ρ is the air density at flight altitude, L is lift force distribution across the blade, and

Clα is lift curve slope of the airfoil and is assumed to be 2π/rad.

The flapping frequency is obtained in terms of the non-dimensional hinge offset, e,

where
s
3e
νβ = 1+ (2.43)
2(1 − e)

and the Lock number is

ρ Clα c R4
γ= (2.44)
Ib

where Ib is the mass moment of inertia about the flapping hinge. For this thesis, the Lock

number was assumed to be 8 obtained from [Ref. 3].

To solve the foregoing flapping equation, it was first split into a system of two first order

equations, i.e.,

β˙1 = β2 (2.45)

and

β˙2 = −γ M̄β − v2β β1 (2.46)

These two latter equations were then solved in MATLAB using the ode45 solver. Ac-

cording to [Ref. 37], ode45 is used to solve differential equations and is quite robust and

versatile. The solver does require initial conditions to start the computations, which are

β = 0 and β˙ = 0. After the first iteration, the initial conditions are the previous calculated

˙ The time step ran from the previous time step to the current time step.
β and β.
 26

Figure 2.4: Compressibility and reverse flow regions on the rotor disk.

2.1.4 Airfoil Characteristics

As seen from Fig. 2.4, a rotor has its airfoil performing under varying conditions includ-

ing high subsonic Mach numbers and reverse flow. Compressibility affects the lift curve

slope and needs to be corrected using the Glauert correction factor, β(M). Reverse flow

region occurs on the retreating side of the rotor where the blade sections operate with their

trailing edges into the wind. This relates to the blade sections operating at higher angles of

attack to compensate for the difference in lift. Hence, the airfoil sections function closer

to stall on the retreating side than the advancing side. Also, UT and the sectional drag

coefficient change in the reverse flow region.

Compressibility issues occur on the advancing side of the rotor where the tip of the

blades approach and exceed drag divergence Mach number. The drag divergence Mach
 27

number, Mdd , is the Mach number at which drag begins to rapidly increase. Drag diver-

gence leads to the drag increasing quickly at the tip. The increment is modeled by,

∆Cd = 12.5 (M − Mdd )3 (2.47)

when M ≥ Mdd . Drag divergence Mach number, Mdd , is set to 0.8 for SC1095 airfoil.

The forgoing were taken into account by the following steps:

1. The reverse flow region was taken into consideration when UT < 0

Cd = 3 Cd (2.48)

2. Compressibility effects on the lift curve slope, i.e., for the Mach number

UT
M= (2.49)
a
√
where a = γ R T . The effect on local lift curve slope is

2π
Clα = p (2.50)
1 − M∞ 2

where 2π is the lift curve slope in incompressible flow.

3. If Cl > Clmax , where Clmax is the maximum sectional lift coefficient of 1.5. The cal-

culations are stopped because exceeding maximum sectional lift coefficient indicates

the onset of blade stall.

2.2 Rotor Trim

A trim procedure was needed to trim the rotor before the coefficients can be calculated.

Figure 2.5 shows the forces acting on a helicopter in forward flight.

 28

Figure 2.5: Forces on a helicopter in forward flight.

After the blade flapping was calculated, the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) [Ref. ? ]

was taken of the 10th revolution of the rotor. The 10th revolution was used to make sure
 29

that the rotor had settled into its steady state flapping response. This FFT provides the first

two amplitudes corresponding to β1c and β1s , and the higher harmonics are small and are

ignored.

The trim matrix is

      
dC dCT dCT
CT   dθT0 dθ1c dθ1s   θ0   θ0 
      
      
β  =  dβ1c dβ1c dβ1c  
θ  = J θ 
 1c   dθ0 dθ1s dθ1c   1s   1s 
      
      
dβ1s dβ1s dβ1s
β1s dθ0 dθ1c dθ1s θ 1c θ1c

where J is the Jacobian and denotes the relationship between the control inputs and the

rotor trim variables. The right hand side of the above equation has to converge to 0 ± 0.1

for the rotor to be trimmed. Tolerances needed to be set for the code to converge, which

were:

- Amplitude corresponding to β1c <= 0.1

- Amplitude corresponding to β1s <= 0.2

- Amplitude corresponding to β0 <= 0.05

When the three flight controls (θ0 , θ1c and θ1s ) were obtained, they were used in the main

rotor code. While this procedure trimmed the rotor sufficiently well at low and moder-

ate airspeeds, the rotor could not be trimmed at speeds above 160 knots and hence, all

calculations were conducted until 160 knots was reached.

From Fig. 2.6, αTPP is calculated using propulsive trim, i.e., when the propulsive force

component of the rotor thrust is equal to drag. The drag of the airframe is calculated using
 30

Figure 2.6: Forces acting on a helicopter in forward flight.

equivalent flat plate area, f , of a UH-60 helicopter which is 23 ft2 . The drag on the airframe

is given by
1
Df = ρ V∞2 f (2.51)
2

so the angle of attack of the tip path plane for propulsive trim is then calculated using

Df
sin αTPP = (2.52)
TMR

From Fig. 2.6, it can be seen that rotor thrust has two components, one to overcome weight

of the aircraft and the other to overcome drag of the airframe. Hence, αTPP had to be

set such as to produce the required total rotor thrust to overcome both weight and drag.
 31

To achieve this, an initial αTPP of 0.1◦ was set and the thrust required was calculated. If

the rotor cannot be trimmed, then αTPP is increased until the required thrust is produced.

The control angles θ0 , θ1c and θ1s were adjusted accordingly as part of the overall trim

procedure to obtain the required CT value and rotor orientation.

Endurance is the maximum amount of time an aircraft can stay in cruise and is typically

calculated using the Breguet equation obtained from [Ref. 38]. For a rotorcraft at constant

velocity and altitude,

dW◦
= (SFC) P (2.53)
dt

where SFC is the specific fuel consumption and is assumed to be 0.45 hplbhr for the UH-60,

P is the power required to attain level cruise flight at given altitude and velocity and the
dW◦
ratio dt is the fuel consumption in lb/hp/hr.

Integrating from time t1 to t2

Z t1 Z W◦
dW◦
dt = (2.54)
t2 W1 (SFC) P

Assuming constant specific fuel consumption (SFC),

1

t2 − t1 = W◦ −W1 (2.55)
(SFC) P

The gross takeoff weight (W◦ ) can be written in terms of fuel weight (W f ) and weight of

aircraft without any fuel (W1 ) as,

W◦ = W1 +W f (2.56)

The endurance (t1 − t2 ), can thereby be written as

Wf
E= (2.57)
(SFC) P
 32

The UH-60 carries approximately 360 gallons of fuel [Ref. 39]. One gallon of fuel equates

to about 6.7 lbs. Hence, the helicopter carries 2412 lbs of fuel.
 33

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Validation

Representative parameters of the UH-60A Blackhawk were used to validate the method,

the key values being shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Parameters used for the validation.

Parameters Value

Weight 16,000 lb

Chord 1.73 ft

Main Rotor Radius 27 ft

Number of Blades (Nb ) 4

Blade Twist (θTW ) −18◦

Vtip 725 ft/sec

Cdo 0.008

Using outcomes from the model described in Chapter 2, the spanwise variations of

inflow, coefficient of thrust and lift for different linear twist rates are shown in Figs. 3.1,

3.2 and 3.3.

 34

Figure 3.1: Lift distribution for different linear twists.

These results are in excellent agreement to the ones found in [Ref. ? ]. Notice from

Fig. 3.1 that increasing blade twist redistributes the lift over the blade makes the distribu-

tion increasingly more linear, i.e., closer to the ideal case. From the results Fig. 3.2, it can

also be noted that with higher blade twist, the thrust distribution over the blade decreases

towards the tip and is considerably more near the mid-span. As seen from Fig. 3.3, increas-

ing twist affects the inflow, and with higher twist there is lower inflow at the tip and more

near the mid-span of the blade. Shown in Fig. 3.4 is the amount of collective pitch needed

for various twist rates at a σ of 0.1.

From Fig. 3.5, it can be seen that blade flapping response (β) converges to the same

value regardless of initial condition, as it should. Figure 3.6 shows the blade flapping
 35

Figure 3.2: Thrust distribution for different linear twists.

response at 60 knots. It can be noted that the rotor blade flaps up at around 180◦ and

flaps down at 360◦ denoting the rotor, without being trimmed using θ1c and θ1s , is tilting

backward and to the left.

After the rotor is trimmed using the collective, lateral cyclic, and longitudinal cyclic,

i.e., θ0 , θ1c and θ1s , the forward flight blade flapping response obtained is shown in Fig. 3.7.

It can be observed that the rotor flaps up at around 360◦ and flaps down at approximately

180◦ , which shows that the rotor disk is now tilted forward at αTPP of 4.5◦ to meet the

propulsion requirement.

Figure 3.8 shows the comparison between the flapping responses obtained from flight

test [Ref. ? ] to the responses attained from the current method. The power as well as
 36

Figure 3.3: Inflow distribution for different linear twists.

the lift-to-drag ratio curves were to be compared but flight test data is not available for all

airspeeds. The data available are taken from [Ref. ? ] and are plotted against the values

generated by the present method.

From Figs. 3.9 and 3.10, it can be seen that the power is under predicted, especially at

higher airspeeds. Similarly, lift to drag ratio is slightly under predicted as well.

Chopra [Ref. 32] conducted research on a rotor with variable radius and variable rpm,

which was done using the University of Maryland Advanced Rotor Code (UMARC).

From the results in Figs. 3.11 and 3.12, it can be seen that the difference between the

present method and UMARC is of the order of 10–40 hp. A maximum difference of 40 hp

occurs at 120 knots, as shown in Fig. 3.12, while a minimum difference of 5 hp occurs at
 37

Figure 3.4: Collective pitch variations with thrust at hover.

140 knots, as shown in Fig. 3.11. The present method under predicts the power as compared

to UMARC.

The flight endurance of the UH-60 is roughly 2.1 hours at 150 knots [Ref. 40]. From

Eq. 2.57, the endurance obtained was 2.14 hours at the same airspeed, this difference trans-

lates to approximately 3 minutes.

3.2 Blade Morphing: Varying Single Parameters

Four blade and rotor morphing strategies were considered: varying blade twist, varying

rotor rpm, varying rotor radius and varying blade chord. The objectives were to assess

the effects on rotor power and drag as a function of airspeed and also aircraft weight.
 38

Figure 3.5: Flapping response for different initial values of β0 .

To begin with, the impact of varying individual elements (e.g., only blade twist or only

rotor speed etc.) were considered. Then, the rotor was morphed as a function of airspeed.

Finally, combinations of blade and rotor morphing were analyzed to assess the possible

best outcomes in terms of overall rotor performance.

3.2.1 Blade Twist Variations

An analysis of linear blade twist rate of θTW = 0◦ , −5◦ , −10◦ and −15◦ per radius

were conducted. The inboard sections of the blade stalled with −20◦ linear twist because

a higher θ0 was required for thrust trim, and hence the inboard sections operated at higher

angles of attack that reached the stall limit.

 39

Figure 3.6: Flapping response at airspeed of 60 knots before trimming.

The power curves, as shown in Fig. 3.13, that were calculated with the various blade

twist rates show that higher twist was required to minimize power during hover but much

less or even no twist is beneficial during forward flight. In hover, there is a axisymmetrical

distribution of lift over the entire rotor disk, and hence more twist would be beneficial to

improve the uniformity of the inflow. The risk is that with too much blade twist the highest

lift coefficients move inboard increasing the propensity to stall there, as seen from Fig. 3.1.

Similarly, in forward flight, higher amounts of twist lead to higher values of collective

pitch θ0 to trim, and hence the angles of attack at the inboard sections are higher and
 40

Figure 3.7: Flapping response at 60 knots after being trimmed to meet propulsive

requirement with αTPP = 4.5◦ .

thereby more likely to stall. Notice that the power requirements decrease by 10% at 160

knots without any blade twist compared to the baseline case, which is equivalent to a 150 hp

decrease in power for the UH-60. Putting this result into perspective, means that if the UH-

60 carries approximately 2,412 lb of fuel, for a 2 hour flight leads to an extended endurance

of approximately 8 minutes.

An analysis of the results from Fig. 3.14 for rotor drag reveals that rotor drag is rela-

tively the same at low to moderate airspeeds but decreases by approximately 30% at higher
 41

Figure 3.8: Comparison of control input angles between flight test and current method.

airspeeds; this 30% change is around 260 lb of drag in this case. The use of higher blade

twists seem to lead to higher rotor drag at higher airspeeds.

The comparisons made of the lift-to-drag ratios from the results in Fig. 3.15 reveals

that the ratio is relatively similar for all blade twists at low to moderate airspeeds. The

maximum changes occur at higher airspeeds and gives a lift-to-drag ratio differences of

about 0.5 from the baseline. Also, at 140 knots, the lift-to-drag ratio is nearly the same for

blade twists of θTW = 0◦ and −5◦ .

From the results in Fig. 3.16, it can be observed that higher blade twist require more

rotor thrust for the same forward speed, the total thrust being comprised of the thrust needed

to overcome weight and the extra thrust needed to overcome rotor and airframe drag.
 42

Figure 3.9: Power comparison between current method and test flight for the UH-60

(Weight = 16,000 lb and altitude = 5,200 ft).

3.2.2 Rotor Radius Variations

The effects of rotor radius reductions of 5% and 10% were analyzed. Because lower

values of blade radius led to premature blade stall issues (not enough blade area to carry

the the thrust without stall), further reductions in radius were not made. Decreasing radius

leads to a smaller rotor disk areas and blade areas and hence the blade sections must now
 43

Figure 3.10: Lift-to-drag ratio comparison between current method and test flight for the

UH-60.

operate at higher angles of attack to generate the same total thrust. This all leads very

quickly to a higher possibility of stall as the blade radius is shortened.

Notice from Fig. 3.17 that the power requirements in hover increases with a radius

reduction, which is a direct consequence of rotor operation at a higher disk loading. For

fixed tip speeds, the power requirements decrease with increasing values of θTW . However,

in forward flight a power savings of approximately 180 hp can be obtained at 160 knots for

a 10% reduction in rotor radius. At moderate and higher airspeeds, a reduction of radius

leads to a decrease in total power requirements. At lower airspeeds, the power requirements

are generally higher for reductions in rotor radius, with the 10% radius reduction being the
 44

Figure 3.11: Power comparison for variable radius between the present method and [Ref.

32] (W = 18,000 lb).

most that could be used without promoting blade stall. Also note that only reductions in

power occur only after an airspeed of 120 knots is reached.

As shown in Fig. 3.18, the corresponding lift-to-drag ratio remains similar at low and

moderate airspeeds and modestly increases at higher airspeeds with a maximum difference

of 0.4 at 100 knots for a 10% reduction in rotor radius. The reason for these outcomes

comes from a reduction of rotor drag, as can be inferred from Fig. 3.19. Nevertheless,

the difference between the two lift-to-drag ratio curves is small, with any difference being

apparent only at higher airspeeds.

 45

Figure 3.12: Power comparison for variable RPM between the present method and [Ref.

32] (W = 18,400 lb).

Because a propulsive trim requirement was imposed, i.e., the sum of rotor drag and

airframe drag is equal to forward propulsive thrust, the total thrust required shows a small

decrease with a reduction in blade radius because of the reduction in rotor drag. This can

be seen in Fig. 3.20. From Fig. 3.19, it can be seen that a maximum drag reduction of

approximately 150 lb can be achieved at 160 knots by decreasing the rotor radius by 10%.

3.2.3 Rotor Speed (rpm) Variations

Rotor speed was reduced by 5% and 10% for analysis purposes. With reductions up to

15%, stall issues were found on the retreating side of the rotor disk at 60 knots and above.
 46

Recall that reducing rotor speed leads to the blade sections operating at higher angles of

attack to produce a given lift, and hence they will generally all operate closer to the onset

of stall than they would at higher rotor rpm.

From Fig. 3.21, it can be observed that the power required in hover and forward flight is

considerably lower with reductions of rotor rpm. Although this does mean that the blades

are operating closer to their maximum lift capabilities, there are still some power reductions

to be obtained. A rotor with 5% rotor speed reduction requires slightly less power than for

the baseline case, with a maximum power reduction of 170 hp obtained by reducing the

speed by 10% at 160 knots. Recall that all of these observations are based on trimmed

flight conditions.

The corresponding lift-to-drag ratio increases, as noted from Fig. 3.22, with a decrease

in rotor rpm. A maximum difference of 0.6 is obtained at 100 knots with a 90% speed

reduction. However, overall the differences between the two speed reduction cases are

fairly small. As noted from the results in Fig. 3.23 and 3.24, the rotor drag was found to be

close to the baseline case for both speed reductions, thereby having almost no effect on the

total rotor thrust requirements.

3.2.4 Blade Chord Variations

An analysis of the effects of blade chord variations were conducted for chord changes of

5% and 10%. It was found that decreasing chord generally increased the operating angles

of attack of the blade sections, and hence led to the onset of stall. As shown in Fig. 3.25,

the power requirements were found to be modestly higher than the baseline case for 5%
 47

and 10% increases in blade chord, which is a consequence of an increase in rotor drag from

more blade surface area. As seen in Fig. 3.26, the drag is similar to the baseline case for

both cases at low and moderate airspeeds while being modestly higher at higher airspeeds.

The corresponding lift-to-drag ratio is shown in Fig. 3.27, which decreases slightly

as the ratio is inversely proportional to drag. Larger increases in chord length leads to

lower rotor lift-to-drag ratios, as would be expected as the increased blade area increases

rotor drag. The total rotor thrust shown in Fig. 3.28 increases with increasing chord length

to reach propulsive trim requirement, the rotor drag being part of the total rotor thrust

requirements.

3.3 Morphing Variations with Airspeed

In this section, several of the forgoing effects are morphed as a function of airspeed.

For example, more blade twist is used in hover while lower amounts of twist were used at

moderate and higher airspeeds. Hence, blade twist was morphed using a linear schedule

such that it was −18◦ in hover and has reduced to 0◦ at 160 knots.

3.3.1 Individual Effects

Blade twist, rotor rpm, rotor radius and blade chord were morphed individually. As

previously mentioned, blade twist was linearly changed such that it was −18◦ at hover to

0◦ at 160 knots. Rotor speed was changed according to the schedule that it was 100% at

hover to 90% at 160 knots. Rotor radius was changed such that it was 100% at hover to
 48

90% at 160 knots. Because there were no substantial benefits to be obtained by morphing

the blade chord (i.e., too much chord increases rotor drag and too little chord increases the

propensity to blade stall), it was not considered further in this study.

From an examination of Fig. 3.29 it can be seen that, at lower speeds, linear blade twist

provides the most benefits with the maximum power reduction of 50 hp at 20 knots. At

moderate speeds, changing speed results in a maximum power reduction of approximately

130 hp at 100 knots. At airspeeds between 100 and 150 knots, varying speed gives the

most benefit compared to reductions in blade radius or blade twist. That being said, the

appropriate use of blade twist does provide a 180 hp power reduction at 160 knots, which

would account for approximately a 7% reduction in power.

At all airspeeds, as seen from Fig. 3.30, varying rotor speed provides the most gains in

lift-to-drag ratio with a maximum gain of 0.6 at 100 knots. Morphing the rotor radius had

lower gains to be obtained than by changing rpm, but higher benefit than morphing just the

blade twist.

Changing rotor speed had almost no effect on rotor drag, while blade twist variations

leads to the most drag reduction of approximately 300 lb at 160 knots, as can be seen from

Fig. 3.31. Morphing the rotor radius leads to lower drag than the baseline, but more so than

morphing blade twist alone. Inspecting Fig. 3.32, it can be seen that varying rotor radius

requires more net rotor thrust than varying twist, but less than the baseline case as well as

the varying speed case. Linearly morphing twist requires least amount of propulsive thrust

because of the associated reduction in rotor drag.

 49

3.3.2 Morphing Two Effects Together

Two morphing effects were varied simultaneously. For example, while twist was varied

from −18◦ in hover to 0◦ at 160 knots, speed was simultaneously varied from 100% at

hover to 90% at 160 knots. As shown in Fig. 3.33, varying twist and speed together was

found to provide maximum power reductions at lower airspeeds of 20–50 knots, with the

maximum reduction being 50 hp. For airspeeds between 60–100 knots, changing speed and

radius together provides the most gains with a maximum reduction of 150 hp at 80 knots.

At higher airspeeds of 110–150 knots, changing both blade twist and rotor radius together

helped to obtain a maximum reduction of 280 hp at 140 knots. At 160 knots, reducing both

speed and rotor radius helped to attain a 300 hp power reduction. Over a 2 hour flight time,

this will extend the flight time by roughly 15 minutes.

From the results in Fig. 3.34, it can be seen that lift-to-drag ratio increases for all cases

over the baseline rotor. Varying speed and radius provides the highest gains in lift-to-drag

ratio at all airspeeds, with a maximum gain of 0.7 at 80 knots. The baseline rotor gives the

lowest lift-to-drag ratio while varying twist and radius provides gains at all airspeeds. As

shown in Fig. 3.35, rotor drag significantly decreases on varying twist and radius with a

maximum drag reduction of 370 lb at 160 knots. Varying blade twist and radius together

provides the second-best gains, while using speed and twist provides the least benefit. All

cases provide more benefit than the baseline rotor. Recall that because this is a propul-

sive trim where forward propulsive thrust component is equal to the rotor drag, it can be
 50

from Fig. 3.35 that morphing twist and radius linearly provides the least rotor drag at all

airspeeds.

3.3.3 Morphing Three Effects Together

Three morphing effects were also varied simultaneously. For example, while twist was

varied from −18◦ at hover to 0◦ at 160 knots, both rotor speed and radius was varied from

100% at hover to 90% at 160 knots. The power reductions were obtained at all airspeeds

other than hover, as can be seen from Fig. 3.37. A maximum power reduction of 420 hp

was attained at 160 knots, which results in fuel savings of 190 lb/hr and, hence, a total fuel

saving of 380 lb over a 2 hour flight, and perhaps an extra flight time of approximately 20

minutes as calculated using Eq. 2.57. While this could be significant, unfortunately the

blade sections function on the threshold of stall because of a reduction of both radius and

rpm, so it is probably not a practical flight condition other than in perfectly smooth air.

The lift-to-drag ratio, as shown in Fig. 3.38, was better at every airspeed as compared to

the baseline rotor with a maximum gain of 0.8 at 120 knots. This outcome is mainly because

rotor drag, as seen from the results in Fig. 3.39, was significantly lower for the morphed

rotor system than the baseline rotor with a maximum reduction of 300 lb occurring at 160

knots.
 51

(a) Twist effect on Power

(b) Percent variance from the baseline case

Figure 3.13: Blade twist effect on power and variation from the baseline case.
 52

(a) Twist effect on Rotor Drag

(b) Percent variance from the baseline case

Figure 3.14: Twist effect on rotor drag and variation from the baseline case.
 53

(a) Twist effect on L/D

(b) Percent variance from the baseline case

Figure 3.15: Twist effect on L/D and variation from the baseline case.
 54

Figure 3.16: Total thrust (CT MR ) variation with twist.

 55

Figure 3.17: Power variation with rotor radius and airspeed.

 56

Figure 3.18: L/D variation with rotor radius and airspeed.

 57

Figure 3.19: Rotor drag variation with rotor radius and airspeed.
 58

Figure 3.20: Total Thrust (CT MR ) variation with rotor radius and airspeed.
 59

Figure 3.21: Power variation with rotor rpm.

 60

Figure 3.22: L/D variation with rotor rpm.

 61

Figure 3.23: Rotor drag variation with rotor rpm.

 62

Figure 3.24: Total Thrust (CT MR ) variation with rotor rpm.

Figure 3.25: Power variation with chord.

 63

Figure 3.26: Rotor drag variation with chord.

Figure 3.27: L/D variation with chord.

 64

Figure 3.28: Total Thrust (CT MR ) variation with chord.

 65

Figure 3.29: Power comparison for a single morphing effect.

Figure 3.30: L/D comparison for a single morphing effect.

 66

Figure 3.31: Rotor Drag comparison for a single morphing effect.

Figure 3.32: Total thrust (CT MR ) comparison for a single morphing effect.
 67

Figure 3.33: Power comparison for two morphing effects.

Figure 3.34: L/D comparison for two morphing effects.

 68

Figure 3.35: Rotor drag comparison for two morphing effects.

Figure 3.36: Total thrust (CT MR ) comparison for two morphing effects.
 69

Figure 3.37: Power comparison for all three morphing effects.

Figure 3.38: L/D comparison for all three morphing effects.

 70

Figure 3.39: Rotor Drag comparison for all three morphing effects.

Figure 3.40: Total Thrust (CT MR ) comparison for all three morphing effects.
 71

4. Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Work

4.1 Conclusions

The rotor blade element method has been used as a means for analysis in this thesis

to examine the potential aerodynamic performance benefits from a morphing rotor system.

Only aerodynamic effects were considered with no consideration as to how such morphing

might be practically implemented. From the work reported in this thesis, it can be con-

cluded that from an aerodynamic and performance perspective rotor system and/or blade

morphing does have some benefits, but those benefits are relatively small. It was found

that in some cases the use of morphing would be limited anyway because of other aero-

dynamic problems that are produced, such as the premature onset of retreating blade stall,

compressibility drag rise on the blades, etc.

The following conclusions have been drawn from the work:

1. Higher (negative, nose-down) blade twist was found to maximize hovering perfor-

mance, while low to moderate blade twist was found to produce lower power re-

quirement and lower rotor drag at higher airspeeds. Little or no blade twist was

found to produce the lowest rotor drag at the highest airspeeds. At airspeeds between

hover and 60 knots, the effects of blade twist on rotor drag was shown to be very

small.
 72

2. On decreasing the rotor radius by up to 10%, the rotor power requirements increased

in hover and also at lower airspeeds up to 50 knots, which was because of an increase

in rotor disk loading. At airspeeds above 50 knots, decreasing rotor radius begins to

reduce the rotor power requirements. Although too much of a reduction in radius

results in significantly increased disk loadings and higher power requirements, the

blade sections also begin to operate at higher angles of attack on the retreating side

of the rotor disk, thereby causing premature blade stall. Decreasing rotor radius

decreases rotor drag and, thereby, reduces the propulsive requirements of the rotor

system. The lift to drag ratio was also found to increase at higher airspeeds with

decrease in rotor radius because of a reduction in rotor drag.

3. Reducing the rotational speed (rpm) of the rotor results in lower power requirements

at all airspeeds. But to generate the same total rotor thrust this approach also leads to

the blade sections operating at higher angles of attack, so are most likely to stall on

the retreating side of the rotor in forward flight. There was a significant increase in

the rotor lift to drag ratio at moderate and higher airspeeds, with a maximum gain of

0.6 at 100 knots when reducing rotor speed by 10%.

4. Although Khoshlajeh and Gandhi [Ref. 29] have conducted research into a “mor-

phing chord” blade by using part-span extendable flaps at moderate and higher air-

speeds and have claimed modest rotor performance improvements, the area increase

from a flap is smaller compared to increasing the entire blade chord. It was shown

in this thesis that any increase in blade chord leads just leads to higher rotor drag
 73

because of higher blade area, the upshot being an increase in power requirements at

any airspeed and also a decrease in rotor lift to drag ratio in forward flight.

5. Changing blade twist was found to provide the most power reductions at lower air-

speeds while reducing rpm provided the most gains at moderate and higher airspeeds.

Lift to drag ratio decreased at all airspeeds with a maximum gain of 0.75 at 100 knots

obtained from varying rotor rpm. A blade twist reduction from the hover value pro-

vided a power saving of 150 hp at 160 knots, but this is equivalent only to about a

67 lb/hr fuel savings. For a flight of 2 hours, 135 lbs of fuel is saved and hence flight

time could only be extended by a modest 8 minutes.

6. Morphing of the rotor was carried out by systematically varying blade twist, blade

radius and rotor rpm as a function of airspeed. Blade twist was changed such that

it was −18◦ in hover to 0◦ at 160 knots, rpm was varied such that it was 100% at

hover to 90% at 160 knots, and rotor radius was changed such that it was 100% in

hover to 90% at 160 knots. On morphing two effects simultaneously, power gains

were found to be more significant compared to morphing single effects. At low

airspeeds, morphing blade twist and rotor rpm provided the most benefits while at

moderate airspeeds of 50–110 knots, varying rotor rpm and blade radius offer the

most benefits. At higher airspeeds, morphing blade twist and rotor radius together

gave the most gains in performance. Reducing both rpm and radius at 160 knots gave

a 300 hp reduction in power and approximately 135 lb/hr of fuel savings.

 74

7. Reducing blade twist and radius simultaneously leads to more drag reductions at all

airspeeds than other forms of morphing, with a maximum drag reduction of 370 lb

at 160 knots. The lift to drag ratio was shown to increase for these cases over the

baseline rotor. Varying blade twist, rotor rpm and blade radius simultaneously gives

the maximum power reductions possible at all airspeeds when compared to all other

morphing cases. A maximum power reduction of 420 hp was attained at 160 knots,

which results in fuel savings of 189 lb/hr and total fuel saving of 378 lbs over a 2 hour

flight. A fuel savings of 378 pounds is equivalent to an extra flight time of about 21

minutes.

From above conclusions, it can be seen that the maximum extra flight endurance that

could be obtained by morphing a rotor is around 5–15 minutes for all cases except the one

where twist, radius and rpm are all morphed. While even an extra 10 minutes could be

critical to certain flight missions, the work in this thesis ignores all of the other penalties

incurred by “morphing” a blade or a rotor system. For instance, morphing twist, radius and

rpm offers benefits at higher speeds and modestly increased flight time but each morphing

system requires its own actuators and combining three such systems would make the rotor

system very heavy. This could obviously offset any benefits.

4.2 Recommendations for Future Work

In terms of future work, it would be worthwhile to analyze other combinations of rotor

and blade morphing with respect to airspeed. Another factor that could be considered
 75

is to morph the blade as a function of blade azimuth location because helicopter blade

operates very differently on the retreating and advancing sides of the rotor disk. However,

it is recognized that morphing the blade as a function of time may be very challenging in

practice. Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate morphing from a structural and

weight perspective and analyze the impact of adding such systems to a rotor blade. Also,

analyzing the aspect of reliability, maintenance and certification of such systems would be

critical to understanding the practical feasibility of morphing blades and morphing rotors,

in general. Even if such morphing was to be aerodynamically useful and even practical,

there would still have to be further studies on the effects of morphing on vibrations and

noise. Most helicopters have high amounts of vibrations and noise, so if morphing reduces

vibrations and acoustics significantly then it might prove advantageous even if only small

performance benefits are realized.

 76

Bibliography

[1] aviastar, “Vought-Sikorsky VS-300,” 2016. [Online]. Available: www.aviastar.org

[2] SSGT Suzanne M Jenkins USAF, “UH-60L Blackhawk helicopter flies a low-

level mission over Iraq,” 2004. [Online]. Available: Defenseimagery.mil, VIRIN

040107-F-9629J-009

[3] J Gordon Leishman, Fundamentals of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 2006.

[4] Franchesca Fusi, Guiseppe Quaranta, Alberto Guardone and Pietro Congedo, “Robust

aerodynamic optimization of morphing airfoils for helicopter rotor blades,” AIAA,

2015.

[5] Hong Jie Tseng and Wei Cheng Tian and Wen Jong Wu, “Flexible PZT Thin Film

Tactile Sensor for Biomedical Monitoring,” Sensors(Basel), pp. 5478–5492, 2013.

[6] Cassio T Faria and Alexander M. Pankonien and Daniel J. Inman, “Synergistic Smart

Morphing Aileron,” 2013.

[7] Daniel J. Fernandes and Rafael V. Peres and Alvaro M. Mendes and Carlos N. Elias,

“Understanding the Shape Memory Alloys used in Orthodontics,” ISRN Dentistry,

2011.
 77

[8] DJ Lee and HC Kim and BG Min , “Development of a new blood pump using a shape

memory alloy actuator,” ASAIO Journal, pp. 765–768.

[9] Justin K. Strelec and Dimitris C. Lagoudas and Mohammad A. Khan and John Yen

, “Design and Implementation of a Shape Memory Allow Actuated Reconfigurable

Airfoil,” Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2003.

[10] Jeanette J. Epps and Inderjit Chopra, “In Flight Tracking of Helicopter Rotor Blades

using Shape memory alloy actuators,” AIAA, 1999.

[11] Nirmit Prabhakar, “Design and Dynamic Analysis of a variable sweep, variable span

morphing UAV,” 2014.

[12] Zhang Haibo and yan Changkai and Chen Guoqiang, “Variable rotor speed control

for an integrated helicopter/engine system,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, pp.

323–341, 2013.

[13] NASA, “A Sequential Shifting Algorithm for Variable Rotor Speed Control,” 2007.

[14] Lidia M. Belmonte and Rafael Morales and Antonio Fernandez-Caballero and Jose

A. Somolinos, “A Tandem Active Disturbance Rejection Control for a Laboratory

Helicopter With Variable-Speed Rotors,” IEEE, pp. 6395–6406, 2016.

[15] Benjamin K.S Woods and M Senthil Murugan and Michael I Friswell, “Morphing

Helicopter Rotor Blade with Curvilinear Fiber Composites,” European Rotorcraft Fo-

rum, 2012.
 78

[16] Dong Han and Edward Smith, “Lagwise dynamic analysis of a variable speed rotor,”

Aerospace Science and Technology, pp. 277–286, 2013.

[17] Peter C Chen and Inderjit Chopra, “Wind tunnel test of a smart rotor with individual

blade twist control,” SPIE, pp. 217–230, 1997.

[18] A. Staino and B. Basu, “Dynamics and Control of vibrations in wind turbines with

variable rotor speed,” Engineering Structures, pp. 58–67.

[19] Dong Han and Joseph Wang and Edward C. Smith and George A. Lesieutre, “Tran-

sient Loads Control of a Variable Speed Rotor during Lagwise Resonance Crossing,”

AIAA, pp. 20–29, 2013.

[20] Harsha Prahlad and Inderjit Chopra, “Design of a variable twist tilt rotor blade using

shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators,” SPIE, pp. 46–59, 2001.

[21] R. M. Ajaj and M. Bourcha and W. Harsani, “Twist Morphing Using the Variable

Cross Section Spar: Feasibility Study,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2015.

[22] Phuriwat Anusonti-Inthra and Robert Sarjeant and Mary Frecker and Farhan Gandhi,

“Design of a Conformable Rotor Airfoil Using Distributed Piezoelectric Actuators,”

AIAA, pp. 1684–1695, 2005.

[23] F. Gandhi, “Variable chord morphing helicopter rotor,” Patent, 2014.

[24] Mestrinho, J., Gamboa, P., Santos, P., “Design Optimization of a Variable Span Mor-

phing Wing for a Small UAV,” AIAA/ASME/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics and

Materials Conference, 2011.

 79

[25] M Secanell and A Suleman and P Gamboa, “Design of a Morphing airfoil using

aerodynamic shape optimization,” AIAA, pp. 1550–1562, 2006.

[26] Gianluigi Alberto Miste and Ernesto Benini, “Variable Speed Rotor Helicopters: Per-

formance Comparison Between Continuously Variable and Fixed Ratio Transmis-

sions,” AIAA, pp. 1189–1200, 2016.

[27] Analytical Methods, “MSES/MISES,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ami.aero/software-computing/

[28] David Matuska and Allen Dale and Peter Lorber, “Wind Tunnel Test of a Variable-

Diameter Tiltrotor (VDTR) Model,” 1994.

[29] Maryam Khoshlahjeh, “Extendable chord rotors for helicopter performance improve-

ment and envelope expansion,” Pennsylvania State University, 2012.

[30] Mihir Mistry and Farhan Gandhi, “Helicopter Performance Improvement with Vari-

able Rotor Radius and RPM,” Journal of American Helicopter Society, pp. 17–35,

2014.

[31] Robert Porter and Biajn Shirinzadeh and Man Ho Choi, “Experimental Analysis

of Variable Collective-pitch Rotor Systems for Multirotor Helicopter Applications,”

Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, pp. 271–288, 2016.

[32] Inderjit Chopra, “Aeromechanics of an Optimized, Actively-Morphing Rotor Sys-

tem,” 2013.
 80

[33] George N Barakos and Dong Han and Vasileios Pastrikakis, “Helicopter Performance

Improvement by Variable Rotor Speed and Variable Blade Twist,” Aerospace Science

and Technology, pp. 164–173, 2015.

[34] Verticalmag, “Bell Helicopter unveils futuristic FCX-001 concept aircraft,”

2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.verticalmag.com/news/bell-helicopter-

unveils-futuristic-fcx-001-concept-aircraft/

[35] William G. Bousman, Aerodynamic Characteristics of SC1095 and SC1094R8 air-

foils. NASA, 2003.

[36] Tools Airfoil, “SC1095 data,” 2017. [Online]. Available: airfoiltools.com

[37] MATLAB, “Solve nonstiff differential equations medium order method, ODE45 ,”

2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/ode45.html

[38] University of Bristol, “Cruise Performance,” 2004. [Online]. Available:

https://www.southampton.ac.uk

[39] “UH-60A/L Black Hawk Helicopter,” 2004. [Online]. Available:

http://www.military.com/equipment/uh-60a-l-black-hawk

[40] Minnesota National Guard, UH-60 Black Hawk, 2004. [Online]. Available:

http://www.minnesotanationalguard.org/units/assets/equipment/Blackhawk.pdf
 81

A. Appendix: Main MATLAB Code

% Main R o t o r c o d e

clc ;

clear ;

r u n ( ’ C o n s t a n t s .m’ )

Vinf = 0 ∗1.68781; % f t / sec (0 f o r hover )

tot deg = 1 ∗ 3 6 0 ; % number o f r e v o l u t i o n s

alpha tpp = 0 ∗0.01745;

r e v = 1 ∗ 3 6 ; % number o f t o t a l s e c t i o n s

w h i l e C t r e q > Ct && b e t a 1 s <= 0 . 2 && b e t a 1 c <= 0 . 1

i f abs ( Ct−C t r e q ) > 0 . 0 0 0 1

twisto = twisto + 0.1∗0.01745;

else

twisto = twisto − 0.01∗0.1745;

end
 82

i f beta 1s > 0.2

pitch1c = pitch1c + 0.1∗0.01745;

else

pitch1c = pitch1c − 0.1∗0.01745;

end

i f beta 1c > 0.2

pitch1s = pitch1s − 0.1∗0.01745;

else

pitch1s = pitch1s + 0.1∗0.01745;

end

for count = 1 : ( rev )

angle prev = angle ;

angle = ( ( t o t d e g / rev )∗ count ) ;

a n g l e p l o t ( : , count ) = angle ;

p s i = ( angle ) ∗0.01745; % p s i in radians

dpsi = tot deg / rev ;

f o r i = 1 : ( n −1)
 83

% B l a d e Geometry

y = (R / n ) ∗ i ; % y

y1 ( : , i ) = y ;

c = 1 . 7 3 ; % chord at segment ( f t )

c save (: , i ) = c ;

% pitch1s = 0 /57.3;

% pitch1c = 0 /57.3;

advance = ( Vinf ∗ cos ( a l p h a t p p ) ) / Vtip ;

% Solidity

s i g m a = ( Nb∗ c ) / ( p i ∗R ) ;

%s i g m a = 3∗ s i g m a e q ∗ r ∗ r ∗ d r ;

sigma1 ( : , i ) = sigma ;

%t h e t a t i p = 4 / 5 7 . 3 ;

t h e t a = t w i s t o + t w i s t r a t e ∗ y + p i t c h 1 s ∗ sin ( p s i ) + p i t c h 1 c ∗ cos (

%t h e t a = t h e t a t i p / r ; % h y p e r b o l i c t w i s t

theta save (: , i ) = theta ;

% Compressibility effects

V e l e m e n t = ( V t i p / R) ∗ y ; % E l e m e n t v e l o c i t y

ut = V element + Vtip ∗ advance ∗ sin ( p s i ) ;

 84

Minf = u t / 1 1 1 7 ;

c l a = 2∗ p i / ( s q r t (1− Minf ˆ 2 ) ) ; % 1 / r a d i a n s

%I n f l o w

while e r r o r i n f l o w > 0.5

l a m d a a v g = ( a d v a n c e ∗ t a n ( a l p h a t p p ) ) + ( ( Ct ) / ( 2 ∗ s q r t ( a d v a n c e ∗ a d v a n c

F = 1 ; % Assume F f o r i n i t i a l iteration

ff = 1;

for i n f l o w i t e r = 1:10

f f = ( Nb / 2 ) ∗ ( ( R − y ) / p h i ∗y ) ;

F = ( 2 / p i ) ∗ ( a c o s ( exp(− f f ) ) ) ;

end

lamda avg = lamda avg / F ;

e r r o r i n f l o w = abs ( ( l a m d a a v g − l a m d a a v g p r e v ) / l a m d a a v g ) ;

i f i >1

l a m d a a v g p r e v = lamda1 ( : , i − 1 ) ;

end

end

c h i = atan ( advance / lamda avg ) ;

kx = t a n ( c h i / 2 )

ky = 0 ;
 85

lamda = l a m d a a v g ∗ ( 1+ kx ∗y∗ c o s ( p s i ) + ky ∗y∗ s i n ( p s i ) ) ;

lamda1 ( : , i ) = lamda ;

% L i f t Coeff

up = lamda ∗ V t i p + ( b e t a d o t ∗ y ) ;

p t = up / u t ;

phi = atan ( p t ) ;

alpha = t h e t a − phi ;

a l p h a 1 ( : , i )= a l p h a ;

Cl = c l a ∗ ( a l p h a − ( −0.7 / 5 7 . 3 ) ) ;

Cl1 ( : , i ) = ( Cl ) ;

i f Cl > 1 . 5 && y > e ∗R

f p r i n t f ( ’ C o m p r e s s i b l i t y Cl ! ’ )

d i s p ( Cl )

disp ( angle )

disp ( y )

pause

end

% Drag From e x c e l
 86

cdo = 0 . 0 0 7 ;

d1 = −0.0002;

d2 = 0 . 0 0 0 2 ;

dcd = cdo + a l p h a ∗ d1 + a l p h a ∗ a l p h a ∗ d2 ;

i f u t <=0

dcd = 3∗ dcd ;

end

i f Minf > 0 . 8

dcd = dcd + 1 2 . 5 ∗ ( Minf − 0 . 8 ) ˆ 3 ;

end

d c d s a v e ( : , i ) = dcd ;

% T h r u s t & mb

dy = R / n ;

u = s q r t ( u t ˆ 2 + up ˆ 2 ) ;

d e l t a l i f t = 0 . 5 ∗ r h o ∗ u ∗ u ∗ c ∗ Cl ∗ dy ;

lift save (: , i ) = delta lift ;

delta mb = (1 / ( rho ∗ cla ∗ c ∗ Vtip ∗ Vtip ∗ R ∗ R) ) ∗ ( d e l t a l i f t ∗

d e l t a d r a g = 0 . 5 ∗ r h o ∗ u ∗ u ∗ c ∗ dcd ∗ dy ;

dmb save ( : , i ) = d e l t a m b ;
 87

d t h r u s t = d e l t a l i f t ∗ cos ( phi ) − d e l t a d r a g ∗ sin ( phi ) ;

dthrust save (: , i ) = dthrust ;

dPi = d e l t a l i f t ∗ sin ( phi )∗ V element ;

dPi save ( : , i ) = dPi ;

dPo = d e l t a d r a g ∗ c o s ( p h i ) ∗ V e l e m e n t ;

d P o s a v e ( : , i ) = dPo ;

end

% Blade Flapping

l o c k = 8 ; %( r h o ∗ c l a ∗ c ∗ ( R ˆ 4 ) ) / I b ;

mb = t r a p z ( dmb save ) ;

vb = s q r t ( 1 + ( ( 3 ∗ e ) / ( 2 ∗ ( 1 − e ) ) ) ) ;

p r e v t i m e = c o u n t −1;

s a v e ( ’ M a i n c o d e ’ , ’ vb ’ ) ;

save ( ’ Main code ’ , ’ l oc k ’ ) ;

s a v e ( ’ M a i n c o d e ’ , ’mb ’ ) ;

i f c o u n t == 1

[ t t , b ] = ode45 ( @flap , [ a n g l e p r e v a n g l e ] , [ 0 ∗ 0 . 0 1 7 4 5 0 ] ) ;

else
 88

[ t t , b ] = ode45 ( @flap , [ a n g l e p r e v a n g l e ] , [ b e t a 0 ] ) ;

end

b e t a d o t = ( b ( end , 2 ) ) ; % b e t a d o t

b e t a = ( b ( end , 1 ) ) ; % b e t a

b e t a s a v e ( : , count ) = beta ∗(180/ pi ) ;

b e t a d o t s a v e ( : , count ) = b e t a d o t ∗(180/ pi ) ;

i n d i c e = rev − ( rev ∗360/ t o t d e g ) ;

cc = b e t a s a v e ( : , ( i n d i c e ) : ( rev ) ) ;

f f = f f t ( cc ) ;

P2 = abs ( f f / ( l e n g t h ( c c ) ) ) ;

P1 = P2 ( : , 1 : ( l e n g t h ( c c ) ) / 2 + 1 ) ;

P1 ( : , 2 : end −1) = 2∗ P1 ( : , 2 : end − 1 ) ;

b e t a 1 s = P1 ( : , 2 ) ;

b e t a 1 c = P1 ( : , 3 ) ;

d t t = trapz ( d t h r u s t s a v e ) ;

d t t s a v e ( : , count ) = d t t ;

d p i i = trapz ( dPi save ) ;

dpoo = t r a p z ( d P o s a v e ) ;
 89

dp = d p i i +dpoo ;

d p s a v e ( : , c o u n t ) = dp ;

ddrag = trapz ( dcd save ) ;

ddrag save ( : , count ) = ddrag ;

end

end

Power = Nb∗ t r a p z ( d p s a v e ) ∗ d p s i / ( 2 ∗ p i ) ;

T h r u s t = Nb∗ t r a p z ( d t t s a v e ) ∗ d p s i / ( 2 ∗ p i ) ;

Drag = Nb∗ t r a p z ( d d r a g s a v e ) ∗ d p s i / ( 2 ∗ p i )

Cpmr = Power / r h o ∗ p i ∗R∗R∗ V t i p ˆ 3 ;

f l a t a r e a = 0.01

Cpp = 0 . 5 ∗ f l a t a r e a ∗ a d v a n c e ˆ 3 ;

Cp = Cpmr + Cpp ;

T o t a l p o w e r = Cp∗ r h o ∗ p i ∗R∗R∗ V t i p ˆ 3 / 5 5 0 ; %hp

Ctmr = T h r u s t / r h o ∗ V t i p ˆ 2 ∗ p i ∗R∗R ;
 90

Ch = Drag / V i n f ∗ V i n f ∗ r h o ∗ p i ∗R∗R ;

% Plots

% figure (1)

% plot ( angle plot , beta save )

% t i t l e ( ’ f l a p angle for i n i t i a l beta = 0 ’)

% xlabel ( ’ psi ( degrees ) ’)

% y l a b e l ( ’ b e t a ( deg ) ’ )

% a x i s ( [ 0 360 0 1 0 ] )

% x t i c k s ( [ 0 90 180 270 3 6 0 ] )

% figure (2)

% p l o t ( r1 , d e l t a c t d r 1 )

% t i t l e ( ’ d c t / dr vs r ’ )

% xlabel ( ’r ’)

% y l a b e l ( ’ d c t / dr ’ )

% figure (3)

% p l o t ( r1 , Cl1 )

% %a x i s ( [ 0 1 0 2 ] )

% t i t l e ( ’ Cl v s r ’ )

% xlabel ( ’r ’)
 91

% y l a b e l ( ’ Cl ’ )

% figure (4)

% p l o t ( r1 , lamda1 )

% %a x i s ( [ 0 1 0 0 . 1 ] )

% t i t l e ( ’ Inflow vs r ’ )

% xlabel ( ’r ’)

% y l a b e l ( ’ lambda ’ )

%f i g u r e ( 2 )

%p l o t ( P1 )
 92

B. Flapping Function Code

f u n c t i o n d y d t = f l a p ( t t , yy )

% function to solve flap equation

% y1 = b e t a

% y2 = b e t a d o t

l o a d ( ’ M a i n c o d e . mat ’ )

vb1 = e v a l i n ( ’ b a s e ’ , ’ vb ’ ) ;

lock1 = e v a l i n ( ’ base ’ , ’ lock ’ ) ;

mb1 = e v a l i n ( ’ b a s e ’ , ’mb ’ ) ;

d y d t = [ yy ( 2 ) ; ( ( l o c k 1 ∗ mb1 ) − vb1 ∗ vb1 ∗ yy ( 1 ) ) ] ;