Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-v4w92 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T20:48:12.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coupled flight dynamics and CFD – demonstration for helicopters in shipborne environment

Part of: Rotorcraft Virtual Engineering Conference 2016

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2017

C. Crozon ,
R. Steijl  and
G.N. Barakos
C. Crozon
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, University of Glasgow, School of Engineering, Glasgow, UK
R. Steijl
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, University of Glasgow, School of Engineering, Glasgow, UK
G.N. Barakos*
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, University of Glasgow, School of Engineering, Glasgow, UK
*
george.barakos@Glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of high-performance computing and computational fluid dynamics methods have evolved to the point where it is possible to simulate complete helicopter configurations with good accuracy. Computational fluid dynamics methods have also been applied to problems such as rotor/fuselage and main/tail rotor interactions, performance studies in hover and forward flight, rotor design, and so on. The GOAHEAD project is a good example of a coordinated effort to validate computational fluid dynamics for complex helicopter configurations. Nevertheless, current efforts are limited to steady flight and focus mainly on expanding the edges of the flight envelope. The present work tackles the problem of simulating manoeuvring flight in a computational fluid dynamics environment by integrating a moving grid method and the helicopter flight mechanics solver with computational fluid dynamics. After a discussion of previous works carried out on the subject and a description of the methods used, validation of the computational fluid dynamics for ship airwake flow and rotorcraft flight at low advance ratio are presented. Finally, the results obtained for manoeuvring flight cases are presented and discussed.

Keywords

CFDflight dynamicsshipborne helicopterautopilot
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 122 , Issue 1247 , January 2018 , pp. 42 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This is a version of a paper first presented at the RAeS Virtual Engineering Conference held at Liverpool University, 8-10 November 2016.

References

REFERENCES

1. Antoniadis, A., Drikakis, D., Zhong, B., Barakos, G., Steijl, R., Biava, M., Vigevano, L., Brocklehurst, A., Boelens, O., Dietz, M., Embacher, M. and Khier, W. Assessment of CFD methods against experimental flow measurements for helicopter flows, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2012, 19, (1), pp 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Steijl, R. and Barakos, G. CFD analysis of complete helicopter configurations lessons learnt from the GOAHEAD project, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2012, 19, (1), pp 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dietz, M., Kessler, M. and Krmer, E. Trimmed simulation of a complete helicopter configuration using fluid-structure coupling, High Performance Computing in Science and Engineering, edited by Nagel, W.E., Krner, D., and Resch, M., 2008, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 487–501.Google Scholar
4. Khier, W. Numerical simulation of a complete helicopter configuration in forward flight using fluid-structure coupling, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mech and Multidisciplinary Design, 2013, 121, pp 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Zan, S. On aerodynamic modeling and simulation of the dynamic interface, Proceedings of the Institution of Mech Engineers, Part G: J of Aerospace Engineering, 2005, 219, (5), pp 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hoencamp, A., Van Holten, T. and Prasad, J. Relevant aspects of helicopter-ship operations, Proceedings of the European Rotorcraft Forum, 2008, 1, pp 578–588.Google Scholar
7. Forrest, J. and Owen, I. An investigation of ship airwakes using Detached-Eddy simulation, Computers and Fluids, 2010, 39, (4), pp 656–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Polsky, S.A. and Bruner, C.W.S. A computational study of unsteady ship airwake. Presented at the RTO, AVT Symposium on Advanced Flow Management: Part A – Vortex Flows and High Angle of Attack for Military Vehicles, 7-11 May 2001, Loen, Norway. Published as RTO MP 069 (I).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Syms, G. Simulation of simplified-frigate airwakes using a Lattice-Boltzmann method, J of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero, 2008, 96, (6), pp 1197–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hodge, S., Zan, S., Roper, D., Padfield, G. and Owen, I. Time-accurate ship airwake and unsteady aerodynamic loads modeling for maritime helicopter simulation, J of the American Helicopter Soc, 2009, 54, (2), pp 0220051–02200516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Lawson, S., Crozon, C., Dehaeze, F., Steijl, R. and Barakos, G. Computational fluid dynamics analyses of ship air wakes using Detached-Eddy simulation, European Rotorcraft Forum Proceedings, 2012, 1, pp 502–523.Google Scholar
12. Thornber, B., Starr, M. and Drikakis, D. Implicit large Eddy simulation of ship airwakes, Aeronautical J, 2010, 114, pp 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Bunnell, J. An integrated time-varying airwake in a UH-60 Black-Hawk shipboard landing simulation, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, 2001, Montreal, Canada, pp 6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Roper, D., Owen, I., Padfield, G. and Hodge, S. Integrating CFD and piloted simulation to quantify ship-helicopter operating limits, Aeronautical J, 2006, 110, (1109), pp 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Roper, D., Owen, I. and Padfield, G. CFD investigation of the helicopter-ship dynamic interface, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2005, 2, pp 1985–2002.Google Scholar
16. Kaaria, C., Forrest, J., Owen, I. and Padfield, G. Simulated aerodynamic loading of an SH-60B helicopter in a Ship’s airwake, European Rotorcraft Forum, 2009, 2, pp 1001–1013.Google Scholar
17. Polsky, S. Progress towards modeling ship/aircraft dynamic interface, HPCMP Users Group Conference, 2006, IEEE, pp 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Polsky, S. Computational analysis for air/ship integration: 1st year report, High Performance Computing Modernization Program Users Group Conference (HPCMP-UGC), 2001, IEEE, pp 109–114.Google Scholar
19. Alpman, E., Long, L., Bridges, D. and Horn, J. Fully-coupled simulations of the rotorcraft/ship dynamic interface, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 63, American Helicopter Society, Inc, p 1367.Google Scholar
20. Lee, D. and Horn, J. Simulation of pilot workload for a helicopter operating in a turbulent ship airwake, Proceedings of the Institution of Mech Engineers, Part G: J of Aerospace Engineering, 2005, 219, (5), pp 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Lee, D., Sezer-Uzol, N., Horn, J. and Long, L. Simulation of helicopter shipboard launch and recovery with time-accurate airwakes, J Aircr, 2003, 42, (2), pp 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Bridges, D., Horn, J., Alpman, E. and Long, L. Coupled flight dynamics and CFD analysis of pilot workload in ship airwakes, Collection of Technical Papers - 2007 AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mech Conference, 2007, 1, pp 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Forsythe, J.R., Lynch, E., Polsky, S. and Spalart, P. Coupled flight simulator and CFD calculations of ship airwake using kestrel, 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, January 2015, Kissimee, Florida, US, AIAA 2015-0556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Zan, S. and Garry, E. Wind tunnel measurements of the airwake behind a model of a generic frigate, Tech Rep, NRCCNRC report LTR-AA-13, 1994.Google Scholar
25. Van Muijden, J., Boelens, O., Van der Vorst, J. and Gooden, J. Computational ship airwake determination to support helicopter-ship dynamic interface assessment, Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Quon, E.W., Cross, P.A., J., S.M., C., R.N. and R., W. G. Investigation of ship airwakes using a hybrid computational methodology, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2014.Google Scholar
27. Rosenfeld, N., Kimmel, K. and Sydney, A.J. Investigation of ship topside modeling practices for wind tunnel experiments, Proceedings of the AIAA Science and Technology Forum, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Zan, S. Experimental determination of rotor thrust in a ship airwake, J of the American Helicopter Soc, 2002, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Lee, R. and Zan, S. Wind tunnel testing of a helicopter fuselage and rotor in a ship airwake, J of the American Helicopter Soc, 2005, 50, pp 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Rajagopalan, G., Niazi, S., Wadcock, A., Yamauchi, G. and Silva, M. Experimental and computational study of the interaction between a Tandem-Rotor helicopter and a ship, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, Vol. 61, American Helicopter Society, Inc, 2005, p 729.Google Scholar
31. Lee, R. and Zan, S. Unsteady aerodynamic loading on a helicopter fuselage in a ship airwake, J of the American Helicopter Soc, 2004, 49, pp 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Nacakli, Y. and Landman, D. Helicopter downwash/frigate airwake interaction flowfield PIV surveys in a low speed wind tunnel, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2011, 4, pp 2988–2998.Google Scholar
33. Silva, M. Wind tunnel investigation of the aerodynamic interactions between helicopters and tiltrotors in a shipboard environment, Tech Rep, DTIC Document, 2004.Google Scholar
34. Wadcock, A. PIV measurements of the wake of a tandem-rotor helicopter in proximity to a ship, Tech Rep, DTIC Document, 2004.Google Scholar
35. Yamauchi, G., Wadcock, A. and Derby, M. Measured aerodynamic interaction of two tiltrotors, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, Vol. 59, American Helicopter Society, Inc, 2003, pp 1720–1731.Google Scholar
36. Stargel, D. and Landman, D. A wind tunnel investigation of ship airwake/rotor downwash coupling using design of experiments methodologies, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 2012, Nashville, Tennessee, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Iboshi, N., Itoga, N., Prasad, J. and Sankar, L. Ground effect of a rotor hovering above a confined area, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2008, 2, pp 1249–1262.Google Scholar
38. Snyder, M., Burks, J., Brownell, C., Luznik, L., Miklosovic, D., Golden, J., Hartsog, M., Lemaster, G., Roberson, F., Shishkoff, J., Stillman, W. and Wilkinson, C. Determination of shipborne helicopter launch and recovery limitations using computational fluid dynamics, Annual Forum Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2010, 4, pp 3136–3146.Google Scholar
39. Snyder, M., Kang, H. and Burks, J. Validation of computational ship air wakes for a naval research vessel, Aerospace Sciences Meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
40. Mohammad, M. and Cook, A. Review of pilot modelling techniques, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 2010.Google Scholar
41. Ananthan, S., Baeder, J., Sim, B.W.C., Hahn, S. and Iaccarino, G. Prediction and validation of the aerodynamics, structural dynamics, and acoustics of the SMART rotor using a loosely-coupled CFD-CSD analysis, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2010.Google Scholar
42. Thomas, S., Ananthan, S. and Baeder, J. Wake-coupling CFD-CSD analysis of helicopter rotors in steady and maneuvering flight conditions, AHS Specialists’ Conference on Aeromechanics, 20-22 January 2010, Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco, CA, US.Google Scholar
43. Bhagwat, M., Ormiston, R., Saberi, H. and Xin, H. Application of computational fluid dynamics/computational structural dynamics coupling for analysis of rotorcraft airloads and blade loads in maneuvering flight, J of the American Helicopter Soc, 2012, 57, (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Abhishek, A., Ananthan, S., Baeder, J. and Chopra, I. Prediction and fundamental understanding of stall loads in UH-60A pull-up maneuver, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. J. Sitaraman, J. B.R. Prediction of helicopter maneuver loads using a fluid-structure analysis, J Aircr, 2009, 46, (5), pp 1770–1784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. J. Sitaraman, e. a. Rotor loads prediction using helios: A multisolver framework for rotrcraft aeromechanics analysis, J Aircr, 2013, 50, (2), pp 478–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Masarati, P., Morandini, M. and Mantegazza, P. An efficient formulation for general-purpose multibody/multiphysics analysis, J Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Yu, K., Wachspress, D.A., Saberi, H.-A., Hasbun, M.J., Ho, J.C. and Yeo, H. Helicopter rotor structural load predictions with a comprehensive rotorcraft analysis, Proceedings of the American Helicopter Soc, 2012.Google Scholar
49. Beaumier, P., Costes, M., Rodriguez, O., Poinot, M. and Cantaloube, B. Weak and strong coupling between the elsA CFD solver and the HOST helicopter comprehensive analysis, ONERA: Tire a Part, 2005, (186), pp 1.Google Scholar
50. Servera, G., Beaumier, P. and Costes, M. A weak coupling method between the dynamics code HOST and the 3D unsteady euler code WAVES, J Aerospace Science and Technology, 2001, 5, (6), pp 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Dehaeze, F. and Barakos, G. Hovering rotor computations using an aeroelastic blade model, Royal Aeronautical Soc, 2012, 116, (1180).Google Scholar
52. Forsythe, J.R., et al. Coupled flight simulator and CFD calcualtions of ship airwake using HPCMP CREATE- AV Ketrel, Proceedings of the AIAA SciTech Forum, 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Barakos, G., Steijl, R., Badcock, K. and Brocklehurst, A. Development of CFD capability for full helicopter engineering analysis, 31st European Rotorcraft Forum, September 2005, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
54. Steijl, R., Barakos, G. and Badcock, K. A Framework for CFD analysis of helicopter rotors in hover and forward flight, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 51, (8), pp 819–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S. Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to euler equations in general geometries, J Computational Physics, January–February 1983, 50, pp 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Axelsson, O. Iterative Solution Methods, 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. J-J Philippe, J.-J. and Chattot, J.-J. Experimental and theoretical studies on helicopter blade tips at onera, Tech Rep, ONERA, 1980.Google Scholar
58. Steijl, R. and Barakos, G. Sliding mesh algorithm for CFD analysis of helicopter rotor-fuselage aerodynamics, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2008, 58, (5), pp 527–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Peters, D. and He, C. Correlation of measured induced velocities with a finite-state wake model, J of the American Helicopter Soc, 1991, 36, (3), pp 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Arney, A. and Gilbert, N. A user’s manual for the ARL mathematical model of the sea king Mk-50 helicopter: Part 1. Basic use, Tech Rep, DTIC Document, 1988.Google Scholar
61. Arney, A. and Gilbert, N. A user’s manual for the ARL mathematical model of the sea king Mk-50 helicopter: Part 2. Use with ARL flight data, Tech Rep, DTIC Document, 1988.Google Scholar
62. Feik, R. and Perrin, R. Identification of an adequate model for collective response dynamics of a sea king helicopter in hover, Tech Rep, DTIC Document, 1988.Google Scholar
63. Bradley, R. and Brindley, G. Progress in the development of a versatile pilot model for the evaluation of rotorcraft performance, control strategy and pilot workload, Aeronautical J, 2003, 107, (1078), pp 731–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64. Thomson, D. and Bradley, R. Inverse simulation as a tool for flight dynamics research - principles and applications, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2006, 42, (3), pp 174–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. Kwakernaak, H. Linear Optimal Control Systems, 1972, Wiley Interscience, New York, New York, US.Google Scholar
66. Crozon, C., Steijl, R. and Barakos, G. Numerical study of rotor in ship airwake, Proceedings of the European Rotorcraft Forum, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67. Cheney, B. and Zan, S. CFD code validation data and flow topology for TCCP AER-TP-2 simple frigate shape, 1999, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
68. Boelens, O. et al. Aerodynamic simulation of a complete helicopter configuration, Tech Rep, 2007, Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium.Google Scholar
69. Spalart, P., Deck, S., Shur, M., Squires, K., Strelets, M. and Travin, A. A new version of detached-Eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2006, 20, (3), pp 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. Menter, F. and Egorov, Y. SAS turbulence modelling of technical flows, Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation VI, 2006, pp 687–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. Mora, R. Flow field velocity on the flight deck of a frigate, Proceedings of the Institution of Mech Engineers, Part G: J of Aerospace Engineering, 2014, pp 0954410014524739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. Zan, S., Syms, G. and Cheney, B. Analysis of patrol frigate air wakes, RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel Symposium on Fluid Dynamics Problems of Vehicles Operating near or in the Air-Sea Interface, 5-8 October 1998, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Published as RTO MP-15.Google Scholar
73. Jarkowski, M., Woodgate, M., Barakos, G. and Rokicki, J. Towards consistent hybrid overset mesh methods for rotorcraft CFD, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2011.Google Scholar
74. Standard, A.D. Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft (ADS-33E-PRF), US Army Aviation and Missile Command, Aviation Engineering Directorate, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, US, March 2000.Google Scholar
75. Hess, R.A. and Jung, Y.C. An application of generalized predictive control to rotorcraft terrain-following flight, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1989, 19, (5), pp 955–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76. Cabral, B. and Leedom, L. Imaging vector fields using line integral convolution, 20th Annual Conference and Exhibition on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 1993, Anaheim, CA, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar