Analytical Calculation of Helicopter Main Rotor Blade

Flight Loads in Hover and Forward Flight

by Ki C. Kim

ARL-TR-3180 April 2004

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless
so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the
use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068

ARL-TR-3180 April 2004

Analytical Calculation of Helicopter Main Rotor Blade

Flight Loads in Hover and Forward Flight

Ki C. Kim
Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
April 2004 Final January 2002–July 2002
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Analytical Calculation of Helicopter Main Rotor Blade Flight Loads in Hover and
Forward Flight 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Ki C. Kim 1L162618AH80
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
AMSRD-ARL-SL-BD ARL-TR-3180
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
An aeroelastic analysis was conducted to calculate flight loads on the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior main rotor blade at hover and
forward flight conditions. Centrifugal force and flap and chord bending moments were calculated with the University of
Maryland Advanced Rotorcraft Code (UMARC) comprehensive helicopter aeroelastic analysis code. The calculated loads were
correlated with available flight data for the Bell model 406LM helicopter (model 406T rotor blade) to validate the analytical
model. After the correlation study, UMARC was used to calculate blade loads at the ballistic test section radial stations. These
baseline loads were represented during the ballistic tests. This report presents the methods and results of the aeroelastic
analysis.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

flight loads, aeroelastic analysis, dynamic response
17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICAT4ION OF: OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES
Ki C. Kim
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
UL 24
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED (410) 278-2467
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

ii
Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Helicopter Aeroelastic Model 1

2.1 UMARC Helicopter Aeroelastic Analysis Code.............................................................2
2.2 Vehicle Trim....................................................................................................................3
2.3 Rotor Steady Response....................................................................................................3
2.4 Rotor Wake Modeling .....................................................................................................4
2.5 Solution Procedure for Blade Load Calculations ............................................................4

3. Results and Discussion 5

3.1 Correlation Study ............................................................................................................7
3.2 Blade Flight Load Calculations for Hover and 100-kn Forward Speed........................10

4. Summary 12

5. References 13

List of Abbreviations and Symbols 14

Distribution List 15

iii
List of Figures

Figure 1. Local and global degrees of freedom of KW main rotor blade.......................................6

Figure 2. Correlation of main rotor blade natural frequencies........................................................7
Figure 3. Correlation of CFs along the blade span. ........................................................................8
Figure 4. Correlation of flap bending moment along blade span (µ = 0.28). .................................9
Figure 5. Correlation of lag bending moments along blade span (µ = 0.28). ...............................10
Figure 6. Correlation of torsional moments along blade span (µ = 0.28).....................................11

List of Tables

Table 1. Aerodynamic characteristics of KW helicopter................................................................5

Table 2. FE beam model input for OH-58D KW main rotor blade. ...............................................5
Table 3. Flap bending moments of Bell model 406T helicopter main rotor blade.........................9
Table 4. Reference blade loads and moments for test phase I-B. .................................................11

iv
1. Introduction

In support of Kiowa Warrior (KW) main rotor blade ballistic vulnerability tests under the Live
Fire Test and Evaluation program (1), a comprehensive helicopter aeroelastic analysis was
conducted to calculate flight loads on the OH-58D KW main rotor blade at hover and forward
flight conditions. Centrifugal force (CF) and flap and chord bending moments were calculated
with the University of Maryland Advanced Rotorcraft Code (UMARC) comprehensive
helicopter aeroelastic analysis code (2).
The calculated loads were first correlated with available flight data for the Bell Model 406LM
helicopter to validate the analytical model. After the correlation study, UMARC was used to
calculate blade loads at the ballistic test section radial stations. These baseline loads were
represented during the ballistic tests (1).
The UMARC helicopter aeroelastic model used in the present study is a nonlinear representation
of elastic rotor blades coupled to a rigid fuselage. The key feature in UMARC is the use of a
finite element (FE) methodology, which can accurately model the kinematics and elastic
behavior of the rotating blade. The rotor blade is assumed to be an elastic beam undergoing flap
bending, lag bending, elastic twist, and axial deflections. The helicopter fuselage is assumed to
be a rigid body undergoing six degrees of freedom. Each blade is modeled as a number of beam
FEs. The formulation for the blade and fuselage equations of motion is based on Hamilton’s
energy principle. The analysis is developed for helicopters with nonuniform rotor blades having
pretwist, precone, and chord-wise offsets of the center of mass, aerodynamic center, and tension
center, from the elastic axis.
This report presents the methods and results of the aeroelastic analysis. Definitions of symbols
used in the report are given in the List of Abbreviations and Symbols. In section 2, the
formulation details and aerodynamic model used in UMARC helicopter aeroelastic analysis code
are presented. Numerical results are shown and compared with available flight data in section 3.
The summary and recommendations for future work are presented in section 4.

2. Helicopter Aeroelastic Model

The calculation of rotor loads is a difficult task because of the complex interactions of structural,
inertial, and aerodynamic forces acting on the rotary wing. Basically, it is necessary to calculate
the periodic aerodynamic and inertial forces of the blade, and thus the resulting motion of
structural components. Since the higher harmonic blade loading is the principal source of high
loads, an accurate analysis of the rotor aerodynamics is required, including the effects of the

1
rotor wake, stall, and compressibility. The high frequencies involved and the importance of
resonance excitation also require good inertial and structural models.

2.1 UMARC Helicopter Aeroelastic Analysis Code

The UMARC helicopter aeroelastic model used in this study is a nonlinear representation of
elastic rotor blades coupled to a rigid helicopter fuselage. The key feature in UMARC is the use
of an FE methodology, which can accurately model the kinematics and elastic behavior of the
rotating blade. The rotor blade is assumed to be an elastic beam undergoing flap bending, lag
bending, elastic twist, and axial deflections. The helicopter fuselage is assumed to be a rigid
body undergoing six degrees of freedom. Each blade is modeled as a number of beam FEs. The
formulation for the blade and fuselage equations of motion is based on Hamilton's energy
principle. The analysis is developed for helicopters with nonuniform rotor blades having
pretwist, precone, and chord-wise offsets of the center of mass, aerodynamic center, and tension
center from the elastic axis. This code is the current state-of-the-art rotorcraft engineering
analysis code and is widely used by U.S. Army Research Laboratory researchers and other
Government/industry researchers (e.g., NASA Ames and Boeing and Sikorsky).
In UMARC, aerodynamic loads acting on the rotor blade are calculated using quasi-steady strip
aerodynamic theory. Noncirculatory aerodynamic forces are also included. To include the effect
of high angle-of-attack flows on the retreating blade, a dynamic stall model is incorporated.
Dynamic stall characterizes the delay in flow separation because of unsteady angle of attack and
the shedding of a vortex from the leading edge of the airfoil when it gets into a deep stall
condition. These effects are introduced in the calculation of section lift and drag and pitching
moment. The first step to calculate blade loads and moment is to determine the trim state of the
helicopter for given flight conditions (i.e., gross weight, ambient conditions, and forward speed).
The UMARC utilizes the coupled trim solution procedure to calculate the helicopter trim in
hover and forward flight.
The coupled trim analysis consists of two phases, vehicle trim and steady response, calculated as
one coupled solution using a modified Newton’s method. For a given flight condition, the
control settings and the blade steady response must satisfy both the blade and the vehicle
equilibrium conditions. The method of solving simultaneously the blade responses and the trim
control settings is referred to as the coupled trim analysis. An uncoupled trim solution based on
the rigid flapping blade assumption is used as an initial estimate for the coupled trim analysis.
With the trim control settings, the blade steady responses are calculated. Using the blade
responses, the rotor hub loads and a new vehicle equilibrium position are recomputed. The
control settings are then updated based on the new equilibrium condition (3).

2
2.2 Vehicle Trim
Propulsive trim, which simulates an aircraft free-flight condition, is used to calculate the initial
rotor control settings. The solution is determined from the overall equilibrium—three force
(vertical, longitudinal, and lateral) and three moment (pitch, roll, and yaw) equations. (See Kim
[4] for more details.)
For a specified helicopter weight coefficient, Cw, and a forward speed, µ, the unknown quantities
to be determined from the vehicle equilibrium equations are as follows:
u T = [α s , φ s , θ . 75 , θ 1 c , θ 1 s , θ tail ] . (1)

These values are recalculated iteratively using the modified hub forces and moments, including
the blade elastic responses. The solution technique is based on a modified Newton’s method.
The rotor controls, which are updated at the ith iteration, can be expressed in a canonical form as
follows:
u i +1 ≅ u i + ∆u i , (2)

in which
∂F
∆u i = − |u =u0 F (u i ) , (3)
∂u
where uo is the trim control settings obtained initially using the rigid flapping blade solution and
∂F
the Jacobian is calculated using the finite difference approach. For computational
∂u
efficiency, the Jacobian is computed only once initially and used for subsequent iterations.

2.3 Rotor Steady Response

The rotor dynamic response involves the determination of time-dependent blade positions at
different azimuth locations for one rotor revolution. To reduce computational time, the FE
equations are transformed into modal space as a few normal mode equations using the coupled
natural vibration characteristics of the blade. These nonlinear periodic coupled equations are
solved for steady response using an FE in time procedure based on Hamilton’s principle in weak
form.
One rotor revolution is divided into a number of azimuthal (time) elements, and then periodicity
of response is used to join the motions of the first and last elements. The assembly of elements
results in nonlinear algebraic equations that are solved using the Newton-Raphson procedure.
After the blade response is obtained, hub forces and moments are calculated using the force
summation method. These values are finally used to recalculate the coupled trim control values,
as described in section 2.2.

3
2.4 Rotor Wake Modeling
For the induced in-flow distribution on the rotor disk, a free-wake model is fully coupled in the
rotor aeroelastic analysis. The model can account for wake self-distortion by updating its
geometry according to newly calculated in-flow and blade circulation distributions. The
geometry of the free wake is divided into the following three regions: (1) near wake, (2) rolling
up wake, and (3) far wake. The near wake consists of a series of radial panels, each with linear
circulation distributions. The rolling-up wake consists of an inboard linear circulation
distribution panel, and a tip panel that represents the rolling up of the tip vortex. The far wake is
modeled as one panel with a linear circulation distribution and a concentrated tip vortex whose
strength is proportional to the maximum circulation value on the rotor blade. The helical
geometry of the concentrated tip vortex is updated, while the inboard wake portions are not
changed.
The free-wake analysis is implemented in three stages. First, blade motion and loading are
calculated using a linear in-flow model. Next, wake-induced coefficients are calculated for
undistorted wake geometry. The nonuniform inflow is calculated and used to obtain blade
motion and loading. Finally, the free-wake geometry is calculated. For this, the influence
coefficients are reevaluated, and blade motion and loading are again obtained using nonuniform
in-flow values. For subsequent iterations, the free-wake geometry is generally held fixed, and
only the strength of vortices is updated. This comprehensive rotor wake model is used in the
present blade flight loads calculation.

2.5 Solution Procedure for Blade Load Calculations

The following procedures were used to calculate blade loads and moments on selected blade
stations in hover and forward flight conditions.
1. With prescribed input data, vehicle trim equations are calculated using rigid blade flapping
(a starting point).
2. Using control inputs from the vehicle trim solution of step 1, the blade nonlinear steady
response is calculated. The results give detailed individual blade responses at different
span-wise and azimuthal positions.
3. Hub loads and moments are calculated using elastic rotor responses. Then, the vehicle trim
values and blade responses are recalculated iteratively using the modified hub forces and
moments. This step is repeated until a converged solution is obtained.
4. Blade loads and moments at selected blade stations are calculated using the force
summation method.

4
 3. Results and Discussion

Numerical results are first calculated for the OH-58D KW helicopter at the gross weight of
4500 lb with the forward speed of 120 kn (equivalent advance ratio, µ, of 0.28). This flight
condition is selected for the benchmark correlation with the available test data obtained on the
Bell Model 406T rotor blade (5, 6). The 406T rotor blade is also used on the OH-58D KW.
Following the correlation, blade loads were calculated for the KW at a gross weight of 4086 lb
for hover and a cruising forward speed of 100 kn (µ = 0.23).
The KW helicopter is equipped with a four-bladed, soft in-plane, advanced geometry, hingeless
main rotor system. Some important aerodynamic characteristics of this helicopter rotor are given
in table 1. In the present study, an effort was made to model the helicopter main rotor blade
characteristics as accurately as possible. The rotor blade structural properties data obtained from
manufacture (7, 8) were used to create a finite element model (FEM) (see table 2). Figure 1
shows the global and local degrees of freedom of the FE blade model for the whole rotor blade.
Nonlinear twist distribution of the blade was also modeled in the blade FEs.

Table 1. Aerodynamic characteristics of KW helicopter.

No. of
Blades Main Main
in Helicopter Rotor Blade Blade Rotor Rotor Rotor
Main Gross Blade Tip Mean Solidity Blade Shaft Blade Disk
Air Density, Rotor, Weight(s), Radius, Speed, Chord, Ratio, Twist, Tilt, Precone, Area,
ρ Nb W R ΩR cm σ θtw αs βp A
(slug/ft3) (lb) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (degree) (degree)a (degree) (ft2)
.002378(ρSL) 4 4500, 4086 17.5 723.88 0.786 0.057 –12 5 2 962
a
Positive for forward tilt.

Table 2. FE beam model input for OH-58D KW main rotor blade.

Flap-Wise Lag-Wise Bending

Element No. Bending Stiffness Stiffness Torsional Stiffness Element Length
 EI   EI z   GJ   li 
 Y       
m Ω R 
2 4 m Ω R 
2 4  m Ω2R4  R
 o   o   o 
1(tip) 0.00581 0.02316 0.00522 0.025
2 0.00623 0.04324 0.00634 0.106
3 0.00934 0.06237 0.00935 0.169
4 0.00823 0.05762 0.00843 0.100
5 0.01420 0.08321 0.01743 0.152
6 0.02342 0.16342 0.02654 0.162
7 0.03429 0.32143 0.03021 0.086
8 (root) 0.22840 0.72342 0.06443 0.084

5
For the calculation of blade dynamic response, each rotor blade is discretized into eight beam
elements, and each beam element consists of 15 nodal degrees of freedom (see figure 1). For
normal mode reduction, five coupled rotating natural modes comprised of two flaps, two lags,
and one torsion mode are used. For periodic response, one cycle of time is discretized into eight
time elements, and each time element represents a fifth-order polynomial distribution of motion.

Figure 1. Local and global degrees of freedom of KW main rotor blade.

Figure 2 shows the correlation of the blade rotating natural frequencies. The UMARC calculated
values are compared with the experimental data (7) obtained on the Bell 406 helicopter rotor
blade. The UMARC results are calculated with the nominal operating rotational value of
395 rpm. There is a good correlation between the analytical UMARC results and the
experimental data, especially for the lower modes. It is also seen that UMARC slightly
underpredicts the torsional frequency.

6
 Correlation of Rotor Blade Natural Frequencies
Ω = 395 r.p.m.
7

Model 406 Experimental Data

Blade Natural Frequency ( per rev.)

6
UMARC Code Prediction

0
First First Flap Second Second Torsion
Lag Flap Lag

Figure 2. Correlation of main rotor blade natural frequencies.

3.1 Correlation Study

To validate the current blade load analysis, the calculated blade centrifugal loads and bending
moments were compared with available flight test data. The correlation study will not only serve
as an analysis check, but also as a guideline for further UMARC model improvement efforts.
Figure 3 shows the correlation of the centrifugal force acting on the blade stations. The UMARC
calculated values are compared with the flight test data obtained on the Bell 406 helicopter. The
centrifugal forces measured during the flight test are available at the two blade stations—
26,600 lb at inboard blade station 24.25 (r/R = 0.116) (5) and 20,600 lb at outboard blade station
96 (r/R = 0.457) (6). Comparing the UMARC results obtained using nonuniform FE beam
model with the flight test data, we observe an excellent correlation. Also shown in the figure is
the analytical result obtained with a simple uniform blade assumption. As expected, the result
obtained using the uniform blade shows a poor correlation. This is most likely due to the high
nonuniformity of the helicopter blade; rotor analysis with a simple uniform blade model can
generate erroneous results.

7
 Correlation of Axial Blade Loads on OH-58D KW Blade
V N = 120 knots, GW = 4500 lbs
50000
Uniform Blade Assumption
UMARC Code Prediction (Non-Uniform Blade FEM Model)
Flight Test Data (Model 406LM)
40000
Centrifugal Force (lbf)

30000

20000

10000

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Blade Station (r/R) Blade Tip
Blade Root

Figure 3. Correlation of CFs along the blade span.

The computed blade bending moments were also correlated with the flight test data. In reference
(5), three flap bending moment values are given at three inboard blade stations—stations 31
(r/R = 0.148), 40 (r/R = 0.191), and 50 (r/R = 0.238), respectively. In reference (6), only one
bending value is given at the outboard blade station 96 (r/R = 0.457). These flight values were
replicated and shown in table 3. Also, shown in the fourth column of the table are the peak-to-
peak values of the moments. The peak-to-peak value is a good indication of loading on the
structural component. It is seen that the bending moment is largest inboard and decreases
outboard.
Figure 4 shows the correlation of the UMARC flap-bending moments with the flight test data.
There are some discrepancies between the UMARC results and the flight test data. However,
considering the complexities associated with rotor loads and vibration analysis, a reasonably
good agreement is observed. In particular, the general trend and the peak-to-peak magnitude of
the moments are well correlated with flight test data, especially at inboard blade stations.

8
 Table 3. Flap bending moments of Bell model 406T helicopter main rotor blade.

Mean Peak-to-peak
Blade Station Value Oscillatory Value Value
(r/R) (in-lbf) (in-lbf) (in-lbf)
0.148 2125 ±2725 5450
0.191 1725 ±2360 4720
0.238 1275 ±2000 4000
0.457 –180 ±780 1560

Flap Bending Moment Variation Along Blade Span

(Envelope Curves)
10000
MODEL 406 DATA (Flapping Up)
MODEL 406 DATA (Flapping Down)
UMARC-120knots
Flap Bending Moment (in - lbf)

5000

-5000

-10000
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Blade Station (r/R)
Blade Root Blade Tip

Figure 4. Correlation of flap bending moment along blade span (µ = 0.28).

Figure 5 shows the correlation of UMARC lag bending moments with flight test data. Again,
there are some discrepancies between the analytical results and the test data. A comparison
reveals that the UMARC values are slightly greater than the test data values. However, a
reasonable correlation with the test data is observed, and the general trend is especially well
correlated.

9
 Lag Bending Moment Variation Along Blade Span
(Envelope Curves)
30000
Lag (Chord-wise) Bending Moment (in- lbf)

MODEL 406 Flight Data (Lagwise Direction)

MODEL 406 Flight Data (Lead-Lagging)
UMARC-120knots

15000

-15000

-30000
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Blade Station (r/R)
Blade Root Blade Tip

Figure 5. Correlation of lag bending moments along blade span (µ = 0.28).

Next, the UMARC calculated blade torsional moments were correlated with the flight test data in
Figure 6. There are only two blade stations where the flight torsional data are available—the
inboard blade station 24.25 (r/R = 0.116) (5) and the outboard blade station 96 (r/R = 0.457) (6).
The inboard station (r/R=0.116) is where the main rotor blade is connected with the pitch link.
Again, there are some discrepancies between the two results. However, a reasonable correlation
is observed.

3.2 Blade Flight Load Calculations for Hover and 100-kn Forward Speed
From the correlation study, it was determined that the UMARC code adequately calculated flight
loads. Excellent agreement with test dada was observed for the most dominant loading (i.e., the
axial load), giving a certain confidence in the helicopter rotor subsystem model. Next, a new set
of bending moments was calculated for the ballistic test flight conditions—the gross weight of
4086 lb at hover and a cruising forward speed of 100 kn (µ = 0.23) for three blade radial

10
 Torsional Moment Variation Along Blade Span
(Envelope Curves)
1500
MODEL 406 Flight Data (Pitch Up)
MODEL 406 Flight Data (Pitch Down)
1000 UMARC-120knots
Torsional Moment (in- lbf)

500

-500

-1000

-1500
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Blade Root Blade Station (r/R) Blade Tip

Figure 6. Correlation of torsional moments along blade span (µ = 0.28).

stations. Since the new flight conditions had a negligible influence on the centrifugal force on
the blade, the previous calculated values were used for the axial loading. These loads and
moments (peak values) were used as baseline loads during the ballistic test events. The results
are summarized in table 4.

Table 4. Reference blade loads and moments for test phase I-B.

FB FB FB LB LB LB
Blade Hover 100 kn 120 kn Hover 100 kn 120 kn
Station CF GW = 4086 lb GW = 4086 lb GW =4500 lb GW = 4086 lb GW = 4086 lb GW = 4500 lb
(r/R) (lb) (lb-in) (lb-in) (lb-in) (lb-in) (lb-in) (lb-in)
0.286 22374 2020 2219 2691 6860 7605 8284
0.614 16220 564 795 872 1416 1743 2169
0.843 8264 202 242 379 684 690 1112
Notes: FB = flap bending moment, positive flapping up; LB = lag (chord-wise) bending, positive lagging back.

11
4. Summary

An aeroelastic analysis was conducted to calculate flight loads on the OH-58D KW main rotor
blade for hover and cruise forward-flight conditions. Centrifugal force and flap and lag bending
moments were calculated using the UMARC code. The calculated loads were correlated with
flight test data for the Bell model 406LM helicopter to validate the analysis. The correlation
showed good general agreement between the test data and analytical results. After the
correlation study, blade loads were calculated for the desired ballistic test conditions.
In the present study, the UMARC comprehensive helicopter aeroelastic analysis, based on FE
methodology in both space and time coordinates, was conducted to analytically calculate the
flight loads. In spite of it being computer-intensive, its benefit must be appreciated as a powerful
analytical tool to validate simple design-oriented analysis.

12
5. References

1. Polyak, S. F. Detailed Test Plan for U.S. Army OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Live Fire Test and
Evaluation: Main Rotor Blade Ballistic Vulnerability Test Phase I-B (Quasi-Static); ARL-
MR-0549, U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, March 2003.
2. Bir, G. S.; Chopra, I.; Kim, K. C.; Wang, J.; Smith, E.; Vellaichamy, S.; Ganguli, R.;
Nixon, M; Torok, S. University of Maryland Advanced Rotorcraft Code (UMARC) Theory
Manual; AERO report no. 94-18; University of Maryland, College Park, MD, July 1994.
3. Kim, K. C. Helicopter Trim Calculation in Forward Flight. Proceedings of the 1993
Summer Computer Simulation Conference, ISBN:1-5655-057-9, Boston, MA, July 1993,
pp 374–379.
4. Kim, K. C. Analytical Investigation Into the Helicopter Vibration Resulting From Main
Rotor Blade (MRB) Ballistic Damage; ARL-TR-1985; U.S. Army Research Laboratory:
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, June 1999.
5. Bell Helicopter TEXTRON. Fatigue Test of The Model 406T Main Rotor Blade, Inboard
Section, PART No 406-015-001, PART I –Test Plan & PART II – Test Results; report no.
406-998-001; Fort Worth, TX, February 1986.
6. Bell Helicopter TEXTRON. Fatigue Test of The Model 406T Main Rotor Blade, Outboard
Section, PART No 406-015-001, Part II – Test Results; report no. 406-998-002; Fort Worth,
TX, March 1986.
7. Bell Helicopter TEXTRON. OH-58D Air Vehicle Technical Description Data; report no.
406-099-026; Fort Worth, TX, May 1984.
8. Bell Helicopter TEXTRON. Model 406 Performance Analysis; report no. 406-099-080; Fort
Worth, TX, August 1983.

13
List of Abbreviations and Symbols

A Rotor disk area, πR2

cm Mean blade chord length
W
CW Helicopter weight coefficient,
ρA(ΩR) 2
E Young’s modulus
EIy Effective flap bending stiffness
EIz Effective lag (chord) bending stiffness
G Shear modulus
GJ Effective sectional torsion stiffness
Iy, Iz Blade cross-sectional moment of inertia about y and z axis, respectively
J Polar moment of inertia
li Length of the ith beam element
mo Reference blade section mass
Nb Number of rotor blades
R Blade radius
uT Row vector of unknowns in vehicle trim equations
u Blade displacement in the axial direction
V Helicopter forward speed
v Blade displacement in the lead-lag direction
W Helicopter weight
w Blade displacement in the flap-wise direction
αs Longitudinal shaft tilt
θ.75 Main rotor collective pitch angle at 75% blade radius
θ1c, θ1s Lateral and longitudinal cyclic trim pitch angles, respectively
θtail Tail rotor collective pitch angle at root
V
µ Advance ratio,
ΩR
N c
σ Rotor solidity ratio, b m
πR
φ Elastic blade twist about the elastic axis
φs Lateral shaft tilt
ρ Air density
Ω Rotor rotational speed

14
NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

(PDF INFORMATION CENTER
Only) DTIC OCA 1 DIR USARL
8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600)
STE 0944
FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

1 COMMANDING GENERAL
US ARMY MATERIEL CMD
AMCRDA TF
5001 EISENHOWER AVE
ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001

1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY

THE UNIV OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN
3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400
AUSTIN TX 78759-5316

1 US MILITARY ACADEMY
MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE
MADN MATH
THAYER HALL
WEST POINT NY 10996-1786

1 DIRECTOR
US ARMY RESEARCH LAB
AMSRD ARL D
DR D SMITH
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR
US ARMY RESEARCH LAB
AMSRD ARL CS IS R
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

3 DIRECTOR
US ARMY RESEARCH LAB
AMSRD ARL CI OK TL
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

3 DIRECTOR
US ARMY RESEARCH LAB
AMSRD ARL CS IS T
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

15
NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 OASD C3I 1 USARL

J BUCHHEISTER AMSRD ARL SL EA
RM 3D174 R FLORES
6000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WSMR NM 88002-5513
WASHINGTON DC 20301-6000
1 USARL
1 OUSD(AT)/S&T AIR WARFARE AMSRD ARL SL EI
R MUTZELBURG J NOWAK
RM 3E139 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601
3090 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON DC 20301-3090
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
1 OUSD(AT)/S&T LAND WARFARE
A VIILU 1 US ARMY DEV TEST COM
RM 3B1060 CSTE DTC TT T
3090 DEFENSE PENTAGON APG MD 21005-5055
WASHINGTON DC 20310-3090
1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR
1 UNDER SECY OF THE ARMY CSTE AEC SVE
DUSA OR R BOWEN
RM 2E660 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE
102 ARMY PENTAGON APG MD 21005-3013
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0102
1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR
1 ASST SECY ARMY CSTE AEC SVE S
ACQSTN LOGISTICS & TECH R POLIMADEI
SAAL ZP RM 2E661 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE
103 ARMY PENTAGON APG MD 21005-3013
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0103
1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR
1 ASST SECY ARMY CSTE AEC SV L
ACQSTN LOGISTICS & TECH R LAUGHMAN
SAAL ZS RM 3E448 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE
103 ARMY PENTAGON APG MD 21005-3013
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0103
13 DIR USARL
1 DIRECTOR FORCE DEV AMSRD ARL SL
DAPR FDZ J BEILFUSS
RM 3A522 P DEITZ
460 ARMY PENTAGON AMSRD ARL SL B
WASHINGTON DC 20310-0460 J FRANZ
M PERRY
1 US ARMY TRADOC ANL CTR P TANENBAUM
ATRC W AMSRD ARL SL BB
A KEINTZ D BELY
WSMR NM 88002-5502 D FARENWALD
S JUARASCIO
1 USARL M RITONDO
AMSRD ARL SL M AMSRD ARL SL BD
J PALOMO R GROTE
WSMR NM 88002-5513

16
NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION

AMSRD ARL SL BE
L ROACH
AMSRD ARL SL E
M STARKS
AMSRD ARL SL EC
J FEENEY
E PANUSKA

17
NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 NASA LANGLEY RESCH CTR

VEHICLE TECH DIR
M NIXON MS 266
HAMPTON VA 23665

1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR

CSTE AEC SV LF
4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE
APG MD 21005

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

20 DIR USARL
AMSRD ARL SL B
AMSRD ARL SL BB
D JORDAN
M KUNKEL
S MOULSDALE
B WALTHER
AMSRD ARL SL BD
S POLYAK
B SMITH
J FRIES
D TEN BROECK
K KIM (10 CPS)
AMSRD ARL SL BE
E FIORAVANTE

18