No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Damper model identification using mixed physical and machine-learning-based approach
Part of:
47th RAeS European Rotorcraft Forum
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2023
Abstract
In this paper, the identification of a time domain model of a helicopter main rotor lead-lag damper is discussed. Previous studies have shown that lead-lag dampers have a significant contribution to the overall aircraft dynamics, therefore an accurate damper model is essential to predict complex phenomena such as instabilities, limit cycles, etc. Due to the inherently nonlinear dynamics and the complex internal architecture of these components, the model identification can be a challenging task. In this paper, a hybrid physical/machine-learning-based approach has been used to identify a damper model based on experimental test data. The model, called grey box, consists of a combination of a white box, i.e. a physical model described by differential equations, and a black box, i.e. regression numerical model. The white box approximates the core physical behaviour of the damper while the black box improves the overall accuracy by capturing the complex dynamic not included in the white box. The paper shows that, at room temperature, the grey box is able to predict the damper force when either a multi-frequency harmonic or a random input displacement is imposed. The model is validated up to 20Hz and for the entire damper dynamic stroke.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Johnson, W. Rotorcraft Aeromechanics, Cambridge University Press, 2013, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaranta, G., Muscarello, V. and Masarati, P. Lead-lag damper robustness analysis for helicopter ground resonance, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2013, 36, (4), pp 1150–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titurus, B. and Lieven, N. Integration of hydraulic lag-damper models with helicopter rotor simulations, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 2010, 33, (1), pp 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, M.I., Wagg, D.J., Neild, S.A., Bunniss, P., Lieven, N.A.J. and Crewe, A.J. Testing coupled rotor blade–lag damper vibration using real-time dynamic substructuring, J. Sound Vib., 2007, 307, (3), pp 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, D.P. Fluidlastic dampers and isolators for vibration control in helicopters, Presented at the AHS International Forum 50, May 1994.Google Scholar
Panda, B., Mychalowycz, E. and Tarzanin, F.J. Application of passive dampers to modern helicopters, Smart Mater. Struct., 1996, 5, (5), pp 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, D.L. Elastomer modelling for use in predicting helicopter lag damper behavior, J. Sound Vib., 1999, 226, (3), pp 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P.J., Russell, D.D. and McGuire, D.P. Latest developments in fluidlastic® lead-lag dampers for vibration control in helicopters, Presented at the AHS 59th Annual Forum Proceedings, Phoenix, Arizona, May 2003.Google Scholar
Smith, E.C., Lesieutre, G.A., Szefi, J.T. and Marr, C. Time domain fluidlastic® lag damper modeling, Presented at the AHS International Forum 62, May 2006.Google Scholar
Felker, F.F., Lau, B.H., Mclaughlin, S. and Johnson, W. Nonlinear behavior of an elastomeric lag damper undergoing dual-frequency motion and its effect on rotor dynamics, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 1987, 32, (4), pp 45–53.Google Scholar
Eyres, R.D., Champneys, A.R. and Lieven, N.A.J. Modelling and dynamic response of a damper with relief valve, Nonlinear Dyn., 2005, 40, (2), pp 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worden, K., Hickey, D., Haroon, M. and Adams, D.E. Nonlinear system identification of automotive dampers: A time and frequency-domain analysis, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 2009, 23, (1), pp 104–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worden, K., Barthorpe, R.J., Cross, E.J., Dervilis, N., Holmes, G.R., Manson, G. and Rogers, T.J. On evolutionary system identification with applications to nonlinear benchmarks, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 2018, 112, pp 194–232.10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worden, K. and Tomlinson, G.R. Nonlinearity in Structural Dynamics: Detection, Identification and Modelling, CRC Press, 2019, Florida, US.Google Scholar
Sun, J., Feng, B. and Xu, W. Particle swarm optimization with particles having quantum behavior, Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8753), Jun. 2004, pp. 325–331.Google Scholar
Kyprianou, A., Giacomin, J., Worden, K., Heidrich, M. and Bocking, J, Differential evolution based identification of automotive hydraulic engine mount model parameters, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J. Automob. Eng., 2000, 214, (3), pp 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, R. and Kennedy, J. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, MHS’95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, Oct. 1995, pp 39–43.Google Scholar
Bishop, C. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, Springer-Verlag, 2006, New York, US.Google Scholar
Hensman, J., Fusi, N. and Lawrence, N.D. Gaussian processes for big data, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI2013), arXiv:1309.6835, Jul. 2013.Google Scholar
Matthews, A.G.D.G., Van Der Wilk, M., Nickson, T., Fujii, K., Boukouvalas, A., León-Villagrá, P., Ghahramani, Z. and Hensman, J. GPflow: A Gaussian process library using TensorFlow, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 2017, 18, (40), pp 1–6.Google Scholar