No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An accurate method for identifying hub dynamic loads by condition number of measured FRF matrix on helicopter fuselage
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2023
Abstract
It is a simple method to identify the hub dynamic loads of rotor by measuring the vibration responses on helicopter fuselage. However, the identification accuracy of the hub dynamic loads is related to the layout or placement of measuring points on the fuselage. The identification will be inaccurate if the layout of measuring points on the fuselage is unreasonable to result in the “ill-conditioned” frequency response function (FRF) matrix measured on the fuselage. In order to avoid the inaccurate identification due to the “ill-conditioned” measured FRF matrix, an accurate method for identifying the hub dynamic loads of rotor by vibration measurement on helicopter fuselage is proposed in this paper. In the proposed method, the reasonable layout of the measuring points on the fuselage for the “well-conditioned” measured FRF matrix can be obtained according to the condition number of the measured FRF matrix on the fuselage, and then the hub dynamic loads of rotor can be accurately identified. The simulation and experiment of the identification of the hub dynamic loads on a dynamically similar frame structure of a helicopter cockpit floor have verified the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed method.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Johnson, W. A history of rotorcraft comprehensive analyses, American Helicopter Society 69th Annual Forum, Phoenix, Arizona, May 21–23, 2013.Google Scholar
Yeo, H. and Johnson, W. Assessment of comprehensive analysis calculation of airloads on helicopter rotors, J. Aircraft, 2005, 42, (5), pp 1218–1228.10.2514/1.11595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. Rotorcraft dynamics models for a comprehensive analysis, American Helicopter Society 54th Annual Forum, Washington, DC, May 20–22, 1998.Google Scholar
Saberi, H., Khoshlahjeh, M., Ormiston, R.A. and Rutkowski, M.J. Overview of RCAS and application to advanced rotorcraft problems, American Helicopter Society 4th Decennial Specialists’ Conference on Aeromechanics, San Francisco, CA, January 21–23, 2004.Google Scholar
Reveles, N., Zaki, A., Smith, M.J. and Bauchau, O.A. A kriging-based trim algorithm for rotor aeroelasticity, 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, Vergiate and Gallarate, Italy, September 13–15, 2011.Google Scholar
Abhishek, A., Datta, A. and Chopra, I. Prediction of UH-60A structural loads using multibody analysis and swashplate dynamics, J. Aircraft, 2009, 46, (2), pp 474–490.10.2514/1.35076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, R.H., Tramel, R.W. and Buning, P. Solver and turbulence model upgrades to OVERFLOW 2 for unsteady and high-speed applications, 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, San Francisco, California, June 5–8, 2006.10.2514/6.2006-2824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitaraman, J., Baeder, J. and Chopra, I. Validation of UH-60 rotor blade aerodynamic characteristics using CFD, American Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 6–8, 2003.Google Scholar
Abras, J., Lynch, C.E. and Smith, M.J. Computational fluid dynamics-computational structural dynamics rotor coupling using an unstructured Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes methodology, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 2012, 57, (1), pp 1–14.10.4050/JAHS.57.012001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marpu, R.P. Physics Based Prediction of Aeromechanical Loads for UH-60A Rotor, PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2013.Google Scholar
Norman, T.R., Peterson, R.L., Maier, T.H. and Yeo, H. Evaluation of wind tunnel and scaling effects with the UH-60A airloads rotor, American Helicopter Society 68th Annual Forum, Fort Worth, TX, May 1–3, 2012.Google Scholar
Serafini, J., Bernardini, G. and Mattioni, L. Non-invasive dynamic measurement of helicopter blades, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2017, 882, (1), p 012014.10.1088/1742-6596/882/1/012014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wada, D., Igawa, H. and Kasai, T. Vibration monitoring of a helicopter blade model using the optical fiber distributed strain sensing technique, Appl. Opt., 2016, 55, (25), pp 6953–6959.10.1364/AO.55.006953CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrage, D. and Higman, J. Rotor load and inflow determination technology, 2nd International Basic Research Conference on Rotorcraft Technology, Nanjing, China, November 7–9, 2005.Google Scholar
Fosco, E., Vincenzo, F. and Colombo, A. Rotor loads identification methodologies at Agusta Westland, American Helicopter Society Aeromechanics Specialists Conference, San Francisco, California, January 20–22, 2010.Google Scholar
Giansante, N., Jones, R. and Calapodas, N.J. Determination of in-flight helicopter loads, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 1982, 27, (3), pp 58–64.10.4050/JAHS.27.3.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabunmi, J.A. Model constraints on structural dynamic force determination, J. Am. Helicopter Soc., 1985, 30, (4), pp 48–54.10.4050/JAHS.30.48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, B.J. and Rider, E. A review of the indirect calculation of excitation forces from measured structural response data, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 1990, 204, (2), pp 69–75.10.1243/PIME_PROC_1990_204_080_02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, J. and Piergentili, F. Force estimation using operational data, Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis Conference, 1996, 2768, pp 1586–1592.Google Scholar
Jia, Y., Yang, Z., Guo, N. and Wang, L. Random dynamic load identification based on error analysis and weighted total least squares method, J. Sound Vib., 2015, 358, pp 111–123.10.1016/j.jsv.2015.07.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alqam, H.M. and Dhingra, A.K. Frequency response-based indirect load identification using optimum placement of strain gages and accelerometers, J. Vib. Acoust. Trans. ASME, 2019, 141, (3), pp 1–12.10.1115/1.4042709CrossRefGoogle Scholar