Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T10:13:52.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design and optimisation of an aerofoil with active continuous trailing-edge flap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2016

Jinwei Shen ,
Yi Liu ,
Robert P. Thornburgh ,
Andrew R. Kreshock  and
Matthew L. Wilbur
Jinwei Shen*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, Virginia, US
Yi Liu
Affiliation:
National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, Virginia, US
Robert P. Thornburgh
Affiliation:
Vehicle Technology Directorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory Hampton, Virgina, US
Andrew R. Kreshock
Affiliation:
Vehicle Technology Directorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory Hampton, Virgina, US
Matthew L. Wilbur
Affiliation:
Vehicle Technology Directorate, U.S. Army Research Laboratory Hampton, Virgina, US
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the design and optimisation of an aerofoil with active continuous trailing-edge flap (CTEF) investigated as a potential rotorcraft active control device. Several structural cross-section models are developed: high-fidelity NASA STRucture ANalysis (NASTRAN) and University of Michigan/Variational Asymptotic Beam Section Code (UM/VABS) models and a reduced-order analysis model. The validation of the reduced-order model is established by comparing its predictions of CTEF deformations with those of NASTRAN and UM/VABS analyses, which both show good agreement. The 2D aerodynamic characteristics of the CTEF aerofoil are evaluated using XFOIL and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses: FUN3D and Overset Transonic Unsteady Rotor Navier-Stokes (OVERTURNS). XFOIL, coupled with the reduced-order structure model, is adopted for optimisation study. The accuracy of XFOIL in predicting the aerodynamic pressure of the CTEF aerofoil is verified using CFD simulations, which shows sufficient fidelity. The predicted variations of aerodynamic coefficients with a CTEF angle are compared among the aerodynamic analyses. The optimisation process is developed and applied to two bimorph bender configurations: a Macro-Fibre Composite (MFC) solid bender and an MFC stack bender. The solid bender is used to confirm the functioning of the optimisation procedure and to use its optimal layout as a reference to the stack design, the primary design object. A linear tapered shape is found to be the optimum for a MFC solid bender, which generates an average of 63% more CTEF angles than those of an optimal rectangular bender. An optimised MFC stack bender is shown to resemble the shape of the solid bender. A four-ply bimorph is considered the best choice among the stack layouts because of its large output of CTEF angles and relatively less plies required. The CTEF angle produced by the four-ply optimal layout ranges from 7.6° to 5.3° with speeds from 0 to 200m/s at an angle of attack (AoA) of 6°. The reduction in the CTEF angle with AoA is less steep than that with speed, ranging from 6.5° to 5.8° with AoA from 0 to 8° at speed of 166m/s. An average of 14% increase in CTEF angles is achieved through optimisation for the four-ply bimorph.

Keywords

AerodynamicsCFDModel-scaleFull-scaleRotor in hoverstructural dynamicsfluid structure interaction
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1231 , September 2016 , pp. 1468 - 1486
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Maucher, C.K., Grohmann, B.A., Janker, P., Altmikus, A., Jensen, F. and Baier, H. Actuator design for the active trailing edge of a helicopter rotor blade, Innovation, 2007, p 12.Google Scholar
2. Grohmann, B., Muller, F., Achci, E., Pfaller, R., Bauer, M., Maucher, C., Dieterich, O., Storm, S. and Janker, P. Design, evaluation and test of active trailing edge, American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum Proceedings, 3-5 May 2011, Virginia Beach, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
3. Shen, J., Thornburgh, R.P., Kreshock, A.R., Wilbur, M.L. and Liu, Y. Preliminary design and evaluation of an airfoil with active continuous trailing-edge flap, American Helicopter Society Future Vertical Lift Aircraft Design Conference, January 2012, San Francisco, California, US, p 10.Google Scholar
4. Shen, J., Yang, M. and Chopra, I. Swashplateless helicopter rotor system with trailing-edge flaps for flight and vibration controls, J Aircraft, April-May 2006, 43, (2), pp 346–352.Google Scholar
5. Fogarty, D.E., Wilbur, M.L. and Sekula, M.K. The effect of non-harmonic active twist actuation on BVI noise, American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum Proceedings, 3-5 May 2011, Virginia Beach, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
6. Thornburgh, R.P., Kreshock, A.R. and Wilbur, M.L. Structural optimization of active-twist rotor blades, American Helicopter Society 67th Annual Forum Proceedings, 3-5 May 2011, Virginia Beach, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
7. Sekula, M.K. and Wilbur, M.L. Analysis of a multiflap control system for a swashplateless rotor, J American Helicopter Society, July 2012, 57, (3), p 12.Google Scholar
8. Wilbur, M.L., Mirick, P.H., William, T., Yeager, J., Langston, C.W., Cesnik, C.E.S. and Shin, S. Vibratory loads reduction testing of the NASA/Army/MIT active twist rotor, American Helicopter Society 57th Annual Forum Proceedings, 9-11 May 2001, Washington, DC, US, p 19.Google Scholar
9. Wilkie, W.K., Bryant, R.G., High, J.W., Fox, R.L., Hellbaum, R.F., Anthony Jalink, J., Little, B.D. and Mirick, P.H. Low-cost piezocomposite actuator for structural control applications, Proc. SPIE 3991, Smart Structures and Materials 2000: Industrial and Commercial Applications of Smart Structures Technologies, 323, June 2000, Newport Beach, California, US.Google Scholar
10. NASTRAN Quick Reference Guide , The MacNeal Schwendler Corporation, 2013, p 3626.Google Scholar
11. Palacios, R. and Cesnik, C. Cross-aectional analysis of nonhomogeneous anisotropic active slender structures, AIAA J, 2005, 43, (12), pp 2624–2638.Google Scholar
12. Kim, K.C. Analytical calculation of helicopter main rotor blade flight loads in hover and forward flight, Tech Rep, ARL-TR-3180, January 2004, U.S. Army Research Laboratory AMSRD-ARL-SL-BD Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, US.Google Scholar
13. Patran User’s Mannual , The MacNeal Schwendler Corporation, 2016, p 228.Google Scholar
14. Reaves, M.C. and Horta, L.G. Piezoelectric actuator modeling using MSC/NASTRAN and MATLAB, Tech Rep, NASA/TM-2003-212651, October 2003, Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, US.Google Scholar
15. FUN3D website, http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov.Google Scholar
16. Jose, A.I., Sitaraman, J. and Baeder, J.D. An investigation into the aerodynamics of trailing edge flap and flap-tab airfoils using CFD and analytical methods, American Helicopter Society 63rd Annual Forum Proceedings, 1-3 May 2007, Virginia Beach, Virginia, US, p 21.Google Scholar
17. Drela, M. XFOIL: An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils, Conference on Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Aerodynamics, June 1989, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, US.Google Scholar
18. Anderson, W.K. and Bonhaus, D.L. An implicit up-wind algorithm for computing turbulent flows on un-structured grids, Computers and Fluids, 1994, 23, (1), pp 1–22.Google Scholar
19. Biedron, R. and Lee-Rausch, E. An examination of unsteady airloads on a UH-60A Rotor: Computation versus measurement, American Helicopter Society 68th Annual Forum Proceedings, May 2012, Fort Worth, Texas, US.Google Scholar
20. Marcum, D.L. and P., N. Unstructured grid generation using iterative point insertion and local reconnection, AIAA J, September 1995, 33, (9), pp 1619–1625.Google Scholar