Aeroelastic Study for HART II Rotor Using Unstructured Mixed Meshes

  • Youngjin Kim
  • Oh Joon KwonEmail author
Original Paper


In the present study, aeroelastic response of HART II rotor blade has been numerically investigated using a coupled CFD/CSD method. Aerodynamic forces were calculated from a Navier–Stokes CFD flow solver based on unstructured mixed meshes. In the mixed meshes methodology, body-fitted prismatic/tetrahedral mesh was used in the near-body flow region to handle complex geometries easily. Cartesian mesh was used in the off-body flow region and high-order accurate weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme was employed to implement high-order spatial accuracy. In the FEM-based CSD solver, an elastic deformation of the rotor blade was obtained on the basis of nonlinear Euler–Bernoulli beam theory. The coupling between the CFD and CSD solver was performed in a loosely coupled manner by exchanging the aerodynamic loads and elastic deformation of the rotor blade. An overset mesh technique was adopted to simulate rotating motion of the rotor blade and to exchange flow information between two different meshes. In addition, spring analogy was used to implement elastic deformation of the rotor blade. Coupled CFD/CSD method was applied to the HART II rotor in forward flight to examine aerodynamic performance and aeroelastic effect of the rotor. Aerodynamic loads and elastic deformation of the rotor blade were calculated and compared with experimental results and other research efforts. Overall, the present results were in good agreement with the experimental data. In addition, adaptive fine mesh was used to capture tip vortex trajectory and BVI (blade–vortex interaction) phenomenon more accurately.


Aeroelastic analysis Unstructured mixed meshes Coupled CFD/CSD method High-order WENO scheme HART II rotor 



This research was supported by the Climate Change Research Hub of KAIST (Grant No. N11180110). This work was also conducted at High-Speed Compound Unmanned Rotorcraft (HCUR) research laboratory with the support of Agency for Defense Development (ADD).


  1. 1.
    Johnson W (2013) Rotorcraft aeromechanics. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der wall BG (2003) 2nd HHC aeroacoustic rotor test (HART II)—part I: test documentation. Institute Report, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van der wall BG (2005) 2nd HHC aeroacoustic rotor test (HART II)—part II: representative results. Institute Report, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson W (1980) A comprehensive analytical model of rotorcraft aerodynamics and dynamics. In: NASA TM 81182, NASA TM 81183, NASA TM 81184, national aeronautics and space administration, 1980Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson W (1988) CAMRAD/JA. A comprehensive analytical model rotorcraft aerodynamics and dynamics, Johnson aeronautics version. Johnson Aeronautics, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bir G, Chopra I, Nguyen K (1990) Development of UMARC (University of Maryland Advanced Rotorcraft Code). In: American Helicopter Society 46th annual forum, Washington D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauchau OA, Bottasso CL, Nikishkov YG (2001) Modeling rotorcraft dynamics with finite element multibody procedures. Math Comput Model 33(10–11):1113–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lim JW, Dimanlig AC (2010) The effect of fuselage and rotor hub on blade-vortex interaction airloads and rotor wakes. In: 36th European rotorcraft forum, Paris, France, Sept. 7–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biedron RT, Lee-Rausch EM (2008) Rotor airloads prediction using unstructured meshes and loose CFD/CSD coupling. In: 26th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, AIAA paper 2008-7341, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 18–21, 2008Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu DO, Kwon OJ (2010) Viscous flow simulation of the HART II rotor using unstructured adaptive meshes. In: 36th European rotorcraft forum, Paris, France, Sept. 7–9, 2010Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jayaraman B, Dimanlig AC (2012) Helios prediction of Blade-Vortex interaction and wake of the HART II rotor. In: 50th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, January 9–12, 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park J-S, Sa J-H, Park S-H, You Y-H, Jung SN (2013) Loosely coupled multibody dynamics-CFD analysis for a rotor in descending flight. Aerosp Sci Technol 29:262–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung SN, Sa J-H, You Y-H, Park J-S, Park S-H (2013) Loose fluid–structure coupled approach for a rotor in descent incorporating fuselage effects. J Aircr 50(4):1016–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    You YH, Sa JH, Park JS, Park SH, Jung SN (2013) Modern computational fluid dynamics/structural dynamics simulation for a helicopter in descent. J Aircr 50(5):1450–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith MJ, Lim JW, Van der Wall BG, Baeder JD, Biedron RT, Boyd DD Jr, Jayaraman B, Jung SN, Min BY (2013) The HART II international workshop: an assessment of the state of the art in CFD/CSD prediction. CEAS Aeronaut J 4:345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jung MK, Kwon OJ (2012) Development of a 2-D flow solver on unstructured and adaptive Cartesian meshes. J Mech Sci Technol 26(12):3989–3997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roe PL (1981) Approximate Riemann solver, parameter vectors and difference. J Comput Phys 43(2):357–372MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathur SR, Murthy JY (1997) A pressure-based method for unstructured meshes. Numer Heat Transf Part B 31(2):195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1992) A one-equation turbulent model for aerodynamic flows. In: 30th AIAA aerospace science meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, AIAA paper 1992-0439Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu XD, Osher S, Chan T (1994) Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J Comput Phys 115:200–212MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jiang GS, Shu CW (1996) Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J Comput Phys 126:202–228MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shen YQ, Zha GC (2008) A robust seventh-order WENO scheme and its applications. In: AIAA paper 2008-0757, 2008Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamkar S et al (2011) Feature-driven Cartesian adaptive mesh refinement for vortex-dominated flows. J Comput Phys 230:6271–6298MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karypis G, Kumar V (1998) Multilevel k-way partitioning schemes for irregular graphs. J Parallel Distrib Comput 48(1):96–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu DO (2015) Development of a coupled CFD–CSD solver for rotor blades. Ph.D. Thesis, KAIST, 2015Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hodges DW, Dowell EH (1974) Nonlinear equations of motion for the elastic bending and torsion of twisted nonuniform rotor blades. In: NASA TN-D-7818, national aeronautics and space administration, 1974Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Potsdam M, Yeo HS, Johnson W (2006) Rotor airloads prediction using loose aerodynamic/structural coupling. J Aircr 43(3):732–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jung MS (2010) Development of a conservative overset mesh scheme via intergrid boundary reconnection on unstructured meshes. In: Ph.D. Thesis, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 19, 2010Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bottasso CL, Detomi D, Serra R (2005) The ball-vertex method: a new simple spring analogy method for unstructured dynamic meshes. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(39–41):4244–4264CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations