https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=20170000752 2020-01-12T01:04:12+00:00Z

NASA/CR—2016–219395

RotCFD Analysis of the AH-56 Cheyenne

Hub Drag

Eduardo Solis
Monterey Technologies, Inc.
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Tal A. Bass
Princeton University
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Matthew D. Keith
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Rebecca T. Oppenheim
Mississippi State University
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Bryan T. Runyon
University of Minnesota – Duluth
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Belen Veras-Alba
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

October 2016
 This page is required and contains approved text that cannot be changed.

NASA STI Program ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.

to the advancement of aeronautics and Collected papers from scientific and
space science. The NASA scientific and technical conferences, symposia,
technical information (STI) program plays a seminars, or other meetings sponsored
key part in helping NASA maintain this or co-sponsored by NASA.
important role.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
The NASA STI program operates under the technical, or historical information from
auspices of the Agency Chief Information NASA programs, projects, and
Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for missions, often concerned with subjects
archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. The having substantial public interest.
NASA STI program provides access to the
NTRS Registered and its public interface, • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
the NASA Technical Reports Server, thus English-language translations of foreign
providing one of the largest collections of scientific and technical material
aeronautical and space science STI in the pertinent to NASA’s mission.
world. Results are published in both non-
NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA Specialized services also include
STI Report Series, which includes the organizing and publishing research results,
following report types: distributing specialized research
announcements and feeds, providing
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of information desk and personal search
completed research or a major significant support, and enabling data exchange
phase of research that present the results services.
of NASA Programs and include extensive
data or theoretical analysis. Includes For more information about the NASA STI
compilations of significant scientific and program, see the following:
technical data and information deemed to
be of continuing reference value. NASA • Access the NASA STI program home
counterpart of peer-reviewed formal page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
professional papers but has less stringent
limitations on manuscript length and • E-mail your question to
extent of graphic presentations. help@sti.nasa.gov

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. • Phone the NASA STI Information Desk

Scientific and technical findings that are at 757-864-9658
preliminary or of specialized interest,
e.g., quick release reports, working • Write to:
papers, and bibliographies that contain NASA STI Information Desk
minimal annotation. Does not contain Mail Stop 148
extensive analysis. NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
NASA/CR—2016–219395

RotCFD Analysis of the AH-56 Cheyenne

Hub Drag
Eduardo Solis
Monterey Technologies, Inc.
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Tal A. Bass
Princeton University
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Matthew D. Keith
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Rebecca T. Oppenheim
Mississippi State University
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Bryan T. Runyon
University of Minnesota – Duluth
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Belen Veras-Alba
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

October 2016
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A sincere thank you to our mentor, Eduardo Solis. Much of this work could not have been done
without your guidance and encouragement.

Another thank you to Dr. William Warmbrodt for your enthusiasm and motivation. The Taste of
California History presentations were an integral part of our work.

Thank you to Robert Vocke for always being available to answer our questions and providing us
with your report and code.

Additional thanks to Adam Ewert, Alexander Grima, Ganesh Rajagopalan, Gloria Yamauchi, and
Luke Novak for all of your advice and for entertaining our questions. Much of the insight we gained
stemmed from your suggestions.

A final thanks to the entire Summer 2016 Simulation Group at the NASA Ames Research Center
Aeromechanics Branch for making our office the best in the whole building.

Available from:

NASA STI Support Services National Technical Information Service

Mail Stop 148 5301 Shawnee Road
NASA Langley Research Center Alexandria, VA 22312
Hampton, VA 23681-2199 webmail@ntis.gov
757-864-9658 703-605-6000

This report is also available in electronic form at

http://ntrs.nasa.gov
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. v
NOMENCLATURE.................................................................................................................................vi
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................vi
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
ROTORCRAFT COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS ...................................................................... 2
HUB CONFIGURATIONS...................................................................................................................... 3
SIMULATION CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 7
Free-Stream Simulation Conditions ................................................................................................... 8
Wind Tunnel Simulation Conditions ................................................................................................... 9
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 10
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Epsilon Residual Solution With Time ............................................................................................... 20
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 21

APPENDIX A—CONFIGURATION INFORMATION ........................................................................... 23

APPENDIX B—AERODYNAMIC TARE COEFFICIENTS .................................................................... 31
APPENDIX C—UNCORRECTED SIMULATION GRID INFORMATION ............................................. 33
APPENDIX D—CORRECTED SIMULATION GRID INFORMATION .................................................. 39

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 47

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: 3D CAD representation of the AH-56 rotor hub [3]. .............................................................. 2

Figure 2: A comparison of the initial geometry modeled in Creo Parametric (top) and simplified
geometry modeled in Rhinoceros 5 (bottom). ....................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Configuration 4—Fixed hub and blade stubs ........................................................................ 4
Figure 4: Configuration 6—Configuration 4 with pitch horns and control gyro (blue). .......................... 4
Figure 5: Configuration 8—Configuration 4 with aerodynamic fairings (red)........................................ 5
Figure 6: 3D CAD representation of Configuration 0............................................................................ 5
Figure 7: 3D CAD representation of the hub in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel with labeled
angles and dimensions [3]. ................................................................................................... 6
Figure 8: Computational domain as shown in RotCFD, including the rotor hub and
refinement boxes. ................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 9: RotCFD display of the grid surrounding one of the arms. ..................................................... 9
Figure 10: Force and moment history of Configuration 4 at = 0° and = 0° modeled in
free-stream conditions. ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 11: Plot of D/q vs. azimuth angle for wind tunnel data [3]. ........................................................ 13
Figure 12: Plot of D/q vs. azimuth angle with RotCFD results overlaid on wind tunnel data................ 14
Figure 13: Example of RotCFD grid generation method with a 2D geometry [4]. ................................ 15
Figure 14: Close-up of small and irregular cell-shape that could lead to diverging solutions............... 16
Figure 15: Side-by-side grid comparison of Configuration 4 rotated and nonrotated. .......................... 17
Figure 16: Comparison of the original geometry to the body generated by RotCFD. .......................... 18
Figure 17: Picture of the floor cavities beside the test stand in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel [3]......... 19
Figure 18: Force and moment history for Configuration 6 at = 45° and = 6°, modeled in
free-stream conditions. ....................................................................................................... 20

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Test case matrix for the RotCFD simulations studied. ............................................................. 7
Table 2: Simulation flow properties. ....................................................................................................... 7
Table 3: RotCFD results compared to 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel test data. ......................................... 11
Table 4: Data with aero tares applied (used for comparison with RotCFD cases under
wind tunnel conditions). ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 5: Original calculated time grid................................................................................................... 14

v
 NOMENCLATURE

A = Grid boundary cell size

a = Smallest estimated cell size in Cartesian simulation grid
D = Aerodynamic drag force
L = Aerodynamic lift force
PM = Aerodynamic pitching moment
qc = Corrected free-stream dynamic pressure for wind tunnel conditions
qu = Uncorrected free-stream dynamic pressure
v = Free-stream air velocity
= Corrected angle of attack
s = Hub shaft angle of attack
= Free-stream air density
= Rotor hub azimuth angle

ABBREVIATIONS

ADD = Aviation Development Directorate

CAD = Computer-Aided Design
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
CPU = Central Processing Unit
GPU = Graphics Processing Unit
RotCFD = Rotorcraft Computational Fluid Dynamics
RotUNS = Rotor Unstructured Flow Solver Application
ShapeGen = Shape Generator Software
OpenCL = Open Computing Language
CFL = Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy

vi
 ROTCFD ANALYSIS OF THE AH-56 CHEYENNE HUB DRAG

Eduardo Solis,1 Tal A. Bass,2 Matthew D. Keith,3 Rebecca T. Oppenheim,4 Bryan T. Runyon,5
and Belen Veras-Alba6

Ames Research Center

SUMMARY

In 2016, the U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate (ADD) conducted tests in the U.S. Army
7- by 10- Foot Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center of a nonrotating 2/5th-scale AH-56
rotor hub. The objective of the tests was to determine how removing the mechanical control gyro
affected the drag. Data for the lift, drag, and pitching moment were recorded for the 4-bladed rotor
hub in various hardware configurations, azimuth angles, and angles of attack. Numerical
simulations of a selection of the configurations and orientations were then performed, and the
results were compared with the test data. To generate the simulation results, the hardware
configurations were modeled using Creo and Rhinoceros 5, three-dimensional surface modeling
computer-aided design (CAD) programs. The CAD model was imported into Rotorcraft
Computational Fluid Dynamics (RotCFD), a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tool used for
analyzing rotor flow fields. RotCFD simulation results were compared with the experimental results
of three hardware configurations at two azimuth angles, two angles of attack, and with and without
wind tunnel walls. The results help validate RotCFD as a tool for analyzing low-drag rotor hub
designs for advanced high-speed rotorcraft concepts. Future work will involve simulating additional
hub geometries to reduce drag or tailor to other desired performance levels.

INTRODUCTION

In the late 1960s, the US Army developed strong interest in a high-speed military helicopter that
was both lightweight and heavily armed. In response, Lockheed Corporation developed the AH-56
Cheyenne, which featured a novel “door hinge” for feathering of the blades and an externally
mounted gyro for hub control [1]. In recent years, the Cheyenne’s unique hub design has been
noted for its potential drag savings by removing the gyro and replacing it with a modern controller,
which could reduce the hub drag by roughly 60 percent [2]. The U.S. Army Aviation Development
Directorate (ADD) renewed interest in the improved aerodynamics of this design, and in 2016,
tests were conducted in the U.S. Army 7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research
Center, on a 2/5th-scale AH-56 main rotor hub, to quantify the drag with and without the gyro and
pitch arms [1]. Data for the lift, drag, and pitching moment were recorded for 9 different hardware
configurations at varying azimuth angles and shaft angles of attack [3]. The gyro and various other
parts of the hub are labeled in Figure 1.

1
Monterey Technologies, Inc., 24600 Silver Cloud Ct., Monterey, California 93940.
2
Princeton University, 1 Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey 08544.
3
University of Alaska Fairbanks, 505 South Chandalar Drive, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775.
4
Mississippi State University, Lee Boulevard, Starkville, Mississippi 39762.
5
University of Minnesota Duluth, 1049 University Drive, Duluth, Minnesota 55812.
6
The Pennsylvania State University—University Park, 201 Old Main, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.

1
 Figure 1: 3D CAD representation of the AH-56 rotor hub [3].

The goal of this work is to compare the force and moment results from the Rotorcraft
Computational Fluid Dynamics (RotCFD) software package to the experimental wind tunnel data.
RotCFD was used to simulate the rotor hub in both wind tunnel and free-stream conditions to
predict lift, drag, and pitching moment. Drag was of greatest interest as the hub is a low-drag
design. The simulations conducted in free-stream conditions were compared with wind tunnel data
that was corrected to quantify hub performance in such conditions. In addition, simulations
conducted in wind tunnel conditions were compared with uncorrected experimental data with the
aim of validating the CFD software as an accurate tool in predicting hub performance. This would
allow further configurations to be evaluated using RotCFD instead of wind tunnel testing.

ROTORCRAFT COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

RotCFD is a software package for the simulation of rotorcraft flows developed by Sukra Helitek, in
collaboration with NASA and the U.S. Army. It is a mid-fidelity CFD software that features an
integrated design environment with tools to create simple geometries, generate grids, and simulate
fluid flow using multiple flow solver applications. The use of RotCFD for this project contributed to
generating feedback for the developer and debugging the code.

Rotor Unstructured Flow Solver Application (RotUNS) is an incompressible, unsteady, and

unstructured Navier–Stokes flow solver in RotCFD. RotUNS was chosen to run all of the
simulations for its ability to capture geometries with a higher fidelity than the other structured flow
solvers available. While unstructured grids generally take more computational time than structured
ones, the increase in geometry fidelity was necessary to capture the complex hub configurations to
a certain accuracy.

2
 HUB CONFIGURATIONS

Due to time limitations, only 4 of the 10 configurations tested in the wind tunnel were simulated in
RotCFD. These configurations were modeled in Creo Parametric and imported into Rhinoceros 5,
both of which are three-dimensional CAD modeling software programs. The geometries were
simplified by removing bolts, gaps, and cavities, and then exported as an STL file format. The
Shape Generator (ShapeGen) software in RotCFD was used to achieve more compact geometry
files. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the initial geometry in Creo Parametric and the simplified
geometry in Rhino.

Figure 2: A comparison of the initial geometry modeled in Creo Parametric (top) and simplified
geometry modeled in Rhinoceros 5 (bottom).

3
The first rotor hub configuration tested, known as Configuration 4, was the fixed section of the hub
without the control system and is shown in Figure 3. Configuration 6, which featured the complete
hub geometry as it was on the Cheyenne, was then tested; an illustration of the hub is shown in
Figure 4. Configuration 8 is a version of Configuration 4, with added aerodynamic fairing;
Configuration 8 is shown in Figure 5. The test stand alone, Configuration 0 as shown in Figure 6,
was simulated in RotCFD in hopes of validating the software’s ability to match the wind tunnel
conditions. The nine configurations that were tested in the wind tunnel are shown in Appendix A.

Figure 3: Configuration 4—Fixed hub and blade stubs.

Figure 4: Configuration 6—Configuration 4 with pitch horns and control gyro (blue).

4
Figure 5: Configuration 8—Configuration 4 with aerodynamic fairings (red).

Figure 6: 3D CAD representation of Configuration 0.

5
Configurations 4, 6, and 8 were simulated at azimuth angle 0° and 45° and shaft angle of
attack 0° and 6°. A depiction of the hub angles and dimensions is shown in Figure 7. The
combination of configurations and angles resulted in a total of 12 cases that were simulated.
Because each of these cases were simulated in both wind tunnel and free-stream conditions, a
total of 24 cases were run (excluding Configuration 0). A test matrix containing all of the RotCFD
simulations run is shown in Table 1.

Figure 7: 3D CAD representation of the hub in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel with labeled angles
and dimensions [3].

6
 Table 1: Test case matrix for the RotCFD simulations studied.
Test Configuration Azimuth Angle Shaft Angle Test Condition
Configuration 0 0 0 Wind Tunnel
Wind Tunnel
0
Free Stream
0
Wind Tunnel
6
Free Stream
Configuration 4
Wind Tunnel
0
Free Stream
45
Wind Tunnel
6
Free Stream
Wind Tunnel
0
Free Stream
0
Wind Tunnel
6
Free Stream
Configuration 6
Wind Tunnel
0
Free Stream
45
Wind Tunnel
6
Free Stream
Wind Tunnel
0
Free Stream
0
Wind Tunnel
6
Free Stream
Configuration 8
Wind Tunnel
0
Free Stream
45
Wind Tunnel
6
Free Stream

SIMULATION CONDITIONS

Nearly all of the simulations were run on graphics processing units (GPUs) as opposed to central
processing units (CPUs). This new feature in RotCFD allows run times to be decreased through
the use of Open Computing Language. The geometries were imported into RotCFD, and the
configuration orientations were set in RotUNS along with the flow properties provided in Table 2.
The simulations used a realizable k-epsilon turbulence model featured in RotUNS.

Table 2: Simulation flow properties.

Flow Property Value

Static Density 0.002377

Static Temperature ° 518.69

Gas Constant 1718

°

Specific Heat Ratio 1.4

Dynamic Viscosity 3.74E-07

Static Pressure 2118.17

7
 Free-Stream Simulation Conditions
Cases that simulated free-stream conditions were run with a velocity of 230 ft/s in the x-direction. In
such cases, the domain was restricted to a 10-ft cube that encompassed the hub, where all of the
walls of the domain were set to have a velocity of 230 ft/s in the x-direction and 0 ft/s in the y- and
z-directions. The number of boundary cells was set to 10 for each direction generating 1-ft3 base
cells. The most important aspect of gridding is the level of refinement. Refinement is based on the
boundary cells, which are the largest. Equation 1 was used to estimate the smallest Cartesian cell
size, where n is the level of refinement.

= (1)

A refinement level of four was applied to the entire region. Refinement boxes were placed around
the entirety of the geometry with a level of six as shown in Figure 8, and the geometry was body-
fitted to create tetrahedral cells near the object surface with a refinement level of 6. Figure 9
shows the grid surrounding one of the hub arms. More examples of the grids used are shown in
Appendix A.

Figure 8: Computational domain as shown in RotCFD, including the rotor hub and
refinement boxes.

8
 Figure 9: RotCFD display of the grid surrounding one of the arms.

Total simulation time is determined by the amount of time it takes a plane of particles at one
boundary to travel to the opposite boundary. Simulations conducted in free-stream conditions were
modeled for a minimum of 0.05 seconds to allow the flow to completely pass through the domain.
A fine spatial grid must be accompanied by a fine time grid to create a simulation that will converge
on the correct solution; if particles skip cells, the simulation will diverge. The condition below, in
Equation 2, was used to calculate an appropriate time step size, , based on the estimated
minimum cell length, ; the 1 on the right-hand side represents the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy
(CFL) number. A smaller CFL number should be used for cases employing body-fitted grids;
however, the number should be as close to 1 as possible in order to limit simulation time. Total
time steps for a simulation run of 0.05 seconds ranged from 5,000 to 30,000.

∙ 1 (2)

Wind Tunnel Simulation Conditions

Cases that simulated wind tunnel conditions were run with the recorded wind tunnel velocity for
each particular case; these velocities ranged from 225–230 ft/s. In such cases, the domain was
restricted to a 7-ft x 10-ft x 15-ft box, which reflects the dimensions of the wind tunnel test section
used. The cell sizes were the same as those for the free-stream condition. The boundary condition
was set to viscous walls (no-slip condition). Simulations modeling wind tunnel conditions also
included the wind tunnel test stand. These simulations were modeled for a minimum of 0.065
seconds to allow air particles to fully pass through the domain. Total time steps ranged from 6,500
to 16,000. Configuration 0 was also run under these conditions. Tables regarding the tests
performed and their conditions are shown in Appendix B.

9
 RESULTS

RotCFD results were compared to the data collected during wind tunnel testing of the hub in the
7- by 10-Foot Wind Tunnel. Results were required to be within 10 percent of the drag value
reported by the experimental results. A secondary requirement was to be within 10 percent of the
lift value, with some exception, as explained in Simulation Conditions. Values were taken only from
converged solutions, which means the residuals and force and moment trends must have reached
an asymptote. An example of the force-moment diagram for a converged case is shown in
Figure 10.

The results from the RotCFD simulations, and their comparisons with the wind tunnel data, are
shown in Table 3. In order to correct for conditions within the wind tunnel, aerodynamic tares were
applied to the results; the corrected results are shown in Table 4. More information on the
aerodynamic tares applied are shown in Appendix B. Specific information regarding the time and
spatial gridding for the corrected and uncorrected results is shown in Appendices C and D,
respectively.

A few trends can be seen in the results presented in Table 3. For example, a value of 230 ft/s was
used for all cases that simulated free-stream conditions. This resulted in dynamic pressures that
were 1–3 percent higher than the corrected wind tunnel dynamic pressures. Cases that simulated
wind tunnel conditions used velocities taken directly from the wind tunnel data.

Another apparent trend is seen in cases with = 0°. These cases produced more accurate drag
results when compared to the wind tunnel data. In contrast, cases with a shaft angle of 6° tend to
have more accurate results in both lift and pitching moment data.

Figure 10: Force and moment history of Configuration 4 at = 0°and = 0°modeled in

free-stream conditions.

10
 Table 3: RotCFD results compared to 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel test data.
Configuration and Orientation 7 x 10 Cases RotCFD Cases Error

Flow Azimuth Mast

Wall Drag Lift Moment Drag Lift Moment Drag Lift Moment
Velocity Configuration Angle Angle q (lb/ft2) q (lb/ft2) q (%)
Condition (lb) (lb) (ft-lb) (lb) (lb) (ft-lb) (%) (%) (%)
(ft/s) (deg) (deg)

225.4 4 Uncorrected 0 0 60.36 43.13 36.13 –51.37 60.36 44.82 26.78 6.30 0.00 +3.92 –25.88 –112.3
225.3 4 Uncorrected 0 6 60.35 61.48 113.35 –21.55 60.35 57.27 114.17 36.83 0.00 –6.85 +0.72 –158.5
225.0 4 Uncorrected 45 0 59.98 39.71 26.01 –34.95 59.98 40.56 11.05 24.86 0.00 +2.14 –57.52 –171.1
226.1 4 Uncorrected 45 6 60.34 58.05 167.90 30.61 0.00
230.0 4 Corrected 0 0 61.54 43.10 21.80 10.40 62.87 43.05 18.34 –0.74 +2.16 –0.12 –0.16 –107.0
230.0 4 Corrected 0 6 61.78 61.80 99.10 46.50 62.87 56.06 114.20 41.53 +1.76 –9.28 +15.24 –10.69
230.0 4 Corrected 45 0 61.09 39.70 11.70 26.90 62.87 38.84 3.05 10.72 +2.91 –2.17 –73.95 –60.16
230.0 4 Corrected 45 6 61.87 58.70 153.60 98.50 62.87 52.60 125.02 84.98 +1.62 –10.39 –18.61 –13.73
226.6 6 Uncorrected 0 0 60.08 75.01 18.51 –51.35 0.00
226.2 6 Uncorrected 0 6 59.86 90.20 101.61 –17.01 0.00
226.9 6 Uncorrected 45 0 60.00 71.44 13.35 –50.69 0.00
228.9 6 Uncorrected 45 6 60.88 88.92 152.60 35.58 0.00
230.0 6 Corrected 0 0 61.54 75.10 4.30 10.50 62.87 72.51 –4.89 7.12 +2.16 –3.45 –187.93 –32.19
230.0 6 Corrected 0 6 61.51 90.50 87.30 50.90 62.87 86.72 90.67 49.33 +2.21 –4.18 +3.86 –3.08
230.0 6 Corrected 45 0 61.38 71.40 –1.00 11.10 62.87 77.47 –22.74 4.83 +2.42 +8.51 –2174.23 –56.45
230.0 6 Corrected 45 6 62.70 89.40 138.30 103.60 62.87 87.68 97.15 82.22 –0.27 –1.93 –29.76 –20.64
227.1 8 Uncorrected 0 0 60.20 33.01 56.92 –47.25 60.20 38.08 28.15 7.01 0.00 +15.36 –50.54 +115.4
228.7 8 Uncorrected 0 6 60.91 50.62 159.50 2.58 0.00
228.5 8 Uncorrected 45 0 60.27 32.63 39.84 –38.58 0.00
230.4 8 Uncorrected 45 6 61.15 49.36 185.92 27.71 0.00
230.0 8 Corrected 0 0 61.38 33.10 42.60 14.60 62.87 35.98 19.26 1.39 +2.48 +8.70 –54.79 –90.48
230.0 8 Corrected 0 6 62.37 51.20 145.20 70.60 62.87 50.46 128.00 44.98 +0.80 –1.46 –11.85 –36.29
230.0 8 Corrected 45 0 61.40 32.70 25.60 23.20 62.87 35.31 7.87 15.45 +2.39 +7.98 –69.26 –33.41
230.0 8 Corrected 45 6 62.71 50.20 171.60 95.70 62.87

11
12
Table 4: Data with aero tares applied (used for comparison with RotCFD cases under wind tunnel conditions).

Lift with Moment with

Wall Azimuth Mast Angle , Drag Tare Lift Tare Moment Drag with
Configuration Aero Tare Aero Tare
Condition Angle (deg) (deg) (deg) (lb) (lb) Tare (ft-lb) Aero Tare (lb)
(lb) (ft-lb)
4 Uncorrected 0 0 –0.02 48.67 13.27 –54.33 43.13 36.13 –51.37
4 Uncorrected 0 6 6.01 54.92 24.95 –59.35 61.48 113.35 –21.55
4 Uncorrected 45 0 0.012 48.69 13.29 –54.35 39.71 26.01 –34.95
4 Uncorrected 45 6 5.976 54.85 24.80 –59.31 58.05 167.90 30.61

6 Uncorrected 0 0 0.01 48.69 13.29 –54.35 75.01 18.51 –51.35

6 Uncorrected 0 6 5.951 54.80 24.69 –59.29 90.20 101.61 –17.01
6 Uncorrected 45 0 –0.048 48.66 13.25 –54.31 71.44 13.35 –50.69
6 Uncorrected 45 6 6.042 54.98 25.10 –59.38 88.92 152.60 35.58

8 Uncorrected 0 0 0.005 48.69 13.28 –54.35 33.01 56.92 –47.25

8 Uncorrected 0 6 6.043 54.98 25.10 –59.38 50.62 159.50 2.58
8 Uncorrected 45 0 –0.033 48.67 13.26 –54.32 32.63 39.84 –38.58
8 Uncorrected 45 6 5.971 54.84 24.78 –59.31 49.36 185.92 27.71
 DISCUSSION

Figure 11 is a plot of D/q vs. azimuth angle ( ) [3]; this figure summarizes data taken during
testing in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel. Each color represents a configuration over the range of
azimuth angles tested. The downward pointing triangles are data points for = 6°, while the
upward pointing triangles are data points for = 0°. Figure 12 shows the summarized RotCFD
results overlaid on Figure 11 for direct comparison of the RotCFD results to the wind tunnel data.
Triangles outlined in black represent RotCFD results for each successful case; the level of
accuracy varies. Comparing the drag over dynamic pressure between the two studies is a better
comparison than comparing force results directly. Normalizing the drag force against dynamic
pressure is a more comparable metric because it eliminates the differences in drag due to differing
flow velocities.

Figure 11: Plot of D/q vs. azimuth angle for wind tunnel data [3].

13
 Figure 12: Plot of D/q vs. azimuth angle with RotCFD results overlaid on wind tunnel data.

Many of the initial cases had issues converging. The time grid was chosen according to the
calculated using Equation 2. Prior reports have suggested using a value of 0.5 instead of 0.9 for
grids with tetrahedral cells [4]. Equation 2 was used to calculate a of 5.43 × 10 s. The resulting
time grid attempted for cases using free-stream conditions is shown in Table 5. Although the time
grid for these cases was carefully calculated, any case where the geometry was rotated to a
nonzero angle initially diverged. The number of time steps was then increased iteratively until the
cases converged.

Table 5: Original calculated time grid.

Time Length Time Steps Iterations

0.05 5,000 10

14
In order to approximate the geometry in RotCFD, the software develops a grid based on the model;
an example of how the gridding process in RotCFD works is shown in Figure 13. The tetrahedral
grid is laid on top of the model and points of intersection are found. The nearest grid nodes and
edges are then distorted slightly in order to linearize the curved surfaces of the model. This
process results in a large number of tetrahedra that approximate the surface [5].

While this gridding method does a sufficient job of approximating the model, it can also create
unexpectedly small cells, which change the necessary resolution of the time grid. In Figure 14, a
close-up is shown of one of the control gyro arms with an exceptionally small cell. These smaller
cells pose an issue, as it is more likely for the flow to skip over these cells and cause the solver to
diverge. It was determined that the time grid should be adjusted to prevent these cells from being
skipped.

Figure 13: Example of RotCFD grid generation method with a 2D geometry [4].

15
 Figure 14: Close-up of small and irregular cell-shape that could lead to diverging solutions.

16
A result of this grid generation process was that rotating the body tended to produce unexpectedly
small cells. This phenomenon is specific to the geometry, as rotating the hub caused a greater
number of intersections between the body and the cells due to the nature of the geometry and
Cartesian grid. Figure 15 illustrates the grid differences between objects aligned and nonaligned
with the Cartesian grid. One possible solution to this challenge was to rotate the flow directions
instead of the geometry, as the grid does not have to regenerate for these cases [5]. This solution
was not possible for the cases that simulated wind tunnel conditions as the computational domain
boundaries served as the wind tunnel walls. Rotating the flow in these cases would have altered
the wind tunnel effects. It was possible to rotate the flow in the cases that simulated free-stream
conditions to decrease the likelihood of divergence. However, RotCFD has been documented
to produce different results depending on the rotation of the geometry or flow direction. It was
therefore decided that only the geometry should be rotated for all of the cases to ensure
consistency.

As a result of the changing grid, the had to be decreased further from the initial calculations. A
CFL value of 0.05 or smaller is suggested to achieve convergence with cases that have a complex
geometries and highly refined grids.

Figure 15: Side-by-side grid comparison of Configuration 4 rotated and nonrotated.

17
 Figure 16: Comparison of the original geometry to the body generated by RotCFD.

Another interesting finding is that the predicted lift for all of the cases had significantly larger
discrepancies than the predicted drag. This is a rather peculiar effect, as CFD is generally known
to have more difficulty accurately predicting drag than lift. This effect is believed to be specific to
the geometry as well. The hub geometry contains blade stubs that replaced full-length blades.
These blade stubs were small compared to the entire geometry, and the trailing edges of the blade
stubs were particularly thin compared to the surrounding cells. Figure 16 shows the original
geometry compared to the generated body, which may have influenced the results.

The blades of a rotor are responsible for producing lift, and compromising the airfoil shape
compromises the lift. It is therefore believed that the discrepancies in the lift predictions may be a
result of the airfoil geometry approximation. The accuracy of the predicted pitching moment is also
compromised as it is directly related to lift. When comparing the pitching moment data from the
wind tunnel tests between Configurations 3 and 4, 6 and 7, and 8 and 9, it can be seen that the
addition of the blade stubs has a large contribution to the pitching moment. Therefore, a conclusion
can be drawn that small differences in lift values greatly impact the pitching moment values.
Predicted drag remained relatively accurate, because the general shape of the airfoil was
minimally distorted. Since the body is mostly blunt, a large portion of the drag will therefore be
pressure drag and not viscous drag. Since RotCFD can cope better with pressure drag compared
to viscous drag, this could be the reason for the relatively accurate and stable drag results
obtained.

Increasing the body refinement would have resolved this issue and may have resulted in a
significantly more accurate prediction in lift, pitching moment, and possibly drag as well. As drag
was of much higher importance in this project, the limited accuracy of predicted lift and pitching
moment can be tolerated, as long as predicted drag was accurate. Increasing the body refinement
would have exponentially increased computational time and the timeframe of this project,
therefore, body refinement was not increased.

An accurate simulation of Configuration 0 proved to be another challenge. Data for Configuration 0

was recorded during the wind tunnel tests in order to gather appropriate information to apply

18
aerodynamic tares and calibrate the test runs. Obtaining accurate numbers for the simulation
would validate RotUNS as an appropriate tool to model the wind tunnel tests for this project.

Multiple Configuration 0 cases were attempted with various spatial and time grids, but none of the
cases matched the experimental data within the 10-percent margin of error. Greater detail of the
Configuration 0 cases and results is shown in Appendix C. Nearly all of the simulations predicted
drag numbers that were roughly half of the experimental value. The precision of the cases with
similar results across multiple grids suggests that the simulation results are accurate for the
configuration modeled. As a result, it is believed that there is a physical discrepancy between the
simulation conditions and wind tunnel conditions.

Further inspection of the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel floor revealed a feature of the wind tunnel that
was not modeled. Figure 17 shows a picture of the additional space below the wind tunnel floor
that surrounds the test stand. It is believed that this feature could have contributed to a large
amount of the drag recorded in the experimental test run due to the extra flow path and likelihood
of large amounts of stagnant air gathering in this region. These floor cavities were not modeled in
the simulations and are most likely responsible for the offset of the predicted drag. In the interest of
time, the floor geometry was not studied; however, further work on this project might include
attempts to model this feature in RotCFD.

This issue also affected the cases that modeled wind tunnel conditions since they included the test
stand. To overcome this issue, a separate force-moment group had to be created for the hub in
RotCFD. This allowed the hub forces and moments to be calculated separately from the test stand.
This results in another source of error as the flow near the bottom of the test stand is known to be
inaccurate. However, it was assumed that the flow closer to the hub would remain relatively
unchanged.

Aerodynamic tares had to be separately applied to the raw wind tunnel results to have directly
comparable data. Predicted drag and lift values were consistently accurate across the free-stream
condition and wind tunnel condition cases. However, predicted pitching moments are significantly
more inaccurate for cases in wind tunnel conditions. This can be a byproduct of the altered flow
resulting from inaccurately modeling the test stand.

Figure 17: Picture of the floor cavities beside the test stand in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel [3].

19
 Epsilon Residual Solution With Time
An issue was encountered when incorrect convergence time history behavior was observed for a
particular case. Figure 18 shows the force and moment history for Configuration 6 with 45°,
6°, and free-stream conditions. The drag, plotted in yellow, initially appears to converge to the
proper solution at approximately 70 lb; however, at around 4,000 time steps, the drag increases
and converges at a much larger value. This result was reproduced with a variety of spatial and time
grids.

The error was attributed to a problem with the epsilon solution in the turbulence model. The
solution file lists the epsilon residual as ‘infinity’ after the initial spike at 4,000 time steps. This
signifies that the epsilon solution has diverged even though the flow solver itself has converged. A
suggested recommendation is that the user should be notified that the turbulence solutions have
diverged. It should be noted that laminar cases should not experience this issue and can be a
viable alternative under conditions with minimal turbulence.

Figure 18: Force and moment history for Configuration 6 at 45° and 6°, modeled in
free-stream conditions.

20
 CONCLUSIONS

Testing was completed under the U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate of a 2/5th scale
AH-56 Cheyenne helicopter hub in multiple build-up configurations. Drag, lift, and pitching
moment data were recorded for azimuthal and alpha sweeps. Using geometries created in Creo,
Configurations 4, 6, and 8 were simulated using RotCFD. The selected configurations were run at
= 0° and 45° and = 0° and 45°. After completing the simulations, the drag, lift, and pitching
moment results were compared to the data obtained from the wind tunnel testing. The criterion for
a successful case was matching the predicted drag to within 10 percent of the experimental data.
With accurate simulation results, more geometries could be added to the hub for additional
RotCFD testing rather than continuing wind tunnel testing, saving time and money.

Drag was accurately predicted to within the 10-percent acceptable limit for a total of 13 cases.
Though some RotCFD bugs were discovered in the process of this work, it was determined to still
be an accurate tool in evaluating hub performance under certain conditions. Corrections made to
extrapolate wind tunnel results to free-stream conditions were also validated to a certain extent.
It was found that a physical discrepancy between the model and the wind tunnel may have been
a source of error in the calculations, as well as the approximation of the model geometry.
Additionally, a recommendation is that the user should be notified that the turbulence solutions
have diverged when using the OpenCL version of the solver.

21
22
 APPENDIX A
CONFIGURATION INFORMATION

23
 Figure A-1: All 9 build-up configurations tested in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel [1].

24
 Figure A-2: Rhino file for Configuration 6 loaded into RotCFD.

Figure A-3: View of how RotCFD views the geometry after gridding.

25
26
Figure A-4: Illustration of the RotCFD spatial grid set up for Configuration 4 in wind tunnel conditions.
 Figure A-5: Y-plane flow velocity magnitude through the center of the hub for Configuration 6 at ψ = 45° and α = 6°.

27
28
Figure A-6: Z-plane flow velocity magnitude through the center of the hub for Configuration 6 at ψ = 45° and α = 6°.
 Figure A-7: Z-plane flow velocity magnitude through the mechanical control gyro for Configuration 6 at ψ = 45° and α = 6°.

29
30
 APPENDIX B
AERODYNAMIC TARE COEFFICIENTS

31
 Table B-1: Coefficients for Aerodynamic Tare [3].

1.0696 × 10 2.2233 × 10 5.1744 × 10 4.8684 × 10

3.2678 × 10 3.2690 × 10 5.6513 × 10 2.7565 × 10
−2.6925 × 10 −1.7007 −1.1615 × 10 -

Coefficients for the aerodynamic tare polynomial are in the form of Equations 3, 4, and 5 below. Both
and are in units of lb, is in ft lbs, and , is in degrees.

= , + , + , + (3)

= , + , + , + (4)

= , + , + (5)

32
 APPENDIX C
UNCORRECTED SIMULATION GRID INFORMATION

33
 Table C-1: Time grid information for completed RotCFD cases.

Time Grid Time Grid

Azimuth
Walls Mast Angle Total Walls Total
Configuration Angle Time
Condition (deg) Time Condition Time Time Steps
(deg) Steps
(s) (s)
4 0 0 Uncorrected 0.065 6500 Corrected 0.08 8000
0.01 1000
4 0 6 Uncorrected 0.01 3000 Corrected 0.01 3000
0.04 8000 0.04 8000
4 45 0 Uncorrected 0.01 3000 Corrected 0.01 3000
0.055 11000 0.04 8000
3000
4 45 6 Uncorrected Corrected 0.01 (13
iterations)
8000
0.04 (12
iterations)
6 0 0 Uncorrected Corrected 0.05 5000
6 0 6 Uncorrected Corrected 0.01 3000
0.04 8000
6 45 0 Uncorrected Corrected 0.01 6000
0.01 16000
0.03 12000
6 45 6 Uncorrected Corrected .05 15000
8 0 0 Uncorrected 0.05 5000 Corrected 0.05 5000
0.015 1500 0.01 1000
8 0 6 Uncorrected Corrected 0.04 8000
8 45 0 Uncorrected 0.01 3000 Corrected 0.01 3000
0.055 11000 0.04 8000
8 45 6 Uncorrected Corrected Unfinished

Note: All cases were run with 10 iterations per time step unless otherwise noted

34
 Table C-2: Computer Specifications.

Wind Wall Mast Total Run Time GPU CUDA RAM CPU
Configuration Azimuth Cell Count
Velocity Condition Angle Iterations (hours) Cores (GB) Threads
225.4 4 Uncorrected 0 0 1,683,942 75,000 36* 640 32 4
225.3 4 Uncorrected 0 6 1,901,076 110,000 54.5 640 8 4
225 4 Uncorrected 45 0 1,963,680 140,000 141 1536 32 24
230 4 Corrected 0 0 1,571,507 80,000 38* 640 8 4
230 4 Corrected 0 6 1,788,476 135,000 52 640 32 4
230 4 Corrected 45 0 2,026,476 110,000 67 640 8 4
230 4 Corrected 45 6 2,408,818 135,000 N/A† 640 8 4
230 6 Corrected 0 0 1,848,154 5,000 41 2048 32 32
230 6 Corrected 0 6 1,829,783 110,000 116.4 1536 32 24
230 6 Corrected 45 0 1,103,258 340,000 48.5* 2048 32 32
230 6 Corrected 45 6 2,033,195 150,000 226.5‡* 1536 32 24
227.1 8 Uncorrected 0 0 1,772,801 65,000 N/A† 640 32 4
230 8 Corrected 0 0 1,589,743 60,000 26 640 16 4
230 8 Corrected 0 6 1,766,628 110,000 57.9 640 8 4
230 8 Corrected 45 0 1,921,664 110,000 56.5 640 16 4
230 8 Corrected 45 6 Unfinished
Note: All cases were run on GPUs with single precision unless otherwise specified.

*Run times that were estimated from restart files.

†Run times that were lost due to restart files.
‡Run on GPU with double precision.

35
 Table C-3: Time grid information for Configuration 6, = 45°, = 6°, case study.

Relaxation
Iterations per Diverged at Diverged at
Trial Total Time (s) Time Steps Factor
Time Step Time Step Approx. Time (s)
(u, v, w, p)
1 0.050 5000 10 0.10 4 0.00004
2 0.050 8000 10 0.10 1000 0.006
3 0.050 10000 10 0.10 1200 0.006
4 0.010 3000 10 0.10 1800 0.006
0.040 8000 10 0.10
5 0.010 3000 8 0.10 2000 0.006
0.040 8000 8 0.10
6 0.050 15000 10 0.10 1850 0.006
7 0.050 20000 10 0.10 2400 0.006
8 0.043 7000 9 0.10 1000 0.006
9 0.008 1500 10 0.05 1450 0.007
0.007 1400 10 0.06
0.007 1400 10 0.07
0.007 1400 10 0.08
0.007 1400 10 0.09
0.007 1400 10 0.10
10 0.005 1000 10 0.10 1375 0.007
0.002 400 10 0.01
0.038 7600 10 0.10
11 0.050 15000 10 0.10 5200 0.0173

36
 Table C-4: Spatial grid information for Configuration 6, = 45°, = 6°, case study.

Trials 1–10
Re. Re. Re. Re. Re. Re.
Boundary Grid Specs Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4 Box 5 Box 6
–5.00 Walls 10 –5.00 0.00 –1.40 –1.40 –2.70 –2.50
X-min:
–5.00 Velocity 10 –5.00 –3.10 –1.90 –1.80 –2.80 1.30
X-max:
mass output
–1.50 correction 10 –1.50 3.60 3.60 3.30 3.40 3.40
Others:
5.00 Velocity 6 5.00 3.50 2.40 0.00 –0.90 –0.70
(fit bodies)
5.00 checked 5.00 2.90 2.00 2.00 –1.00 3.10
8.50 8.50 2.90 4.30 3.60 4.00 4.00
4 6 6 6 6 6
Trial 11
Re. Re. Re. Re. Re. Re.
Boundary Grid Specs Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4 Box 5 Box 6
–5.01 Walls 10 –5.01 0.00 –1.40 –1.40 –2.70 –2.50
X-min:
–5.01 Velocity 10 –5.01 –3.10 –1.90 –1.80 –2.80 1.30
X-max:
–1.51 mass out 10 –1.51 3.60 3.60 3.30 3.40 3.40
Others:
5.01 Velocity 6 5.01 3.90 2.40 0.00 –0.90 –0.70
(fit bodies)
5.01 checked 5.01 2.90 2.00 2.00 –1.00 3.10
8.51 8.51 2.90 4.30 3.60 4.00 4.00
4 6 6 6 6 6

37
 Table C-5: Configuration 0 (mast-only) case study.

Flow Velocity Body Boundary Box Refinement Drag Lift Moment

Trial
(ft/s) Refinement Refinement Box (lb) (lb) (lb-ft)
Wind Tunnel 225.0 - - - 48.8 27.6 –116.4
1 230.0 6 3 4 30.0 13.0 –55.0
2 230.0 6 3 5 26.0 13.0 –51.0
3 230.0 6 4 5 25.0 13.0 –48.0
4 230.0 6 4 5 25.0 13.0 –48.0
5 230.0 6 4 6 22.0 12.0 –39.0
6 157.9 6 4 6 10.5 6.0 –19.0

Trial 4 is the same as Trial 3, except it has an extended refinement box to more accurately capture the wake.
In all cases the drag is approximately 40–55 percent low and the lift is approximately 55 percent low.
Pitching moment is approximately 58 percent low.

38
 APPENDIX D
CORRECTED SIMULATION GRID INFORMATION

39
 Spatial Grid Information for Successful Corrected Cases

Table D-1: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 0° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0 x-min –5 –5 –3.7 –0.9
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7
z cells 10 z 3.5 z-min –1.5 –1.5 3.9 3
x-max 5 5 3.7 0.9
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 8.5 8.5 3 3.9
Refinement 4 6 6

Table D-2: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 0° and α = 6°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0.36585 x-min –5 –5 –3.4 –0.6
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7
z cells 10 z 3.4808 z-min –1.5 –1.5 4.2 3.1
x-max 5 5 4 1.3
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 8.5 8.5 2.9 4
Refinement 4 6 6

Table D-3: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 45° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0 x-min –5 –5 –3.1 –0.5
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3.2 –0.5
z cells 10 z 3.5 z-min –1.5 –1.5 3.9 3.05
x-max 5 5 3.5 0.5
y-max 5 5 3.3 0.5
z-max 8.5 8.5 3.1 3.1
Refinement 4 6 6

40
 Table D-4: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 45° and α = 6°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2
x cells 10 x 0.36585 x-min –5 –5 –3.2
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3.2
z cells 10 z 3.4808 z-min –1.5 –1.5 4.1
x-max 5 5 3.6
y-max 5 5 3.3
z-max 8.5 8.5 2.8
Refinement 3 6

Table D-5: Spatial grid information for Configuration 6 at ψ = 0° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 15 x 0 x-min –5 –5 –3.7 –0.9
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1.2 –3.7
z cells 7 z 3.5 z-min –1.5 –1.5 4.2 3.1
x-max 5 5 3.7 0.9
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 8.5 8.5 3.1 4.2
Refinement 4 6 6

Table D-6: Spatial grid information for Configuration 6 at ψ = 0° and α = 6°.

Grid Moment Re. Re. Re. Re. Re. Re.

Specs Point Boundary Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4 Box 5 Box 6
x cells 10 x 0.36585 x-min –5 –5 –3.4 –0.6 –3.4 –1.4 1.4
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7 –0.8 0.3 –1
z cells 10 z 3.4808 z-min –1.5 –1.5 4.2 3.1 3.4 4.1 3.6
x-max 5 5 4 1.3 –0.7 –0.7 2.2
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7 1 1 –0.3
z-max 8.5 8.5 2.9 4 4.1 4.3 4
Refinement 4 6 6 6 6 6

41
 Table D-7: Spatial grid information for Configuration 6 at ψ = 45° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0 x-min –5 –5 –2.3 –1.8
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3.1 –1.9
z cells 10 z 3.5 z-min –1.5 –1.5 3 3.9
x-max 5 5 3.4 1.9
y-max 5 5 3.1 1.9
z-max 8.5 8.5 3.9 4.3
Refinement 4 5 5

Table D-8: Spatial grid information for Configuration 6 at ψ = 45° and α = 6°.

Grid Moment Re. Re. Re. Re. Re. Re.

Specs Point Boundary Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4 Box 5 Box 6
x cells 10 x 0.36585 x-min –5 –5 0 –1.4 –2.7 –2.5 –1.4
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3.1 –1.9 –2.8 1.3 –1.9
z cells 10 z 3.4808 z-min –1.5 –1.5 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3
x-max 5 5 3.9 3 –0.9 –0.7 0
y-max 5 5 2.9 2 –1 3.1 2
z-max 8.5 8.5 2.9 4.3 4 4 3.6
Refinement 4 6 6 6 6 6

Table D-9: Spatial grid information for Configuration 8 at ψ = 0° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0 x-min –5 –5 –3.7 –0.9
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7
z cells 10 z 3.5 z-min –1.5 –1.5 3.9 3
x-max 5 5 3.7 0.9
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 8.5 8.5 3 3.9
Refinement 4 6 6

42
 Table D-10: Spatial grid information for Configuration 8 at ψ = 0° and α = 6°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0.36585 x-min –5 –5 –3.6 –6
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7
z cells 10 z 3.4808 z-min –1.5 –1.5 4.1 3.1
x-max 5 5 4.2 1.3
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 8.5 8.5 2.9 4
Refinement 4 6 6

Table D-11: Spatial grid information for Configuration 8 at ψ = 45° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2
x cells 10 x 0 x-min –5 –5 –3
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3
z cells 10 z 3.5 z-min –1.5 –1.5 3
x-max 5 5 3
y-max 5 5 3
z-max 8.5 8.5 3.8
Refinement 4 6

Table D-12: Spatial grid information for Configuration 8 at ψ = 45° and α = 6°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 10 x 0.36585 x-min –5 –5 N/A N/A
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 N/A N/A
z cells 10 z 3.4808 z-min –1.5 –1.5 N/A N/A
x-max 5 5 N/A N/A
y-max 5 5 N/A N/A
z-max 8.5 8.5 N/A N/A
Refinement 4 6 6

Note: All corrected cases were run with free-stream walls, body refinement of 6, and fit-bodies.

43
 Spatial Grid Information for Successful Uncorrected Cases

Table D-13: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 0° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 15 x 0 x-min –7.5 –7.5 –3.7 –0.9
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7
z cells 7 z 3.5 z-min 0 0 3.9 3
x-max 7.5 7.5 3.7 0.9
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 7 7 3 3.9
Refinement 4 6 6

Table D-14: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 0° and α = 6°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 15 x 0.36585 x-min –7.5 –7.5 –0.6 –3.4
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3.7 –1
z cells 7 z 3.4808 z-min 0 0 3 4
x-max 7.5 7.5 1.3 4.1
y-max 5 5 3.7 0.9
z-max 7 7 3.8 2.8
Refinement 4 6 6

Table D-15: Spatial grid information for Configuration 4 at ψ = 45° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 15 x 0 x-min –7.5 –7.5 –3.2 –0.5
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –3.1 –0.5
z cells 7 z 3.5 z-min 0 0 3.85 3
x-max 7.5 7.5 3.4 0.5
y-max 5 5 3.1 0.5
z-max 7 7 3.15 3.15
Refinement 4 6 6

44
 Table D-16: Spatial grid information for Configuration 8 at ψ = 0° and α = 0°.

Moment
Grid Specs Point Boundary Re. Box 1 Re. Box 2 Re. Box 3
x cells 15 x 0 x-min –7.5 –7.5 –3.7 –0.9
y cells 10 y 0 y-min –5 –5 –1 –3.7
z cells 7 z 3.5 z-min 0 0 3.9 3
x-max 7.5 7.5 3.7 0.9
y-max 5 5 0.9 3.7
z-max 7 7 3 3.9
Refinement 4 6 6

Note: All uncorrected cases were run with viscous walls, body refinement of 6, and fit-bodies.

45
46
 REFERENCES

[1] Vocke, R. and Nunez, G.: Test Data Report, Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Drag Test of a 2/5 Scale
Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne Door-Hinge Hub. U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate
RDMR-AD-16-03, Mountain View, CA, 2016.
[2] Grima, A.: Aerodynamic Characterisation of an Experimental Tilt-Wing Aircraft. NASA Ames
Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 2016.
[3] Rajagopalan, R. G.; Baskaran, V.; Hollingsworth, A.; Lestari, A.; Garrick, D.; Solis, E.; and
Hagerty, B.: RotCFD—A Tool for Aerodynamic Interference of Rotors: Validation and
Capabilities. American Helicopter Society Future Vertical Lift Aircraft Design Conference, San
Francisco, CA, 2012.
[4] Thorell, N. L.; Poux, A. M.; Syed, M. A.; and Maser, S. N.: RotCFD: UNS2D Airfoils Report.
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 2015.
[5] Johnson, J. N.; Bender, G. L.; McClellan, R. D.; Burden, J. R.; and Larson, M. E.: Attack
Helicopter Evaluation AH-56 Cheyenne Compound Helicopter. National Technical Information
Service, Alexandria, VA, 1972.

47