Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 66

Application of Geometrically Exact

Beam Formulation for Modeling


Advanced Geometry Rotor Blades
A thesis submitted in partial fullment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Technology
Author:
Palash Jain
Supervisor:
Dr. Abhishek
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
August 2014
Certicate
Abstract
Application of Geometrically Exact Beam Formulation for Modeling
Advanced Geometry Rotor Blades
by Palash Jain
Slender beams undergoing dynamic loading are a feature in many structural applica-
tions like high aspect ratio aircraft wings, bridges, helicopter blades, space structures,
propellers and wind turbines to name a few. When these beams are subjected to large
deformations, linear beam theories like that of Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko no longer
remain valid. Nonlinearities in beam modeling arise from: (i) geometry and / or (ii)
material. The focus is on the former. Earlier approaches for beam analyses used approx-
imation of nonlinear strains and curvatures by truncated Taylor series expansion, and
involved use of ordering scheme for retaining terms up to desired level of accuracy. This
technique is satisfactory for moderate deformations, however for large deformations and
those having coupling, the errors associated with approximations are signicant.
Geometrically Exact Beam Theory (GEBT) based on Hodges Mixed Variational For-
mulation provides a more accurate description of dynamics of beams by involving all
irreducible parameters to solve the energy conserving Hamiltons Equation. This results
in a set of implicit nonlinear partial dierential equations involving intrinsic or natural
parameters for beam characterization viz. sectional forces, moments, displacements, ro-
tations and linear and angular velocities. These equations are numerically discretized by
nite element methods and solved iteratively, very often by Newton-Raphson method
and time marching for dynamic cases. The eigenvalue analysis of dynamics equations
obtained by superposing small perturbations over the steady state gives the natural
frequencies of the system.
The present thesis discusses the implementation of GEBT for modeling advance geome-
try rotor blades. The algorithms for implementing GEBT for static and dynamic cases
are discussed. Thereafter, a verication and validation of the results obtained from
the present analysis is performed with benchmark analytical and experimental results
demonstrating a good correlation and the superiority of the present approach over ear-
lier methods. Finally, ways to further improve these results and the future uses of the
developed codes and GEBT in general are discussed.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Abhishek, for his able
guidance and encouragement throughout this thesis work. The positivity and patience
shown by him during our meetings is highly appreciated. His experience in rotorcraft
dynamics has proved greatly helpful in dealing with this challenging area.
I am indebted to the faculty at the Department of Aerospace Engineering for helping
me develop the learning aptitude essential for solving complex engineering problems.
The academic environment and research facilities provided by the Institute is highly
appreciated.
I would also like to thank the people at my lab for their support in making my task easier.
My stay at IITK couldnt have been more memorable without friends and colleagues
especially my wing-mates Ashutosh, Kumar, Tanmay, Pratyush, Ayush, Anirudh and
Pratik.
My words of acknowledgement would never be enough for my Parents unconditional
support and aection which provided me the courage to walk the dicult paths in life.
Finally, I am grateful to everyone who could not be mentioned here but had constructive
inuence on me.
iii
Contents
Certicate i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Contents iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Symbols viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Literature Review of Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 Earlier Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 Historical Insight on GEBT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.3 Theoretical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.4 Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.5 Benchmark Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Organization of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Theory 7
2.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Hamiltons Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Strain Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Kinetic Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3 Virtual Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.4 Variational Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Mixed Variational Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Finite Element Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5 Finite Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3 Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 18
3.1 Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iv
Contents v
3.2 Benchmark Static Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.1 Bending moment applied at the tip of an elastica . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.2 Dead (non-follower) force applied at the tip of an elastica . . . . . 22
3.2.3 Princeton beam experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4 Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 32
4.1 Estimation of Natural Frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.1 Steady State Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1.2 Perturbation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 Results and Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.1 Cantilevered Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.2 Princeton Beam Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.3 Maryland Beam Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5 Conclusion and Recommendation 48
5.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2 Scope and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Bibliography 52
List of Figures
2.1 Beam Reference Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Elastica Deection with Low Tip Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Elastica Deection with High Tip Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Tip Angle of Rotation under Tip Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Vertical Tip Deection under Tip Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5 Horizontal Tip Deection under Tip Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.6 Princeton Beam Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7 Princeton Beam Load Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.8 Princeton Beam Axes System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.9 Princeton Beam Root Setting Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.10 Horizontal Deections of Princeton Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.11 Vertical Deections of Princeton Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.12 Twist Deformations of Princeton Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Schematic of Princeton Beam Frequency Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2 Princeton Beam Tip Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3 Princeton Beam Frequency Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Twist Deformations of Princeton Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Maryland Beam Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.6 Maryland Beam Finite Element Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.7 First Flap Frequency of Maryland Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.8 Second Flap Frequency of Maryland Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.9 Third Flap Frequency of Maryland Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.10 Fourth Flap Frequency of Maryland Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.11 Fifth Flap Frequency of Maryland Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.1 Comprehensive Analyses Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
vi
List of Tables
2.1 Finite rotation parameters to be used in nite element equations. . . . . . 17
3.1 Simulation Parameters for Elastica with Tip Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2 Simulation Parameters for Elastica with Tip Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Princeton Beam Simulation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1 Simulation Parameters for Frequency estimation of Cantilevered Beam . . 39
4.2 Frequency data (in Hz) for Cantilevered Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3 Simulation Parameters for Frequency Estimation of Princeton Beam . . . 41
4.4 Properties of tip mass used in Princeton Beam experiment . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Maryland Beam Simulation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
vii
Symbols
A
i
unit vectors xed in reference frame U strain energy per unit length
B
i
unit vectors xed in cross-sectional
frame of deformed beam
u displacement vector of reference line
b
i
unit vectors xed in cross-sectional
frame of undeformed beam
V inertial velocity of reference line
C direction cosine matrix (Section-2.5) v velocity vector in reference frame
c
nite rotation parameter (Rodrigues
or Wiener-Milenkovic)
W
work done by external forces and
moments
e
1
[1 0 0]
T
w width of the undeformed beam
E Youngs modulus x
1
beam coordinate along the reference
line in b frame
F external applied load vector
x
2
,x
3
position of CG wrt undeformed beam
reference line
F
i
cross-sectional stress resultant force
vector
X
complete set of unknown beam
variables
f
distributed applied force vector per
unit length along beam q
B
virtual displacement vector
G
complete set of geometrically exact
beam equations
B
virtual rotation vector
G shear modulus (3 3) identity matrix
H
cross-sectional inertial angular
momentum vector

small perturbation for approximation
of derivatives
I cross-sectional (3 3) inertia vector strain vector [
11
, 2
12
, 2
13
]
T
Symbols ix
i
2
, i
3
, i
23
cross-sectional mass moments and
product of inertia
= (Kk) elastic curvature
K
deformed beam curvature and twist
vector

i
Lagrange multipliers
K kinetic energy per unit length tip sweep angle
k
undeformed beam curvature and twist
vector
mass per unit length
L length of undeformed beam
inertial angular velocity of deformed
beam cross-sectional vector
M
cross-sectional stress resultant
momentum vector

a
angular velocity vector in reference
frame
m
distributed applied momentum vector
per unit length along beam
material mass density
N number of nite elements
,
Princeton Beam pitch (root-setting)
angle
P
vross-sectional inertial linear
momentum

non-dimensional lengthwise
coordinate
R, S, T
cross-sectional (3 3) exibility
coecient matrices

() ()/t
s deformed beam coordinate system ()

()/x
1
t thickness of undeformed beam

() cross product matrix
t
1
, t
2
arbitrary instants in time
()

()
known and unknown boundary
conditions
Dedicated
to
my Parents
x
Chapter 1
Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to implement the formulation for modeling helicopter rotor
blades using Geometrically Exact Beam Theory (henceforth abbreviated as GEBT). The
GEBT contains equations describing the overall dynamics of beam members undergoing
arbitrary motions. This thesis is meant to be a complete showcase of building up and
implementation of GEBT to perform dynamic analysis of rotor blades with advanced
geometry and composite materials.
1.1 Motivation
Beam members with one of the dimensions signicantly higher than the other two are
building blocks of many structures. They form the subject area of research in Aerospace,
Civil, Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering. Many of these structures like bridges
and buildings undergo relatively small deformations. Linear beam theories like those
of Euler-Bernoulli and Timoshenko provides quite accurate results for these structures.
However, beams undergoing large deformations like helicopter blades, aircraft wings,
propeller blades, shafts and axles require nonlinear analysis.
The thrust for lightweight materials in structural applications have led to extensive use
of composites. These materials not only allow higher out of plane deformations but also
usually have coupling between bending and torsional modes. While 3-D nite element
method may seem to be the ultimate solution for all structural modeling needs, it may
1
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
neither be always be computationally feasible nor altogether necessary. It is at this point
that Geometrically Exact Beam Theory (GEBT) provides dimensional reduction with
sucient accuracy for modeling of highly deformable structures such as those mentioned
above.
GEBT nds its applications in modeling dynamic response of rotating beam structures,
particularly helicopter blades for a wide range of loading and boundary conditions. It
can be seamlessly integrated with aerodynamic models for comprehensive analysis of
helicopter rotor. Presence of accurate modeling capabilities could save a lot of time
and money in simulating the behavior of rotating blades under dierent ight condi-
tions. Simplicity and comprehensiveness of this theory in solving a wide range of beam
modeling problems with surprising accuracy has been the motivation behind this thesis.
1.2 Literature Review of Previous Work
The present thesis has been built upon following the literature which can be classied
into four broad types:
Earlier Approaches
Historical Insight on GEBT
Theoretical manifestation/formulations of GEBT
Implementation of mixed variational formulation of GEBT
Benchmark results to validate the implemented algorithms
1.2.1 Earlier Approaches
With the advent of exible rotor systems in helicopters several attempts were made to
develop the theory governing the dynamics of rotor blades. Hodges and Dowell [1] formu-
lates approximate theory with ordering schemes for analysis of helicopter blades, which
are still the standard equations for nonlinear beam dynamics. To avoid inaccuracies due
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
to large torsional rotations, Hodges et al. [2] developed beam theory by involving an
explicit torsional parameter along with the usual displacement variables.
To make this kind of theory work for moderate deformations Rosen and Friedmann
[3] and Johnson [4] terms upto second order were accounted for in developing beam
equations. With each addition in the order of the approximation, the beam equations
becomes complex, so much so that one equation could last several pages. This complexity
and approximate nature of these theories inspired researchers to focus on other beam
models.
One solution to deal with cases involving large deformations and hence associated nite
rotations is to have a frame attached with each deformed nite element of the beam.
Bauchau and Kang [5] and Johnson [4] have developed the theory which is known as
Multibody Formulation. Saberi et al. [6] documents the Rotorcraft Comprehensive Anal-
ysis System which was earlier based on this methodology. This approach produced quite
accurate results for even larger deformations allowed by previous theories. Hopkins and
Ormiston [7] have veried and validated some of the benchmark problems using RCAS
multibody formulation with good correlation. The problems solved in this reference is
the inspiration behind the models built in this thesis.
1.2.2 Historical Insight on GEBT
With the multibody formulation, the beam equations were still approximate ones, with
the exception of an attached frame with them. To model large deformation using this
method more nite elements are required meaning more computational expenditure. To
do away with the approximations altogether, Geometrically Exact Beam Theory was
proposed.
One of the earliest formulation for static elastica problem exist in the form of Kirchho-
Clebsch equations described by Love [8]. These equations are obtained by equilibrium
analysis of elastica under general static loading conditions. The resulting set of nonlinear
equations are the functions of 3-dimensional forces, moments and curvatures. Chapter
XIX describes an interesting result known as the Kirchho Kinetic Analogue, which
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
states that the equations of equilibrium of a thin, prismatic rod applied with tip load
and moment is identical to the equations of motion of a rigid body turning about a xed
point. This analogy is used to derive the kinematic relations for elastica with dierent
loading and boundary conditions.
Reissner [9] presented rst truely geometrically exact formulation for nite strain (i.e.
not negligible) deformations occuring in a plane. This work was expanded again by
Reissner [10] to include deformations not necessarily restricted to a plane. The mixed
variational formulation as described in 2 simplies to the equations presented in this
reference for static cases.
The geometrically exact analysis of beam dynamics that are deformable in 3-D is pro-
posed by Simo [11]. In addition, Simo and Vu-Quoc [12] also provides solution and
incremental algorithms for dynamic analysis of beam structures.
A number of alternate formulations for geometrically exact beam theories exist by various
authors who have approached the same problem in dierent ways. All of these works
have built on the works of Reissner and Simo. Hence, GEBT is also referred to as
Reissners Beam Theory or Reissner-Simo Beam Theory.
1.2.3 Theoretical Development
Hodges [13] describes the derivation of the mixed variational formulation of GEBT from
Hamiltons Principle in detail. It also contains references about some of the earlier works
that helped shape this theory. It also states the assumptions used in this theory and
some of those from the earlier ones that were relaxed.
While the earlier reference contained formulation containing displacement and rotation
terms,Hodges [14] states an alternate formulation which can be used for dynamic analy-
sis, especially for perturbation analysis of slender beams to calculate natural frequencies.
Here the formulation contains reduced number of intrinsic parameters and does not con-
tain any displacement or rotation terms, hence the name Fully Intrinsic Formulation.
The Fully Intrinsic Formulation exists as a set of nonlinear PDEs in space and time and
can be solved by nite dierence methods.
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
An alternate implementation of GEBT is suggested by Jelenic and Saje [15] in incremen-
tal, iterative and invariant nite elements formulation for statics of the beam. Jelenic
and Criseld [16] have expanded the same formulation for both statics and dynamics.
Pai [17] provides GEBT for three dierent forms of deformations beams can undergo.
Finite element implementation method for a few cases and results for the same are also
given.
The major textbook on this subject is by Hodges [18]. Here he sums up the history,
precursors, references, formulations, implementation and applications of GEBT in detail.
1.2.4 Solution Procedure
Hodges et al. [19] derive the nite element equations from the mixed variational formu-
lation for solving beam dynamics problem. A hint for solving eigenvalue problems is
also provided and the formulation is validated for Maryland Beam experiment.
More cases for validation of GEBT are provided by Wang et al. [20] who use Wiener-
Milenkovic parameters for dening nite rotations. Here the nite element equations
are presented in complete detail. The use of global frame facilitates application of dead
forces like gravity. This paper also has a few static and dynamic response examples for
validation.
Dynamic response problems require time marching schemes for solving initial value prob-
lem. Yu and Blair [21] presents the applications of the GEBT nite element equations.
The application of Newmark time marching method is also explained in detail.
Many optimization strategies are developed for solving GEBT equations .Patil and
Hodges [22] proposes one such improved strategy for solution of intrinsic, mixed vari-
ational beam equations by variable order hp-nite elements. Since this is the most
ecient method in terms of CPU time required, it is highly useful for dynamic response
analysis of complex structures where iterations are to be performed over a large number
of time steps.
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
1.2.5 Benchmark Results
The following section comprises of references which provides results of experimental
benchmarks used to validate nonlinear beam theories and also previous attempts at
modeling the experimental results.
Benchmarks for xed fram statics and dynamics were established by Dowell and Traybar
[23] and Dowell and Traybar [24]. The results described in these references are famously
referred to as the Princeton Beam static and frequency measurement experiments.
Epps and Chandra [25] provide experimental results for frequency measurement of swept-
tip aluminum and composite beam aka Maryland Beam experiments. The beam di-
mension, material properties, composite ply direction and angular velocities are also
provided.
1.3 Organization of Thesis
The thesis document comprises of front matter, ve chapters and bibliography section.
1. Chapter-1 includes introduction and review of references relevant to the thesis.
2. Chapter-2 contains the derivation of the theoretical formulation of GEBT and the
nite elements equations to be used for beam structural analysis.
3. Chapter-3 conatins solution procedure for static problems. Verication and vali-
dation of the results is also presented with benchmarks.
4. Chapter-4 presents formulation for dynamic analysis of beams. Solution procedure
for steady state and perturbation analysis for determining natural frequencies for
xed and rotating frame structures is also stated.
5. Chapter-5 closes this thesis with a summary and a note on the future scope and
recommendation for further developments
Chapter 2
Theory
2.1 Preliminaries
Some of the denitions from earlier works that will be used as axioms and theorems
from previous works are presented here. The origin of these results are given in [13].
A vector quantity Z can be expressed in any basis such that,
Z = Z
Ai
A
i
= Z
A
= {Z
A1
, Z
A2
, Z
A3
}
T
(2.1)
= Z
bi
b
i
= Z
b
= {Z
b1
, Z
b2
, Z
b3
}
T
(2.2)
= Z
Bi
B
i
= Z
B
= {Z
B1
, Z
B2
, Z
B3
}
T
(2.3)
They are tranformed from one basis to another multiplying with a transformation matrix
Z
B
= C
Bb
Z
b
(2.4)
The expression for the transformation matrix is given in Section-2.5.
7
Chapter 2. Theory 8
The cross product operator () is dened as

Z =
_

_
0 Z
3
Z
2
Z
3
0 Z
1
Z
2
Z
1
0
_

_
, and (2.5)

Z Y = Z Y (2.6)
Figure-2.1 shows the states of the beam before and after deformation. Measurements
are made relative to a point in the xed frame A. The undeformed and deformed states
have frames b and B attached to the reference cross section. Note that B
1
may not in
general be tangent to R due to shear deformations.
Figure 2.1: Undeformed and deformed states of beam showing reference line and
arbitrary cross section.
The following results for stain and curvatures are derived in detail in Danielson and
Hodges [26]. These relations obtained by frame tranformations are exact and are dening
Chapter 2. Theory 9
feature of GEBT.
= C(e
1
+u

b
+

k
b
u
b
) e
1
(2.7)
= K
B
k
b
, where (2.8)

K
B
= C

C
T
+C

k
b
C
T
(2.9)
2.2 Hamiltons Principle
The derivation of the intrinsic beam equations start from the Hamiltons Principle which
is stated below in its weakest form.
_
t
2
t
1
_
l
0
[(K U) +W] dx
1
dt = A (2.10)
Here t
1
and t
2
are known times, l is length of the beam, K and U are kinetic and strain
energy densities, respectively and W is the virtual work of the applied loads. The
integration is carried over spanwise coordinate, x
1
and time coordinate, t. A is the
virtual action at the end of time interval.
2.2.1 Strain Energy
The strain energy is a nonlinear function of strain and curvature which, in turn, are
nonlinear functions of displacements and rotations.
U = U(, ) (2.11)
Carrying out the variation as follows
_
l
0
U dx
1
=
_
l
0
_

T
_
U

_
T
+
T
_
U

_
T
_
dx
1
(2.12)
Chapter 2. Theory 10
Dening the virtual displacement and virtual rotation parameters as follows:
q
B
:= Cu
b
(2.13)

B
:= CC
T
(2.14)
() indicates that these virtual quantities are variations of their respective variable in
undeformed b basis but not in deformed B basis.
Substituting the equations (2.13)-(2.14) in equations (2.7)-(2.9) and carrying out varia-
tions, we get
= q

B
+ ( e
1
+ )
B
(2.15)
=

B
+

K
B

B
(2.16)
Thus, the expression for virtual strain energy comes out to be:
U = [(q

B
)
T
q
T
B

K
B

T
B
( e
1
+ )]F
B
+ [(

B
)
T

T
B

K
B
]M
B
(2.17)
2.2.2 Kinetic Energy
The sectional kinetic energy is a function of sectional linear and angular velocities.
K = K(V, ) (2.18)
In the variational form it can be written as,
_
l
0
K dx
1
=
_
l
0
_
V
T
B
_
K
V
B
_
T
+
T
B
_
K
B
_
T
_
dx
1
(2.19)
Chapter 2. Theory 11
Similar to equation (2.7)-(2.9), the expressions for sectional linear and angular velocities
are given by Kane and Levinson [27]
V
B
= C(v
b
+ u
b
+
b
u
b
) (2.20)

B
=

CC
T
+C
b
C
T
(2.21)
Carrying out variation for getting virtual linear velocity expression:
V
B
= C(v
b
+ u
b
+
b
u
b
) +C( u
b
+
b
u
b
) (2.22)
Substituting the result from equation-(2.13), the nal expression for virtual linear ve-
locity becomes
V
B
=

q
B
+

B
q
B
+

V
B

B
(2.23)
Similarly, carrying out variation of equation-(2.21) to get virtual angular velocity:

B
=

CC
T


CC
T
+C
b
C
T
+C
b
C
T
(2.24)
Substituting equation-(2.14) and simplifying the expression gives virtual anguar velocity:

B
=

B
+

B
(2.25)
Using the property of cross product,

Y

Z =

Z

Y +

Y Z
the nal expression for virtual angular velocity becomes:

B
=

B
+

B
(2.26)
Chapter 2. Theory 12
The momentum-velocity relations are given as
P
B
=
_
K
V
B
_
T
= m(V
B

B
) (2.27)
H
B
=
_
K

B
_
T
= i
B

B
+m

B
V
B
(2.28)
where, m and i
B
are sectional mass and moment of inertia tensors and

B
= [0, x
2
, x
3
]
T
is the location of CG with respect to the beam reference line.
Thus, the expression for the virtual kinetic energy turns out to be:
K = (

q
B
+

B
q
B
+

V
B

B
)P
B
+ (

B
+

B
)H
B
(2.29)
2.2.3 Virtual Work
The virtual work expression in terms of externally applied distributed forces and mo-
mentum can be written as,
W =
_
i
0
(q
T
B
f
B
+
T
B
m
B
)dx
1
(2.30)
2.2.4 Variational Formulation
Substituting equation-(2.17), (2.29) and (2.30) into Hamiltons Principle equation-(2.10),
the variational form of equation comes out to be:
_
t
2
t
1
_
l
0
{(

q
T
B
q
T
B

B

T
B

V
B
)P
B
+ (

T
B

T
B

B
)H
B
[(q

B
)
T
q
T
B

K
B

T
B
( e
1
+ )]F
B
+[(

B
)
T

T
B

K
B
]M
B
+q
T
B
f
B
+
T
B
m
B
} dx
1
dt
=
_
l
0
(q
T
B

P
B
+
T
B

H
B
)

t
2
t
1
dx
1

_
t
2
t
1
(q
T
B

F
B
+
T
B

M
B
)

l
0
dt (2.31)
Chapter 2. Theory 13
Performing integration by parts to remove time derivatives of virtual quantities, we get
the nal equation as:
_
t
2
t
1
_
l
0
{q
T
B
(F

B
+

K
B
F
B
+f
B


P
B

B
P
B
) +
T
B
[M

B
+

K
B
M
B
+( e
1
+ )F
B
+m
B


H
B

B
H
B


V
B
P
B
]} dx
1
dt =
_
l
0
[q
T
B
(

P
B
P
B
) +
T
B
(

H
B
H
B
)]

t
2
t
1
dx
1

_
t
2
t
1
[q
T
B
(

F
B
F
B
) +
T
B
(

M
B
M
B
)]

l
0
dt (2.32)
The Euler-Lagrange equations can be obtained from the variational equation as
F

B
+

K
B
F
B
+f
B
=

P
B
+

B
P
B
(2.33)
M

B
+

K
B
M
B
+ ( e
1
+ )F
B
+m
B
=

H
B
+
B
H
B
+

V
B
P
B
(2.34)
These equations satisfy the condition of equilibrium for the general motion of beam under
external forces and moments. To obtain displacement and rotation, we need kinematic
relations. Although obtained from energy principles, these equations have Newtonian
character, which conrms the universality of these equations.
2.3 Mixed Variational Formulation
The kinematical relations are obtained by rearranging the terms of equations-(2.7), (2.8),
(2.20) and (2.21) as follows:
u

= C
T
(e
1
+) e
1

ku (2.35)
u = C
T
V v u (2.36)
c

= Q
1
( +k Ck) (2.37)
c = Q
1
( C) (2.38)
Q
1
is dened in Section-2.5
Chapter 2. Theory 14
Writing the mixed variationsl formulation by combining variational and kinematical
equations by means of lagrange multipliers, we obtain:
_
t
2
t
1
_
l
0
{[V
T
P +
T
H
T
F
T
M +q
T
f +
T
m]
+[
1
(u

C
T
(e
1
+) +e
1
+

ku)]
+[
2
( u C
T
V +v + u)]
+[
3
(c

Q
1
( +k Ck))]
+[
4
( c Q
1
( C))]} dx
1
dt
(2.39)
The Lagrange multipliers are obtained by satisfying the independent variation of virtual
quantities. The nal expression for mixed variational formulation which is the governing
equation describing overall dynamics of slender beams is given below:
_
l
0
{u
T
a
F
a
+
T
a
M
a
+
T
a
[

H
a
+
a
H
a
+

V
a
P
a
C
T
C
ab
( e
1
+ )F
B
]
+u
T
a
(

P
a
+
a
P
a
) F
T
a
[C
T
c
ab
(e
1
+) C
ab
e
1
] F
T
a
u
a
M
T
a
c
a
M
T
a
Q
1
a
C
ab
+P
T
a
(V
a
v
a

a
u
a
u
a
)
+H
T
a
(
B

B
C
ba
Q
a
c
a
) u
T
a

T
a
m
a
}dx
1
= (u
T
a

F
a
+
T
a

M
a
F
T
a
u
a
M
T
a
c
a
)

l
0
(2.40)
2.4 Finite Element Implementation
The beam is discretized into N elements of length L
i
having two nodes i and j (for
simplicity beams with no joints will have j = i +1). Let
i
be the lengthwise coordinate
within a beam such that,

i
=
x
1
L
i
L
i
(2.41)
dx
1
= L
i
d
i
(2.42)
Z

=
1
L
1
Z

i
(2.43)
where, L
i
is the coordinate of the node i of the element and Z is an arbitrary vector.
Chapter 2. Theory 15
Since the Mixed Variatonal Formulation is in its weakest form, the nite elements are
discretized using linear shape functions as:
u
a
= (1 )u
i
+u
j

a
= (1 )
i
+
j
(2.44)
F
a
= (1 )F
i
+F
j
M
a
= (1 )M
i
+M
j
(2.45)
Performing the quadrature of equation-(2.40) numerically gives:
N

i=1
{u
T
i
f

u
i
+u
T
i+1
f
+
u
i
+
T
i
f

i
+
T
i+1
f
+

i
+F
T
i
f

F
i
+F
T
i+1
f
+
F
i
+
M
T
i
f

M
i
+M
T
i+1
f
+
M
i
+P
T
i
f
P
i
+H
T
i
f
H
i
}
(2.46)
The f matrices for each element are presented below:
f

u
i
= C
T
C
ab
F
i

i
+
L
i
2
[
a
C
T
C
ab
P
i
+

C
T
C
ab
P
i
] (2.47)
f

i
= C
T
C
ab
M
i
m

i
+
L
i
2
[
a
C
T
C
ab
H
i
+

C
T
C
ab
H
i
+C
T
C
ab
(e
1
+
i
)F
i
)]
(2.48)
f

F
i
= u
i

L
i
2
[C
T
C
ab
(e
1
+
i
) C
ab
e
1
)] (2.49)
f

M
i
= c
i

L
i
2
Q
1
a
C
ab

i
(2.50)
f
P
i
= C
T
C
ab
V
i
v
i

a
u
i
u
i
(2.51)
f
H
i
=
i
C
ba
C
a
C
ba
Q
a
c
i
(2.52)

i
=
_
1
0
(1 )f
a
L
i
d (2.53)

f
+
i
=
_
1
0
f
a
L
i
d (2.54)
m

i
=
_
1
0
(1 )m
a
L
i
d (2.55)
m
+
i
=
_
1
0
m
a
L
i
d (2.56)
Here, f
a
and m
a
are distributed force and moment vectors. Similarly, v
a
and
a
are
elemental linear and angular velocities respectively in global frame such that
Chapter 2. Theory 16
v
a
= v
0
+
a
_

_
d
1
d
2
d
3
_

_
(2.57)
Assembly of the nite element equations:
At the starting node,
f

u
1


F
1
= 0(unknown) (2.58)
f


M
1
= 0(unknown) (2.59)
f

F
1
u

1
= 0(known) (2.60)
f

M
1
c

1
= 0(known) (2.61)
At the ending node,
f
+
u
N
F

N+1
= 0(known) (2.62)
f
+

N
M

N+1
= 0(known) (2.63)
f
+
F
N
+ u
N+1
= 0(unknown) (2.64)
f
+
M
N
+c
N+1
= 0(unknown) (2.65)
At the intermediate points of the elements (for i = 1 to N-1),
f
+
u
i
+f

u
i+1
= 0(unknown) (2.66)
f
+

i
+f

i+1
= 0(unknown) (2.67)
f
+
F
i
+f

F
i+1
= 0(unknown) (2.68)
f
+
M
i
+f

M
i+1
= 0(unknown) (2.69)
Chapter 2. Theory 17
Also in each of the elements (for i = 1 to N)
f
P
i
= 0, (unknown) (2.70)
f
H
i
= 0, (unknown) (2.71)
In addition to these set of equations, the formulation requires momnetum-velocity rela-
tions of Eq.-(2.27) and (2.28). Also, the following set of constitutive relations is required
to complete the formulation.
_

_
=
_

_
R S
S
T
T
_

_
_

_
F
M
_

_
(2.72)
2.5 Finite Rotation
Two popular methods for handling nite rotations are Rodrigues parameters and Wiener-
Milenkovic parameters. The table below provides the expressions for parameters to be
used in nite elements analysis for rotation angle of (deg or rad). Rodrigues param-
eters are a preferred choice for smaller angular rotations (< 90 deg) after which tan

2
becomes innite. For larger rotations (i.e., upto 180 deg) Wiener-Milenkovic parameters
are opted for.
Rodrigues Wiener-Milenkovic
c 2tan

2
4tan

4
c
0 1 +
c
T
c
4
2
c
T
c
8
C
1
c
0
[(1
1
4
c
T
c) +
1
2
cc
T
c]
1
(4c
0
)
2
[(c
2
0
c
T
c) 2c
0
c + 2cc
T
]
Q
1
c
0
[ c/2]
1
(4c
0
)
2
[(4
1
4
c
T
c) 2c +
1
2
cc
T
]
Table 2.1: Finite rotation parameters to be used in nite element equations.
Chapter 3
Beam Statics: Verication and
Validation
Static analysis for beams can be performed in a number of ways. The Euler-Bernoulli
and Timishenko Beam theories provide suciently accurate results for very small strains.
Nonlinear Taylor Series expansion methods as described in Hodges and Dowell [1] work
well for small to moderate deformations. Even multibody methods such as the one
described in Bauchau and Kang [5] are not exact as per analytical models. Therefore, to
model arbitrarily large deformations, Geometrically Exact Beam Theory is the preferred
choice.
The equations 2.58-2.71 described in Chapter-2 could be modied for usage in static
analysis of highly deformable beam elements. Due to involvement of intrinsic rotation
term, the prediction of load-deformation characteristics shows visible improvement over
nonlinear nite element methods as shown in Hodges and Patil [28] and multibody
formulations used in Hopkins and Ormiston [7]. The modied implementation of the
GEBT code for static analysis was used to solve the following benchmark problems:
Tip moment applied on elastica
Tip load applied on elastica
Princeton beam static large deformation experiment
18
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 19
3.1 Solution Procedure
The generalized dynamic analysis equations (2.58)-(2.71) described in Chapter-2 can be
specialized for static analysis. The terms involving time derivatives would be eliminated.
Similarly, the linear and angular velocities and their corresponding momenta would
become zero. The last two equations would be trivially satised leaving the formulation
with 12(N + 1) equations and the same number of variables. The modied equations
for static analysis with cantilevered boundary conditions are presented below[20]:
At the starting node,
f

u
1


F
1
= 0(unknown) (3.1)
f


M
1
= 0(unknown) (3.2)
f

F
1
u

1
= 0(known) (3.3)
f

M
1
c

1
= 0(known) (3.4)
At the ending node,
f
+
u
N
F

N+1
= 0(known) (3.5)
f
+

N
M

N+1
= 0(known) (3.6)
f
+
F
N
+ u
N+1
= 0(unknown) (3.7)
f
+
M
N
+c
N+1
= 0(unknown) (3.8)
At the intermediate points of the elements (for i = 1 to N-1),
f
+
u
i
+f

u
i+1
= 0(unknown) (3.9)
f
+

i
+f

i+1
= 0(unknown) (3.10)
f
+
F
i
+f

F
i+1
= 0(unknown) (3.11)
f
+
M
i
+f

M
i+1
= 0(unknown) (3.12)
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 20
The modied f matrices for the static case are presented below:
f

u
i
= C
T
C
ab
F
i

i
(3.13)
f

i
= C
T
C
ab
M
i
m

i

L
i
2
[C
T
C
ab
(e
1
+
i
)F
i
)] (3.14)
f

F
i
= u
i

L
i
2
[C
T
C
ab
(e
1
+
i
) C
ab
e
1
)] (3.15)
f

M
i
= c
i

L
i
2
Q
1
a
C
ab

i
(3.16)
Here,

i
=
_
1
0
(1 )f
a
L
i
d (3.17)

f
+
i
=
_
1
0
f
a
L
i
d (3.18)
m

i
=
_
1
0
(1 )m
a
L
i
d (3.19)
m
+
i
=
_
1
0
m
a
L
i
d (3.20)
where,
=
x
1
L
i
L
i
(3.21)
The equations could be represented in compact notation as G(X,

F) = 0 where G rep-
resents the set of vector equations (3.1)-(3.12) as functions of:
12(N +1) unknowns X :

F
1
,

M
1
, u
1
, c
1
, F
1
, M
1
, ..., u
N
, c
N
, F
N
, M
N
, u
N+1
, c
N+1
12 boundary conditions

F : u

1
, c

1
, F

N+1
, M

N+1
The set G represents a set of nonlinear equations which cannot be solved explicitly,
hence, solved iteratively by Newton-Raphson method. The procedure for implementa-
tion of the same is described below.
(i) Assume an initial guess for unknowns X. An ideal guess would be undeformed
state X = 0.
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 21
(ii) Calculate G(X,

F), where

F are known boundary conditions.
(iii) Populate Jacobian matrix by perturbing previous X such that j = 1 to 12(N+1);
B(:, j) = [G(X(j)=X(j)+,

F) G(X(j),

F)]/, where epsilon is small relative to


anticipated solution of these equations. Consequently, B is a square matrix of size
12(N+1).
(iv) Calculate the updated X as X = XB
1
G.
(v) Repeat steps (ii) to (iv) until norm of G is smaller than the required tolerance.
Newton-Raphson method requires inversion of 12(N + 1) square matrix makes it slow,
however, the convergence is achieved in 2-5 steps for well posed boundary conditions.
3.2 Benchmark Static Problems
GEBT can be used for a large number of cases involving slender beams without any
restriction on cross-section, material variety, boundary conditions or load distribution,
provided the nite elements are appropriately chosen to take these variations into ac-
count. GEBT is essentially based on the concept of dimensional reduction of complex
beam structures like large aspect ratio aircraft wings and helicopter blades. These struc-
tures are analyzed, initially, along a reference line and then in the deformed state over
the cross-section to get the complete picture. The following cases considered in the
present thesis for static analysis involve prismatic beams.
3.2.1 Bending moment applied at the tip of an elastica
This case is of signicance as it serves as the basis for verication of any theory with
the analytical solution. An elastica is dened as the shape of the curve into which the
central-line of a thin, prismatic rod is bent on application of forces and moments, applied
at its tip [8]. It is more of a theoretical concept, with no limit on the permissible loading.
The governing dierential equation for this case is given by
EI
d
ds
= M(s) (3.22)
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 22
where is the slope, M(s) is the bending moment of the segment at distance s in local
deformed coordinate system. Solving this equation for cantilevered boundary conditions,
the expression for displacements are found to be
(s) =
TS
EI
(3.23)
u(s) =
EI
T
sin(
Ts
EI
) s (3.24)
v(s) =
EI
T
[1 cos(
Ts
EI
)] (3.25)
The present work attempts to solve the elastica problem of Hopkins and Ormiston [7].
Relevant properties for modeling are provided in Table - 3.1 . Figure - 3.1 shows the
excellent conrmation of the current work with analytical solution. The RCAS solution
of Hopkins and Ormiston [7] are not shown here due to indistinguishable overlap.
Dimension
Material
Properties
Accuracy Boundary Conditions
L 6.096 m E 71.6 GPa Node,N 20 M
2
= NEI/L,
w 15.24 cm G 26.9 GPa Perturbation, 10
4
where, = 0.05556
t 9.5 mm 2800 kgm
3
Tolerance, 10
9
and 0.2778
Table 3.1: Simulation Parameters for Elastica with Tip Moment
When the tip moment is increased to M
L
= 0.2778
NEI
L
the superiority of the current
approach over the solution from RCAS
1
is clearly visible in Figure - 3.2. Here the nite
rotations were modelled by Wiener-Milenkovic parameters[20] to avoid singularity, as
described in section-2.5, encountered when beam rotations nears 2. GEBT is thus
suitable for exible beams undergoing large deformation where approximate methods
tend to fail due to accumulated errors.
3.2.2 Dead (non-follower) force applied at the tip of an elastica
Analytical solution exists for tip loaded elastica in line with that of section 3.2.1. This
case is of practical signicance and many experiments are designed to verify the theories
1
RCAS (Rotorcraft Comprehensive Analysis System) is a rotorcraft comprehensive analysis code (see
Section-5.2) that uses second order FEM coupled to multibody formulation for beam analysis.
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 23


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Axial Position,
2
r
1
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

2
r
3
Analytical
Current
Figure 3.1: Spanwise position of elastica deformed by tip moment (when
2
R/N =
0.05556).
developed to model the deformations in this case. The governing dierential equation
for this case is given by Doyle [29] (page-176).
EI
d
2

ds
2
= Psinsin Pcoscos = Pcos( +) (3.26)
Solving equation for transverse loading and cantilevered boundary conditions ( = 0),
the tip displacements are obtained by numerically evaluating the integrals:
J
1
(
L
) =
_

L
0
d
_
sin(
L
+) sin( +)
=

2 (3.27)
J
2
(
L
) =
_

L
0
sind
_
sin(
L
+) sin( +)
=

L
v
L
(3.28)
J
3
(
L
) =
_

L
0
(cos 1) d
_
sin(
L
+) sin( +)
=

L
u
L
(3.29)
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 24


1 0.5 0 0.5 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Axial Position,
2
r
1
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

2
r
3
Analytical
RCAS
Current
Figure 3.2: Spanwise position of elastica deformed by tip moment (when
2
R/N =
0.2778).
Relevant properties for modeling are provided in Table - 3.2. The present work obtains
excellent correlation with analytical solution as evident in Figs. 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. The
superiority of the GEBT over multibody nite element formulation (used in RCAS)
results is also visible as the former unlike the latter not only follows the trend but also
makes accurate prediction of tip deformation and rotation.
Dimension
Material
Properties
Accuracy Boundary Conditions
L 6.096 m E 71.6 GPa Node,N 20 F
3
= EI/L
2
,
w 15.24 cm G 26.9 GPa Perturbation, 10
4
where, = 0 to 5
t 9.5 mm 2800 kgm
3
Tolerance, 10
9
Table 3.2: Simulation Parameters for Elastica with Tip Load
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 25


0 1 2 3 4 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Normalized Load, P
3
R
2
/EI
2
T
i
p

A
n
g
l
e

o
f

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

|

2
(
R
)
|

[
d
e
g
]
Analytical
RCAS
Current
Figure 3.3: Angle rotated by elastica tip under transverse load.


0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Normalized Load, P
3
R
2
/EI
2
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

T
i
p

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

u
3
(
R
)
/
R
Analytical
RCAS
Current
Figure 3.4: Vertical deection of elastica tip under transverse load.
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 26


0 1 2 3 4 5
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Normalized Load, P
3
R
2
/EI
2
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

T
i
p

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

u
3
(
R
)
/
R
Analytical
RCAS
Current
Figure 3.5: Horizontal deection of elastica tip under transverse load
3.2.3 Princeton beam experiment
Princeton Beam experiments were a series of benchmark results published by Dowell and
Traybar [23, 24] to study the static nonlinear deformations of slender beams under tip
load. The deformations were identical to that of a rotor blade ap, lag and twist motion.
A number of previous attempts have been made to model these deections. Dowell
et al. [30] employed nonlinear theory for modeling moderate deformations. Hopkins and
Ormiston [7] employed RCAS to model these results using multibody methods. Hodges
and Patil [28] uses GEBT, as does the current work. Figure 3.6 provides a schematic of
the experimental setup used in the Princeton Beam experiments for static deformation
estimation. The setup consists of a milling machine type precision, indexing-chuck with
specially fabricated end xtures to provide near ideal cantilevered boundary conditions
as well as to get desired pitch angle. Figure 3.7 shows loading condition and resultant
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 27
deformation for a general pitch angle, . The characteristic nonlinear ap-lag-torsion
coupling is easily visible.
Figure 3.6: Schematic of the experimental setup used in Princeton Beam experiments.
Figure 3.7: Load applied to a cantilevered beam: undeformed and deformed states[23].
For modeling the beam used in Princeton Beam experiments, the axis system like that
shown in Figure 3.8 was used. X-Y-Z represents the inertial coordinate system, while
U-V-W represents body xed coordinate system post deformation. Figure 3.9 shows the
end view (tip to root) of the blade showing the reference pitch angle as well as the sense
of measurement of the same.
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 28
Figure 3.8: Beam cross-section showing space-xed and body-xed axes system.
Dimension
Material
Properties
Accuracy
Boundary
Conditions
L 0.508 m E 71.6 GPa N 8 F
3
13.345 N
w 12.7 cm G 26.9 GPa 10
9

1
0to 90
t 3.2 mm 2800 kgm
3
10
9
Table 3.3: Princeton Beam Simulation Parameters
These experiments are testimonial of the fact that large deformations cannot be modeled
by linear methods which will simply ignore the coupling in bending and torsion modes.
Hence, a number of attempts have been made to model these deformations by nonlinear
methods, multibody formulation, GEBT etc. The present thesis uses geometrically exact
beam modeling to reproduce results in correlation with the experimental benchmarks.
The initial pitch deections were taken into account by the rotation matrix, C
ab
which
aligns the rotated coordinate system U-V-W with undeformed beam. The distributed
gravitational load as well as the tip load acted as dead load and were in the space-xed
coordinate system X-Y-Z. The resultant deformations and twist are to be expressed in
the same space-xed coordinate system for validation with the previous results.
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 29
Figure 3.9: Princeton beam end view showing variation of the pitch angle, using
indexing chuck[24].
The beam is rectangular, prismatic with thickness and chord much smaller than the
length. The material of the beam is 7075-T651 Aluminum alloy. The input parame-
ters for the Princeton Beam problem are given in Table - 3.3. Figure - 3.10 shows the
vertical deections for the cantilevered beam as obtained experimentally and modelled
using GEBT. Figure - 3.11 provides a comparison of the horizontal deections of the
cantilevered beam under vertically applied loads with excellent prediction of the experi-
mental outcome. This shows coupling between ap and lag modes in the cases when the
beam coordinate system is not aligned with the space-xed coordinate system. Figure -
3.12 depicts the twist in the beam due to beams own weight and the applied tip load.
Once again good agreement (within experimental limitations) is demonstrated.
A slight discrepancy is observed in twist modeling which is not unique and is observed
in other methods also [7]. This can be attributed to the fact that twist deformation is
sensitive to tip twisting moment, which can arise due to even slight displacement of load
pane from centre of the chord creating a moment arm between beam vertical reference
line and the tip load.
These results show that GEBT is highly suitable for modeling slender beams undergoing
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 30


0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Pitch Angle, ||[deg]
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
|
u
2
(
s
,
P
3
,

u
2
(
s
,
0
,

)
|
/
R
GEBT s/R = .25
GEBT s/R = .50
GEBT s/R = .75
GEBT s/R = 1.0
Exp. s/R = .25
Exp. s/R = .50
Exp. s/R = .75
Exp. s/R = 1.0
Figure 3.10: Horizontal deection vs. pitch angle of Princeton Beam for
Tip load = 3 lb (13.3 N).


0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Pitch Angle, ||[deg]
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
|
u
2
(
s
,
P
3
,

u
2
(
s
,
0
,

)
|
/
R
GEBT s/R = .25
GEBT s/R = .50
GEBT s/R = .75
GEBT s/R = 1.0
Exp. s/R = .25
Exp. s/R = .50
Exp. s/R = .75
Exp. s/R = 1.0
Figure 3.11: Vertical deection vs. pitch angle of Princeton Beam for
Tip load = 3 lb (13.3 N).
Chapter 3. Beam Statics: Verication and Validation 31


0 15 30 45
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Pitch Angle, ||[deg]
T
w
i
s
t
,

|

1
(
s
,
P
3
,

1
(
s
,
0
,

)
|

[
d
e
g
]
GEBT s/R = .25
GEBT s/R = .50
GEBT s/R = .75
GEBT s/R = 1.0
Exp. s/R = .25
Exp. s/R = .50
Exp. s/R = .75
Exp. s/R = 1.0
Figure 3.12: Twist deformation vs. pitch angle of Princeton Beam for
Tip load = 3 lb (13.3 N).
arbitrary loading and deformations. The only condition is the linear constitutive rela-
tions should hold good and the material should remain in elastic limits. Having said that,
it covers a large range of applications as mentioned earlier. Not only this, the beams
with initial curvatures, sweep or non-uniformity can be modeled using this method. A
particular utility of GEBT lies in modeling slender composite beams with any kind of
nonlinear coupling due to various ply arrangements. However, static deformation is just
a special case of the greater purpose that GEBT can serve beam dynamics.
Chapter 4
Beam Dynamics: Verication and
Validation
The dynamics of moving beams are of particular interest for various Aerospace and
Mechanical applications including ying wings, rotating blades, driving shafts, high
temperature gas turbines and wind turbines to name a few. In the previous Chapter a
specialized case of the mixed variational formulation of GEBT was used to demonstrate
its utility in static load-deformation characterization. In addition to that, as mentioned
in Chapter-2, GEBT can be used to predict the steady-state and time-dependent re-
sponse for slender beams. Also, this formulation can be used to predict the natural
frequencies of static and rotating beams by introducing small perturbations about the
steady state and performing eigenvalue analysis.
The complete set of equations (2.58)-(2.71) described in Chapter - 2 is required for
complete description of beam dynamics. The solution procedure for dynamic response,
though implemented, is not validated and hence left for future works to be pursued. The
present thesis validates the frequency estimation of beams for both xed and rotating
cases. A number of attempts have been made to validate several beam theories with the
frequency results of Princeton Beam for xed frame and Maryland Beam for dynamic
case. While GEBT is wonderful for response canculations, natural frequency estimation
is not straight forward. If all the subtleties of modeling are taken care of then the
GEBT makes quite accurate estimation of these frequencies as described in Hodges and
Patil [28] and Hodges et al. [19]. Only the multibody method adopted by Hopkins and
32
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 33
Ormiston [7] provides accuracy of the same order as the present methods. Following is
a list of cases considered for validation of frequency estimations by present work:
Analytical frequencies of a cantilevered beam
Fixed frame case of Princeton beam
Rotating frame case of Maryland beam
It should be noted that the natural frequency of the system decides the structural
dynamic characteristics of a system and hence is considered ahead of the beam response
problem.
4.1 Estimation of Natural Frequencies
The equations described in Chapter-2 were represented in nonlinear form as
G(X,

X,

F) = 0 (4.1)
To calculate natural frequencies, these equations need to be linearized in time by intro-
ducing small perturbations about the steady state. This gives a linear equation of the
form[19]
A

X+B

X =

F (4.2)
where
A =
G

X
B =
G

X
and

F represents dynamic boundary conditions which is 0 for analysis about the steady
state.
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 34
Frequency estimation is a two step procedure; rstly, determining the steady state of the
system under the given set of loading and boundary conditions, and then introducing
small perturbations to form the basis for eigenvalue analysis. Slender beams with pre-
twist, taper, sweep and dierent elastic and CG axes can be modelled by this method.
Slight modications as discussed in Chapter-2 can be made to accommodate complicated
boundary conditions like root oset, ap and/or lag hinge, and even joined beams and
exible root supports with a variety of spring coecients.
Another method which can be used to predict rst fundamental frequencies in all bending
and torsion modes is by obtaining the dynamic response of the system under an impulsive
loading. Then, performing the Fourier transform of this response gives the natural
frequencies of fundamental modes. However, this method is not suitable, as large amount
of time required for sucient number of time marches. Further, the resolution of the
FFT algorithm used for Fourier analysis depends on the number and size of the time
steps, which are dicult to predetermine.
4.1.1 Steady State Analysis
To perform steady state analysis the set of equations (2.58)-(2.71) from Chapter - 2 are
modied by eliminating the time dependent terms. This leaves the formulation with
18N + 12 equations and the same number of variables. Given below are the set of
equations required to perform the steady state analysis using GEBT:
At the starting node,
f

u
1


F
1
= 0(unknown) (4.3)
f


M
1
= 0(unknown) (4.4)
f

F
1
u

1
= 0(known) (4.5)
f

M
1
c

1
= 0(known) (4.6)
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 35
At the ending node,
f
+
u
N
F

N+1
= 0(known) (4.7)
f
+

N
M

N+1
= 0(known) (4.8)
f
+
F
N
+ u
N+1
= 0(unknown) (4.9)
f
+
M
N
+c
N+1
= 0(unknown) (4.10)
At the intermediate points of the elements (for i = 1 to N-1),
f
+
u
i
+f

u
i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.11)
f
+

i
+f

i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.12)
f
+
F
i
+f

F
i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.13)
f
+
M
i
+f

M
i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.14)
The modied f matrices for the steady state are presented below:
f

u
i
= C
T
C
ab
F
i

i
+
L
i
2
[
a
C
T
C
ab
P
i
] (4.15)
f

i
= C
T
C
ab
M
i
m

i

L
i
2
[
a
C
T
C
ab
H
i
+C
T
C
ab
(e
1
+
i
)F
i
)] (4.16)
f

F
i
= u
i

L
i
2
[C
T
C
ab
(e
1
+
i
) C
ab
e
1
)] (4.17)
f

M
i
= c
i

L
i
2
Q
1
a
C
ab

i
(4.18)
f
P
i
= C
T
C
ab
V
i
v
i

a
u
i
(4.19)
f
H
i
=
i
C
ba
C
a
(4.20)
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 36
Here,

i
=
_
1
0
(1 )f
a
L
i
d (4.21)

f
+
i
=
_
1
0
f
a
L
i
d (4.22)
m

i
=
_
1
0
(1 )m
a
L
i
d (4.23)
m
+
i
=
_
1
0
m
a
L
i
d (4.24)
where,
=
x
1
L
i
L
i
(4.25)
The equations could be represented in compact notation as G(X,

F) = 0 where G rep-
resents the set of vector equations (3.1)-(3.12) as functions of:
18N + 12 unknowns X :

F
1
,

M
1
, u
1
, c
1
, F
1
, M
1
, V
1
,
1
, ..., u
N
, c
N
, F
N
, M
N
, V
N
,
N
, u
N+1
, c
N+1
12 boundary conditions

F : u

1
, c

1
, F

N+1
, M

N+1
Loading conditions: f , m, v,
The set G represents a set of nonlinear equations which cannot be solved explicitly,
hence, solved iteratively by Newton-Raphson method. The procedure for implementa-
tion of the same is described below.
(i) Assume an initial guess for unknowns X. An ideal guess would be static, unde-
formed state X = 0.
(ii) Calculate G(X,

F), where

F are known boundary conditions.
(iii) Populate Jacobian matrix by perturbing previous X such that j = 1 to 12(N+1);
B(:, j) = [G(X|X(j)=X(j)+epsilon,

F) G(X),

F)]/, where epsilon is small rela-


tive to anticipated solution of these equations. Consequently, B is a square matrix
of size 18N+12.
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 37
(iv) Calculate the updated X as X = XB
1
G.
(v) Repeat steps (ii) to (iv) until norm of G is smaller than the required tolerance.
(vi) Return the value of the Jacobian B and steady state variables X for use in pertur-
bation analysis.
The prediction of correct steady state is very important for accurate frequency pre-
dictions because the deformation in this state aects the tangent stiness and inertia
matrices highlighting the importance of nonlinear analysis[19].
4.1.2 Perturbation Analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to obtain the A matrix of equation-4.2. The method here
is same as that for calculate the Jacobian matrix B except that it requires no iteration
and convergence. The equations used here are essentially the time derivative terms of
equations 2.58-2.71. They are presented below for ready reference.
At the starting node,
f

u
1


F
1
= 0(unknown) (4.26)
f


M
1
= 0(unknown) (4.27)
f

F
1
u

1
= 0(known) (4.28)
f

M
1
c

1
= 0(known) (4.29)
At the ending node,
f
+
u
N
F

N+1
= 0(known) (4.30)
f
+

N
M

N+1
= 0(known) (4.31)
f
+
F
N
+ u
N+1
= 0(unknown) (4.32)
f
+
M
N
+c
N+1
= 0(unknown) (4.33)
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 38
At the intermediate points of the elements (for i = 1 to N-1),
f
+
u
i
+f

u
i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.34)
f
+

i
+f

i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.35)
f
+
F
i
+f

F
i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.36)
f
+
M
i
+f

M
i+1
= 0(unknown) (4.37)
Also in each of the elements (for i = 1 to N)
f
P
i
= 0, (unknown) (4.38)
f
H
i
= 0, (unknown) (4.39)
The modied f matrices for the perturbation case are presented below:
f

u
i
=
L
i
2
[

C
T
C
ab
P
i
] (4.40)
f

i
=
L
i
2
[

C
T
C
ab
H
i
] (4.41)
f

F
i
= 0 (4.42)
f

M
i
= 0 (4.43)
f
P
i
= u
i
(4.44)
f
H
i
= C
ba
Q
a
c
i
(4.45)
The equations could be represented in compact notation as G(

X,

F) = 0. These equa-
tions will be trivially satised at the steady state. At this step, iteration is not required
and the A matrix can be determined in the same way as the Jacobian matrix B was
determined in section-4.1.1 by following the steps given below.
(i) For each value of

X introduce small perturbations which is assumed to be small.
(ii) Corresponding to each of these perturbed values of

X, populate the A matrix one
column at a time by dividing the returned G vector with epsilon. In short, j = 1
to 18N+12; A(:, j) = G(

X|

X(j)=

X(j)+epsilon,

F)/. Consequently, Ais a square


matrix of size 18N+12.
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 39
Now that both A and B matrices of equation 4.2 are obtained, a direct use of eig
function of MATLAB will give multiple roots of which imaginary parts are our required
natural frequencies.
4.2 Results and Validation
This section provides the details of intricacies involved in the modeling of xed and
rotating frame dynamic problems. The frequencies provided here are the result of eigen-
values generated from MATLAB eig function in sorted order and are not veried from
eigenvectors for various modes due to lack of detailed literature.
4.2.1 Cantilevered Beam
This case is considered to compare the results of GEBT with analytical solution pre-
sented in Hopkins and Ormiston [7]. The rst natural frequency of a clamped-free
uniform, prismatic beam is given by:
= (1.875)
2

EI
wtL
4
(4.46)
where w is the chord, t is the thickness and R is length of the beam. Table-4.1 provides
the dimensions of the beam and its material properties. Table-4.2 provides the atwise
and edgewise frequency data for analytical. experimental and simulaton results.
Dimension
Material
Properties
Accuracy
Boundary
Conditions
L 0.508 m E 71.6 GPa Node,N 30 Fixed-free with gravity
w 12.7 cm G 26.9 GPa Perturbation, 10
9

1
root
= 0and 90
t 3.2 mm 2800 kgm
3
Tolerance, 10
9
Table 4.1: Simulation Parameters for Frequency estimation of Cantilevered Beam
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 40
Method Flatwise Edgewise
Anaytical 10.049 40.196
GEBT 0 10.052 40.134
GEBT 90 10.053 40.125
Experimental 10.150 41.143
Table 4.2: Frequency data (in Hz) for Cantilevered Beam
4.2.2 Princeton Beam Experiment
Princeton Beam experiment established benchmark not only for static deections but
also for natural frequencies for a cantilevered case. The schematic of the experimental
setup is shown in Figure-4.1. While the precision chuck and beam are same as in the
static case, load is applied by tip mass slid over the tip of the beam as shown in Figure-
4.2. The two modes of vibration are shown in Figure-4.3 for various root setting angles.
Figure 4.1: Schematic of the experimental setup used for frequency estimation in
Princeton Beam experiment showing tip mass.
The properties of the beam are given in Table-4.3. The properties of tip masses are
provided in Table-4.4. The nite dimension of these masses and their positioning with
each half on the either side of the beam tip has to be taken into account for modeling.
The beam (including tip mass) is divided into 16 nite elements for accurate analysis.
Weight of the beam as well as the tip mass has to be taken into account.
The beauty of GEBT lies in the fact that no separate treatment of the tip mass is
required. It can be considered as a nite element with dierent area and moment of
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 41
Figure 4.2: Princeton beam showing location of cylindrical tip mass[23].
Figure 4.3: Fundamental modes of vibration of Princeton beam at dierent root
setting angles[23].
Dimension
Material
Properties
Accuracy
Boundary
Conditions
L 0.508 m E 71.6 GPa N 8 F
3
13.345 N
w 12.7 cm G 26.9 GPa 10
9

1
0to 90
t 3.2 mm 2800 kgm
3
10
9
Table 4.3: Simulation Parameters for Frequency Estimation of Princeton Beam
inertias acted upon by the same gravitational acceleration as the rest of the beam. The
presence of nite rotations as intrinsic parameters facilitate the construction of trans-
formation matrices from deformed to undeformed frame and vice versa. This further
simplies the treatment of dead forces like gravity and follower forces and moments like
aerodynamic lift, drag, pitching moment etc.
Figure-4.4 shows the excellent correlation of the Princeton Beam experimental data with
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 42
Property Tip Mass I Tip Mass II
Mass 0.9072 kg 1.3608 kg
Length, L
tip
0.0615 m 0.0703
Outer radius, R
tip
0.0865 m 0.0895 m
Inner radius, r
tip
0.0762 m 0.0762
Modied Beam Length
L +L
tip
/2
0.5383 m 0.5428 m
Table 4.4: Properties of tip mass used in Princeton Beam experiment


0 30 60 90
1
2
3
4
5
Pitch Angle, || [deg]
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

[
H
z
]
Current Flapwise (2 lb)
Current Chordwise (2 lb)
Exp. Flapwise (2 lb)
Exp. Chordwise (2 lb)
Current Flapwise (3 lb)
Current Chordwise (3 lb)
Exp. Flapwise (3 lb)
Exp. Chordwise (3 lb)
Figure 4.4: Twist deformation vs. pitch angle of Princeton Beam for
Tip load = 3 lb (13.3 N).
the simulation results. These results surpass, in accuracy, those given in Dowell et al.
[30] and Hopkins and Ormiston [7].
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 43
4.2.3 Maryland Beam Experiment
Maryland beam experiments were designed to understand the eect of sweep on the
natural frequencies of a rotating beam made of both aluminum and composites. These
experiments were carried out in a vacuum chamber, hence the aerodynamic forces are
negligible and gravity is the only external force causing out of plane deformations. These
experiments served as the basis to verify the various theoretical models made to pre-
dict these frequencies. Swept tips causes ap-torsion coupling in cantilevered beams.
Previous attempts to model these experimental ndings have been made by Epps and
Chandra [25] using nonlinear methods, Hopkins and Ormiston [7] using multibody RCAS
code and Hodges et al. [19] using GEBT with varying degree of accuracy.
The present thesis uses GEBT for modeling the tip-swept beams whose geometry is
shown in Figure-4.5. The properties used in modeling are given in Table-4.5. A root
oset of 2.5 in. was modelled by assuming a rigid element of that size. Tip sweep
was modelled by introducing an equivalent rotation angle in the undeformed coordi-
nate frame and accounting for it in the C
ab
matrix. The angular velocity, of each
element considered for comparison with experimental data is 0, 500 or 750 RPM. The
corresponding velocity of each element is given by
v(i) = (i) r(i)
where r(i) is the radial location of the centre of element i in undeformed coordinate
system measured from the rotation axis. Figure-4.6 provides the details of nite element
mesh used for the analysis and is inspired by Hodges et al. [19]. Rening meshes near
the junction takes into account the large changes in intrinsic variables between straight
and swept part.
Findings of the simulation along with the experimental results are reported in gures 4.7
to 4.11. There is a good correlation between the experimental and theoretical results for
lower frequencies. At higher modes due to coupling between ap bending and torsion the
results show some deviation. Nevertheless, the trend is accurately followed. A further
analysis of eigenvectors is required to resolve the issue of coupling for higher frequencies.
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 44
Figure 4.5: Schematic of Maryland beam showing tip sweep and root oset[19].












Figure 4.6: Finite element discretization of Maryland beam.
Dimension
Material
Properties
Accuracy
Boundary
Conditions
L 40 in E 1.06 10
7
psi N 16 Fixed-free
w 1 in G 4 10
6
psi 10
6
L
root
2.5 in
t 0.0625 in 2.51 10
4
lb.sec
2
/in
4
10
4

sweep
0to 45
L
swept
6 in t 10
3
RPM 0, 500, 750
Table 4.5: Maryland Beam Simulation Parameters
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 15 30 45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
.
)

Tip Sweep Angle (deg.)
GEBT 0 RPM GEBT 500 RPM GEBT 750 RPM
Exp. 0 RPM Exp. 500 RPM Exp. 750 RPM
Figure 4.7: Eect of tip sweep and RPM on 1
st
ap-bending frequency of Maryland
Beam
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 15 30 45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
.
)

Tip Sweep Angle (deg.)
GEBT 0 RPM GEBT 500 RPM GEBT 750 RPM
Exp. 0 RPM Exp. 500 RPM Exp. 750 RPM
Figure 4.8: Eect of tip sweep and RPM on 2
nd
ap-bending frequency of Maryland
Beam
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 15 30 45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
.
)

Tip Sweep Angle (deg.)
GEBT 0 RPM GEBT 500 RPM GEBT 750 RPM
Exp. 0 RPM Exp. 500 RPM Exp. 750 RPM
Figure 4.9: Eect of tip sweep and RPM on 3
rd
ap-bending frequency of Maryland
Beam
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 15 30 45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
.
)

Tip Sweep Angle (deg.)
GEBT 0 RPM GEBT 500 RPM GEBT 750 RPM
Exp. 0 RPM Exp. 500 RPM Exp. 750 RPM
Figure 4.10: Eect of tip sweep and RPM on 4
th
ap-bending frequency of Maryland
Beam
Chapter 4. Beam Dynamics: Verication and Validation 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 15 30 45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
.
)

Tip Sweep Angle (deg.)
GEBT 0 RPM GEBT 500 RPM GEBT 750 RPM
Exp. 0 RPM Exp. 500 RPM Exp. 750 RPM
Figure 4.11: Eect of tip sweep and RPM on 5
th
ap-bending frequency of Maryland
Beam
These ndings show that the codes developed in the present thesis can be used for
xed as well as rotating beam dynamics including that of actual blade rotors. When
aerodynamics forces come in play, such as in actual rotor blades, the deformations
involved are much larger and nonlinear theories tend to fail in such cases. It is here that
GEBT acts as an integrated tool for dening the complete dynamics of practical beam
structures.
Chapter 5
Conclusion and Recommendation
This thesis discusses the development of a Geometrically Exact Beam Formulation for
modeling large deformation in advanced geometry rotor blades. Combined with a sec-
tional analysis tool like VABS [31] a complete 3-D analysis of slender beam with even
complex cross sections can be performed. The codes developed under the present thesis
are able to perform high-delity analysis of both statics and dynamics. These codes can
be used in various engineering disciplines that require accurate tools to model highly
deformable beams.
5.1 Summary
First, the verication of the present analysis for the deections of a cantilevered beams
loaded with tip moment and tip load was carried out. The predictions showed very good
correlation for deformation of elastica due to both tip moment and tip force. Next, the
present simulation was veried against the static deformations of the Princeton Beam
theory. Again, good correlation was obtained between the simulation and experimental
results.
The real application of GEBT lies in modeling dynamic response and natural frequencies
of beam structures. While the response part was left to be pursued in future, frequency
predictions were carried out for stationary and then rotating beams to validate the dy-
namics modelling capability. Flatwise and chordwise frequencies of a slender cantilevered
48
Chapter 5. Conclusion and Recommendation 49
beam were obtained by GEBT and compared with analytical solution. The next step
was to calculate the ap and lag frequencies of a cantilevered beam with varying root
setting angle and a rigid mass slid at the tip of the beam. These results were compared
with the famous Princeton Beam Experiment with excellent agreement. Finally, the pre-
diction for natural frequencies were compared for rotating beams with root oset and
tip sweep with those of the Maryland Beam Experiment. For the rst four fundamental
modes the frequencies matched well with the experimental data.
5.2 Scope and Recommendation
This thesis was taken up to develop codes for structural dynamic modeling part of a
bigger comprehensive rotor analysis system. A number of such software exists for com-
mercial, military and research applications. Johnson [32] has talked in detail about
the historical development and progress made in the eld of rotorcraft comprehensive
analyses. He denes comprehensive analyses as the tools to predict the aeromechanical
characteristics of rotor and aircraft. These tools involve subsystems to model geome-
try, structure, aerodynamics and control inputs. The aim is to estimate critical traits
like trim, air loads, structural loads, blade response, vibration, noise, stability and per-
formance in an iterative fashion. Figure-5.1 from [32] shows the history of various
comprehensive analysis tools and their corresponding funding agencies.
Since Geometrically Exact Beam Theory or any such predecessor is not a part of normal
curriculum, a lot of time was spent in exploring the literature and understanding the
concept. Being just a couple of decades old (after Hodges [13]), not many books and
papers are available explaining the solution procedure and the details of modeling. This
thesis has attempted to make the job easier by explaining the same in detail for the
GEBT in general in Chapter-2 and for the problems solved in particular in chapters 3
and 4.
At present four types of problems as mentioned in Chapter-2 can be solved using GEBT.
The trickiest part of is calculation of dynamic response. Here, convergence is required
at each time step with some values (as initial values) to be carried forward to next
Chapter 5. Conclusion and Recommendation 50
Figure 5.1: A brief history of comprehensive analyses tools and their developing
agencies[32].
steps. The time dependent variables are, by the design of this time-marching scheme,
not continuous between successive time steps. This blows up the time derivative terms
when they are approximated as

X =
X
t+t
X
t
t
Only few time-marching schemes such as backward dierencing converge for this case.
However, the response is somewhat dependent on the type of time marching scheme, and
the result from one type may not be as accurate as the other one. To resolve this issue,
a more in-depth insight is required in FEM and time-marching procedures, with specic
reference to the current requirement. The eect of the length of time step also need to
be studies. One method is to employ a space-time kind of shape functions[14] which
performs iteration over the whole time domain in one go. For large beams undergoing
Chapter 5. Conclusion and Recommendation 51
large deformations, variable order FEM as explained in Patil and Hodges [22] can be
performed for more accuracy and eciency.
A lot of research groups all over the academic world are using GEBT to solve many
challenging nonlinear problems. Khouli et al. [33] provides details of modeling for artic-
ulated rotor blades with root oset, structural damping and tip sweep. Lee et al. [34]
combines GEBT with aerodynamic model of CAMRAD to model inow distribution for
helicopter in steady hover. Sotoudeh and Hodges [35] discusses various boundary con-
ditions that need to be used while analyzing structures using GEBT. While the eects
of dynamics and elasticity are taken into account in GEBT, unsteady aerodynamics
and aeroelasticity are to be integrated for complete analysis. Further, GEBT is also
developed for thin elastic plates [36] which could be used to model thin plates and shells
undergoing arbitrary deformations.
Bibliography
[1] Dewey H Hodges and EH Dowell. Nonlinear equations of motion for the elastic
bending and torsion of twisted nonuniform rotor blades. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 1974.
[2] Dewey H Hodges, Robert A Ormiston, and David A Peters. On the nonlinear
deformation geometry of Euler-Bernoulli beams. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Scientic and Technical Information Oce, 1980.
[3] Aviv Rosen and Peretz P Friedmann. Nonlinear equations of equilibrium for elastic
helicopter or wind turbine blades undergoing moderate deformation. Technical
report, California Univ., Los Angeles (USA), 1978.
[4] Wayne Johnson. Aeroelastic analysis for rotorcraft in ight or in a wind tunnel.
1994.
[5] Olivier A Bauchau and NK Kang. A multibody formulation for helicopter structural
dynamic analysis. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 38(2):314, 1993.
[6] Hossein Saberi, Maryam Khoshlahjeh, Robert A Ormiston, and Michael J
Rutkowski. Overview of rcas and application to advanced rotorcraft problems.
In American Helicopter Society 4th Decennial Specialists Conference on Aerome-
chanics, San Francisco, CA, 2004.
[7] A Stewart Hopkins and Robert A Ormiston. An examination of selected problems in
rotor blade structural mechanics and dynamics. Journal of the American Helicopter
Society, 51(1):104119, 2006.
[8] AEH Love. The mathematical theory of elasticity. 1927.
[9] Eric Reissner. On one-dimensional nite-strain beam theory: the plane problem.
Zeitschrift f ur angewandte Mathematik und Physik ZAMP, 23(5):795804, 1972.
[10] E Reissner. On one-dimensional large-displacement nite-strain beam theory. Stud-
ies in applied mathematics, 52:8795, 1973.
52
Bibliography 53
[11] JC Simo. A nite strain beam formulation. the three-dimensional dynamic problem.
part i. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 49(1):5570, 1985.
[12] Juan Carlos Simo and Loc Vu-Quoc. On the dynamics in space of rods undergo-
ing large motionsa geometrically exact approach. Computer methods in applied
mechanics and engineering, 66(2):125161, 1988.
[13] Dewey H Hodges. A mixed variational formulation based on exact intrinsic equa-
tions for dynamics of moving beams. International journal of solids and structures,
26(11):12531273, 1990.
[14] Dewey H Hodges. Geometrically exact, intrinsic theory for dynamics of curved and
twisted anisotropic beams. AIAA journal, 41(6):11311137, 2003.
[15] Gordan Jelenic and Miran Saje. A kinematically exact space nite strain beam
modelnite element formulation by generalized virtual work principle. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 120(1):131161, 1995.
[16] Gordan Jelenic and MA Criseld. Geometrically exact 3d beam theory: imple-
mentation of a strain-invariant nite element for statics and dynamics. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 171(1):141171, 1999.
[17] P Frank Pai. Three kinematic representations for modeling of highly exible beams
and their applications. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 48(19):2764
2777, 2011.
[18] Dewey H Hodges. Nonlinear composite beam theory. Progress in astronautics and
aeronautics, 213:304, 2006.
[19] Dewey H Hodges, Xiaoyang Shang, and Carlos ES Cesnik. Finite element solution
of nonlinear intrinsic equations for curved composite beams. American Helicopter
Society, Journal, 41(4):313321, 1996.
[20] Qi Wang, Wenbin Yu, and Michael A Sprague. Geometric nonlinear analysis of
composite beams using wiener-milenkovic parameters.
[21] Wenbin Yu and Maxwell Blair. Gebt: A general-purpose nonlinear analysis tool for
composite beams. Composite Structures, 94(9):26772689, 2012.
[22] Mayuresh J Patil and Dewey H Hodges. Variable-order nite elements for non-
linear, intrinsic, mixed beam equations. In ANNUAL FORUM PROCEEDINGS-
AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY, volume 62, page 601. AMERICAN HE-
LICOPTER SOCIETY, INC, 2006.
Bibliography 54
[23] E. H. Dowell and J. J. Traybar. An experimental study of the nonlinear stiness of
a rotor blade undergoing ap, lag and twist deformations. 1975.
[24] E. H. Dowell and J. J. Traybar. An experimental study of the nonlinear stiness of
a rotor blade undergoing ap, lag and twist deformations. 1975.
[25] Jeanette J Epps and Ramesh Chandra. The natural frequencies of rotating com-
posite beams with tip sweep. Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 41(1):
2936, 1996.
[26] Donald A Danielson and Dewey H Hodges. Nonlinear beam kinematics by de-
composition of the rotation tensor. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 54(2):258262,
1987.
[27] Thomas R Kane and David A Levinson. Dynamics, theory and applications. Mc-
Graw Hill, 1985.
[28] Dewey H Hodges and Mayuresh J Patil. Technical note: Correlation of
geometrically-exact beam theory with the princeton data. Journal of the Amer-
ican Helicopter Society, 49(3):357360, 2004.
[29] James F Doyle. Nonlinear analysis of thin-walled structures: statics, dynamics, and
stability. Springer, 2001.
[30] EH Dowell, J Traybar, and Dewey H Hodges. An experimental-theoretical corre-
lation study of non-linear bending and torsion deformations of a cantilever beam.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 50(4):533544, 1977.
[31] Wenbin Yu, Vitali V Volovoi, Dewey H Hodges, and Xianyu Hong. Validation of the
variational asymptotic beam sectional analysis. AIAA journal, 40(10):21052112,
2002.
[32] Wayne Johnson. A history of rotorcraft comprehensive analyses. 2013.
[33] F Khouli, FF Afagh, and RG Langlois. Application of the rst order generalized-
method to the solution of an intrinsic geometrically exact model of rotor blade
systems. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 4(1):011006, 2009.
[34] Hyun-Ku Lee, SR Viswamurthy, Sang Chul Park, Taeseong Kim, Sang Joon Shin,
and Deog-Kwan Kim. Helicopter rotor load prediction using a geometrically exact
beam with multicomponent model. Journal of Aircraft, 47(4):13821390, 2010.
[35] Zahra Sotoudeh and Dewey H Hodges. Modeling beams with various boundary
conditions using fully intrinsic equations. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 78(3):
031010, 2011.
Bibliography 55
[36] Dewey H Hodges, Wenbin Yu, and Mayuresh J Patil. Geometrically-exact, intrinsic
theory for dynamics of moving composite plates. International Journal of Solids
and Structures, 46(10):20362042, 2009.