FEM APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ALH AIRFRAME,

TAILBOOM AND EMPENNAGE

2001-137

Krishna Holla & B.Pranesh

Rotary Wing Research and Design Centre
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore, INDIA
ABSTRACT

ALH is a multi role, multi mission, twin-engine helicopter. Mainly there are 2 versions, 4.5ton AUW class for skid version and 5.5 ton AUW for wheel version. Skid version is
designed to meet the Army and Air Force requirements, whereas wheel version is designed
to meet Navy and Civil requirements. Flight tests were carried out on both versions
successfully to demonstrate the design requirements.
Extensive static and dynamic analysis of airframe is carried out using MSC.Nastran during
the design and development. Initially skid version of ALH is modelled and optimized. Later,
in order to incorporate the wheel-landing system, the affected structural members are
reconfigured and the analysis is performed. The tailboom and empennage, being common
for skid and wheel version of ALH, is analysed separately using MSC.Nastran. Finite
element analysis performed has been validated during BAF testing. BAF tests were done to
cater for most critical flight and landing conditions, whereas FE analysis is done for all
critical flight and landing conditions. MSC.Nastran is also used extensively in analysis of
individual components like Main Gear Box, ARIS, Transmission components, etc.
This paper briefly presents the role of MSC.Nastran in the design and development of ALH.

1.

INTRODUCTION

ALH airframe is made of a judicious

combination of metallic and composite
materials.
The
Capability
of
MSC.Nastran has been exploited in the
design and development of ALH
airframe, tailboom & empennage.
Iterations were carried out in order to
optimize the structure. Three-view
diagram of ALH is shown in figure1.

Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH)

Airframe, tailboom & empennage
incorporate state of the art technologies
and is designed as a cost effective,
multi-role, multi-mission twin engine
helicopter. The Army/Air Force version
has a skid under carriage, while the
Naval and Civil version features a
retractable-wheeled
tricycle
under
carriage. The cabin is spacious with
seating for up to 14 persons in the highdensity version. ALH has been designed
as per DEF STAN 00970 / MIL -S-8679 /
AR 56 for military applications and the
civil version is designed to meet
FAR/JAR 29 requirements.

2.

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Basic Empty Weight: Basic empty

weight is one of the most significant
features of ALH. The BEW must be
less or at least equal to the BEW of
similar contemporary helicopter.

Construction:
State-of-the-art
technology is used and fabrication of

Fig. 1: Three-View Diagram of ALH

parts is done without the use of

extensive tooling and assembly.

3.

DESIGN FEATURES OF
ALH AIRFRAME:

Interchangeability:
Provision
for
interchangeability
is
given
importance from the initial stage of
design.

3.1

Construction Features:

The airframe, which is considered

to be a static or quasi-static body, can
broadly be divided into fuselage and
Tailboom with empennage structure.
The major assemblies are further
subdivided into various substructures as
shown in figure 3.1.

Maintainability: The Design is done

also considering the maintainability
aspects, i.e., airframe structure has
an easy access to inspect and if
there is any damage due to
unavoidable circumstances then the
retrieval must be easy.

The fuselage portion of the

airframe
is
of
heterogeneous
construction,
having
machined
aluminum alloy frames, built-in sheet
stringer
members,
semimonocoque
aluminium alloy panels, and shells made
of hybrid sandwich construction. Also
parts of the structure are made of
monolithic composite materials and

Other
than
the
above
basic
requirements, the airframe is also
designed to cater for crashworthiness.

AIR FRAME

FUSELAGE

TAIL BOOM
WITH EMPANNAGE

FRONT
COCKPIT
LOWER FLT.
CONTROLS
NOSE/FWD.
L. GEAR
INSTRUMENT
PANEL

MIDDLE
TRANSMISSION
DECK
FUEL TANKS
FLOOR BOARD
EQUIPMENTS
BOTTOM SHELL

AFT
ENGINE DECK
TAILCONE
SIDE SHELL
REAR/
L. GEAR
EQUIPMENT

TAIL BOOM
FWD/AFT

FIN

HOR. STAB.
END PLATES

Fig. 3.1 : AIR FRAME SUB STRUCTURES

hybrid composite sandwich panels.

Substructural construction details are
shown in figure 3.2.

The forward tailboom portion is

made of metallic sandwich construction

Fig 3.2: FUSELAGE 3DETAILS

Fig 3.3: TAILBOOM & EMPENNAGE DETAILS

and the aft tailboom with integrated fin is

made
of
composites.
Horizontal
stabilizer and end plates are made of
composites. Of late, forward tailboom,
side shell, side frames and bottom
shells were developed using composites
and found satisfactory from the BAF
test. Typical constructional features are
shown in figure 3.3.

Design and development process that

was used in ALH airframe to
demonstrate
the
compliance
of
design/specification requirements is
shown in the flow charts (ref. Fig. 4.1)
The structural integrity
crashworthiness
requirements
proven by analysis and testing.

The
airframe
consists
of
composites to the extent of 65% of the
wetted surface area amounting to 30%
by weight. Mainly carbon, kevlar and
glass fiber composites are used in order
to achieve stiffness and strength.
4.

VALIDATION OF AIRFRAME
DESIGN:

4.1

General:

and
are

4.2 Finite Element Analysis:

Airframe primary structure has been

analysed using MSC.Nastran FEM
package

All critical load cases were selected

(from among flight and landing
cases) for the analysis.

Design Specs./
Requirements
Structural
Design criteria
Basic Design &
Loads (estimated)
Flight
Testing Loads
Evaluation

Structural Design
& analyses

Certification Testing
* Ground Test
* Flight Test

Design &
Development of
Crash concepts
Ground testing :* Developmental Tests
* Qualification Tests

Type Certification
Fig. 4.1 : Design and Development Process

Preliminary dimensions arrived at

from conventional analysis form the
initial inputs to FEM model.

The primary structure of the fuselage

has been modeled using axial,
beam, shear panel and plate
elements.
The
Tailboom
and
empennage is common for both skid
and wheel version of ALH. Finite
element analysis of tailboom and fin
was first analysed to speed up the
process.
Typical
examples
of
longitudinal beam of transmission
deck force plots are shown in figure
4.2 and 4.3
5

The FEM model of full Airframe with

model of Tailboom and empennage
is shown in figures 4.4. A separate
FEM model of tailboom with
empennage is shown in figure 4.5.

From the analysis of all critical load

cases, force plots are made and
each of the sections is checked for
the possible failure modes in tension,
compression
and
shear
or
combination
of
these
using
conventional
analysis.
Thus,
optimised sections are arrived at for
each MSC.Nastran run for all the
critical load cases.

Fig 4.2: TRANSMISSION DECK IDEALISATION

Fig 4.3: TYPICAL FORCE PLOT ON LONGITUDINAL BEAMS

as input data for second run. The

process continued until primary

The
new
sectional
properties
calculated from the first run are used

Fig 4.4: FE MODEL OF AIRFRAME

Fig 4.5: FE MODEL OF TAILBOOM

sectional properties are stabilized /

converged.

The tests are carried out on the airframe

for

In a matter of 5 iterations, the

optimised primary sections of the
airframe have been arrived.

Verification of the structural analysis

done using MSC.Nastran FEM

To evaluate structural integrity,

fatigue and damage tolerance
behavior of airframe

To ensure flight safety of the air

frame for the entire flight envelope.

Similar procedure is followed for

Tailboom
and
empennage
structures.

5. BREAKAWAY
FUSELAGE
TESTING (BAF) - CERTIFICATION
ASPECTS.

The specimen is mounted on a

specially designed test rig, which
simulates the loads experienced during
the flights and landing cases. The loads
are applied through computer controlled
servo actuators with a whiffle tree
arrangement as shown in fig 5.1 and
5.2. A total of about 250 strain gauges
are bonded at various critical locations
of the specimen. The strain data is

5.1 General
Breakaway fuselage is a fullscale airframe specimen of the
helicopter,
consisting
of
primary
structural components, which have to be
tested under static and fatigue loads.

Fig 5.1: TEST SET UP OF TAILBOOM

The specimen does not include any
dynamic or functional system of ALH.

acquired by a computer controlled data

acquisition system, which stores the
8

Fig 5.2: TEST SET UP OF AIRFRAME

data and presents in a format for easy
verification and synthesis of the results.

5.2

avoid resonance with the harmonics of

the rotor speed, particularly near 1/rev
and N/rev. Resonance must be avoided
as well with speeds of other rotating
components including the engine,
transmission and the tail rotor. The
analysis of the vibration modes of a
helicopter is a difficult task because of
the complexity of the structure and FE
techniques are useful in finding the
natural frequencies. Fuselage modal
analysis of ALH is carried out using
MSC.Nastran FE model (Fig.-6.1).

Static tests under different

loading conditions

Unit load and limit load tests were

conducted under different boundary
conditions covering symmetric and
unsymmetric flight cases and landing
conditions.
Based on the limit load tests, the
flight envelope expansion up to 3.5g and
critical yaw case were given.

6. Dynamic analysis of airframe

The basic principle in designing
an aircraft with minimum vibration is to
avoid structural resonance with the
frequencies of the exciting forces. The
helicopter airframe must be designed to

Fig 6.1: MSC.Nastran FE MODEL OF

ALH
9

Natural
frequencies
were
measured by carrying out a shake test
on the actual structure. Schematic of the
shake test set up is given in Fig.-6.2.

A reasonably good agreement

between test and analysis was observed
(Fig.-6.3).

Fig 6.2: SHAKE TEST SETUP SCHEMATIC

7.

REMARKS/CONCLUSIONS

1.

By judicious utilisation of the

composite materials in primary as well
as secondary structures, about 30%
weight reduction was achieved in
comparison
with
the
estimated
metallic structures.

2. MSC.Nastran FEM model of the full

airframe could be verified within
engineering accuracy for most critical
flights and landing conditions; thereby,
the Airframe FEM model could be
used for all the other load cases
without having to prove it by full scale
testing,
resulting
in
increased
productivity.
Fig 6.3: COMPARISON OF TEST AND
ANALYSIS RESULTS.

10

3. FE analysis does compare well with

shake test results within engineering
accuracy.

11