PENNSTATE

PS 2.2
1 8 5 5

High Flexibility Rotorcraft Driveshafts using Flexible Matrix Composites and Active Bearing Control
Principal Investigators
Kon-Well Wang, Ph.D. Diefenderfer Chaired Professor in Mechanical Engineering Charles Bakis, Ph.D. Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics Edward Smith, Ph.D. Professor of Aerospace Engineering

Graduate Student supported by RCOE

Bryan Mayrides (M.S. student)

Other Team Members

Hans DeSmidt (Ph.D. student) Ying Shan (Ph.D. student)

Issues of Current Driveline Systems Problem Statement and Technical Barriers Current Drivelines
Segmented shafting with significant # of flex couplings/bearings for misalignment compensation

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Couplings Bearings

Passive dampers needed for supercritical speed shafts

High Maintenance and Cost

Component (bearings, couplings, dampers) wear Shaft balancing and alignment Strict shaft eccentricity tolerances

Issues applicable to both helicopter and tiltrotor

PENNSTATE
Program Goal and Ideas
1 8 5 5

To address the issues with current systems and overcome the technical barriers for achieving a simple, high performance, low vibration, low cost, and low maintenance driveline of rotary-wing aircraft Reduce number of mechanical contact components Reduce maintenance need Suppress vibration and ensure stability Develop and utilize newly emerging materials and active control technologies -- a combination of Flexible matrix composite (FMC) materials and Active magnetic bearings (AMB)

IDEAS ?

PENNSTATE
Ideas Flexible matrix composite (FMC) materials with tailored ply orientations for shafting
Soft in flexure and stiff in torsion to accommodate for large misalignment and effectively transmit power Without multi-segment shafting and large # of bearings/couplings -- reduce cost and maintenance need
Couplings Bearings FMC shaft AMBs
1 8 5 5

Current

New

PENNSTATE
Ideas (cont.)
1 8 5 5

Active magnetic bearings for low maintenance and vibration control While highly flexible composite driveshaft systems have many advantages, their vibration behavior could be issues that need to be addressed before realizing the idea Penn State researchers have explored the feasibility of active vibration control of tailrotor-drivetrain structure via active magnetic bearings (AMB) by proper controller design, the AMB actuator could be a good candidate for helicopter driveline control (size, weight, power) [DeSmidt, Wang, and Smith, Proc of 54th AHS Forum, 1998]
Stator

ElectroMagnetic Coil

Non-contact -- no frictional wear

Shaft Airgap

Large frequency range -- ideal for active vibration control in rotorcraft setting
Light backup roller bearings (only contact with active failure) for fail-safe purpose

PENNSTATE
2004 Review Comments and Actions
1 8 5 5

Assess Potential Payoffs We have examined payoffs for supercritical driveline in previous studies; this year we expanded the study to show potential payoffs (weight and component reductions) for subcritical drivelines via system design Assess Cost Benefit Qualitatively, reducing components/maintenance = reducing cost; To quantify cost benefit requires development on specific drive system with manufacturers and users (future RITA project) Examine Practicality of Magnetic Bearing Have achieved another successful demonstration of AMB controller for FMC shafting with uncertainties In the process of examining AMB design (weight, size, power) in rotorcraft setting via NASA Glenn design code (On-going effort) Have generated new ideas of hybrid active-passive failsafe devices as future basic research topics Address Failure Modes Thorough study beyond scope of current program Have generated ideas/plan to examine this issue as a future basic research topic

PENNSTATE
Research Issues and Task Objectives
1 8 5 5

Materials and Composite Issues

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Issues

Systems and Controls Issues

PENNSTATE
Research Issues and Task Objectives
Materials and Composite Issues
Rationale: Traditional barrier to higher strain operation of fiber composites is matrix cracking Flexible, low-modulus matrix can potentially avoid cracking
RMC
1 8 5 5

FMC

Technical Objectives: Select a trial flexible matrix system (carbon/polyurethane) Develop filament winding process Matrix Matrix Cracking Characterize stiffness & damping behavior and validate models overCracking of temperatures, frequencies, and strains range Build lab-scale shafts for experimental validation of selfheating, structural dynamics, and to investigate fatigue behavior
0 90 90 90 90 0
0 90 0

90 90

PENNSTATE
Materials and Composite Sub-Task
1 8 5 5

Achievements 2001-2003/04 Developed wet filament winding technique for trial flexible matrix composite shafts (carbon/polyurethane) Developed test apparatus & method for characterizing frequency and temperature dependent damping & stiffness of FMC laminas and laminates Developed & validated models for frequency and temperature dependent damping & stiffness of FMC laminas and laminates Developed model and test method to investigate self-heating behavior of rotating misaligned FMC shafts

Summary of Accomplishments in 2004/05: Refined and experimentally validated self-heating model of rotating misaligned FMC shafts

PENNSTATE
Internal Self-Heating Model and Experimental Validation Method for Misaligned Rotating FMC Shafts
Misaligned Rotating Shaft Test Stand for Model Shaft Self-Heating Model Validation and Fatigue Characterization y
2.5 HP DC Motor P

r
1 8 5 5

a T1 T0 Insulated r/2 Ti-1 Ti Ti+1

b Tn-1

Tn
Convection into air (T) due to rotation

r o
M

FMC Shaft
r/2

a b

IR Tachometer

IR T/Ci, qi ''' T

5 ft

Bearing
r

Input to the temperature model: frequency and temperature dependent lamina properties of FMC material; misalignment strain; shaft speed The misalignment strain and rotation speed can be controlled. The stand can spin FMC shafts at up to 1.25% misalignment strain, and at speed up to 2500 RPM

PENNSTATE
Model Results and Experimental Validation
25
Temperature Increase, T (oC)
1 8 5 5

40

20

(45) deg. FMC

1.15%

Temperature Increase, T (oC)

30

15

0.95%

20

10

0.75%

10

0.50% 0.25%

0.25%, FMC
0 0 500

0.25%, RMC

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Shaft Speed (RPM)

1000 1500 2000 Shaft Speed (RPM)

2500

3000

Model capable of predicting self heating behavior of FMC materials and providing guidance for design and control of FMC shaft Self-heating of FMC shaft is insignificant compared to RMC

PENNSTATE
Effect of Temperature on Shaft Properties
Shaft Longitudinal Modulus
Longitudinal Modulus, Ex (GPa)
1 8 5 5

Longitudinal Modulus, Ex (GPa)

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 23oC 80oC

34 23oC 80oC

33

32

31

30 0 20 40 60 80 100

Applied Frequency, f (Hz)

Applied Frequency, f (Hz)

[+45/-45/+45/-45]s

[+60/-60/+25/-25]s

Laminate design affects temperature sensitivity of shaft Tool developed can predict temperature effect on shaft properties provide design and control guidance

PENNSTATE
Research Issues and Task Objectives Materials and Composite Issues
1 8 5 5

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Issues

Develop analysis tools for driveshaft dynamic loads/ deformation characterization (e.g., strain level, buckling, stability, damping effect on temperature & property variation) FMC materials selection and structural tailoring/optimization to satisfy design desires (e.g., maximum allowable misalignment, minimum weight, and minimum internal damping)

Systems and Controls Issues

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Sub-Task

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Summary of Previous Work (2001-2003/04)

FE model and analysis tools have been developed to analyze driveline static and dynamic characteristics (deformation,stress level,natural frequency, etc.)

Utilizing the model and tools developed,

Performed study to provide information regarding parameter effects on system (durability, stability, etc.)

System parameters were tailored to achieve satisfactory system performance for supercritical driveline

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Sub-Task

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Summary of Current Work (2004/05)

Examined feasibility of designing FMC driveshafts for subcritical applications
Maintain advantages of current supercritical driveline (light weight, fewer bearings) but without the shortcomings (high vibration, whirl instability, and external damper requirements)

Performed optimization study where shaft parameters were tailored to find minimum weight and/or component driveline that meets performance requirements Examined applications for model/analysis tool
Reducing weight in subcritical driveline (Blackhawk, Chinook) Design a driveline for a minimum number of components

PENNSTATE
Design Approach/Model Outline
Inputs
Helicopter properties (shaft geometry, speed, power) Applied loads (torque, misalignment, imbalance) Design variables (ply sequence, ply angles, # bearings, outer diameter)
1 8 5 5

Inputs used to iteratively calculate temperature dependent laminate properties and steady state temperature
Accounts for self-heating (misaligned rotation) and considers atmospheric heating and rotor downwash cooling

Laminate properties (at steady state temperature) to calculate performance indices

Critical speed ratio (ensures subcritical) Tsai Wu strength factor (measure of strength) Torsional buckling safety factor Torsional yield safety factor

Driveline with minimum weight/components is optimum design

Minimum Weight Design Study Results - Blackhawk

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Blackhawk: current driveline specifications

5 segments 4 midspan flex couplings, 4 midspan bearings Driveline mass = 31.3 kg (69 lbs)

Blackhawk: optimum FMC driveline specifications

1 segment with [60/-60/-25/25]S layup 0 midspan couplings, 3 midspan bearings (reduction of 5 components) Driveline mass = 21.6 kg (47.6 lbs) (reduction of 29.5%)

Input Torque 734 Nm

New - FMC Conventional Alloy

Minimum Weight Design Study Results - Chinook

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Conclusion: Designers go from subcritical to supercritical Chinook: current driveline specifications to 7reduce weight, but weight savings (even component segments reduction) can couplings,realized by using FMC drivelines 6 midspan flex also be 6 midspan bearings while = 60.4 kg (133 subcritical operation Driveline mass maintaining lbs)
Chinook: optimum FMC driveline specifications
1 segment with [50/-50/-20/20]S layup 0 midspan couplings, 5 midspan bearings (reduction of 7 components) Driveline mass = 44.4 kg (97.9 lbs) (reduction of 25.5%)

Input Torque 4067 Nm

Conventional - Alloy New - FMC

Minimum Component Design Study

Observations:

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Model & analysis tool applied to re-design driveline minimum components (reduce maintenance for Always eliminate all midspan couplings for FMC designs (both methods) needs) instead of minimum weight The number of bearing components can be further reduced Can we still achieve weight savings when minimizing even with subcritical speed requirement driveline components?
Weight still saved for this case as compared to current One example: Blackhawk with [1/-1/-2/2]s layup design
Current 0.0889 4 4 31.3 Min Weight [60/-60/-25/25]S 0.101 0 3 21.6

Lay-up OD (m) # Midspan Couplings # Bearings Weight (kg)

Min Comp [70/-70/-10/10]S 0.14 0 2 23.8

PENNSTATE
Research Issues and Task Objectives Materials and Composite Issues
1 8 5 5

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Issues

Systems and Controls Issues
Effective vibration and stability control methodology
Vibration suppression -- Shaft imbalance with uncertain magnitude and distribution Stability issues for supercritical shafting -- whirl instability due to shaft internal damping

Adaptive control to compensate for operating condition uncertainty and shaft property variations Actuator/system design in rotorcraft setting (size, weight, power)

Systems and Controls Sub-TaskAchievement Summary

Achievements (2001- 2003/04)

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Preliminary study to identify issues and feasibility of AMB actuators/control in rotorcraft setting Developed state equation and uncertainty function formulation for the AMB-FMC driveshaft system

Synthesized hybrid robust feedback/adaptive feedforward control law for AMB driveline system and developed robust controller design methodology Analytically and experimentally evaluated and validated closed-loop controller performance on AMB-driveline testrig (on conventional segmented Alloy shaft)

PENNSTATE
Systems and Controls Sub-Task
Summary of New Achievements (2004/05)
Developed H/Synchronous Adaptive Feed-Forward
1 8 5 5

controller for AMB/FMC driveline system

Suppress imbalance vibration Suppress whirl instability (if supercritical) Account for FMC shaft stiffness and damping uncertainties due to operating temperature variations Concurrent optimal design of control parameters and AMB locations to maximize closed-loop robustness

Analytically and experimentally evaluated AMB/FMC

driveline closed-loop performance on testrig

Stability and vibration suppression performance and robustness

Multiple operating conditions (various shaft speeds, load torques, and operating temperatures)

AMB-FMC Driveline System with Hybrid H /Adaptive Control

AMB-FMC Driveline System

AMB1

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Shaft Imbalance

T
d u uFB + uAVC AMB-FMC Driveline Robust H Feedback Controller y

AMB2 AMB3

Load Torque

Aerodynamic Loads

Non-Contact Active Magnetic Bearing

Synchronous Adaptive FeedForward Vibration Control

One-Piece FMC shaft with rigid Hybrid H/AVC Control Law couplings supported by Active Robust H feedback - Levitates Magnetic Bearings (AMB) driveline & ensures stability Driveline subjected to shaft Adaptive feed-forward - Adapts imbalance, misalignment, torque & to suppress driveline vibration ambient temperature variations

AMB-FMC Driveline System Closed-Loop Robustness & Performance

Max Allowable Shaft Temperature Deviation about Nominal Temperature
250 200 150 100 50 0 0

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Closed-Loop Robustness Margin, F |T |max

Due to FMC stiffness and damping temperature sensitivity, H/AVC designed to be robust to variations about nominal temperature Closed-loop system has significant temp. robustness [ -20F < T < 190F]
Test Results
Displacement, m
225 0 -225 0 225 0 -225 0 225 0 -225 0 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200

Nominal Operating Temperature: Tn = 85 F

1000 2000 3000 4000 Shaft Speed, RPM 5000 6000

Shaft Vibration
AMB1

Limited sensor information required

Only uses collocated AMB

AMB2

sensors
No knowledge of shaft imbalance

AMB3

or operating temperature required

time, sec

Activate AVC

PENNSTATE
Plan for rest of 2005
Materials and Composite Issues
Evaluation of FMC fatigue behavior
1 8 5 5

Structural Mechanics and Dynamics Issues

Use structural dynamics model to select an optimum matrix material Incorporate a safety factor in the model to design against fatigue failure

Systems and Controls Issues

Evaluate design issues (size, weight, power) of AMB actuator in rotorcraft setting via NASA Glenn AMB code Compare weight/size with conventional bearing system

Overall Project Accomplishments & Conclusions

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

We have shown, while maintaining torque transmitting capability The feasibility and advantages of utilizing FMC and AMB technologies to improve current FMC shafting rotorcraft driveline systems have been Eliminates segments and flexible couplings/bearings demonstrated for both super- and sub-critical reduces components and maintenance needs drivelines strict requirements for alignment Reduces Reduces weight Tools have been developed which can be utilized AMBs for specific driveline system development Eliminate applicationscontact bearings reduce maintenance Reduce vibration level with robust performance w.r.t. Manufacturing and characterization processes uncertainties (temperature, operating conditions, etc.) Analytical and experimental methods Reduce strict requirements for balancing, alignment, Design tolerance algorithms and and control

PENNSTATE
Overall Project Future Directions
1 8 5 5

Application and development work (RITA type projects) The analytical and experimental tools developed can be utilized for the development and evaluation of specific future drivelines with FMC shafting and/or AMB technology Basic research possibilities FMCs with materials enhancement (environment, fatigue, failure modes, etc.) for advanced rotorcraft applications Active-passive hybrid non-contact bearings Enhance driveline fail-safety and stability while retaining merits of AMBs Distributed auto-balancing techniques Enhance vibration reduction of driveline without active action

PENNSTATE
Publications
1 8 5 5

Shan, Y., and Bakis, C.E., Static and Dynamic Characterization of a Flexible Matrix Composite Material, Proc. 58th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Montreal, Quebec, June 2002.
Shan, Y., and Bakis, C.E., Frequency and Temperature Dependent Damping Behavior of Flexible Matrix Composite Tubes, 35th International SAMPE Technical Conference, Dayton, OH, Sept. 28 Oct. 2, 2003. Shin, E., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Characterization of Flexible Matrix Composite Rotorcraft Driveshafts, Proc. 59th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, May 2003.

DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., Smith, E.C., and Provenza, A.J., Stability Control of Driveline System with Internal Damping and Non-Constant Velocity Couplings, Proc. ISCORMA-2 Conference, Gdansk, Poland, Aug. 2003.

PENNSTATE
Publications (Cont.)
1 8 5 5

DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Multi-Harmonic Adaptive Vibration Control of AMB-Driveline Systems with Non-Constant Velocity Couplings, Proc. ASME Design Technical Conference-19th Biennial Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise, Chicago, IL, Sept. 2003. DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Multi-Harmonic Adaptive Vibration Control of Magnetic Bearing-Driveshaft with Auxiliary Feedback: Theory and Experiment, Proc. 45th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA, April 2004. DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Stability of a Segmented Supercritical Driveline with Non-Constant Velocity Couplings Subjected to Misalignment and Torque, Journal of Sound and Vibration Vol. 277, No. 4-5, pp. 895-918, 2004. DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Adaptive Control of Flexible Matrix Composite Rotorcraft Drivelines, Proc. 60th American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Baltimore, MD, June 2004.

PENNSTATE
Publications (Cont.)
1 8 5 5

DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., Smith, E.C., and Provenza, A.J., On the Robust Stability of Segmented Driveshafts with Active Magnetic Bearing Control, Journal of Vibration and Control, Vol. 11 pp.317-329, 2005. Shan, Y., and Bakis, C.E., Internal Heating Behavior of Flexible Matrix Composite Driveshafts, Proc. 61st American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Grapevine, Texas, 1-3 June 2005. Mayrides, B., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Analysis and Synthesis of Highly Flexible Helicopter Drivelines with Flexible Matrix Composite Shafting, Proc. 61st American Helicopter Society Annual Forum, Grapevine, Texas, 1-3 June 2005. DeSmidt, H.A., Wang, K.W., and Smith, E.C., Multi-Harmonic Adaptive Vibration Control of Misaligned Driveshaft Systems An Experimental Study, Proc. of the 12th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Lisbon, Portugal, July 2005.

External Interactions, Leveraging and Technology Transfer

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Have had discussions with Army NASA Glenn (Bill, Provenza), Bell (Brunken, Riley), Boeing Philadelphia (Robuck, Gabrys), Boeing Mesa (Hansen), Lord Corporation (Potter), and UTRC (Davis) on various aspects of this project Have worked with Army NASA Glenn on designing and fabricating test fixtures as well as Magnetic Bearing setup and calibration Have visited Bell and discussed with Brunken and Riley addressing temperature effect based on their suggestions; have continued discussion since then Mark Robuck (Boeing Philadelphia) has visited Penn State in 2003 and discussed future collaboration possibilities in joining efforts for government contracts in this area have continued to follow up Leveraged upon Army/NASA Glenn GSRP Fellowship, Army DURIP, Weiss Fellowship, and internal funds from the Structural Dynamics and Controls Lab

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

The End
Questions?

PENNSTATE
Schedule and Milestones
Tasks
Refinement of driveline model Perform analysis on driveline model to provide info for FMC FMC selection/ synthesis FMC material characterization Structure tailoring/optimization AMB control law synthesis and overall system analysis Sub-scale shaft/test stand development Initial testing for validation of model and approach Refinement of material systems and processing methods Evaluation of FMC fatigue behavior Adaptive control design and closed-loop stability and performance analysis for FMC/AMB driveline system Concurrent system integration and analysis; AMB sizing and design for rotorcraft setting Integrated system testing and evaluation
1 8 5 5

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005
Near Term Mid Term Long Term

Materials and Composite Sub-Task Key Accomplishments and Conclusions

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Key Accomplishments Developed manufacturing process for building FMC driveshafts Characterized both static and dynamic properties of FMC driveshaft material Developed models to predict self-heating behavior of misaligned FMC shafts from the basic lamina properties Experimentally validated shaft self-heating model Investigating FMC shaft fatigue behavior Conclusion FMC shaft material shows significant improvement on strain to failure, fatigue resistance, and self-heating behavior over the conventional composite materials Despite the large damping capacity of FMC shaft materials, internal selfheating behavior of FMC shaft under misaligned rotating conditions is much less significant than that of RMC

PENN Structural Mechanics & Dynamics Sub-Task- STATE Key Accomplishments & Conclusions
1 8 5 5

Key Accomplishments Developed versatile model and analysis tool to tailor FMC designs to meet certain performance standards Applied model to supercritical drivelines to prove that FMC shafts can meet performance requirements Showed possible weight saving advantage of FMC shafting by optimizing designs for specific subcritical drivelines (Blackhawk, Chinook) Conclusion Through selective tailoring of FMC driveshafts, the number of components and system weight can be reduced on helicopter drivelines The single piece subcritical FMC driveline effectively addresses potential short comings of current drivelines Eliminates mid-span flex couplings decreases maintenance and replacement costs Reduces overall system weight

Systems and Controls Sub-Task- Key Accomplishments & Conclusions

PENNSTATE
1 8 5 5

Key Accomplishments Developed comprehensive AMB/FMC driveline dynamics analytical model Developed feedback/adaptive feed-forward vibration and stability control strategy for AMB/FMC driveline which adaptively suppresses imbalance vibrations and is robust w.r.t. shaft temperature variations Developed frequency scaled AMB/FMC driveline-foundation testrig Experimentally implemented robust feedback/adaptive feed-forward control and validated AMB/FMC closed-loop performance at multiple operating conditions
Conclusion - Use of AMB with supercritical FMC driveline feasible & beneficial

The non-contact and active control aspects of AMB complement the low maintenance aspects of one-piece rigidly coupled FMC driveline AMB with H/AVC control effectively addresses potential short comings of supercritical FMC drivelines Suppress supercritical whirl instability due to large FMC damping Suppress relatively large imbalance vibration due to FMC shafting manufacturing tolerances Accounts for stiffness and damping variation due to temperature sensitivity

PENNSTATE
Blackhawk Fixed OD Design Study Results
1 8 5 5 Current Metal Subcritical Aluminum 5 6 4 0.0889 m 2.413 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 10.49 8.65 103.9 Hz 0.66 [+1/-1/-2/+2] DC2 Subcritical FMC [+1/-1/-2/+2]s DC1-3 Subcritical FMC [+1/-1/-2/+2/+3/-3] DC1-2 DC3 Subcritical Subcritical FMC FMC

Design Classification Material Lay-up # of segments # of couplings # of bearings Outer diameter Wall thickness Eqv. Axial Stiff Eqv. Tors. Stiff Tsai-Wu S.F. Buckling torque S.F. Yield torque S.F. Critical speed Critical speed ratio

DC1 Subcritical FMC

DC3 Subcritical FMC [65/-65/-30/30] 1 2 4 0.0889 m 3.5 mm 25.9 Gpa 19.3 Gpa 3.87 6.45 9.87 99.2 Hz 0.69

[50/-50/-15/15] [60/-60/-30/30] 1 2 3 0.0889 m 3.881 mm 45.1 Gpa 17.7 Gpa 3.27 2.16 8.97 87.7 Hz 0.78 1 2 4 0.0889 m 3.079 mm 23.5 Gpa 21.6 Gpa 3.82 4.49 9.84 95.0 Hz 0.72

[45/-45/-15/15]s [15/-15/-55/55/30/-30] [55/-55/-15/ 15/30/-30] 1 2 3 0.0889 m 3.775 mm 43.2 Gpa 18.1 Gpa 3.08 10.57 8.49 86.0 Hz 0.80 1 2 3 0.0889 m 3.757 mm 43.2 Gpa 18.2 Gpa 3.28 5.42 9.33 86.0 Hz 0.80 1 2 3 0.0889 m 3.757 mm 43.2 Gpa 18.2 Gpa 3.23 9.15 9.47 86.0 Hz 0.80

Operating strain, exx Operating strain, eyy Operating strain, exy

Shaft mass Total system mass % Mass reduction

13.85 kg 31.25 kg -

1189 e 1021 e 942 e

10.95 kg 23.15 kg 25.92%

1199 e 711 e 949 e

8.77 kg 24.81 kg 20.61%

1132 e 508 e 946 e

9.92 kg 25.96 kg 16.93%

1241 e 1487 e 948 e

10.66 kg 22.87 kg 26.83%

1193 e 1066 e 913 e

10.61 kg 22.82 kg 26.99%

1211 e 1082 e 926 e

11.61 kg 23.82 kg 23.79%

PENNSTATE
Blackhawk Varied OD Design Study Results
1 8 5 5

Design Classification Material Lay-up # of segments # of couplings # of bearings Outer diameter Wall thickness Eqv. Axial Stiff Eqv. Tors. Stiff Tsai-Wu S.F. Buckling torque S.F. Yield torque S.F. Critical speed Critical speed ratio

DC1 Subcritical Aluminum 5 6 4 0.097 m 1.811 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 5.37 8.01 113 Hz 0.61

Redesigned DC2 Subcritical Aluminum 5 6 4 0.097 m 1.811 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 5.37 8.01 113 Hz 0.61

DC3 Subcritical Aluminum 5 6 4 0.095 m 1.938 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 6.3 8.18 110.5 Hz 0.62

[+1/-1/-2/+2] [+1/-1/-2/+2]s DC1 DC2 DC3 DC1 DC2 -3 Subcritical Subcritical Subcritical Subcritical Subcritical FMC FMC FMC FMC FMC [55/-55/-20/20] [70/-70 -25/25] [60/-60/-30/30] [60/-60/-25/25]s [55/-55/-20/20]s 1 2 3 0.094 m 2.982 mm 38.5 Gpa 18.7 Gpa 3.09 2.10 8.88 86.8 Hz 0.79 1 2 3 0.102 m 2.993 mm 35.4 Gpa 14.5 Gpa 3.03 4.12 9.44 90.5 Hz 0.76 1 2 4 0.085 m 3.607 mm 23.5 Gpa 21.6 Gpa 3.87 6.22 10.13 90.1 Hz 0.76 1 2 3 0.101 m 2.268 mm 32.0 Gpa 19.3 Gpa 2.90 5.24 8.46 85.8 Hz 0.80 1 2 3 0.098 m 2.590 mm 38.5 Gpa 18.7 Gpa 3.08 6.35 8.07 90.9 Hz 0.75

Operating strain, exx Operating strain, eyy Operating strain, exy

Shaft Mass Total system mass % Mass reduction

11.44 kg 30.58 kg -

11.44 kg 30.58 kg -

11.97 kg 30.68 kg -

1317 e 907 e 1006 e

9.01 kg 22.03 kg 27.95%

1367 e 418 e 1093 e

9.83 kg 24.14 kg 21.05%

1217 e 722 e 902 e

9.74 kg 24.95 kg 18.67%

1495 e 831 e 1091 e

7.43 kg 21.57 kg 29.45%

1296 e 893 e 1056 e

8.20 kg 21.86 kg 28.73%

PENNSTATE
Chinook Fixed OD Design Study Results
1 8 5 5

Design Classification Material Lay-up # of segments # of couplings # of bearings Outer diameter Wall thickness Eqv. Axial Stiff Eqv. Tors. Stiff Tsai-Wu S.F. Buckling torque S.F. Yield torque S.F. Critical speed Critical speed ratio Operating strain, exx Operating strain, eyy Operating strain, exy Shaft Mass Total system mass % Mass reduction

Current Metal Subcritical Aluminum 7 8 6 0.1143 m 3.048 mm 75 GPa 27 Gpa 4.03 3.26 198.2 Hz 0.58 25.65 kg 60.44 kg -

DC1 Subcritical FMC

[+1/-1/-2/+2] DC2 Subcritical FMC

DC3 Subcritical FMC

[+1/-1/-2/+2]s DC1-2 DC3 Subcritical Subcritical FMC FMC

[65/-65/-35/35] [70/-70/-35/35] 1 2 6 0.1143 m 3.976 mm 18.2 Gpa 21.2 Gpa 2.09 2.27 3.37 152.2 Hz 0.76 1654 e 769 e 2575 e 16.59 kg 48.7 kg 19.42% 1 2 6 0.1143 m 4.574 mm 20.2 Gpa 18.7 Gpa 2.12 3.37 3.38 158.9 Hz 0.73 1534 e 556 e 2565 e 18.98 kg 51.09 kg 15.47%

[5/-5/-55/55] [50/-50/-20/20]s [55/-55/-5/5]s 1 2 5 0.1143m 6.866 mm 56.5 Gpa 13.3 Gpa 3.13 2.31 3.44 187.0 Hz 0.62 1166 e 585 e 2446 e 27.89 kg 54.80 kg 9.33% 1 2 5 0.1143 m 4.254 mm 36.1 Gpa 20.0 Gpa 2.07 3.44 3.18 158.1 Hz 0.73 1502 e 1424 e 2583 e 17.70 kg 44.61 kg 26.19% 1 2 5 0.1143 m 6.866 mm 56.5 Gpa 13.3 Gpa 3.01 14.43 3.36 187.0 Hz 0.62 1214 e 608 e 2545 e 27.89 kg 54.80 kg 9.33%

[+1/-1/-2/+2/+3/-3] DC1-2 DC3 Subcritical Subcritical FMC FMC [55/-55/-15/ [45/-45/-5/ 15/45/-45] 5/45/-45] 1 2 5 0.1143 m 4.125 mm 32.2 Gpa 20.5 Gpa 2.03 3.84 3.11 150.0 Hz 0.77 1622 e 1210 e 2533 e 17.19 kg 44.10 kg 27.04% 1 2 6 0.1143 m 4.358 mm 37.8 Gpa 19.6 Gpa 3.05 3.36 3.11 214.6 Hz 0.54 1121 e 1116 e 2527 e 18.12 kg 50.23 kg 16.89%

PENNSTATE
Chinook Varied OD Design Study Results
1 8 5 5

Design Classification

DC1 Subcritical

Redesigned DC2 Subcritical Aluminum

7 8 6 0.117 m 2.820 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 3.15 3.15 166.3 Hz 0.69 24.35 kg 60.06 kg -

DC3 Subcritical

DC1 Subcritical

[+1/-1/-2/+2] DC2 Subcritical FMC

DC3 Subcritical

DC1 Subcritical

[+1/-1/-2/+2]s DC2 Subcritical FMC

DC3 Subcritical

Material
Lay-up # of segments # of couplings # of bearings Outer diameter Wall thickness Eqv. Axial Stiff Eqv. Tors. Stiff Tsai-Wu S.F. Buckling torque S.F. Yield torque S.F. Critical speed Critical speed ratio Operating strain, exx Operating strain, eyy Operating strain, exy Shaft Mass Total system mass % Mass reduction

Aluminum
7 8 6 0.122 m 2.458 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 2.28 3.02 174.1 Hz 0.66 22.22 kg 59.53 kg -

Aluminum
7 8 6 0.122 m 2.458 mm 75 Gpa 27 Gpa 2.28 3.02 174.1 Hz 0.66 22.22 kg 59.53 kg -

FMC

FMC

FMC

FMC

[55/-55/-30/30] [65/-65/-35/35] [5/-5/-50/50] 1 2 6 0.106 m 4.613 mm 20.5 Gpa 23.5 Gpa 2.22 2.08 3.83 148.4 Hz 0.78 1542 e 1210 e 2372 e 17.68 kg 47.13 kg 20.83% 1 2 6 0.11 m 4.551 mm 18.2 Gpa 21.2 Gpa 2.12 3.01 3.44 145.5 Hz 0.79 1704 e 792 e 2466 e 18.15 kg 48.88 kg 18.61% 1 2 5 0.11 m 7.152 mm 56.4 Gpa 14.5 Gpa 3.14 2.08 3.32 179.9 Hz 0.64 1144 e 817 e 2338 e 27.81 kg 53.57 kg 10.01%

[50/-50/-20/20]s [50/-50/-20/20]s [50/-50/-5/5]s 1 2 5 0.118 m 3.809 mm 36.1 Gpa 20.0 Gpa 2.04 2.64 3.05 164.0 Hz 0.70 1490 e 1413 e 2675 e 16.45 kg 44.35 kg 25.50% 1 2 5 0.116 m 4.040 mm 36.1 Gpa 20.0 Gpa 2.06 3.04 3.10 160.8 Hz 0.72 1495 e 1417 e 2625 e 17.11 kg 44.47 kg 25.30% 1 2 5 0.11 m 7.152 mm 56.4 Gpa 14.5 Gpa 3.01 13.25 3.29 179.9 Hz 0.64 1195 e 854 e 2442 e 27.81 kg 53.57 kg 10.01%

PENNSTATE
AMB Design
1 8 5 5

AMB Mass vs Bias Current

4.1 3.9

L
OD

3.7

Mass, kg

3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 1.0

Fmax = 110 Lbf

Fmax = 90 Lbf Fmax = 70 Lbf

Conventional AH-64 Bearing Mass (3.17 kg)

Comprehensive Radial AMB Design Code

Max force (Fmax) and current

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Bias Current Design Level, Amps

AMB design for AH-64 (Shaft OD=4.5 in) Max Force, Fmax = 100 Lbs Mass = 3.17 kg (Matches Existing) AMB mass similar to existing Bias Current = 1.62 Amps AH-64 contact hanger bearing AMB Size, OD = 7.4 in, L = 2.2 in

determined by material magnetic flux saturation and current density/RMS heating limitations Based on required Fmax for given shaft OD and airgap, code optimizes AMB rotor, stator and pole geometries and coil winding parameters for minimum weight.